What have we done to ourselves?

[Winchester]

Nothing is understood.

What makes you Muslims special to say me a Parsi?

Or a Sikh?

Or a Christian?

Or a Buddhist or a Jain or a Jew?

Doesn't matter....we have to work with the realities presented to us whether you like them or not !

In 1947 the Punjabi muslims, Pusthuns and Sindhis along with a percentage of Muslims living in present-day India felt they would be better off in a separate country.

So far there has been nothing to suggest that it was a wrong call !

 

[vsdoc]

Doesn't matter....

Maybe to you.

Matters to us.

You do what you can.

We'll do what we must.

 

[GURU DUTT]

Maybe to you.

Matters to us.

You do what you can.

We'll do what we must.

that is the real facts but they think its there birth right to keep "fingering india with K word" but its not indias legitimate right to reply back and till that happens nothings gonna change

here is what i found today

 

[vsdoc]

that is the real facts but they think its there birth right to keep "fingering india with K word" but its not indias legitimate right to reply back and till that happens nothings gonna change

here is what i found today

Pakistanis would understandably like to start from the post-facto position that yes, Muslims are different, and hence Partition happened. Deal with it .

Indians on the other hand, a large constituency, do not quite see it that way.

This is the basic problem that needs solving.

Kashmir is a hauwwa.

 

[Bang Galore]

Nope more than that , IMHO , it could actually have been a possibility

After all Russia ,Canada , Australia , Brazil etc's are all successful federations , Centrism doesn't necessarily equates Unity , & federalism Doesn't necessarily equates Separatism

We will have to agree to disagree on this. The genie was long out of the bottle on this issue. Not like it could suddenly have been put back around 1947. Jinnah was not going to be there on the scene forever, nor was Gandhi, Nehru, Maulana Azad & Patel. If there was a civil war that happened after their time, it would have made the partition massacres look like a minor brawl. It was for the best that the British partitioned the country, that was the only way we could have managed. When you realise how quickly after Jinnah that Pakistan lost the plot & eventually half the country, you are being very generous in thinking that those pygmies masquerading as leaders would not have resorted to whipping up religious sentiments to get political traction.

From India's point of view, partition was probably the best thing that happened (except for Indian Muslims, the loss of the middle class was a massive damage from which it is yet to recover). Even as we dismiss the 2NT that caused it, you have to think rationally about partition itself. It allowed Indian leaders to largely set themselves up into a constitutional democracy with liberal underpinnings. That worked because the number of Muslims in India were not seen as a significant threat by the majority. A larger Muslim population would probably have caused the Hindus to coalesce into a more rigid grouping & would have probably been opposed to any reform seeing at as an assault against religion because the chances are that Muslims would not easily vote for reform in their laws. The large scale reforms that were pushed through were only possible because that threat receded.

I believe partition was inevitable, anyone who looked closely at Jinnah's proposal would have realised that it would have come to a boil in about 10 years & without Jinnah around, a violent bloodbath was guaranteed (even more than when he was around). The countries that you cite are not the same in composition as the subcontinent was. This was always a tinderbox & while I regret that we lost the likes of you to partition, I can only say that there are only a few of your type around. I would argue that partition was both inevitable & in India's case (will leave Pakistanis to make their point), was largely beneficial.

 

[GURU DUTT]

Pakistanis would understandably like to start from the post-facto position that yes, Muslims are different, and hence Partition happened. Deal with it .

Indians on the other hand, a large constituency, do not quite see it that way.

This is the basic problem that needs solving.

Kashmir is a hauwwa.

even kashmir is not the hauwwa but its the false bravado & acute sense of muslim martial race supremacy which thinks muslims ruled over short dark indians for 1000 years

and some how they(indians) are children of there former slaves and supreme martial race mulims are too good to be treated as equal with those short dark malnutritioned indians and that is in effect the true essence of "two nation theory"

kashmir or so called water problem are basicalli just fictitous by products even if there was no kashmir issue pakistan would have born and diffrneces with india would be just as extreme like they are now and that is not going to change .... end of story ... cheers doc

 

[vsdoc]

even kashmir is not the hauwwa but its the false bravado & acute sense of muslim martial race supremacy which thinks muslims ruled over short dark indians for 1000 years and some how they(indians) are children of there former slaves and supreme martial race mulims are too good to be treated as equal with those short dark malnutritioned indians and that is in effect the true essence of "two nation theory" kashmir or so called water problem are basicalli just fictitous by products even if there was no kashmir issue pakistan would have born and diffrneces with india would be just as extreme like they are now and that is not going to change .... end of story

Its a lot deeper, the way I see it (as non Hindu non Indic blood).

I wonder if I should expound .....

We will have to agree to disagree on this. The genie was long out of the bottle on this issue. Not like it could suddenly have been put back around 1947. Jinnah was not going to be there on the scene forever, nor was Gandhi, Nehru, Maulana Azad & Patel. If there was a civil war that happened after their time, it would have made the partition massacres look like a minor brawl. It was for the best that the British partitioned the country, that was the only way we could have managed. When you realise how quickly after Jinnah that Pakistan lost the plot & eventually half the country, you are being very generous in thinking that those pygmies masquerading as leaders would not have resorted to whipping up religious sentiments to get political traction.

From India's point of view, partition was probably the best thing that happened (except for Indian Muslims, the loss of the middle class was a massive damage from which it is yet to recover). Even as we dismiss the 2NT that caused it, you have to think rationally about partition itself. It allowed Indian leaders to largely set themselves up into a constitutional democracy with liberal underpinnings. That worked because the number of Muslims in India were not seen as a significant threat by the majority. A larger Muslim population would probably have caused the Hindus to coalesce into a more rigid grouping & would have probably been opposed to any reform seeing at as an assault against religion because the chances are that Muslims would not easily vote for reform in their laws. The large scale reforms that were pushed through were only possible because that threat receded.

I believe partition was inevitable, anyone who looked closely at Jinnah's proposal would have realised that it would have come to a boil in about 10 years & without Jinnah around, a violent bloodbath was guaranteed (even more than when he was around). The countries that you cite are not the same in composition as the subcontinent was. This was always a tinderbox & while I regret that we lost the likes of you to partition, I can only say that there are only a few of your type around. I would argue that partition was both inevitable & in India's case (will leave Pakistanis to make their point), was largely beneficial.

So you are essentially saying that the Muslims were a lost cause (for us) and about 15% is all a nation can manage in terms of a Muslim populace if it is to thrive democratically and secularly and not implode?

 

[GURU DUTT]

Its a lot deeper, the way I see it (as non Hindu non Indic blood).

I wonder if I should expound .....

no matter how deep you go the result would be same trust me ..... cheers doc

and yes even those in ruling elite of pakistani security/feudal/berocratic & relegous elite know the fact that they now cant subdeucate hindus or indians like they did some 1000 years back but they cant lower there pride and false ego and its hyper bravado hence they will keep the pot boiling till they are in a position to and yes its not just the elite even the general population which by design is fed with this drug of superiorty complex(which now is turning into acute sense of inferiority complex , anger , frustation , loss and helplessnes) is not in a position to let go this theory as they were always fed on it

 

[vsdoc]

no matter how deep you go the result would be same trust me ..... cheers doc

and yes even those in ruling elite of pakistani security/feudal/berocratic & relegous elite know the fact that they now cant subdeucate hindus or indians like they did some 1000 years back but they cant lower there pride and false ego and its hyper bravado hence they will keep the pot boiling till they are in a position to and yes its not just the elite even the general population which by design is fed with this drug of superiorty complex(which now is turning into acute sense of inferiority complex , anger , frustation , loss and helplessnes) is not in a position to let go this theory as they were always fed on it

Sigh.

My point Guru ji is that while you (Hindus) are wallowing in insecurity and projected inferiority (unfounded)

The shoe (at the time of the Partition and forward from then) was firmly on the other foot.

Hope that explains.

Cheers, Doc

 

[GURU DUTT]

Sigh.

My point Guru ji is that while you (Hindus) are wallowing in insecurity and projected inferiority (unfounded)

The shoe (at the time of the Partition and forward from then) was firmly on the other foot.

Hope that explains.

Cheers, Doc

sirji im no dcotor medical or PHD walla

please try to ask me question is simple language .... cheers doc

 

[Cherokee]

jinnah should be named Father of India instead of India . Without him we would have to bear the burden of Pakistani taliban and maddarsas

 

[GURU DUTT]

We will have to agree to disagree on this. The genie was long out of the bottle on this issue. Not like it could suddenly have been put back around 1947. Jinnah was not going to be there on the scene forever, nor was Gandhi, Nehru, Maulana Azad & Patel. If there was a civil war that happened after their time, it would have made the partition massacres look like a minor brawl. It was for the best that the British partitioned the country, that was the only way we could have managed. When you realise how quickly after Jinnah that Pakistan lost the plot & eventually half the country, you are being very generous in thinking that those pygmies masquerading as leaders would not have resorted to whipping up religious sentiments to get political traction.

From India's point of view, partition was probably the best thing that happened (except for Indian Muslims, the loss of the middle class was a massive damage from which it is yet to recover). Even as we dismiss the 2NT that caused it, you have to think rationally about partition itself. It allowed Indian leaders to largely set themselves up into a constitutional democracy with liberal underpinnings. That worked because the number of Muslims in India were not seen as a significant threat by the majority. A larger Muslim population would probably have caused the Hindus to coalesce into a more rigid grouping & would have probably been opposed to any reform seeing at as an assault against religion because the chances are that Muslims would not easily vote for reform in their laws. The large scale reforms that were pushed through were only possible because that threat receded.

I believe partition was inevitable, anyone who looked closely at Jinnah's proposal would have realised that it would have come to a boil in about 10 years & without Jinnah around, a violent bloodbath was guaranteed (even more than when he was around). The countries that you cite are not the same in composition as the subcontinent was. This was always a tinderbox & while I regret that we lost the likes of you to partition, I can only say that there are only a few of your type around. I would argue that partition was both inevitable & in India's case (will leave Pakistanis to make their point), was largely beneficial.

totally agreed with the highlighted parts .. thanks bro

 

[vsdoc]

sirji im no dcotor medical or PHD walla

please try to ask me question is simple language .... cheers doc

Partition was the last gasp attempt for the native inheritors (by faith and not blood) of the Muslim empires to show something for their efforts and endeavors of a millennium.

In stark peril of slipping back into the fold of the parent Hindu faith's dominance.

Now that's done, breathing space earned, they will turn for the rest.

If we ever let them.

Remember that to this day, India and Spain stand out as the two big failures of the Islamic conquests.

It is a cross (pardon the pun) subcontinental Muslims subconsciously bear when interacting with the rest of their more "pure blooded" Ummah.

 

[GURU DUTT]

Partition was the last gasp attempt for the native inheritors (by faith and not blood) of the Muslim empires to show something for their efforts and endeavors of a millennium.

In stark peril of slipping back into the fold of the parent Hindu faith's dominance.

Now that's done, breathing space earned, they will turn for the rest.

If we ever let them.

you are right one day or the other muslims in india will try to redo what they always did (if there is any problem go kill kafirs and earn your mal e ghanimat) but as hindus have slowly started finding owt there true worth and poetntial if they try to redo it will be end of humanity and the world none will survive its onli a matter of time when it happens but it will happen ... but till that happens ... cheers doc

 

[Stephen Cohen]

Partition was the last gasp attempt for the native inheritors (by faith and not blood) of the Muslim empires to show something for their efforts and endeavors of a millennium.

In stark peril of slipping back into the fold of the parent Hindu faith's dominance.

Now that's done, breathing space earned, they will turn for the rest.

If we ever let them.

Remember that to this day, India and Spain stand out as the two big failures of the Islamic conquests.

It is a cross (pardon the pun) subcontinental Muslims subconsciously bear when interacting with the rest of their more "pure blooded" Ummah.

Honestly SIR ; This is the BEST POST I have ever read on this subject

You have very accurately described the mental condition of South Asian Muslims

The Partition has rendered 550 Million Muslims totally Ineffective
even though they have two countries under their control

Loss of India is Islam's biggest Loss ever