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

[Cliftonite]

Trek Fatah sahab, mhenat zaaya honi hai aapki, kuch nahi badalna udhar bhi.. Ye aurat march band karo kahi agle Junaid Hafeez na ban jao

Okay Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi. Aur choopo. Zor se. Effort nahi dikh rahi.

 

[Buddhistforlife]

@masterchief_mirza says he's Mughal.

And he names his missiles ghauri and ghazni and babur.

Just next door to him his original daddies have named their missile by a name of Ahura Mazda.

Khordad.

I don't understand subcontinent Muslims bro.

They are mine. But they frustrate me and aggravate me greatly.

Ghauri and Ghaznavi were Afghans and Turkic. They were never son of soil of Pakistan.

 

[Robbie]

@masterchief_mirza says he's Mughal.

And he names his missiles ghauri and ghazni and babur.

Just next door to him his original daddies have named their missile by a name of Ahura Mazda.

Khordad.

I don't understand subcontinent Muslims bro.

They are mine. But they frustrate me and aggravate me greatly.

They are very simple. I don't quite get why you find them perplexing.

If Dharma (Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs and Jains) had been largely removed from India, then these same Pakistanis would have tom-tommed the Indic past to show how they are distinct and have a glorious past. Much like the Iranian regime does now.

Since the Dharmics exist, since India exists, they cannot claim that history. The Pakistani land has not really produced great rulers and in the one or two cases that it has, they were non-Muslim, which again they eschew because India exists. Therefore they find a cultural anchor in Central Asia and try to borrow or steal the Central Asian's legacy as their own.

Pakistanis are very predictable.

 

[Naofumi]

Okay Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi. Aur choopo. Zor se. Effort nahi dikh rahi.

Itna kaafi hai tumhare liye... Jo kehna tha so keh diya... Zara bachke rehna, take care.

 

[HalfMoon]

Kya Nilu bhai. Apun tere ko apna bhai banaya. Aur tu fokat main apun ko yeda banaya.

@Nilu Pule is trying British's divide and rule policy.

 

[Imran Khan]

Debating and sharing information with Pakistanis, particularly on the issue of Mughal history is pointless.

Their entire national mythology is based on the glorification of the Mughal rule. Any number of facts or studies will be pointless. They will latch on to pointless inanities to keep repeating the lines that have been drilled in them to form the cultural bedrock of Pakistan.

who told you this sir ? people here fighting each other bout raja dahir vs bin qasim these day that whom was hero. and you are saying mughuls ? this is your views not reality i have seen thousands of people saying how mughuls were wrong . even the textbooks i read in school teach us how mughuls fall and why . in modern pakistan of 2020 no one is holy king .

 

[xeuss]

I would say you are incorrect because a large part of the glorification of Mughals has been done by Hindu scholars and historians. All the textbooks from schools to colleges talk about the Mughals in an overwhelmingly positive light and almost completely ignore the ugly side of the rule. That is also the reason that only two Kings - Ashoka and Akbar are given the suffix 'the great'.

In fact, the content surrounding the Mughals has been so one-sided that many in the Sangh but also centrists feel that the content about Mughals should be more neutral.

And that is precisely the rub right?

Those Hindu scholars that you cite, have also been summarily vilified by those the same Sanghi clans of yours. Those same scholars have listed the good and evil of those same kings, had you chosen to read them carefully. Often when a consensus is reached on a particular empire or emperor, the great deeds outweigh their crimes or vice versa.

I do not think we can find a reputable historian that gave a one-sided chronicle of a emperor, regardless if the emperors were Hindu, Muslim or Christian.

What you are in essence saying, lets not focus on their great deeds, let us instead focus on their crimes, because we can't possibly have Muslims being shown in a positive light.

 

[fitpOsitive]

There is no problem in it, why not.

 

[hussain0216]

They are very simple. I don't quite get why you find them perplexing.

If Dharma (Hindus, Buddhists and Sikhs) had been largely removed from India, then these same Pakistanis would have tom-tommed the Indic past to show how they are distinct and have a glorious past. Much like the Iranian regime does now.

Since the Dharmics exist, since India exists, they cannot claim that history. The Pakistani land has not really produced great rulers and in the one or two cases that it has, they were non-Muslim, which again they eschew because India exists. Therefore they find a cultural anchor in Central Asia and try to borrow or steal the Central Asian's legacy as their own.

Pakistanis are very predictable.

Do be honest we hate Hindus

Your history unless Islamic is worthless to us

The people of Pakistan have been here for thousands of years
8000 years ago the Indus valley civilization was here

Our people and land are ancient, Pakistan is simply the modern representation of this land

We have very little connection to the eastern gangadeshies


India was NEVER one state or one people

It is just a area like Africa with different people and our people are different to yours

 

[masterchief_mirza]

Debating and sharing information with Pakistanis, particularly on the issue of Mughal history is pointless.

Their entire national mythology is based on the glorification of the Mughal rule. Any number of facts or studies will be pointless. They will latch on to pointless inanities to keep repeating the lines that have been drilled in them to form the cultural bedrock of Pakistan.

Yet you're the guy who whines that records of mughal history are too one sided and records of non-mughal history are balanced. The usual sanghee bollocks that Muslims and mughals are "appeased" in the subcontinent.

Bull. We have zilch to be ashamed of. You're not appeasing anyone by acknowledging the real contributions of Muslims/mughals to the subcontinent. You're just being honest historically.

Kya, you want a medal for this magnanimous generosity in terms of historical documentation?

Millions of people around the world accept their predecessors and acknowledge their power even when tinged with brutality. You think Europeans sit and cry because their textbooks mention the Romans and Vikings?

Your position is nothing new around here. Every "secular" and "moderate" Indian eventually falls back on the same victim blaming routine - those naughty mooslems should know we are the big brothers here and they shouldn't dispute our divine wisdom on what history counts and what history doesn't count - naughty!

 

[Imran Khan]

Ghauri and Ghaznavi were Afghans and Turkic. They were never son of soil of Pakistan.

when these missiles were named there was a referendum ? common its just forces whom decide in early 1980s the era of zia's islamiztion was ended but was very strong . the most important missile in pakistani history is shaheen series and its named on a bird eagle .what about RAAD missile its thunder or NASR missile its means victory ?. last one is ABABEEL a bird too .

 

[Naofumi]

And that is precisely the rub right?

Those Hindu scholars that you cite, have also been summarily vilified by those the same Sanghi clans of yours. Those same scholars have listed the good and evil of those same kings, had you chosen to read them carefully. Often when a consensus is reached on a particular empire or emperor, the great deeds outweigh their crimes or vice versa.

I do not think we can find a reputable historian that gave a one-sided chronicle of a emperor, regardless if the emperors were Hindu, Muslim or Christian.

What you are in essence saying, lets not focus on their great deeds, let us instead focus on their crimes, because we can't possibly have Muslims being shown in a positive light.

Mostly right, even the studies I posted are derived from likes of Irfan Habib..

But economically, they were very ruthless exploiters.

 

[Nilu Pule]

Ghauri and Ghaznavi were Afghans and Turkic. They were never son of soil of Pakistan.

Are you new to pdf?

Turks = Mughals= Persians= Aghans =Pakistanis/South Asian Muslims

@Nilu Pule is trying British's divide and rule policy.

I am trying to unite and serve Muslims. No other entity has united Muslims as much as me on this platform

Which part of India you from? Which mini Pakistan precisely?

 

[padamchen]

I have a question if somebody can answer without sledging...

1. What is a hindu rashtra? I mean what is the difference between the current secular India and Hindutva based India?

In terms of
I. constitution.
II. Law and order
III. Citizenship
Iv. Rights of people from different casts and religions
V. Way of life

Is there any guidance document for hindus to run a state? Because Muslims have very clear instructions and they had run states based on Islamic Laws and constitution.

Great question.

A Hindu Rashtra would be no different from.a secular India.

But not with crypto Islamist Sanghis at the helm.

 

[masterchief_mirza]

They are very simple. I don't quite get why you find them perplexing.

If Dharma (Hindus, Buddhists and Sikhs) had been largely removed from India, then these same Pakistanis would have tom-tommed the Indic past to show how they are distinct and have a glorious past. Much like the Iranian regime does now.

Since the Dharmics exist, since India exists, they cannot claim that history. The Pakistani land has not really produced great rulers and in the one or two cases that it has, they were non-Muslim, which again they eschew because India exists. Therefore they find a cultural anchor in Central Asia and try to borrow or steal the Central Asian's legacy as their own.

Pakistanis are very predictable.

Please return to ganagadesh and make your predictions from there. Pakistanis are quite comfortable with their Islamic and pre-Islamic history. Thanks for your concern.