Why do Pakistanis hate Hindus when it was actually the Sikhs they massacred and got massacred by?

[Stephen Cohen]

A loss you are at pains overcompensating for to those Muslims to the west you consider your racial and cultural superiors.

They tried their level best to become Arabs and Escape their real identity
but we know how it ended

 

[Hamza913]

Iqbal was a kashmiri, so are Butt's, I asked for some examples from Punjab province.

Sorry, can't think of any lol.

 

[Stephen Cohen]

It's nice trolling on PDF. Life hits you when you log off.

I am going to start saving your pearls of wisdom

 

[padamchen]

You seem to forget that most Muslim countries are also rising economically, and many already dominate the economic landscape such as Saudi Arabia or Qatar.

The present belongs to us.

The past to our ancestors.

The future to our inheritors.

Safe to say the Hindus are far ahead in every way than you guys.

Today.

Who knows about tomorrow or a century from today.

My point is simple.

Islamic conquests and then the British, over a thousand years, pillaged this civilization.

From the richest in the world to what we were left with in 1947.

Today look at India. 70 years on. Just one human lifetime.

We've clawed our way back 90%. In one lifetime. Overcoming a millennium of destruction.

Hindus mainly, helped along by the rest of us of course.

I ask again.

WHERE

ARE

YOU

???

Cheers, Doc

 

[PAKISTANFOREVER]

The present belongs to us.

The past to our ancestors.

The future to our inheritors.

Safe to say the Hindus are far ahead in every way than you guys.

Today.

Who knows about tomorrow or a century from today.

My point is simple.

Islamic conquests and then the British, over a thousand years, pillaged this civilization.

From the richest in the world to what we were left with in 1947.

Today look at India. 70 years on. Just one human lifetime.

We've clawed our way back 90%. In one lifetime. Overcoming a millennium of destruction.

Hindus mainly, helped along by the rest of us of course.

I ask again.

WHERE

ARE

YOU

???

Cheers, Doc

Iran, Tunisia, Jordan and Turkey are Muslim countries. Yet their gdp per capita is far superior to that of india's. So how can you be beating every single Muslim nation in every indicator?

In top of that, india and the indian race are home to at least 30-40% of the ENTIRE Earths most severely malnourished, deformed and extreme poor. Pakistan and the Muslim nations are not:

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp....an/10/child-malnutrition-india-national-shame

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-third-of-worlds-poorest-says-World-Bank.html

http://m.timesofindia.com/india/India-has-40-of-worlds-malnourished-Expert/articleshow/20840897.cms

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2010/jul/14/poverty-india-africa-oxford

The indian racial IQ is only 82. Lower than that of Pakistan and Afghanistan:

https://iq-research.info/en/page/average-iq-by-country#

And as well as having a low IQ, indian men also have the smallest weiners out of all the races of men :

http://m.mensxp.com/special-feature...e-the-second-smallest-penis-in-the-world.html

 

[padamchen]

Iran, Tunisia, Jordan and Turkey are Muslim countries. Yet their gdp per capita is far superior to that of india's. So how can you be beating every single Muslim nation in every indicator?

They have a lot fewer people. And are a lot smaller.

I do not deny that it would be a more comfortable life being a citizen of a smaller country with better living indices.

For the individual.

But as a nation, collectively, we are what we are.

All Hindus of the world belong to one nation.

All Muslims of the world belong to how many? 40? 60?

Are "Muslims" as your common religion really a single entity?

All Hindus of the world would go to war together.

Would Muslims?

Cheers, Doc

 

[Basel]

@WebMaster @waz please close this thread and keep check on Indian members who are full of hate towards Muslims and Pakistan.

 

[PAKISTANFOREVER]

They have a lot fewer people. And are a lot smaller.

I do not deny that it would be a more comfortable life being a citizen of a smaller country with better living indices.

For the individual.

But as a nation, collectively, we are what we are.

All Hindus of the world belong to one nation.

All Muslims of the world belong to how many? 40? 60?

Are "Muslims" as your common religion really a single entity?

All Hindus of the world would go to war together.

Would Muslims?

Cheers, Doc

But then you are not ahead of all Muslim nations in all indicators as you falsely claimed. All Muslims may not be united under one nation but we all find it easier to relate to one another than with any other peoples on this earth. The Europeans don't have 1 nation, have different languages but they are the same religion, culture and community as one another. It is the same for us Muslims. If india invaded Pakistan, there would be an international Jihad that the world has never been seen before. That along with our nuclear weapons is the reason why india is so weak, powerless and helpless to do anything to Pakistan even though they are more than 7x bigger than us and have abundant access to the world's most advanced weapons systems whilst we are denied this privilege. indian military high command is well aware of this reality.

They tried their level best to become Arabs and Escape their real identity
but we know how it ended

They're not trying to become Arabs but are actually in your mum and wife's phuddi as you type.......


I think your mum and wife have been taking alpha male lund from various Muslims in every hole which is why you like coming on PDF.........

At least they get to experience a "real man" and are not deprived by little indian girly men due to their physical defiencies:

http://m.mensxp.com/special-feature...e-the-second-smallest-penis-in-the-world.html

 

[Pakistani E]

I am sorry to see you perpetuating this myth of the 'Kashmiri' who migrated to Pakistani Punjab and those who formed Azad Kashmir. It is such a howler. And it is frightening to see that even mature and apparently well-read Pakistanis very largely believe this.

Myth? What is a myth? The Kashmiri diaspora that migrated to other parts of the subcontinent due to various reasons?

???

But that is precisely what he asked for, before he was met with intransigence that forced him to narrow down the concept.

We keep under-rating Jinnah. Even the Pakistanis.

I am nothing compared to Jinnah (rh), and whatever I say is borne of hindsight, yet it's obvious to anyone that managing a country based on two opposite ends of a hostile nation is a monumental task. Should have given the Bangladeshis their own country in 1947. Would have saved a lot of chaos.

I wouldn't go that far, but yes more than 2 nations was clearly necessary.

In fact, if I remember correctly a fair few people wanted BD to originally be its own thing, but the British wouldn't allow it.

At least 3, would have kept India in check.

 

[Hamza913]

The present belongs to us.

The past to our ancestors.

The future to our inheritors.

Safe to say the Hindus are far ahead in every way than you guys.

Today.

Who knows about tomorrow or a century from today.

My point is simple.

Islamic conquests and then the British, over a thousand years, pillaged this civilization.

From the richest in the world to what we were left with in 1947.

Today look at India. 70 years on. Just one human lifetime.

We've clawed our way back 90%. In one lifetime. Overcoming a millennium of destruction.

Hindus mainly, helped along by the rest of us of course.

I ask again.

WHERE

ARE

YOU

???

Cheers, Doc

In a better position than you

http://indianexpress.com/article/in...r-cent-people-without-access-to-toilet-study/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-third-of-worlds-poorest-says-World-Bank.html

http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-death/violence/by-country/

 

[Joe Shearer]

Myth? What is a myth? The Kashmiri diaspora that migrated to other parts of the subcontinent due to various reasons?

Please refer to the build-up of the princely state of Jammu & Kashmir, to which every reference to Kashmiri seems to point.

The only authentic Kashmiri in this state was the resident of the Vale. There was clear and unambiguous ethnic and linguistic difference between these 'native' Kashmiris, and the residents of, for instance, the so-called Azad Kashmir, sometimes commonly but inaccurately called Mirpuris. The inhabitants of Baltistan and Gilgit were also ethnically and linguistically distinct. So, too, the denizens of Ladakh and those of Jammu.

As far as I know, the migrations that you and everyone else is referring to are the migrations of the people of 'Azad Kashmir' to the neighbouring regions of Punjab. Please correct me if I am wrong, but few, if any, of the people of the Vale migrated. Few, if any, of the migrants actually spoke Kashur. For some time, I ran a passage of Kashur written in the Latin alphabet as my signature; not one of the patriotic migrated Kashmiris had even a word to say about it.

I am nothing compared to Jinnah (rh), and whatever I say is borne of hindsight, yet it's obvious to anyone that managing a country based on two opposite ends of a hostile nation is a monumental task. Should have given the Bangladeshis their own country in 1947. Would have saved a lot of chaos.

No, this was the second, the residual proposal; the original was precisely what you articulated: two Muslim homelands within a common nation-state, the rest of that nation-state to be considered, by default, a Hindu homeland.

The agreement between the Muslim League and the INC was based on this kind of architecture; Jinnah promoted it actively because I believe that he saw it as the last chance of escaping partition. Key to the agreement was that the delegates to the Constituent Assembly elected by the Muslim homelands would be bound to follow faithfully the mandate given them by their political foundation, the Muslim League; none of them should be permitted to take a stand in contradiction to, or in opposition to the Muslim League stand.

Quite out of the blue, Nehru declared at a press conference on the 10th of June that delegates to the Constituent Assembly would be free to act as their conscience dictated. That incomprehensible remark, or entirely comprehensive remark, drove Jinnah to ask for partition.

In this narration of events, I have followed Ayesha Jalal.

 

[Stephen Cohen]

Please refer to the build-up of the princely state of Jammu & Kashmir, to which every reference to Kashmiri seems to point.

The only authentic Kashmiri in this state was the resident of the Vale. There was clear and unambiguous ethnic and linguistic difference between these 'native' Kashmiris, and the residents of, for instance, the so-called Azad Kashmir, sometimes commonly but inaccurately called Mirpuris. The inhabitants of Baltistan and Gilgit were also ethnically and linguistically distinct. So, too, the denizens of Ladakh and those of Jammu.

As far as I know, the migrations that you and everyone else is referring to are the migrations of the people of 'Azad Kashmir' to the neighbouring regions of Punjab. Please correct me if I am wrong, but few, if any, of the people of the Vale migrated. Few, if any, of the migrants actually spoke Kashur. For some time, I ran a passage of Kashur written in the Latin alphabet as my signature; not one of the patriotic migrated Kashmiris had even a word to say about it.



No, this was the second, the residual proposal; the original was precisely what you articulated: two Muslim homelands within a common nation-state, the rest of that nation-state to be considered, by default, a Hindu homeland.

The agreement between the Muslim League and the INC was based on this kind of architecture; Jinnah promoted it actively because I believe that he saw it as the last chance of escaping partition. Key to the agreement was that the delegates to the Constituent Assembly elected by the Muslim homelands would be bound to follow faithfully the mandate given them by their political foundation, the Muslim League; none of them should be permitted to take a stand in contradiction to, or in opposition to the Muslim League stand.

Quite out of the blue, Nehru declared at a press conference on the 10th of June that delegates to the Constituent Assembly would be free to act as their conscience dictated. That incomprehensible remark, or entirely comprehensive remark, drove Jinnah to ask for partition.

In this narration of events, I have followed Ayesha Jalal.

Jinnah did not want Partition: Ayesha Jalal

 

[wiseone2]

Honourable Sir.

Your objection is not without merit. Indeed why should I care about Indian Muslims of Gujarat?

Firstly, I feel it is totally unjust and inhuman to kill /attack anyone simply on the basis of his religion or ethnicity especially so in retribution for the actual or alleged actions by bigots in another place. I therefore strongly condemned the perpetrators of 2011 Bombay bombings as well.

Straight forward answer to your question is that I was born in 1943, when Indian & Pakistan were still one nation. I therefore empathise with all people of the subcontinent in general and since I am a Muslim, feelings for the Muslims the run deep.

It does not mean that I have the same value judgements as an Indian Muslim; all it means that I can hold the sufferers in my mind long enough to feel a little of what they must be feeling.

I won't argue about moral judgements here.

On one point in time I agree Indian Muslim and Pakistani Muslims were part of the same family. Right now you are two separate countries. India and Pakistan have enough problems of their own.

As a practical matter there is no point paying attention to the religious minorities on either side unless you are going to do something about it

 

[Hamza913]

They have a lot fewer people. And are a lot smaller.

I do not deny that it would be a more comfortable life being a citizen of a smaller country with better living indices.

For the individual.

But as a nation, collectively, we are what we are.

All Hindus of the world belong to one nation.

All Muslims of the world belong to how many? 40? 60?

Are "Muslims" as your common religion really a single entity?

All Hindus of the world would go to war together.

Would Muslims?

Cheers, Doc

Muslims don't need to, we can nuke Hindustan back to stone age if you push us.

 

[I.R.A]

Coz the Hindus are way ahead of both combined, in every way that counts globally.

Basically, they won. You lost.

Yes billion plus who reek of their own poop are way ahead of how many ........ some 50+ countries. Keep it realistic please, boasting is good but when its realistic and not just for the sake of proving your loyalties. You haven't started consuming the favorite national drink or have you?

They were forced to learn some manners and act like humans or else they were the most backward lot, their current and future generations should be grateful to, Persians, Muslims and Britishers or else Sita would still be burnt on pyre.