What's new

To all Pakistanis

Status
Not open for further replies.
I thoroughly disagree. Just because two nations can not live together as one does not mean that the other should lose a piece of territory, in which it is in a majority. You also ignore the fact that United India was a creation of the British, there is no historical example of it ever happening after 712 AD, other than during British Rule

No, many times no bro.

Surely by now you are familiar with the truth.
 
No, many times no bro.

Surely by now you are familiar with the truth.
Can you give me one example of the whole of India and the whole of Pakistan being ruled by one ruler after 712 AD?
 
There are very good strategic reasons as to why neither side would give up the claim. It has little to do with ego and more to do with geographical importance.

Very true & thats the main reason for such prolonged conflict...:agree:
 
Can you give me one example of the whole of India and the whole of Pakistan being ruled by one ruler after 712 AD?

What happened in 712 AD? Who got married?
 
I thoroughly disagree. Just because two nations can not live together as one does not mean that the other should lose a piece of territory, in which it is in a majority.

OK good, you agree that it is an issue of religious identity politics.

I do believe that the identity assertion of the pro-separatist elements is bad news.

What happened in 712 AD? Who got married?

I believe that was the Arab invasion of Sindh, which was defeated by the Rajputs a decade or two later. Islam did not really enter South Asia until 300 years after that first invasion.
 
What happened in 712 AD? Who got married?

Islam arrived in sub-continent. From there, we can judge if Hindus can live with Muslims

OK good, you agree that it is an issue of religious identity politics.

I do believe that the identity assertion of the pro-separatist elements is bad news.



I believe that was the Arab invasion of Sindh, which was defeated by the Rajputs a decade or two later. Islam did not really enter South Asia until 300 years after that first invasion.
Yet, there was a Muslim presence
 
I believe that was the Arab invasion of Sindh, which was defeated by the Rajputs a decade or two later. Islam did not really enter South Asia until 300 years after that first invasion.

Then why didn't Pakistan formally secede to Saudi Arabia?
 
OK, so then the question becomes: Is Islamist identity politics and separatism a benign or virulent phenomenon.
 
Islam=/ Saudi Arabia

I'm assuming you meant "is not equal to."

If the Arabs united India, and you broke off from us because the religion they passed on to you caused you not to be able to live with us anymore, after over 5000 years of living together - as Hindus, then does it not stand to reason that when you break away on that premise, you join the entity you broke away due to?

If not, what else is your identity?

Indians? No you hate that.

Indian Muslims? No those are the ones who stayed behind with us.

So what then are you?
 
I'm assuming you meant "is not equal to."

If the Arabs united India, and you broke off from us because the religion they passed on to you caused you not to be able to live with us anymore, after over 5000 years of living together - as Hindus, then does it not stand to reason that when you break away on that premise, you join the entity you broke away due to?

If not, what else is your identity?

Indians? No you hate that.

Indian Muslims? No those are the ones who stayed behind with us.

So what then are you?

Pakistanis!
 
And here come the usual indians.

this thread was supposed to be Pakistanis' views about Indians .

this shows what Indians here are
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom