What's new

Would Indians dare embrace Owaisi, the Patriot?

Nationalism is taking PRIDE in one's Nation.

Without nationalism, patriotism is shallow and a matter of convenience.

A Nationalist remains a patriot even when he moves to another nation. A patriot shifts his allegiance when he shifts his place of residence.

One doe not aim to be either patriotic or nationalistic. These are feelings that one feels based on one's love for the country. No one "aims" to love a girl.

Actually majority of Indians are patriots and are aware how the Independence have been achieved and how many have done sacrifices for the nation.

Those who remember 1857 War of Independence, Khilafat Movement and Quit India movement are the real Indian patriots.
 
Actually majority of Indians are patriots and are aware how the Independence have been achieved and how many have done sacrifices for the nation.

Those who remember 1857 War of Independence, Khilafat Movement and Quit India movement are the real Indian patriots.

I agree with parts of your post, but

Khilafat movement was an agitation by Indian Muslims to preserve the authority of the Ottoman Sultan as Caliph of Islam after World War I. What did it have anything to do with India ?

The only thing it did was inspire the Mappila riots which targeted hindus.

This is how Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad defined the khilafat movement in his own words,

"It is an Islamic Shar’i law that in every age Muslims must have one [ék] Khalifa and Imam. By Khalifa we mean such an independent Muslim king or ruler of government and country who possesses full powers to protect Muslims and the territory that they inhabit and to promulgate and enforce Shar’i laws and is powerful enough to confront the enemies of Islam. "

Also the history of MIM or the Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (Owaisi party) is as Razakars and not freedom fighters.

They trained and armed 150,000 Razakar "soldiers"who were responsible for large-scale pogroms against Hyderaba's Hindu majority of unarmed and desperately poor peasants.

Hardly the field from which "Patriots" rise.
 
I agree with parts of your post, but

Khilafat movement was an agitation by Indian Muslims to preserve the authority of the Ottoman Sultan as Caliph of Islam after World War I. What did it have anything to do with India ?

The only thing it did was inspire the Mappila riots which targeted hindus.

This is how Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad defined the khilafat movement in his own words,

"It is an Islamic Shar’i law that in every age Muslims must have one [ék] Khalifa and Imam. By Khalifa we mean such an independent Muslim king or ruler of government and country who possesses full powers to protect Muslims and the territory that they inhabit and to promulgate and enforce Shar’i laws and is powerful enough to confront the enemies of Islam. "

Also the history of MIM or the Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (Owaisi party) is as Razakars and not freedom fighters.

They trained and armed 150,000 Razakar "soldiers"who were responsible for large-scale pogroms against Hyderaba's Hindu majority of unarmed and desperately poor peasants.

Hardly the field from which "Patriots" rise.

Khalifat Movement supported by Mahatma Gandhi which was mainly to get rid of colonalization as the Indians, Arabs, Turks and Africans were going through the same. This is the reason Mahatma Gandhi is even known as Mujahid e Hind.

Present MIM has nothing to do with Razakars as they have accepted the Constitution of Republic of India and by the way Qasim Razvi came from Awadh and was funded by Raja of Mahmudabad who even funded Muslim league.

Majority of Indian Muslims are nationalist and they have nothing to do with Naziris.
 
Khalifat Movement supported by Mahatma Gandhi which was mainly to get rid of colonalization as the Indians, Arabs, Turks and Africans were going through the same. This is the reason Mahatma Gandhi is even known as Mujahid e Hind.

Present MIM has nothing to do with Razakars as they have accepted the Constitution of Republic of India and by the way Qasim Razvi came from Awadh and was funded by Raja of Mahmudabad who even funded Muslim league.

Majority of Indian Muslims are nationalist and they have nothing to do with Naziris.

Gandhi was a pragmatic politician who understood the mind of the muslims. He did what he did to enlist the support of the muslims to get rid of the british. For that you can call him mujahid e hind or akbar elabadi, that does not matter.

But it does not change the reality that the Khilafat movement was for the establishment of a islamic ummah in Turkey and not for the freedom of Indians.

The movement itself was the brainchild of Shaukat Ali and Mohammad Ali who were jailed by the British for requesting to the Amir of Afghanistan to invade India :cheesy:

The other leader of this movement was Dr. Mukhtar Ahmed Ansari who led a Khilafat delegation to meet Lord Chelmsford to plead the Khilafat cause before the British parliament.

A bunch of Indian muslims who begged the british for the sake of the Ottoman Empire in turkey :cheesy:

This is the same caliphate to whom Tipu Sulatan offered his allegiance in 1789 in the name of Islam only to have the head of the Caliphate tell Tipu to stop fighting the British forces as they were friends of caliph :lol:

This is the same caliphate who, During the ‘war for independence’ of 1857, the caliph Abdul Majid condemned the revolutionaries and exhorted the muslims to help the British as ‘they (British) were defenders of islam’.


You must be thankful that I am only laughing at your face for declaring the khilafat movement as a "freedom movement".


Also MIM has no choice but to accept the constitution of India if they want to survive in India. That is not a matter of choice. But when they DID have a choice, they chose pakistan.

Finally I do not claim to know the minds of the muslims of India any more than I claim to know the minds of its Hindus. As long as Indian muslims admire and respect Abdul Kalam enough to make him their hero, they cannot go wrong.
 
Last edited:
Gandhi was a pragmatic politician who understood the mind of the muslims. He did what he did to enlist the support of the muslims to get rid of the british. For that you can call him mujahid e hind or akbar elabadi, that does not matter.

Even during the time of Mahatma Gandhi , Indian Aryans , Indians Muslims , Indian buddhists and Indian Sikhs were called as Indians by Arabs and Turks . And the alliance against the Colonalization was from Maghreb till Burma

Haplogroup_R1b_%28Y-DNA%29.PNG




But it does not change the reality that the Khilafat movement was for the establishment of a islamic ummah in Turkey and not for the freedom of Indians.

Khilafat Movement was to keep the khilafat which was mainly to stop the division of the nations. Mahatma Gandhi and other Indian and Arab revolutionaries were aware that the plan of the British and French was to divide the Turkic, Arabic and Indian nation. This is what is called the great game.


The movement itself was the brainchild of Shaukat Ali and Mohammad Ali who were jailed by the British for requesting to the Amir of Afghanistan to invade India :cheesy:

During the Afghan-British Wars , lakhs of Hindustanis ( Hindus, Muslims ) gone to fight alongside Pashtun tribes against the British.

The other leader of this movement was Dr. Mukhtar Ahmed Ansari who led a Khilafat delegation to meet Lord Chelmsford to plead the Khilafat cause before the British parliament.

A bunch of Indian muslims who begged the british for the sake of the Ottoman Empire in turkey :cheesy:

Even the talk was about the castualities of Turks , Arabs during the invasion of Islambul, Syria and Palestine.


This is the same caliphate to whom Tipu Sulatan offered his allegiance in 1789 in the name of Islam only to have the head of the Caliphate tell Tipu to stop fighting the British forces as they were friends of caliph :lol:

Why cant you see the relations between Indians, Arabs and Turks against British Empire ?


This is the same caliphate who, During the ‘war for independence’ of 1857, the caliph Abdul Majid condemned the revolutionaries and exhorted the muslims to help the British as ‘they (British) were defenders of islam’.

You are having a strange history which shows that you are more to give your alliegence to the great game.

We Indians, Arabs, Turks and Africans have always fought against colonalization to up hold our human rights and to protect our females from civilized terrorists.


You must be thankful that I am only laughing at your face for declaring the khilafat movement as a "freedom movement".

Yes , we Indians are aware that Mohammed Ali Jinnah have opposed the Khilafat Movement but this doesnt means that Mustafa Kamal Attaturk was not aware how many were playing games against Turks, Arabs and Indians by being part of the great game.


Also MIM has no choice but to accept the constitution of India if they want to survive in India. That is not a matter of choice. But when they DID have a choice, they chose pakistan.

:lol::lol: the head of razakars was living in Pakistan aka Qasim Rizvi .MIM has nothing to do with Razakars

Osman Ali Khan was Raj pramukh and your talks about surviving in India , doesnt make any sense.

Finally I do not claim to know the minds of the muslims of India any more than I claim to know the minds of its Hindus. As long as Indian muslims admire and respect Abdul Kalam enough to make him their hero, they cannot go wrong.

Then what you know about the minds of Indians over all ? Seems you dont even know about the sacrifices made by the Indians .
 
Even during the time of Mahatma Gandhi , Indian Aryans , Indians Muslims , Indian buddhists and Indian Sikhs were called as Indians by Arabs and Turks . And the alliance against the Colonalization was from Maghreb till Burma

Haplogroup_R1b_%28Y-DNA%29.PNG

WTF did I just read ?

Khilafat Movement was to keep the khilafat which was mainly to stop the division of the nations. Mahatma Gandhi and other Indian and Arab revolutionaries were aware that the plan of the British and French was to divide the Turkic, Arabic and Indian nation. This is what is called the great game.

How did it matter to the Indians if the Turkish empire was divided into many nations ?

How about when Korea was divided into north and South ? or when Germany was divided ?

In fact the Khilafat movement laid the foundation of INDIA being divided into three Nations :lol: .... the leaders of the Khilafat movement went on to form the Muslim League.


During the Afghan-British Wars , lakhs of Hindustanis ( Hindus, Muslims ) gone to fight alongside Pashtun tribes against the British.

Never head of anything like this. But know this,

The Gadar party formed a ‘Provisional Government of India in Exile' in Afghanistan on 18 December 1915 with the support of the Amir of Afghanistan.

The Amir Habibullah Khan then quietly informed the British agents and betrayed the "Indian govt." and extracted Rs.1.8 million ‘subsidy’ to the Afghan government, most of which was spent on Amir’s extravagance and personal harem of over 100 women. Some spoils were distributed among other members of royal family and key tribal leaders.

Money that belonged to the poor of India.

Even the talk was about the castualities of Turks , Arabs during the invasion of Islambul, Syria and Palestine.

Why cant you see the relations between Indians, Arabs and Turks against British Empire ?

What freaking "relations" ? :cheesy:

The Turks lost WW-II to the allies and this resulted in splitting up of the Ottoman empire. How did it matter to Indians ? It was not as if the Turks were supporting our Independence from Britain.


You are having a strange history which shows that you are more to give your alliegence to the great game.

We Indians, Arabs, Turks and Africans have always fought against colonalization to up hold our human rights and to protect our females from civilized terrorists.

Arabs and Turks and used to be the invaders, slaver traders, pillagers and Colonisers in India before the British freed us from their Tyranny and imposed their own Tyranny.

Your understanding of history seems "Strange".


Yes , we Indians are aware that Mohammed Ali Jinnah have opposed the Khilafat Movement but this doesnt means that Mustafa Kamal Attaturk was not aware how many were playing games against Turks, Arabs and Indians by being part of the great game.

I don't give a $hit about mustafa kama attaturk. There is no record of him having done jack $hit for us.

:lol::lol: the head of razakars was living in Pakistan aka Qasim Rizvi .MIM has nothing to do with Razakars

Osman Ali Khan was Raj pramukh and your talks about surviving in India , doesnt make any sense.

LOL... are you serious ? Qasim Rizvi (founder and head of MIM) was JAILED in India after MIM was banned in 1948. Qasim Rizvi was jailed from 1948 to 1957, and was released on the condition that he would go to pakistan where he was granted an asylum. Before going to pakistan, he handed over the party leadership to Abdul Wahed Owaisi who was the Father of the current Owaisi.

Then what you know about the minds of Indians over all ? Seems you dont even know about the sacrifices made by the Indians .

I am not a mind reader. But I do know history.

You claim to be a mind reader, but think fantasy is history.
 
What is the first thing that comes to mind when one thinks of Asaduddin Owaisi? As far as popular imagination goes, it mostly revolves around him being a firebrand politician known to stoke communal conflagrations in sensitive areas. The problem with this image is with the way "perceptions" are understood as some sort of concrete "reality". The inherent prejudice that a modern, Hindu, urban voter has about Muslims in general gets in the way of caricaturing Owaisi.

Our biases are stark and skin-deep when one thinks of this tall, sturdy bearded figure donning a skull cap and kurta. It is as if he is bound to be "like how most Muslims are". A more charitable, yet equally problematic take is to commend him by saying how he is not like normal Muslims!

Recently in Pune, Owaisi addressed a rally at a time the corporation elections are round the corner. He was initially rejected permission for the same by the police under the pretext that his speeches have communal overtones. This makes us wonder if those like the Thackerays never resorted to communal politics. When a Muslim talks of representing the interests of his community at large, the popular psyche gets jittery and nervous.

We start building a thread of naive presumptions about how damaging this is for democracy. Needless to say, this image of Owaisi being a communal polariser has been polished by the media. It fails to show what Owaisi actually thinks about the everyday concerns of the people and where he sees Indian Muslims in near future.

Consider this: in a recent interview to The Hindu, Owaisi made a really basic, yet remarkably significant statement. He said, “I speak the language of the constitution. I believe in the plurality and diversity of this country. Like others, I don't want to turn this country into a theological entity".

Not bad for a man who has largely been accused of circumventing the law by deploying parochial means to satiate his ideological goal. Be it his astute and shrewd remarks on the floor of the House or his well-mannered, polite and to-the-point arguments on TV debates, Owaisi steers away from being ideologically close to the attitude that the lunatic fringe of the Sangh Parivar boasts of.

One recalls the famous video clip of Owaisi, in which he categorically stated to moderators of a Pakistani news show that they should stop worrying about Indian Muslims as they had made their decision 60 years ago.

owaisi_021817033840.jpg

By projecting himself and his party as one that speaks for all Muslims, without any sectarian bias, Owaisi emerges as a beacon of new hope for some. [Photo: DailyO]
An Indian Muslim defending fellow Muslim citizens and the robust democratic apparatus of his own country in an enemy land should have actually spurred displays of patriotic support by the fellow citizens.

Of course, we never saw any of that as our nationalism, today, is contingent to the religion you belong to. We have happily internalised the vacuous distinction of "Good Muslim and Bad Muslim" where the good one always has to assimilate himself in the mainstream culture to prove his or her nationality. Doses of morality apply only to people like Owaisi who dare to speak about the virtues of the politics of difference.

Owaisi is a barrister who graduated with a degree from the UK. As one with a sharp mind and a tight grip on the changing realities, he very well understands the pulse of the young, aspirational Muslim. In fact, in more ways than one, his personal demeanor and career achievements - apart from his political life - are what the ordinary Muslim youth looks up to. Having said this, nobody is trying to hold a brief for him in the objective sense.

The image of him running Hyderabad almost as a political fiefdom, being ruthlessly radical in his solutions and attacking the opposition in their own language of venom and hatred has certainly limited and even accentuated the popular belief that non-Muslim voters have about him.

By falling for this perception, one forgets to acknowledge the progressive difference he associates himself with - which is in stark contradiction to the ideals of what someone like Raj Thackeray may espouse.

The way oratory is received in our country is anything but secular. When Raj Thackeray hurls invectives with callous disregard to his critiques, it is immediately lapped up as being a “fitting reply”. When Owaisi does the same, he is conveniently branded as a communalist.

This intensely Brahmanical logic goes back to what Ambedkar had said once, when the majority stakes a claim to power, it is secularism and when a minority claims its share of power, it is communalism!

If we can have parties catering to specific castes, regions, religions and ideologies, can we really have a problem with someone who is unabashed about his politics, which revolves around safeguarding the future prospects of his community?

Owaisi will find it extremely difficult to make his voice heard at the national level. Yet, by projecting himself and his party as one that speaks for all Muslims, without any sectarian bias, he emerges as a beacon of new hope for some. At the same time, by including Dalits in his intriguing slogan of "Jai Bheem, Jai Meem", he has shown the willingness to broaden the ambit of his political imagination.

By treating Dalits as a natural ally in his political project, he understands the merits of this integrationist politics, which vows for the collective emancipation of the marginalised groups at large.

It is for the prejudiced people to decide if they want to embrace Owaisi, the patriot.

http://www.dailyo.in/voices/asadudd...-muslims-bjp-sangh-parivar/story/1/15729.html
Yes, Hindus must embrace owasis for insulting Hindu god and goddess and for their sacred view of killing 100 crore Hindus.
 
Khalifat Movement supported by Mahatma Gandhi which was mainly to get rid of colonalization as the Indians, Arabs, Turks and Africans were going through the same. This is the reason Mahatma Gandhi is even known as Mujahid e Hind.

Present MIM has nothing to do with Razakars as they have accepted the Constitution of Republic of India and by the way Qasim Razvi came from Awadh and was funded by Raja of Mahmudabad who even funded Muslim league.

Majority of Indian Muslims are nationalist and they have nothing to do with Naziris.


Dude, if that was so then can u please explain why Muslims of Kerala massacred Hindus in the Name of Khilafat. I know you would not know this. Google Moplah Rebellion.

Khilafat was the first act of muslim appeasement by Congress and Gandhi. It has nothing to do with the Indian coloniasm as Indian indepence was national movement and Khilafat was religious. The foolish Indians specially the non muslims got sucked into it by the Congress and Gandhi. After the Moplah Rebellion, Gandhi knew that he messed up but lacked courage to accept it.

BTW, May I know if Ottomans or Turks ever supported the Indian struggle of Independence and did something similar for Indians (specifically for Non Muslims).
 
WTF did I just read ?

Indian Nation, Quame Hind , Hindustaniyan. Nation of Indus Valley Civilization.


How did it matter to the Indians if the Turkish empire was divided into many nations ?

How about when Korea was divided into north and South ? or when Germany was divided ?

In fact the Khilafat movement laid the foundation of INDIA being divided into three Nations :lol: .... the leaders of the Khilafat movement went on to form the Muslim League.

Mohammed Ali Jinnah and other British Knights were against the Khilafat Movement where as those who opposed the partition were for Khilafat Movement . Mahatma Gandhi was aware about the results during that time.



Never head of anything like this. But know this,

The Gadar party formed a ‘Provisional Government of India in Exile' in Afghanistan on 18 December 1915 with the support of the Amir of Afghanistan.

The Amir Habibullah Khan then quietly informed the British agents and betrayed the "Indian govt." and extracted Rs.1.8 million ‘subsidy’ to the Afghan government, most of which was spent on Amir’s extravagance and personal harem of over 100 women. Some spoils were distributed among other members of royal family and key tribal leaders.

Money that belonged to the poor of India.

Even the Afghans were against the Partition and were aware of British tactics of divide and rule.


What freaking "relations" ? :cheesy:

The Turks lost WW-II to the allies and this resulted in splitting up of the Ottoman empire. How did it matter to Indians ? It was not as if the Turks were supporting our Independence from Britain.

Turks havn't took part in World war II .

Shima Accords 1912 and Balfour Declaration 1916.


Arabs and Turks and used to be the invaders, slaver traders, pillagers and Colonisers in India before the British freed us from their Tyranny and imposed their own Tyranny.

Your understanding of history seems "Strange".

Slavery trade increased after 16th century.


I don't give a $hit about mustafa kama attaturk. There is no record of him having done jack $hit for us.


In 1951, Turkey became the first country with which the newly independent India signed an Agreement on Cultural Affairs.

As a recognition of the historic friendship between Turkey and India, two streets in Ankara have been named after the great statesmen and friends of Turkey’s, Mahatma Gandhi-ji and Rabindranath Tagore.

Khilafat Movement itself shows the relations between Turks and Indian Nation. on May 15, 1920, and two days later Gandhi urged the Muslims to adopt non-cooperation. The Khilafat Committee met at Allahabad in June and planned four stages of non-cooperation as resigning titles and honors, resigning from the civil service, resigning from the police and army, and refusing to pay taxes. Gandhi attended the Khilafat Conference in Sind in July, and they decided to call upon millions of Hindus and Muslims to begin the non-cooperation campaign on August

LOL... are you serious ? Qasim Rizvi (founder and head of MIM) was JAILED in India after MIM was banned in 1948. Qasim Rizvi was jailed from 1948 to 1957, and was released on the condition that he would go to pakistan where he was granted an asylum. Before going to pakistan, he handed over the party leadership to Abdul Wahed Owaisi who was the Father of the current Owaisi.

You are having wrong info . Qasim Rizvi has nothing to do with Abdul Wahed Owaisi .


I am not a mind reader. But I do know history.

You claim to be a mind reader, but think fantasy is history.

Yes , its clearly visible . What type of history you are having about the sacrifices done by the Indian nation against colonization.
 
Mohammed Ali Jinnah and other British Knights were against the Khilafat Movement where as those who opposed the partition were for Khilafat Movement . Mahatma Gandhi was aware about the results during that time.

Maulana azad who was against partition was for the khilafat movement. Of course Gandhi was aware, and that makes him an accomplice.

Gandhi wanted to use the khilafat movement to absorbe the muslims of India in the Independence movement of Congress. He had suggested a four progressive stages of the movement. First the resignation of titles and offices. Second, with drawl from all government services except police and military. Third, with-drawl from police and military, and fourth, suspension of payment of taxes to the State.

Jinnah OTOH wanted to find 'swaraj' within the confines of the british constitution :cheesy:

This is what he said while he opposed Gandhi,

“… the weapon will not destroy the British empire… it is neither logical nor is it politically sound or wise, nor practically capable of being put in execution.”

And this opposition of Gandhi by Jinnah was soundly praised by Colonel Wedgood :D

Even the Afghans were against the Partition and were aware of British tactics of divide and rule.

Not Afghans, pashtuns and followers of Khan Abdul gaffar khan.

Turks havn't took part in World war II .

Shima Accords 1912 and Balfour Declaration 1916.

It was a typo, 'He' meant World War I. When the caliphate was divided and turkey was born.

Slavery trade increased after 16th century.

You mean more people participated in it after the discovery of America. I am only concerned about slavery in India.


In 1951, Turkey became the first country with which the newly independent India signed an Agreement on Cultural Affairs.

As a recognition of the historic friendship between Turkey and India, two streets in Ankara have been named after the great statesmen and friends of Turkey’s, Mahatma Gandhi-ji and Rabindranath Tagore.

Khilafat Movement itself shows the relations between Turks and Indian Nation. on May 15, 1920, and two days later Gandhi urged the Muslims to adopt non-cooperation. The Khilafat Committee met at Allahabad in June and planned four stages of non-cooperation as resigning titles and honors, resigning from the civil service, resigning from the police and army, and refusing to pay taxes. Gandhi attended the Khilafat Conference in Sind in July, and they decided to call upon millions of Hindus and Muslims to begin the non-cooperation campaign on August

LOL....Turkey today is a great friend of pakistan, not India :lol:

You are having wrong info . Qasim Rizvi has nothing to do with Abdul Wahed Owaisi .

Abdul Wahed Owaisi was hand picked by Qasim Rizvi to lead MIM before he left for pakistan.

Abdul Wahed Owaisi was arrested and imprisoned in Chanchalguda jail in 1950 for “hen rousing or attempting to rouse communal passions and creating or attempting to create panic, resentment or hatred in the minds of the Muslims against the State and the non-Muslims as disclosed by his speeches made by him in public meetings.”

After the death of Abdul Wahid Owaisi, his son Sultan Salahuddin Owaisi became the leader and this sons, Asaduddin Owaisi and Akbaruddin Owaisi are now the "leaders" of MIM.

The lineage of the "patriot",

photojoiner-2.jpg
 
Maulana azad who was against partition was for the khilafat movement. Of course Gandhi was aware, and that makes him an accomplice.

Gandhi wanted to use the khilafat movement to absorbe the muslims of India in the Independence movement of Congress. He had suggested a four progressive stages of the movement. First the resignation of titles and offices. Second, with drawl from all government services except police and military. Third, with-drawl from police and military, and fourth, suspension of payment of taxes to the State.

Jinnah OTOH wanted to find 'swaraj' within the confines of the british constitution :cheesy:

This is what he said while he opposed Gandhi,

“… the weapon will not destroy the British empire… it is neither logical nor is it politically sound or wise, nor practically capable of being put in execution.”

And this opposition of Gandhi by Jinnah was soundly praised by Colonel Wedgood :D

You just doesnt understand simple things regarding colonalism.

Senussi Movement and vande Mataram movements.


Not Afghans, pashtuns and followers of Khan Abdul gaffar khan.

Khudai Khitmatgar in Northwest Frontier were for United India and Afghanistan and complete Independence.

They stand against the great game .


It was a typo, 'He' meant World War I. When the caliphate was divided and turkey was born.

Vande Mataram movement , Senussi movement, Khilafat Movement were all indigenous movements for liberation and the Indian nation, Arab nation and Turkic nations were united .

You mean more people participated in it after the discovery of America. I am only concerned about slavery in India.

The abolition of slavery did not mean the end of slave labor. Throughout the world, activists continued to use the power of the purse to improve working conditions in distant lands. Gandhi himself rejected goods like sugar and chocolate that were “produced through the labour of men who work more or less in conditions of slavery.”


LOL....Turkey today is a great friend of pakistan, not India :lol:

Republic of Turkey is NATO member state and Turkey is in Afghanistan and Turks are well aware what is going on inside Afghanistan.


Abdul Wahed Owaisi was hand picked by Qasim Rizvi to lead MIM before he left for pakistan.

Abdul Wahed Owaisi was arrested and imprisoned in Chanchalguda jail in 1950 for “hen rousing or attempting to rouse communal passions and creating or attempting to create panic, resentment or hatred in the minds of the Muslims against the State and the non-Muslims as disclosed by his speeches made by him in public meetings.”

After the death of Abdul Wahid Owaisi, his son Sultan Salahuddin Owaisi became the leader and this sons, Asaduddin Owaisi and Akbaruddin Owaisi are now the "leaders" of MIM.

The lineage of the "patriot",

Owaisi family doesnt have anything to do with Qasim Rizvi and if that would be the case they would have left India way back in 1947.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom