Situation worsening for religious minorities: HRCP

[PoKeMon]

This excuse is famous among duffers - other students of same teacher score very high.

They can score even without a teacher. And its you who failed to grab the corrected sentence by @levina

She said - "21% of population of what is now pakistan" - That means 21% of population of west pakistan in 1947.

You can argue on the figure but not on sentence.

 

[Multani]

Indians should be last ones talking about Pakistan's Minorities. After Gujarat Genocide we are looking at that scenario being repeated on a National Scale in India under the leadership of Count Dracula Narendra Modi Sarkar. Not to mention the 100,000 + Kashmiris dead since 1991.

count Dracula

 

[Emmie]

They can score even without a teacher. And its you who failed to grab the corrected sentence by @levina

She said - "21% of population of what is now pakistan" - That means 21% of population of west pakistan in 1947.

You can argue on the figure but not on sentence.

Conversely many can't improve their score even if they are provided with a panel of teachers for extra coaching at home. @levina reiterated same but in different words - the argument was the population of Hindus (Hindus+Sikhs) in west Pakistan (present-day Pakistan post-partition) was 2-3%, not 21 percent. 17-18% of that total 20/21% population would live in east Pakistan (present-day Bangladesh). The same argument was presented before also, now tell me what was reformed in that so-called corrected sentence?

Again - After partition in 1947 the Hindus never constituted 20% of the population of west Pakistan, present-day Pakistan. 20% is true only if the population of both, east and west Pakistan is taken into account. Post-partition population of Hindus that would live in west Pakistan was 2-3% of the total population of west Pakistan, less than 2% to be precise.

I can argue on both, the figure and the sentence. Reread and find me a so-called corrected sentence.

Hmm lets see....
1947- The hindu population in Pakistan was about 21% of its total population
2013- the hindu population has sharply declined to 1.7% and is mostly concentrated in Sindh province.
Do I need to add anything more?The figures 're self explanatory.
While in India islam is the fastest growing religion and muslims are about 19% of the total population. It is interesting to note that minorities in Pakistan cannot vote for their own minority candidates, which are supposed to represent them in the assemblies.The right to vote is not tweaked in India.

Actually east Pakistan had a bigger chunk of Hindus population, around 17-18 percent. Post separation West Pakistan had only 2 to 3 percent to contribute in total Hindu population.

Gotcha!!
May be I quoted it wrong.
What if I correct it and say that when British India was partitioned in 1947 Hindus and Sikhs constituted about twenty percent of the population in what is now Pakistan?

Same old wine in a new bottle - Today's Pakistan doesn't include east Pakistan, latter got separated in 1971 and now is called as Bangladesh, remember?

 

[PoKeMon]

Conversely many can't improve their score even if they are provided with a panel of teachers for extra coaching at home. @levina reiterated same but in different words - the argument was the population of Hindus (Hindus+Sikhs) in west Pakistan (present-day Pakistan post-partition) was 2-3%, not 21 percent. 17-18% of that total 20/21% population would live in east Pakistan (present-day Bangladesh). The same argument was presented before also, now tell me what was reformed in that so-called corrected sentence?

Again - After partition in 1947 the Hindus never constituted 20% of the population of west Pakistan, present-day Pakistan. 20% is true only if the population of both, east and west Pakistan is taken into account. Post-partition population of Hindus that would live in west Pakistan was 2-3% of the total population of west Pakistan, less than 2% to be precise.

I can argue on both, the figure and the sentence. Reread and find me a so-called corrected sentence.

Though its useless to point out a small comprehension mistake but when I am asked I should.

If you get what I am trying to convey, good, or else leave it and move on. This is not worth wasting band width

Levina said - What if I correct it and say that when British India was partitioned in 1947 Hindus and Sikhs constituted about twenty percent of the population in what is now Pakistan?

This means she in her rephrased sentence tried to convey that "Now pakistan" got 20% of hindu and sikh population. By now pakistan, she means west pakistan of 1947. That means she states that even in 1947, west pakistan only got 20 $ of hindu and sikhs. I am not contesting the figures though.

Let see what was your reply-

You said - Same old wine in a new bottle - Today's Pakistan doesn't include east Pakistan, latter got separated in 1971 and now is called as Bangladesh, remember?

Whats your point in saying todays pakistan dont include east pakistan? She has already omitted this and was only refering to west pakistan.

You are trying to pass argument that after east pakistan got separated, the minority moved to new country while she is saying that west pakistan had a sizeable % of its own, its not that east had all.

You can argue on figures and their veracity, I am just pointing out the mis interpretation on your part which is not a crime to do.

 

[Emmie]

Though its useless to point out a small comprehension mistake but when I am asked I should.

If you get what I am trying to convey, good, or else leave it and move on. This is not worth wasting band width

Levina said - What if I correct it and say that when British India was partitioned in 1947 Hindus and Sikhs constituted about twenty percent of the population in what is now Pakistan?

This means she in her rephrased sentence tried to convey that "Now pakistan" got 20% of hindu and sikh population. By now pakistan, she means west pakistan of 1947. That means she states that even in 1947, west pakistan only got 20 $ of hindu and sikhs. I am not contesting the figures though.

Let see what was your reply-

You said - Same old wine in a new bottle - Today's Pakistan doesn't include east Pakistan, latter got separated in 1971 and now is called as Bangladesh, remember?

Whats your point in saying todays pakistan dont include east pakistan? She has already omitted this and was only refering to west pakistan.

You are trying to pass argument that after east pakistan got separated, the minority moved to new country while she is saying that west pakistan had a sizeable % of its own, its not that east had all.

You can argue on figures and their veracity, I am just pointing out the mis interpretation on your part which is not a crime to do.

Let me try to ease your hyperactive neurons by recapitulating the things - unnecessary efforts to comprehend unstated things can lead to megrim which I believe is not a good thing to have at this hour.

When this reply "Actually east Pakistan had a bigger chunk of Hindus population, around 17-18 percent. Post separation West Pakistan had only 2 to 3 percent to contribute in total Hindu population." makes it clear that the post-partition population percentage in west Pakistan is 2-3% then there remains no justification of rephrasing the sentence. Reply also clears that the said 20 or 21 percentage of population is divided between east and west Pakistan, west Pakistan having the least, 2-3%. Why would one come up with this reply in first place "What if I correct it and say that when British India was partitioned in 1947 Hindus and Sikhs constituted about twenty percent of the population in what is now Pakistan?" when population in west and east Pakistan has been already remonstrated?

There's no misinterpretation at my part, don't assume and extract things out of thin air.

 

[PoKeMon]

Let me try to ease your hyperactive neurons by recapitulating the things - unnecessary efforts to comprehend unstated things can lead to megrim which I believe is not a good thing to have at this hour.

When this reply "Actually east Pakistan had a bigger chunk of Hindus population, around 17-18 percent. Post separation West Pakistan had only 2 to 3 percent to contribute in total Hindu population." makes it clear that the post-partition population percentage in west Pakistan is 2-3% then there remains no justification of rephrasing the sentence. Reply also clears that the said 20 or 21 percentage of population is divided between east and west Pakistan, west Pakistan having the least, 2-3%. Why would one come up with this reply in first place "What if I correct it and say that when British India was partitioned in 1947 Hindus and Sikhs constituted about twenty percent of the population in what is now Pakistan?" when population in west and east Pakistan has been already remonstrated?

There's no misinterpretation at my part, don't assume and extract things out of thin air.

You didn't still get it and passing on same logic of partition and all which is not even a matter of contention with me. I never claim on figures or their authenticity but was stating the line of argument she has and the rebuttal off the track you were presenting.

In whole debate, its likely that your fact may come victorious but then that was never my point.

Any ways leave it, cheers.

 

[Emmie]

You didn't still get it and passing on same logic of partition and all which is not even a matter of contention with me. I never claim on figures or their authenticity but was stating the line of argument she has and the rebuttal off the track you were presenting.

In whole debate, its likely that your fact may come victorious but then that was never my point.

Any ways leave it, cheers.

I get it perfectly and no I am not passing on you the logic of partition neither trying to convince you on figures, just explicating that there's no misinterpretation.

 

[Levina]

Same old wine in a new bottle - Today's Pakistan doesn't include east Pakistan, latter got separated in 1971 and now is called as Bangladesh, remember?

Well Emmie you got me wrong there.
I was talking specifically about Pakistan and the figures I gave was of the hindu and sikh minority.But then I might have gone wrong with the figures,blame me it on my slugahead habit.
But I am so sure that the population percentage was in 2 digits during 1947 which in the present is just a single digit and at a very low percentage at that.There's no denying the fact that minorotoes constantly face discrimination and are looked upon as secondary citizens.
It would be fudging if I dont mention the fact that minority population specially the hindus are concentrated mostly in and around the area of sindh only.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

Moving our "discussion" to a more appropriate thread as the discussions about minorities on a funeral thread was getting bad vibes from some members.
@Emmie Wanna know if this would be inappropriate or against the forum rules???




Hmm lets see....
1947- The hindu population in Pakistan was about 21% of its total population
2013- the hindu population has sharply declined to 1.7% and is mostly concentrated in Sindh province.
Do I need to add anything more?The figures 're self explanatory.
While in India islam is the fastest growing religion and muslims are about 19% of the total population. It is interesting to note that minorities in Pakistan cannot vote for their own minority candidates, which are supposed to represent them in the assemblies.The right to vote is not tweaked in India.

A number of incorrect statements.

1. Hindu and Sikh percentage in West Pakistan in 1951 was around 3%. Now it is roughly 1.6%.
2. Islam is not the fastest growing religion in India - not by a far shot. It's Buddhism and Hinduism (Arya Samajis). Tableeghis and Zakir Naik did a good job converting many, but most have been reconverted after his ban, some by peer pressure.
3. Muslims constitute about 15% of the population and this number includes Shias, Sunnis as well as Ahmedis.

In any case the comparison between a self proclaimed Islamic state with a self proclaimed secular state is wrong. They have followed a particular state policy - preventing minorities from building places of worship, spreading faith, declaring Ahmedis non Muslim etc etc. I respect that, but we should turn a blind eye to any Pakistani allegations on the matter of secularism. In this matter their opinions have little significance.

 

[Levina]

A number of incorrect statements.

1. Hindu and Sikh percentage in West Pakistan in 1951 was around 3%. Now it is roughly 1.6%.

I am still right....the percentage has decreased.

2. Islam is not the fastest growing religion in India - not by a far shot. It's Buddhism and Hinduism (Arya Samajis). Tableeghis and Zakir Naik did a good job converting many, but most have been reconverted after his ban, some by peer pressure.

Well the sources I read all said Islam is the fastest growing religion in India.
Muslim population growth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[SarthakGanguly]

I am still right....the percentage has decreased.

Well the sources I read all said Islam is the fastest growing religion in India.
Muslim population growth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes it has halved approximately.
Also true but except for higher fertility rate, Islam ain't growing. It's 15% nevertheless(14.4% semi officially).

 

[acid rain]

Let me show you the Hellhole called India for Indian Muslims.


India election 2014: Welcome to Bhavnagar, where Muslims are free to live – as long as they change their name - Asia - World - The Independent





Which Minority pays Jazya Tax to Pakistani Government ?

I seriously doubt any of them even pay Income Tax to begin with.

Muslims play the victim card and cry wherever they are - they do this quite well and got it down to the tee. Not to be taken seriously.

 

[Levina]

Yes it has halved approximately.
Also true but except for higher fertility rate, Islam ain't growing. It's 15% nevertheless(14.4% semi officially).

So it proves me right again that the population of minorities is steadily decreasing in Pak while in India it has an upward swing succinctly

 

[SarthakGanguly]

So it proves me right again that the population of minorities is steadily decreasing in Pak while in India it has an upward swing succinctly

Yup dee - you are right there

 

[Emmie]

Well Emmie you got me wrong there.
I was talking specifically about Pakistan and the figures I gave was of the hindu and sikh minority.But then I might have gone wrong with the figures,blame me it on my slugahead habit.
But I am so sure that the population percentage was in 2 digits during 1947 which in the present is just a single digit and at a very low percentage at that.There's no denying the fact that minorotoes constantly face discrimination and are looked upon as secondary citizens.
It would be fudging if I dont mention the fact that minority population specially the hindus are concentrated mostly in and around the area of sindh only.

There's no denying of the fact that minorities face discrimination in Pakistan - I am not arguing they live a prosperous life. Yes Hindus are largely concentrated in the province of Sindh but this is how equation is since partition - I have no idea why are you emphasizing on this settlement.

But I am so sure that the population percentage was in 2 digits during 1947 which in the present is just a single digit and at a very low percentage at that

You have been misguided on figures, population percentage was never in 2 digits. Please back your assertions with a credible source.