Ravi Kishan-If Muslim countries can have a state religion then so can India.

[padamchen]

fundamental difference between Islam and hinduism, Islam UNITES humanity by eliminating the class/cast hierarchical social structure & discrimination while hinduism enforces the class/cast hierarchical social structure & discrimination. anyone with 2 braincells can decide that hinduism must NEVER be allowed as a national religion.

How united are Muslims really?

All Hindus are united enough to make a nation.

How united is Islam?

 

[HalfMoon]

No Indian will accept another partition.

We will make your lives so miserable that you will offer new Pakistans on platter.

We crushed Khalistan 4 decades ago.

The credit goes to BB who shared the Khalistani organization list with India.

Like you tried in Delhi.

LoL We killed more of you than you killed us.

 

[padamchen]

We will make your lives so miserable that you will offer new Pakistans on platter.



The credit goes to BB who shared the Khalistani organization list with India.



LoL We killed more of you than you killed us.

You're a sanghi undercover shakha operative.

Chalo ....

 

[HalfMoon]

You're a sanghi undercover shakha operative.

Chalo ....

Yes. I am.

 

[Naofumi]

@padamchen I and others suspect this Halfmoon to be false-flagger Sanghi.

LoL We killed more of you than you killed us.

Dumbo, more than 2/3rds killed were Muslims.

 

[PAKISTANFOREVER]

Indian Muslims will immigrate to Pakistan and Bangladesh eventually as they were supposed to.

As far as Pakistan is concerned, NOT HAPPENING. We have over half of Afghanistan already in Pakistan. We have NO MORE space for anyone else.

 

[masterchief_mirza]

I can find zero evidence of anything positive to have come out of Muslim rule in India.

Let me go further. Because of your inherent biases, you simply cannot acknowledge thaat even if - EVEN IF - we make the absurd assumption that you are suggesting here, and regard the mughals (and other Muslim invaders/rulers) as a brutal autocratic regime (which is far from reality, but let's entertain your acquired inferiority complex for a moment), they would STILL be regarded as having been responsible for forcing "natives" (I use parentheses because your definition is different to mine but I'm tolerating your fantasies just for argument's sake) to improve themselves technologically, militarily and economically during the pre-British era, if only as a direct reaction to this new ruling class.

You simply can't accept this fact, which is the bare minimum of what actually transpired.

 

[Buddhistforlife]

I don't have a problem with that whatsoever and I have NEVER suggested otherwise. Nor have I ever criticized or insulted ANY religion. Have no idea why you have tagged me.

No I tagged people I know from Pakistan. Nothing to do with this post. @PAKISTANFOREVER

 

[padamchen]

@padamchen I and others suspect this Halfmoon to be false-flagger Sanghi.

Dumbo, more than 2/3rds killed were Muslims.

Yes he is.

They lack education and class.

And you can smell the narrative before you smell them.

Let me go further. Because of your inherent biases, you simply cannot acknowledge thaat even if - EVEN IF - we make the absurd assumption that you are suggesting here, and regard the mughals (and other Muslim invaders/rulers) as a brutal autocratic regime (which is far from reality, but let's entertain your acquired inferiority complex for a moment), they would STILL be regarded as having been responsible for forcing "natives" (I use parentheses because your definition is different to mine but I'm tolerating your fantasies just for argument's sake) to improve themselves technologically, militarily and economically during the pre-British era, if only as a direct reaction to this new ruling class.

You simply can't accept this fact, which is the bare minimum of what actually transpired.

Bollocks!

What technology?

What warfare?

What tactics?

What knowledge?

You guys were a defeated entity when the British came.

Ergo your "advances" counted for squat to the natives.

 

[Naofumi]

Let me go further. Because of your inherent biases, you simply cannot acknowledge thaat even if - EVEN IF - we make the absurd assumption that you are suggesting here, and regard the mughals (and other Muslim invaders/rulers) as a brutal autocratic regime (which is far from reality, but let's entertain your acquired inferiority complex for a moment), they would STILL be regarded as having been responsible for forcing "natives" (I use parentheses because your definition is different to mine but I'm tolerating your fantasies just for argument's sake) to improve themselves technologically, militarily and economically during the pre-British era, if only as a direct reaction to this new ruling class.

No, they didn't actually. India was the biggest GDP befire 1000s and then declined continuously.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1256614757353865219

 

[masterchief_mirza]

Yes he is.

They lack education and class.

And you can smell the narrative before you smell them.



Bollocks!

What technology?

What warfare?

What tactics?

What knowledge?

You guys were a defeated entity when the British came.

Ergo your "advances" counted for squat to the natives.

Since you think centuries of your own history is merely "bollocks", you can kiss my mughal arse.

Read what I wrote carefully. Let us assume your biases are correct and the mughals only intended to subjugate Hindus - let's entertain that nonsense for a moment. Even in that scenario, they still benefited your nation of elephant riders by challenging them and forcing them to fight back. This caused an inherent improvement in Hindu society and organisation at the time.

Let's ignore the very real architecture, art, science, administrative improvements, centralisation and economic gains and military consolidation made under the mughals. Let's disregard the fact that mughal India was an economic powerhouse of its time - the above still applies.

 

[GumNaam]

How united are Muslims really?

All Hindus are united enough to make a nation.

How united is Islam?

United enough to eliminate a communist super power & bring a capitalist super power down to its knees. feel free to try your luck.

 

[Buddhistforlife]

This is what Jinnah was saying

Let everyone separate

Basically what these people are saying is Jinnah was right but because Indians are idiots they pushed this disastrous one united India policy that has gotten 1.4 billion Indians stuck in a communal shithole

So rather then separate during Partition, they convinced millions to remain part of a united secular India

Now that they want a hindutva state but they have hundreds of millions in minorities

Partition India PROPERLY then have a hindutva extremist state

But there was this problem in 1947. That is according to the theory of Partition, only Muslim majority areas were to form parts of Pakistan and most of the Indian Muslim's are minorities in places like Gujarat, Bihar, Tamil Nadu etc.

If all Muslims had to go to Pakistan then Pakistan would have claimed more land which India would not have agreed because of the partition of theory of muslim majority areas being part of partition

This would have created a huge mess.

Also Hindu rashtra is not possible because India is a hugely multicultural country race and religionwise. Even amongst Hindus there are hundreds of ideologies.

 

[masterchief_mirza]

No, they didn't actually. India was the biggest GDP befire 1000s and then declined continuously.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1256614757353865219

View attachment 643913

So you're quoting Indian wealth as a PERCENTAGE OF BRITISH WEALTH. Do you know what proportion means?

Indian wealth grew but English wealth grew proportionally more because of the agricultural revolution. Stop misleading people with a comparative study, from which you have erroneously inferred absolutist conclusions.

England literally emerged from the dark ages and simply needed a few prods to undergo a dramatic rise in personal wealth during this era. It's quite phenomenal how filthy bhakts misrepresent facts to suit their mughal-hating narratives.

 

[Naofumi]

So you're quoting Indian wealth as a PERCENTAGE OF BRITISH WEALTH. Do you know what proportion means?

Indian wealth grew but English wealth grew proportionally more because of the agricultural revolution. Stop misleading people with a comparative study, from which you have erroneously inferred absolutist conclusions.

Have you even read the whole thread?? The study takes into account all classes and their incomes, Indian elites were uber rich compared to English (nearly five times) and Japanese elites (see the damn study please!) but Indian wagers poorer than both English and Japanese wagers.