Zaid Hamid versus Marvi Sirmed on Najam Sethi's show

[ares]

how can you indians endorse the two-nation theory ??? the india's national slogan and official policy/stance ( but the ground- reality is totally different , for e.g. the kashmir dispute ) has consistently been a secular india right since the partition time ...

so the bubble of secular india is busted to even worse specially when considering the fact that your shiny india has far more " indigenous separatists - struggle movements " than any other country in the world ...

the point being in here is that : had this secular india been the half of the secular that your india claims to be in the world , kashmir would definitely have been liberated given their just right of their self-determination as equivocally accepted and endorsed by the then u.n.o. resolutions on/for kashmir ...

Did you think before you wrote the above ? What does Kashmir got to do with India being secular..your argument being that India does not move out Kashmir because it is a Muslim dominated regions ??!!.

By this logic all these other freedom movements you talk about which by the way are in Hindu dominated region should have got their independence..since India is not secular and favour Hindus..hunh?

 

[ares]

See brother Pakistan is muslim country 96-97% muslims and 3-4% non-muslims.
Are you trying to dominate 3-4% on 96-97%....??
secondly minorities have their seats according to their population in Parliament.

In your country 13-14% are muslims but i dont see any Muslim Prime minister in your history....

See now you talking about the real thing..ie since minorities in your country are in really small percentage.. you don't care if they have this right or not ..coz as it is they can not do much about.Giving a few token seats in parliament still does not prove they have equal rights.

Unlike Pakistan we do not have any constitutions restrictions based on one's religion on who can or can not occupy the top seat. ..We have minority PM and Vice president in the office at this moment and have had plenty minority PM and presidents in the past including Muslim presidents.

 

[MuZammiL Dr. s[1]n]

Well its their choice, same as Nepal eventhough a Hindu majority country did not merged with India eventhough India is also home to considerable Nepali population especially Gorkhas, but its still is a fact that by 1971 majority of Muslims in former British Indiawere living outside Pakistan and not inside Pakistan which was formed in the name of Islam.[/QUOTE]

PakisTan came into being in the name of IsLaam , Then This IsLaamiC PakisTan became nuClear pOwer ; Then That IsLaamiC nuClear-pOwer PakisTan DefeaTed the then world superpower soviet union in afghanistan ... what the heLL eLse do you want more frOm an IsLaamiC sTaTe based on the un-deniable two-nation theory ...

 

[Man of Thoughts]

See now you talking about the real thing..ie since minorities in your country are in really small percentage.. you don't care if they have this right or not ..coz as it is they can not do much about.Giving a few token seats in parliament still does not prove they have equal rights.

Again talking rubbish......
As the minorities are in small percentage means they are being ignored. i have already told you that they have all their basic rights and we protect them.
there are not any incident in our country like Gujarat. Samjota express and we don't have siv sina or BAL thakre in our country

 

[ares]

Again talking rubbish......
As the minorities are in small percentage means they are being ignored. i have already told you that they have all their basic rights and we protect them.
there are not any incident in our country like Gujarat. Samjota express and we don't have siv sina or BAL thakre in our country

Why only basic rights ..why not equal rights ..as you claimed earlier?

You still have ignored my original question ..why don't you practice your two nation theory in Pakistan?

 

[Man of Thoughts]

Why only basic rights ..why not equal rights ..as you claimed earlier?

what do you consider in Equal rights......??
please justify..
Basic rights means that they enjoy all rights as muslims enjoy but i have told you earlier that they cannot become PM or president..
You claimed to be a secular country but have not a single muslim PM ?? i asked then why??

 

[Gandhi G in da house]

what do you consider in Equal rights......??
please justify..
Basic rights means that they enjoy all rights as muslims enjoy but i have told you earlier that they cannot become PM or president..
You claimed to be a secular country but have not a single muslim PM ?? i asked then why??

Muslim president and vice-presidents we have had . We today have a sikh PM .

 

[MuZammiL Dr. s[1]n]

Did you think before you wrote the above ? What does Kashmir got to do with India being secular..your argument being that India does not move out Kashmir because it is a Muslim dominated regions ??!!.

By this logic all these other freedom movements you talk about which by the way are in Hindu dominated region should have got their independence..since India is not secular and favour Hindus..hunh?

did you even try to read the whole thing before making fun of yourself in the middle of the forum ... han ?? you making out your own silly logics of separarists movements , LoL at your mental level , forget about the stupid logic you just came up with ... you talked ridiculous , you're a child for sure ; grow up baby ... you gotta cover a lot of ground before you catch up the big daddies here ...

 

[ares]

what do you consider in Equal rights......??
please justify..
Basic rights means that they enjoy all rights as muslims enjoy but i have told you earlier that they cannot become PM or president..
You claimed to be a secular country but have not a single muslim PM ?? i asked then why??

Isn't it obvious equal means that a pakistani Hindu, Christian or a sikh will enjoy exactly same rights as a Pakistani Muslims
eg Pakistani constitution will not bar him/her from becoming the prime minister or president just because he is Hindu.

Or His gods will be protected by same law as Muslim gods are protected from Blasphemy and many more.

Being secular means that we do not have any constitutional hindrance to any person belonging to any minority rl being elected to the top position may that be Sikh, Christians or Muslims.. after all we are democracy any candidate will have to win majority vote to be elected to the top seat..but being secular means we do not let religion be an obstruction in this process.

 

[ares]

did you even try to read the whole thing before making fun of yourself in the middle of the forum ... han ?? you making out your own silly logics of separarists movements , LoL at your mental level , forget about the stupid logic you just came up with ... you talked ridiculous , you're a child for sure ; grow up baby ... you gotta cover a lot of ground before you catch up the big daddies here ...

So lets see you explain the below statement of yours..what did you " actually mean" and then we will see if understood you or not!!

the point being in here is that : had this secular india been the half of the secular that your india claims to be in the world , kashmir would definitely have been liberated given their just right of their self-determination as equivocally accepted and endorsed by the then u.n.o. resolutions on/for kashmir ...

 

[Subramanian]

See brother Pakistan is muslim country 96-97% muslims and 3-4% non-muslims.
Are you trying to dominate 3-4% on 96-97%....??
secondly minorities have their seats according to their population in Parliament.

In your country 13-14% are muslims but i dont see any Muslim Prime minister in your history....

PM banne sey kuch nahin hota.Dont argue like that,think how much of freedom they have in practicing their way of life.

They have their own civil laws,they have all the freedom to do everything that hindus can.Beef is an issue but i never knew that beef is what defined a muslim,gosht anytime of the year and anywhere.

In south India,muslims were amongst the most educated back in the day alongside the hindu elite.


PS: And there are enough self loathing,secular parties which provide them all the freedom to cross all ethical boundaries and proletize their faith,i highly doubt you offer anything like that for hindus

 

[Subramanian]

how can you indians endorse the two-nation theory ??? the india's national slogan and official policy/stance ( but the ground- reality is totally different , for e.g. the kashmir dispute ) has consistently been a secular india right since the partition time ...

so the bubble of secular india is busted to even worse specially when considering the fact that your shiny india has far more " indigenous separatists - struggle movements " than any other country in the world ...

the point being in here is that : had this secular india been the half of the secular that your india claims to be in the world , kashmir would definitely have been liberated given their just right of their self-determination as equivocally accepted and endorsed by the then u.n.o. resolutions on/for kashmir ...

What has liberating kashmir got to do with secularism?Kashmir is still disputed because of secularism.If the government listened to common sense,it would have already made Kashmir,a normal state of the dominion and not a special state.

 

[Subramanian]

No it didn't. I don't know from where you get this idea their are many other examples where religion triumphed over ethnicity. Bangladesh itself is one such example. After the independence they didn't join the Hindu Indian bengal to form a separate country or merge in india as one state.

well,the ground reality is almost like that.

---------- Post added at 07:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:24 PM ----------

I know it is their choice and the reason behind this choice is again the same. As I said their are many other instances in history where ethnicity clearly lost to religion. Just because more muslims live outside Pakistan doesn't negate TNT.

TNT is a huge failure because the only people who moved were punjabis,Mohajjirs from UP/MP/Raj/Guj and biharis who went to bangaldesh.Rest stayed back and are cool here.

 

[harpoon]

what do you consider in Equal rights......??
please justify..

Equal rights means each and every citizen of the country irrespective of his religion will have equal opportunity as everybody else to get into to any of the political, bureaucratic, judiciary and military offices.

Basic rights means that they enjoy all rights as muslims enjoy but i have told you earlier that they cannot become PM or president..

So you consider your minorities unworthy of high offices, that equals to state sponsored discrimination. Also Muslims like Zaid Hamid regularly come on TV and abuse Hindus and use expressions like "Muh mein Ram Ram, Bagal mein Churi", but no actions are taken against them, your Lollywood movies spew hate and venom at Hindus and their culture..again no action but one Aisa Bibi was readily arrested, tried and condemned to hang under the Blasphemy Law because she allegedly said something about Prophet Mohd. Is only Islam and its Prophet sacred in Pakistan and others religions have no value.

You claimed to be a secular country but have not a single muslim PM ?? i asked then why??

Muslims are not the only minority in India, we have Sikhs, Christians, Parsis, Jains, Buddhists and Jews. Our Sikh population alone will outnumber your minority population eventhough its forms only 2% of the population. As far as Muslims are concerned we had Muslim presidents. Our current VP is a Muslim. Many of the top bureaucrats, judges and military commanders (including the present J & K Commander) are Muslims.

 

[Subramanian]

So religion was indeed part of their decision. Sums up the story I guess and their goes your claim about TNT and 1971 down the drain.

---------- Post added at 02:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:58 PM ----------



OK. Can you tell me what was the exact reason that people from middle east or central asia or South Asia fought against Soviets in Afghan war? They didn't share the same language for sure. Afghanistan wasn't a very famous tourist destination either.

Because they didn't want Russia in their neighbourhood.But dont make it look like central asia and all.Osama Bin Laden organized his troops and some people.Most of the people fighting were still ethnic Afghans only and don go as far as Central Asia and all.

During the sametime you are talking about,Iraq-Iran were having a bloody war which involved the worst kind of gassing and inhuman things ever.Dont you think that is so contradictory to your ideology?