Pak believes that attacking India is their birth right,eent ka jawaab patthar se dena hoga: Parrikar

[RAMPAGE]

Sad to see that there's still demand for such statements.

Try and insult our education system and you will have no place upon this forum.

Hosla janab! Chand ghanton ki baat hai.

 

[SQ8]

Subcontinent Muslims cannot take the moral high ground.

Muslims were the ones who left the unity shown by Hindus and Muslims in 1857 against the British rule with the Urdu language movement. This Urdu language movement culminated with the creation of All India Muslim League in 1906. Akhil Bharatiya Hindu Mahasabha was created in reaction to this in 1909.Both of these organizations were created by British to weaken the opposition to their rule.

The seeds of partition were clearly sown by the Muslim leadership.

With regards to Jamaat-e-Islami's opposition to partition (or creation of Pakistan), you need the understand the underlying reason for their opposition. It is not that they loved Hindus but they wanted to preserve the Mughal legacy. They always truly believed that Muslims would one day again rule the combined subcontinent like the Mughals. Hence they think that the Partition was a grave mistake and Muslims lost in the bargain. Just think for a minute what would have been the % of population and power of Muslims in the undivided British India today. Jamaat-e-Islami had the correct vision for the Muslims of India but could not garner the support like Muslim League did.

Neither can any side, the actual seeds of the partition were sown in by the British who used years of (rightful) Mughal excesses on the Hindu and sikh population along with supporting the right leadership within the Hindus to create a sense of hatred within the communities themselves and not just for the Mughal leadership.

The vision of the Jamaat was based on Muslims being given equal opportunity which was never to be the case due to the politicians involved within the congress. This had LITTLE to do with religious division as such and more to do with self economic and power preservation. What the Jamaat envisioned would never have been possible given the intentions displayed by the Indian leadership pre-partition. I am more akin to believe that partition also enabled those Muslims who stayed in India to prosper more than they would have been able to if partition had not happened as the narrative of the partition itself led to a required appeasement campaign by the Congress who were initially opposed to the idea of power sharing within communities.

 

[cerberus]

when did we attack India? wth is this?
doesnt he have something better to do.

Operation Gibraltar(1965)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gibraltar

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Chengiz_Khan
Operation Chengiz Khan(1971)

"Operation Badr"(1999)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kargil_War

 

[PARIKRAMA]

We need to put some tape on this loud mouth for so called posturing..

This guy needs this below pic as wall paper , painting in his wall of sight as well as first thing he sees when he gets up in the morning

@Iggy
I was hoping he would keep on his silence but then I expected too much I guess.....

 

[dadeechi]

Neither can any side, the actual seeds of the partition were sown in by the British who used years of (rightful) Mughal excesses on the Hindu and sikh population along with supporting the right leadership within the Hindus to create a sense of hatred within the communities themselves and not just for the Mughal leadership.

The vision of the Jamaat was based on Muslims being given equal opportunity which was never to be the case due to the politicians involved within the congress. This had LITTLE to do with religious division as such and more to do with self economic and power preservation. What the Jamaat envisioned would never have been possible given the intentions displayed by the Indian leadership pre-partition. I am more akin to believe that partition also enabled those Muslims who stayed in India to prosper more than they would have been able to if partition had not happened as the narrative of the partition itself led to a required appeasement campaign by the Congress who were initially opposed to the idea of power sharing within communities.

I always wondered what would have happened had India had an Akbar instead of Aurangzeb in the fading years of Mughal rule.

 

[PARIKRAMA]

I would have rather wanted Parrrikar to talk about prisoners who are languishing in both Indian and Pakistani jails for decades and beyond for every silly reason possible..

There are so many sarbjits in both sides. Parrrikar should rather try and get those ppl back and send the ones languishing in Indian jails back.. Most of them are in jails for decades with their life and youth all gone in drain. Some folks have not even seen their children from the toddler stage and now who.may be married and settled yet they hav not seen their father or father hav not seen his daughter.

The only thing both sides talk is hostility. Perhaps we ourselves needs to be large hearted to let go of such ppl and send them.back... Time gone won't come back.. But at least such gestures should be given more weightage then such hostilities. Every time such things gets postponed bcz of one or other reason. We should do few things beyond such issues for the people of both sides...

PS I saw sarabjit movie today.. May b I am feeling a bit emotional from inside.. But I do feel for a man of any side who may have lost decades of his prime youth wasting and languishing in jail. Such ppl in both sides of the border presents a very sad picture for families whose whole life is gone and ruined.. Neither dead nor alive situations.....

 

[Jf Thunder]

Operation Gibraltar(1965)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gibraltar

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Chengiz_Khan
Operation Chengiz Khan(1971)

"Operation Badr"(1999)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kargil_War

already answered, btw Operation Chengiz Khan was lauched waaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyy after India had invaded East Pakistan

 

[Joe Shearer]

It's akhand bharat mentality which is not letting Indians live in peace
Pakistan is not your land, you better forget it

Nothing to do with Akhand Bharat mentality. He is talking about Pakistan believing that there is an inherent right to attack India. Where does India's beliefs and positions come into it? Are you then seriously arguing that if we have a position, born of consensus through the nation, however annoying a position it is, you should then set about attacking us?

And as for Pakistan not being our land, how does that come up? Does the possibility that we think that Pakistan is our land justify you in attacking random Indian strangers?

Do you think before posting?

He is not talking about Akhand Bharat rather about Ghazwa-e-Hind.

In case you do not know, Hindu right and Muslim right of the subcontinent supported the partition.

It was secular congress alone which opposed the partition.

Actually, this is simplistic, but this is also not the place nor the time to discuss it. Mail me some time and I will try to shed some more light on it.

Lol when did we ever say that. Perhaps DM should look into then recent demise of poor sailors who lost their lives in INS vikky band refrain from making such pointless comments

Every accident is looked into, and so will this one. What was the point of your statement or should I call it your little essay in 'whataboutery'?

Barking bitch3s seldom bites.

I have no doubt that every member on the forum will defer to your intimate knowledge of the species.

 

[salarsikander]

Nothing to do with Akhand Bharat mentality. He is talking about Pakistan believing that there is an inherent right to attack India. Where does India's beliefs and positions come into it? Are you then seriously arguing that if we have a position, born of consensus through the nation, however annoying a position it is, you should then set about attacking us?

And as for Pakistan not being our land, how does that come up? Does the possibility that we think that Pakistan is our land justify you in attacking random Indian strangers?

Do you think before posting?



Actually, this is simplistic, but this is also not the place nor the time to discuss it. Mail me some time and I will try to shed some more light on it.



Every accident is looked into, and so will this one. What was the point of your statement or should I call it your little essay in 'whataboutery'?



I have no doubt that every member on the forum will defer to your intimate knowledge of the species.

No my statement just reflects the kind of deflecting attitude here shown by the DM

 

[RAMPAGE]

I would have rather wanted Parrrikar to talk about prisoners who are languishing in both Indian and Pakistani jails for decades and beyond for every silly reason possible..

There are so many sarbjits in both sides. Parrrikar should rather try and get those ppl back and send the ones languishing in Indian jails back.. Most of them are in jails for decades with their life and youth all gone in drain. Some folks have not even seen their children from the toddler stage and now who.may be married and settled yet they hav not seen their father or father hav not seen his daughter.

The only thing both sides talk is hostility. Perhaps we ourselves needs to be large hearted to let go of such ppl and send them.back... Time gone won't come back.. But at least such gestures should be given more weightage then such hostilities. Every time such things gets postponed bcz of one or other reason. We should do few things beyond such issues for the people of both sides...

PS I saw sarabjit movie today.. May b I am feeling a bit emotional from inside.. But I do feel for a man of any side who may have lost decades of his prime youth wasting and languishing in jail. Such ppl in both sides of the border presents a very sad picture for families whose whole life is gone and ruined.. Neither dead nor alive situations.....

 

[Joe Shearer]

We the people of Pakistan will fight but incase of india it will be their army vs Pakistan population saw their is no doubt if we wanted we can beat you and your allies who ever it be

I'm happy to promote you onto my ignore list. Normally I don't do this to newbies, but in the case of an incredibly stupid newbie, I am willing to make an exception.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

Ghazwa is a defensive measure against an invading force

Absolutely not. A Ghazwa is a campaign in which the Prophet of Islam took part in. There is no need for it to be defensive in nature.

May b I am feeling a bit emotional from inside

It's okay. Happens. You will get over it.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Neither can any side, the actual seeds of the partition were sown in by the British who used years of (rightful) Mughal excesses on the Hindu and sikh population along with supporting the right leadership within the Hindus to create a sense of hatred within the communities themselves and not just for the Mughal leadership.

The vision of the Jamaat was based on Muslims being given equal opportunity which was never to be the case due to the politicians involved within the congress. This had LITTLE to do with religious division as such and more to do with self economic and power preservation. What the Jamaat envisioned would never have been possible given the intentions displayed by the Indian leadership pre-partition. I am more akin to believe that partition also enabled those Muslims who stayed in India to prosper more than they would have been able to if partition had not happened as the narrative of the partition itself led to a required appeasement campaign by the Congress who were initially opposed to the idea of power sharing within communities.

Lately, @Oscar , I've been more and more impressed by Meghnad Desai's analysis. If you haven't already read his book, do take a look. Nothing radical, but every bit is folded in.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

He is not talking about Akhand Bharat rather about Ghazwa-e-Hind.

In case you do not know, Hindu right and Muslim right of the subcontinent supported the partition.

It was secular congress alone which opposed the partition.

A little more complex.

The Muslim Right favored partition. The Hindu Right was divided (both in Congress and HM) The Muslim far right was against Partition. So was Congress.

This is also not the full picture - but closer to truth.

 

[Joe Shearer]

No my statement just reflects the kind of deflecting attitude here shown by the DM

?

I didn't understand. What deflecting attitude? Could you expand on that?