Over 72% want to see Narendra Modi as next PM

[KrimesKaster]

All Indian Muslims got a choice

Choice? LOL! Thats a stupid word. Choice. There was NO choice. Can you lift and pack up your bags and go live in a place with people who do not speak your language, just one fine morning. The idea that Muslims from every God damn corner of British India to move to say Punjab in 1947. How feasible it was?

An impossible choice is no choice. If the cost of remedy is too high, it is essentially a death sentence to every one who cannot afford it. It was a non-choice all along. This population exchange required 10s of years and not just few months or years. What followed even in Punjab is well known. It was one of the bloodiest period of human history.

Jinnah's plan wasn't just for a Muslim state, it was for multiple Muslim states, multiple Hindu states, a Sikh state and christian states, even ethnic states

Indeed!
Trouble is, a half slice is painful and does not ends pain. You need to cut once and cut deep. When Jinnah saw writing on the wall, he should have gone other way. A combined India with autonomy to Muslims would have been a better solution. 600-700 million muslims would have commanded more political power in the nation and with autonomy it would have led to a cleaner break-up into nations at a later point.

All of us getting stuck in a massive communal shithole like India is RETARDED

What is more retarded? A big chance that ALL of you will be killed in a nuclear war? An unending war? Big powers playing you against Hindus like some kind of pawns?

Indeed, separation of Hindu and Muslim states was bound to happen. Jinnah just chose the worst bargain. A little bit more time and preparation would have been better. Even in the intrim undivided India, Muslim would have held a LOT of political power. He should have negotiated for a proper autonomy with a plan to split at a later date.. In the meantime, he should have consolidated Muslim populations in Muslim denominated parts.

It would be a endless bloodbath inside india

Is it not endless bloodbath till date? Did partition not seed bloodbath? Remember, parition is one of the biggest bloodbath outside of world war 2. Both nations have nuclear weapons pointing at each other to kill 100s of millions at a moment notice.

A closet Hindutva, calling others blind. How cute!

I will enjoy your short lived comedy on this forum.

Yeah, anyone you cann't argue, you call Hindutva. How cute! How retarded!

 

[Pappa Alpha]

Yeah, anyone you cann't argue, you call Hindutva. How cute! How retarded!

First, learn how to write an argument without contradicting yourself and then come here to 'argue'. I have seen enough of your lot here.

And aren't you the fool who thinks India can survive a nuclear exchange with Pakistan? Just putting it here for others to judge your mental level before further engagement.

 

[KrimesKaster]

First, learn how to write an argument without contradicting yourself and then come here to 'argue'. I have seen enough of your lot here.

LOL! First learn how to counter properly without calling names and then we will accept you happily in the ministry of love!

And aren't you the fool who thinks India can survive a nuclear exchange with Pakistan? Just putting it here for others to judge your mental level before further engagement.

And? How is it relevant here?

 

[Pappa Alpha]

LOL! First learn how to counter properly without calling names and then we will accept you happily in the ministry of love!


And? How is it relevant here?

So, lets get something straight. You believe that Modi is capable of killing 1 million+ and that India can survive nuclear exchanges. The relevancy here is to show your mental immaturity.

 

[TigerOfMysore]

My vote is for Modi!!!

 

[xeuss]

Who is your choice to be next PM of India? Please give a name. Please do not ignore.

The question is just another form of "if not Modi, then who?"

Heck anyone would be better than this serial killer.

 

[KrimesKaster]

So, lets get something straight. You believe that Modi is capable of killing 1 million+ and that India can survive nuclear exchanges. The relevancy here is to show your mental immaturity.

Tut Tut Tut!

Let see:

Tell me, will you put it past Modi to sit through a genocide in Kashmir? I won't. He has a history. This time, he has way more power and he will do anything to keep that power. Tell me, what is there to stop him from killing 1 million Kashmiris to appease the murderous extremists in India?

India can 'survive' nuclear exchanges with Pakistan. Its not a topic here and "Survive" is a relative term.

 

[TigerOfMysore]

Actually, he was proven wrong. Establishing of Pakistan divided Muslims in the subcontinent and led to the powder keg that it is today. He hoped for a peaceful existence after partition. How naive! He wanted a complete separation of Hindu and Muslims into two nations. He was beyond naive. There were INDEED two cultures/nations in un-divided British empire of India. Problem is they were convolutedly intertwined. They still are in India. Jinnah's lack of practical sense was on full display when he wished that there could be two nations joined not just at hip but at practically every place! He lacked foresight to the point that he failed to see the massive bloodshed and unclean partition following that. He was an elected leader of ALL muslims in that British India as Muslim league was sole representative of muslims in India back then in elections before independence. He betrayed those muslims who were not located near Punjab. How was it even possible to move ALL such muslims to Pakistan in few short months! Its a project of generations, if possible at all. He should have rejected moth eaten Pakistan totally!

Jinnah also left Muslims stranded in India --including Kashmiris. His fanciful partition lead to mortal enemity between two nations. It was easy to foresee this!

If at all, he was the biggest failure of Muslims who put their trust in him and that included ALL muslims of undivided British India.

I often hear such logic from my Mohajir brethren about the Jinnah shortcomings (though they are not the exclusive group to criticize Jinnah). Though well read and well informed I often find their disdain of Jinnah so primitive. Behind their veneer of objectivity and supposed historical honesty you find each of them succumbing to the classic father/uncle syndrome. Usually it goes something like "our parents would say - hum India mein behtar thay. Humari jaidatein thein aur hum khosh thay. Pakistan nein hum ko kiya deya". I often find this mantra not from Punjabi Muhajir but more the UP Mohajirs, and often from those who came well after partition. Many having disposed of properties in India and then get more handouts in leiu of their "losses" in Pakistan.

What I try and argue often to no success is the following:
1) Read Tocqueville who so aptly said Democracy is the tyranny of the Majority. With even a single vote greater (and Hindus had a larger populace) muslims would always live as minorities, subservient to a complete majority. A larger number giving us no protections. I think often these above types also fail to understand that Jinnah tried his best to get the Hindus (Congress) to enshrine some minority protection clauses as core constitutional tenants (similar to perhaps bill of rights) and could not get Gandhi and others in Congress to agree. That led to Jinnah's falling out and he realized that the future of Muslims in India will be squalor.

2) The second point I raise for them is that history is not "lets change one thing and the rest will follow smoothly". A revised history has not guarantee of outcomes. Lets say hypothetically Muslims did not partition. Lets say during the cold war the USSR instigated Muslim movements within India, as perhaps India might have been aligned with the US. This could have resulted in exactly the same outcome, not to mention perhaps a more bloodly civil war. So this notion that somehow non-partition would have resulted in everyone living in polka dots is so naive.

3) I ask them what is the state of Muslims who currently live in a democratic constitutional state of India. I dont need to tell you their state. They cannot find housing, they connect get good education, they cannot eat without worry of lynchings, - each muslim's life is subservient to the mob. It is not different to how the lives of Blacks were in Southern US in the Jim Crow ear. NO DIFFERENCE.

4) I would also ask them to look around themselves. I went abroad for my further studies. In my Uni we have a bunch of Pakistanis and Indians. A large number. When you looked at the Indians ALL WERE HINDU with a few Christians. Where was the 15% muslim representation in that group. I am not saying Muslims from India dont go abroad for studies, but given their numbers the proportional representation is NO WHERE CLOSE. No where. Whereas the irony was that even in that Pakistani student buckets we have non-muslims students. I find the same discrimination in Indian firms across the board. Dont give me Azem Premjee or some other names. Look at the leadership and employee pools of any tech company in India. It is dominated by Hindus. Muslims are nowhere in any measure. Where is the pluralistic and democratic India where everyone lives in harmony. And BTW this is not a recent Modi phenomenon. This was well before Modi and has been the blatant structure of India from day one.

5) Even if Jinnah was able to get constitutional guarantees for Muslims, the fact that democracies are governed by voting means - all constitutional structures are subject to change. And guess what: Modi showed us how flimsy those guarantees would have been with what he did with Article 357 and Kashmir.

I could go on and on. For those who say Pakistan should not have been built thank you for you opinion. I hope to never see you in Pakistan.

 

[hussain0216]

Choice? LOL! Thats a stupid word. Choice. There was NO choice. Can you lift and pack up your bags and go live in a place with people who do not speak your language, just one fine morning. The idea that Muslims from every God damn corner of British India to move to say Punjab in 1947. How feasible it was?

An impossible choice is no choice. If the cost of remedy is too high, it is essentially a death sentence to every one who cannot afford it. It was a non-choice all along. This population exchange required 10s of years and not just few months or years. What followed even in Punjab is well known. It was one of the bloodiest period of human history

There was never going to be a total population change, Jinnah never told Muslims of Bengal to go west or Muslims of Punjab to go east, in a similar vein if Indian minorities understood Jinnah then there would be independent states for them Including Hindu states where the idol worshippers could go bat shit crazy all they wanted

Indian Muslims and minorities chose their fate, thinking India would not descend into the communal shit hole it turned out to be

Indeed!
Trouble is, a half slice is painful and does not ends pain. You need to cut once and cut deep. When Jinnah saw writing on the wall, he should have gone other way. A combined India with autonomy to Muslims would have been a better solution. 600-700 million muslims would have commanded more political power in the nation and with autonomy it would have led to a cleaner break-up into nations at a later point.

What use is more political power in a state where Indian Muslims have no Muslim military, no Muslim government, no total control over their state or destiny beyond increased political power


It's PATHETIC, to suggest Muslims should have accepted such a state

What is more retarded? A big chance that ALL of you will be killed in a nuclear war? An unending war? Big powers playing you against Hindus like some kind of pawns?

Indeed, separation of Hindu and Muslim states was bound to happen. Jinnah just chose the worst bargain. A little bit more time and preparation would have been better. Even in the intrim undivided India, Muslim would have held a LOT of political power. He should have negotiated for a proper autonomy with a plan to split at a later date.. In the meantime, he should have consolidated Muslim populations in Muslim denominated parts.

What you have to understand is that big players don't need to play us against the hindus

We hate the hindus and the Indians more then the big players, if anything keeping India under control is more for our benefit then anyone else's, thus relationships with China or anyone against India is great ploy


Procrastination would have gotten us NOTHING, the iron was hot and the time was then

Waiting would have created more chaos and without the formation of a Muslim military to stand up for Muslim interests we would be no different to Indian Muslims now, and a civil war within India would be a guarantee

Is it not endless bloodbath till date? Did partition not seed bloodbath? Remember, parition is one of the biggest bloodbath outside of world war 2. Both nations have nuclear weapons pointing at each other to kill 100s of millions at a moment notice.

The hatred within India is exactly what Jinnah said would happen

Partition, reduced endless bloodshed within India for the last 70 years

But as hindutva extremism spreads, it tears the social fabric of India

Within India TODAY you have Indian Muslims moving to Muslim areas and Indian Hindus moving out of Muslim areas

There will eventually be vast country sized areas of Muslim majority inside india, due to the prevailing circumstances

Remember we hate Hindus, us being their would just mean more fuel to the fire

 

[hussain0216]

I often hear such logic from my Mohajir brethren about the Jinnah shortcomings (though they are not the exclusive group to criticize Jinnah). Though well read and well informed I often find their disdain of Jinnah so primitive. Behind their veneer of objectivity and supposed historical honesty you find each of them succumbing to the classic father/uncle syndrome. Usually it goes something like "our parents would say - hum India mein behtar thay. Humari jaidatein thein aur hum khosh thay. Pakistan nein hum ko kiya deya". I often find this mantra not from Punjabi Muhajir but more the UP Mohajirs, and often from those who came well after partition. Many having disposed of properties in India and then get more handouts in leiu of their "losses" in Pakistan.

What I try and argue often to no success is the following:
1) Read Tocqueville who so aptly said Democracy is the tyranny of the Majority. With even a single vote greater (and Hindus had a larger populace) muslims would always live as minorities, subservient to a complete majority. A larger number giving us no protections. I think often these above types also fail to understand that Jinnah tried his best to get the Hindus (Congress) to enshrine some minority protection clauses as core constitutional tenants (similar to perhaps bill of rights) and could not get Gandhi and others in Congress to agree. That led to Jinnah's falling out and he realized that the future of Muslims in India will be squalor.

2) The second point I raise for them is that history is not "lets change one thing and the rest will follow smoothly". A revised history has not guarantee of outcomes. Lets say hypothetically Muslims did not partition. Lets say during the cold war the USSR instigated Muslim movements within India, as perhaps India might have been aligned with the US. This could have resulted in exactly the same outcome, not to mention perhaps a more bloodly civil war. So this notion that somehow non-partition would have resulted in everyone living in polka dots is so naive.

3) I ask them what is the state of Muslims who currently live in a democratic constitutional state of India. I dont need to tell you their state. They cannot find housing, they connect get good education, they cannot eat without worry of lynchings, - each muslim's life is subservient to the mob. It is not different to how the lives of Blacks were in Southern US in the Jim Crow ear. NO DIFFERENCE.

4) I would also ask them to look around themselves. I went abroad for my further studies. In my Uni we have a bunch of Pakistanis and Indians. A large number. When you looked at the Indians ALL WERE HINDU with a few Christians. Where was the 15% muslim representation in that group. I am not saying Muslims from India dont go abroad for studies, but given their numbers the proportional representation is NO WHERE CLOSE. No where. Whereas the irony was that even in that Pakistani student buckets we have non-muslims students. I find the same discrimination in Indian firms across the board. Dont give me Azem Premjee or some other names. Look at the leadership and employee pools of any tech company in India. It is dominated by Hindus. Muslims are nowhere in any measure. Where is the pluralistic and democratic India where everyone lives in harmony. And BTW this is not a recent Modi phenomenon. This was well before Modi and has been the blatant structure of India from day one.

5) Even if Jinnah was able to get constitutional guarantees for Muslims, the fact that democracies are governed by voting means - all constitutional structures are subject to change. And guess what: Modi showed us how flimsy those guarantees would have been with what he did with Article 357 and Kashmir.

I could go on and on. For those who say Pakistan should not have been built thank you for you opinion. I hope to never see you in Pakistan.

These people are asking us to give up

Independence
A Muslim state
A Muslim military
Our own government
And the freedom to forge our own path and celebrate our faith, values and culture
Our own nuclear weapons

I'm exchange for what?


Great numbers and slightly more political clout inside a Hindu majority India?

If then a united India descended into a communal shithole like it has today, what would we have done with our greater Numbers?
Joined the civil war and bloodshed with our civilians fighting with sticks and knives as opposed to a Muslim state and military

 

[KrimesKaster]

1) Read Tocqueville who so aptly said Democracy is the tyranny of the Majority. With even a single vote greater (and Hindus had a larger populace) muslims would always live as minorities, subservient to a complete majority. A larger number giving us no protections. I think often these above types also fail to understand that Jinnah tried his best to get the Hindus (Congress) to enshrine some minority protection clauses as core constitutional tenants (similar to perhaps bill of rights) and could not get Gandhi and others in Congress to agree. That led to Jinnah's falling out and he realized that the future of Muslims in India will be squalor.

Tocqueville was just one person and he was a fool. Democracy comes in MANY forms. What you have in India is a simple first to past the post kind of election. A simple proportional representation can fix the balance of power. If Jinnah had an ounce of practicality, he would have gone for such a solution to ensure Hindus never get an overriding majority. What was needed was to ensure that Muslims of British India get their proper share in the power of the nation and if needed, ample opportunity to distangle from Hindu majority areas into muslim majority areas so later they can separate with much less bloodbath.

1) Read Tocqueville who so aptly said Democracy is the tyranny of the Majority. With even a single vote greater (and Hindus had a larger populace) muslims would always live as minorities, subservient to a complete majority. A larger number giving us no protections. I think often these above types also fail to understand that Jinnah tried his best to get the Hindus (Congress) to enshrine some minority protection clauses as core constitutional tenants (similar to perhaps bill of rights) and could not get Gandhi and others in Congress to agree. That led to Jinnah's falling out and he realized that the future of Muslims in India will be squalor.

I have read him and I have never seen a bigger cynic and a fool. He knows nothing about proportional representation and his commentary was limited to American style democracy which is infact worse than Indian one. Heck, his book is called "On American Democracy". We can expect such pathological scepticism that arises from his aristocratic upbringing. Its hard for such people to even consider that their "leadership" is redundant. Infact, America has experimented with other forms of democracy at local and municipal level where the opponents have to ACTUALLY WORK TOGETHER to fight elections and those who do polarization are punished by the electoral process itself.

2) The second point I raise for them is that history is not "lets change one thing and the rest will follow smoothly". A revised history has not guarantee of outcomes. Lets say hypothetically Muslims did not partition. Lets say during the cold war the USSR instigated Muslim movements within India, as perhaps India might have been aligned with the US. This could have resulted in exactly the same outcome, not to mention perhaps a more bloodly civil war. So this notion that somehow non-partition would have resulted in everyone living in polka dots is so naive.

Wrong again. The point is NOT "do not partition" but do not hurry for partition. Ensure you have enough political power so that you will not be subjected to tyranny of majority. Distangle from Hindus and if and when necessary, split. It takes leadership and Muslims had enough of leadership at that time. It was wasted on a hasty partition. Consolidation was the need of the time. Representation was the need of the time. What was done resulted in the famous moth-eaten-Pakistan.

3) I ask them what is the state of Muslims who currently live in a democratic constitutional state of India. I dont need to tell you their state. They cannot find housing, they connect get good education, they cannot eat without worry of lynchings, - each muslim's life is subservient to the mob. It is not different to how the lives of Blacks were in Southern US in the Jim Crow ear. NO DIFFERENCE.

If Muslims had 50% of seats in parliament, would it have been same? I agree, 100% would be still better as far as muslims go but 100% of an unjust partition is still very unjust and leaves many at the mercy of a consolidated majority in India.

4) I would also ask them to look around themselves. I went abroad for my further studies. In my Uni we have a bunch of Pakistanis and Indians. A large number. When you looked at the Indians ALL WERE HINDU with a few Christians. Where was the 15% muslim representation in that group. I am not saying Muslims from India dont go abroad for studies, but given their numbers the proportional representation is NO WHERE CLOSE. No where. Whereas the irony was that even in that Pakistani student buckets we have non-muslims students. I find the same discrimination in Indian firms across the board. Dont give me Azem Premjee or some other names. Look at the leadership and employee pools of any tech company in India. It is dominated by Hindus. Muslims are nowhere in any measure. Where is the pluralistic and democratic India where everyone lives in harmony. And BTW this is not a recent Modi phenomenon. This was well before Modi and has been the blatant structure of India from day one.

Did it ever occur to you to find how many East Pakistani before 1971 went to abroad? How many of them were Hindus who were about a fifth of population there? The reality is East Pakistanis were neglected and Hindus even more so. Why do you think it will be any different in India?
You need power to progress, you need representation to have power. When you lose numbers and representation, you lose power, you lose power you lose progress and rest follows.

5) Even if Jinnah was able to get constitutional guarantees for Muslims, the fact that democracies are governed by voting means - all constitutional structures are subject to change. And guess what: Modi showed us how flimsy those guarantees would have been with what he did with Article 357 and Kashmir.

Two words : Proportional representation.

I could go on and on. For those who say Pakistan should not have been built thank you for you opinion. I hope to never see you in Pakistan.

Please go on.

 

[TigerOfMysore]

Tocqueville was just one person and he was a fool. Democracy comes in MANY forms. What you have in India is a simple first to past the post kind of election. A simple proportional representation can fix the balance of power. If Jinnah had an ounce of practicality, he would have gone for such a solution to ensure Hindus never get an overriding majority. What was needed was to ensure that Muslims of British India get their proper share in the power of the nation and if needed, ample opportunity to distangle from Hindu majority areas into muslim majority areas so later they can separate with much less bloodbath.


I have read him and I have never seen a bigger cynic and a fool. He knows nothing about proportional representation and his commentary was limited to American style democracy which is infact worse than Indian one. Heck, his book is called "On American Democracy". We can expect such pathological scepticism that arises from his aristocratic upbringing. Its hard for such people to even consider that their "leadership" is redundant. Infact, America has experimented with other forms of democracy at local and municipal level where the opponents have to ACTUALLY WORK TOGETHER to fight elections and those who do polarization are punished by the electoral process itself.


Wrong again. The point is NOT "do not partition" but do not hurry for partition. Ensure you have enough political power so that you will not be subjected to tyranny of majority. Distangle from Hindus and if and when necessary, split. It takes leadership and Muslims had enough of leadership at that time. It was wasted on a hasty partition. Consolidation was the need of the time. Representation was the need of the time. What was done resulted in the famous moth-eaten-Pakistan.


If Muslims had 50% of seats in parliament, would it have been same? I agree, 100% would be still better as far as muslims go but 100% of an unjust partition is still very unjust and leaves many at the mercy of a consolidated majority in India.


Did it ever occur to you to find how many East Pakistani before 1971 went to abroad? How many of them were Hindus who were about a fifth of population there? The reality is East Pakistanis were neglected and Hindus even more so. Why do you think it will be any different in India?
You need power to progress, you need representation to have power. When you lose numbers and representation, you lose power, you lose power you lose progress and rest follows.


Two words : Proportional representation.


Please go on.

Do you see a consistency in you feeling everyone who has accomplished more than you would in life is a fool. From Jinnah to some of the great political thinkers. Those were fools? I would love to talk more but the structure of the forum makes it difficult to really get the point across without writing thesis. I’ll let me comments and your stand on the merit of our argument.

 

[Adonis]

Oh boy my dream leader of India. Another term...I wish another 10 terms.

Congratulations India.

Careful Mate...your PM also hoped the same during their last elections.....he is crying rivers since then....

 

[hussain0216]

Tocqueville was just one person and he was a fool. Democracy comes in MANY forms. What you have in India is a simple first to past the post kind of election. A simple proportional representation can fix the balance of power. If Jinnah had an ounce of practicality, he would have gone for such a solution to ensure Hindus never get an overriding majority. What was needed was to ensure that Muslims of British India get their proper share in the power of the nation and if needed, ample opportunity to distangle from Hindu majority areas into muslim majority areas so later they can separate with much less bloodbath.


I have read him and I have never seen a bigger cynic and a fool. He knows nothing about proportional representation and his commentary was limited to American style democracy which is infact worse than Indian one. Heck, his book is called "On American Democracy". We can expect such pathological scepticism that arises from his aristocratic upbringing. Its hard for such people to even consider that their "leadership" is redundant. Infact, America has experimented with other forms of democracy at local and municipal level where the opponents have to ACTUALLY WORK TOGETHER to fight elections and those who do polarization are punished by the electoral process itself.


Wrong again. The point is NOT "do not partition" but do not hurry for partition. Ensure you have enough political power so that you will not be subjected to tyranny of majority. Distangle from Hindus and if and when necessary, split. It takes leadership and Muslims had enough of leadership at that time. It was wasted on a hasty partition. Consolidation was the need of the time. Representation was the need of the time. What was done resulted in the famous moth-eaten-Pakistan.


If Muslims had 50% of seats in parliament, would it have been same? I agree, 100% would be still better as far as muslims go but 100% of an unjust partition is still very unjust and leaves many at the mercy of a consolidated majority in India.


Did it ever occur to you to find how many East Pakistani before 1971 went to abroad? How many of them were Hindus who were about a fifth of population there? The reality is East Pakistanis were neglected and Hindus even more so. Why do you think it will be any different in India?
You need power to progress, you need representation to have power. When you lose numbers and representation, you lose power, you lose power you lose progress and rest follows.


Two words : Proportional representation.


Please go on.

The crux of your argument princess is don't get a free Independent Muslim state with its own government and military when you can have slightly more political representation as minority in a shitty communal India

So don't become independent, get slightly more political representation and no army and like Indian Muslims today hope that's enough to keep the wolves at bay?????

Is that what you're saying?

Because that's what it sounds like

 

[KrimesKaster]

There was never going to be a total population change, Jinnah never told Muslims of Bengal to go west or Muslims of Punjab to go east, in a similar vein if Indian minorities understood Jinnah then there would be independent states for them Including Hindu states where the idol worshippers could go bat shit crazy all they wanted

"Understood"? LOL!
What understood?

He and Muslim league were ELECTED to represent ALL MUSLIMS in front of British! Jinnah was there to ensure Muslims get their due. He was the leader of Muslim constituents!

What happened was a total failure on his part. Pakistanis try to re-write history and celebrate him!

Basically Jinnah stole power from ALL MUSLIMS of erstwhile british India and used it to establish a moth eaten Pakistan for Punjabi Muslims. After his death, this Pakistan fell into feudalism of likes of Bhutto and Sharif. But then thats a talk for some other day.

Indian Muslims and minorities chose their fate, thinking India would not descend into the communal shit hole it turned out to be

Indian muslims were those who voted for him. He failed to in calculate them in his solution for Parition. Muslim league was majority representative of Muslims.

What use is more political power in a state where Indian Muslims have no Muslim military, no Muslim government, no total control over their state or destiny beyond increased political power


It's PATHETIC, to suggest Muslims should have accepted such a state

Was it NECESSARY that such a state and government and military to come into existence the day British left? Was it necessary to split Muslims apart into three countries? I doubt that.

What you have to understand is that big players don't need to play us against the hindus

But they still do. Don't they? First it was Americans who used you in their great game against soviet in Afghanistan and then left you to deal with the mess of terrorism. Then it is Chinese who are playing you again and leaving you with crippling loans. Think, why did Pakistan even agree to play by American rules? Or play at all? Or why Pakistan needs to align with China of all people, the same China which crushes muslims in its own lands? Its one and one reason only. India.

Procrastination would have gotten us NOTHING, the iron was hot and the time was then

Well, hastiness got you blood and nukes and possibly annihilation in future. Hope it will sit right.