Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Temujin Khaghan

Jinnah did more harm than good for Muslims..

Recommended Posts

Read my post and say your opinion, whether you agree or disagree..

...

 

If Hindus really have religious fanaticism, BJP or the earlier janta party would have won every election from independence. But the only 2 elections bjp won are because of anti incumbency vote and not because of religious feeling.

 

If current Muslims of Pakistan and Bangladesh had stayed back in united India, I swear muslim majority parties would have formed central government atleast 3 out of 10 elections. There would have been 35 percent Muslims in India I think and they would have dominated in many industries of India including the economy and definitely Bollywood itself. I find it funny that many Bollywood stars have excess fake love for Pakistan but had the Pakistani Punjabis been players in this industry, many of the current Bollywood stars would have been jobless.

 

Jinnah failed to realize that Hindus are not obsessed with religion, but rather with caste, region and language. Instead of silently hating them from a corner, he should have mingled with Hindus for a bit and he would have realised this truth. Indian Politics survives not on the basis of religion but on basis of caste. 

 

By taking away a major chunk of Muslims from India, Jinnah has made double sure that Hindus dominate in India no matter what. He also destroyed any chance of artistic independance and gender equality in Pakistan by forming a country with the foundation of an medieval religion. How far can a country go if it's very constitution preaches bias towards people of only one religion. 

 

So more than Muslims of pakistan, it is the core Hindus who should be saying #thankyou Jinnah on his birthday or on independence day?

 

 

Edited by Temujin Khaghan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thank Jinnah for the partition, we don't realize how lucky we are today. Imagine an India with 35-40% Muslim population and 8-9 Muslim majority provinces !!!!!! My only regret is that the partition could have been done over a period of 5 years  so that there could have been more peaceful migration. And more Muslims whose hearts beat for Pak (remember how they voted en masse for Muslim League in 1945) should have been coaxed to leave India, same with Hindus/Sikhs/Christians/Buddhists of the 2 Pakistans. 'Hindus and Muslims can't coexist' said Jinnah, what wrong did he say? IMO he was more intelligent than our founding fathers in understanding the historical baggage of the subcontinent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed with your post.

The guy represented the landed Muslim elite of UP who were wary of living under a Congress dominated Govt which had land reforms high on its agenda as evinced by Nehru report.

They knew they would lost the eminent position enjoyed during the British Raj who propped up the reactionary elements within this aforementioned group to keep a check on the growing power of congess which was seen as a secular party.

The proof of this can be seen in the present day Pakistan where feudalism is still alive and thriving as we speak.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Temujin Khaghan said:

Read my post and say your opinion, whether you agree or disagree..

...

 

If Hindus really have religious fanaticism, BJP or the earlier janta party would have won every election from independence. But the only 2 elections bjp won are because of anti incumbency vote and not because of religious feeling.

 

If current Muslims of Pakistan and Bangladesh had stayed back in united India, I swear muslim majority parties would have formed central government atleast 3 out of 10 elections. There would have been 35 percent Muslims in India I think and they would have dominated in many industries of India including the economy and definitely Bollywood itself. I find it funny that many Bollywood stars have excess fake love for Pakistan but had the Pakistani Punjabis been players in this industry, many of the current Bollywood stars would have been jobless.

 

Jinnah failed to realize that Hindus are not obsessed with religion, but rather with caste, region and language. Instead of silently hating them from a corner, he should have mingled with Hindus for a bit and he would have realised this truth. Indian Politics survives not on the basis of religion but on basis of caste. 

 

By taking away a major chunk of Muslims from India, Jinnah has made double sure that Hindus dominate in India no matter what. He also destroyed any chance of artistic independance and gender equality in Pakistan by forming a country with the foundation of an medieval religion. How far can a country go if it's very constitution preaches bias towards people of only one religion. 

 

So more than Muslims of pakistan, it is the core Hindus who should be saying #thankyou Jinnah on his birthday or on independence day?

 

 

Did not you guys have Hindu rate of growth for much of your history and Pakistan was ahead economically not that it is good benchmark?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Gollum said:

I thank Jinnah for the partition, we don't realize how lucky we are today. Imagine an India with 35-40% Muslim population and 8-9 Muslim majority provinces !!!!!! My only regret is that the partition could have been done over a period of 5 years  so that there could have been more peaceful migration. And more Muslims whose hearts beat for Pak (remember how they voted en masse for Muslim League in 1945) should have been coaxed to leave India, same with Hindus/Sikhs/Christians/Buddhists of the 2 Pakistans. 'Hindus and Muslims can't coexist' said Jinnah, what wrong did he say? IMO he was more intelligent than our founding fathers in understanding the historical baggage of the subcontinent.

Migration continued until 1965 war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Pakistan said:

Did not you guys have Hindu rate of growth for much of your history and Pakistan was ahead economically not that it is good benchmark?

West Pakistan is Naturally blessed region.It has very fertile land and population was not crammped as India or BD.Moreover India allied with Soviet while Pakistan Allied With USA and most of American allies Had much better Growth than Soviet Allies.

 

Also please tell me How much East Pakistan was economically developed When they got Azaadi?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pakistan said:

Migration continued until 1965 war.

Migration continued till 1951. After that officially migration was over and it was told that Pakistan was not able to bear the burden or more immigrants. After 1951, there was illegal immigration only.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I keep saying, Jinnah is a national hero. He deserves a bharat ratna. He has done more for us heathens than the entire congress from that era put together. 

Go by the actions (and their results), not rhetoric. Otherwise, what's the point of hindsight.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Temujin Khaghan said:

If Hindus really have religious fanaticism, BJP or the earlier janta party would have won every election from independence. But the only 2 elections bjp won are because of anti incumbency vote and not because of religious feeling.

It may be, in case of united India, the BJP type party would have come to power very earlier due to the fear of Islamic fanaticism. This was the fear behind the creation of Pakistan (as has been taught in Pakistan)

 

With the tendencies which I see among the Muslim population, and now also in the Hindu population, then for sure it would have brought a bloody collision and bloody Civil War in the united India sooner or later. 

 

Therefore, creation of Pakistan was good for the Hindus and other minorities of India and also for the Secularists of India. While it made life miserable for the minorities and the Secularists in Pakistan (and even the life of the sects like Shias and Barailvis also became miserable in Pakistan). 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Singh bling said:

West Pakistan is Naturally blessed region.It has very fertile land and population was not crammped as India or BD.Moreover India allied with Soviet while Pakistan Allied With USA and most of American allies Had much better Growth than Soviet Allies.

 

Also please tell me How much East Pakistan was economically developed When they got Azaadi?

Err, united Pakistan's economy was 55-45% in Bangladesh's favor till 1971. This is because Bengal region ( Ganges-Brahmaputra delta) is the most fertile soil in the subcontinent. Punjab has caught up quite a lot due to irrigation and better farming practices, but from time we have recorded history, Bengal has been far more productive than Sindh + Punjab put together. This is seen from Mughal era definitively, where Bengal was the richest province in terms of tax revenue. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, panther said:

Harm for muslims of India not for those of what makes Pakistan now.

Extremism has no limits. 

 

First extremists fight with people of other religions. And then with the sects with in their religion. And then even within the sects. 

 

Reality is,  many times more Muslims have been killed in Pakistan, than in India. Therefore, Muslims in Pakistan are also not in peace. After minorities, the Ahmadies and Shias were targeted. Then Barailvis and Sufis were targeted. Then Taliban started war against State of Pakistan for imposition of Sharia. Then there was a war between different sections and groups of Taliban. Then ISIS came and they declared Taliban too to be Kafirs and killing Taliban left and right. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Alam_dar said:

Extremism has no limits. 

 

First extremists fight with people of other religions. And then with the sects with in their religion. And then even within the sects. 

 

Reality is,  many times more Muslims have been killed in Pakistan, than in India. Therefore, Muslims in Pakistan are also not in peace. After minorities, the Ahmadies and Shias were targeted. Then Barailvis and Sufis were targeted. Then Taliban started war against State of Pakistan for imposition of Sharia. Then there was a war between different sections and groups of Taliban. Then ISIS came and they declared Taliban too to be Kafirs and killing Taliban left and right. 

It's ok our fertility rate more than makes Up for those killed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, panther said:

It's ok our fertility rate more than makes Up for those killed.

And this is why your people will never, in a million years, be as advanced as the developed countries. Because to your mentality, people's lives are a numbers game. When you start valuing life as important, only then can your people start getting out of the stone age and live like civilized people. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thank Jinnah for partition. I'm glad that when I visit Punjab I see signs written in Gurmukhi Punjabi and not that Arabic script which was there before.

 

Although it's a shame that this has crept in slightly due to muslims migrating from UP and Bihar. 

 

There was too much weakness shown by Hindus that allowed such a high number of Muslims to remain after 1947.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

Extremism has no limits. 

 

First extremists fight with people of other religions. And then with the sects with in their religion. And then even within the sects. 

 

Reality is,  many times more Muslims have been killed in Pakistan, than in India. Therefore, Muslims in Pakistan are also not in peace. After minorities, the Ahmadies and Shias were targeted. Then Barailvis and Sufis were targeted. Then Taliban started war against State of Pakistan for imposition of Sharia. Then there was a war between different sections and groups of Taliban. Then ISIS came and they declared Taliban too to be Kafirs and killing Taliban left and right. 

Isn't that part of progress ,whether it be in a theocracy or liberal democracy.People like heston marched for civil rights but by today's standards liberals would hate him .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Pakistan said:

Did not you guys have Hindu rate of growth for much of your history and Pakistan was ahead economically not that it is good benchmark?

Rate of growth had nothing "hindu" about it.  It was about policy choices made by a government which was following the trend - and socialist 'command planning' for economies was in fashion back then.   Its always easy to criticize in hindsight, and people underestimate how difficult it is to properly administer a country of the sheer size and population of India, given the lack of resources - financial and administrative.  

 

Pakistan by contrast had a head start economically because of many factors mentioned above already.   And in a lot of ways, Pakistan can still leapfrog India if it starts getting its act together.  But given the fact that the military mafia boot is firmly on its neck, it aint happening.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Err, united Pakistan's economy was 55-45% in Bangladesh's favor till 1971. This is because Bengal region ( Ganges-Brahmaputra delta) is the most fertile soil in the subcontinent. Punjab has caught up quite a lot due to irrigation and better farming practices, but from time we have recorded history, Bengal has been far more productive than Sindh + Punjab put together. This is seen from Mughal era definitively, where Bengal was the richest province in terms of tax revenue. 

The disparity ratio per capita GDP of West Pakistan to East Pakistan  was 1.6 in 1971.Its population was 45% So West Pakistan Economy was bigger than East Pakistan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Pakistan said:

Did not you guys have Hindu rate of growth for much of your history and Pakistan was ahead economically not that it is good benchmark?

Its got nothing to do with Hinduism, it is related to socialist economic policies.

 

"The term ‘Hindu rate of growth’ was coined by Professor Rajkrishna, an Indian economist, in 1978 to characterize the slow growth and to explain it against the backdrop of socialistic economic policies... 
The word “Hindu” in the term was used by some early economists to imply that the Hindu outlook of fatalism and contentedness was responsible for the slow growth. However many later economists pointed out that the so-called Hindu rate of growth was a result of socialist policies implemented by the by the then staunch secular governments and had nothing to do with Hinduism.... "

........ currentaffairs.gktoday.in/fact-box-hindu-rate-growth-0620137062.html © GKToday

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Err, united Pakistan's economy was 55-45% in Bangladesh's favor till 1971.

what's the source for the 55-45% economy distribution?

 

22 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

This is because Bengal region ( Ganges-Brahmaputra delta) is the most fertile soil in the subcontinent. Punjab has caught up quite a lot due to irrigation and better farming practices, but from time we have recorded history, Bengal has been far more productive than Sindh + Punjab put together. This is seen from Mughal era definitively, where Bengal was the richest province in terms of tax revenue.

There's a reason Punjab was called the Bread basket of India.

 

a little old quote but drives across the message

"With just 1.5 per cent of India's land area, Punjab produces 20 per cent of the country's wheat and 12 per cent of its rice. It provides 60 per cent of the Central government's reserve stocks of wheat and 40 per cent of its reserves of rice, the country's buffer against starvation. Punjab's amazing productivity made it possible for India to feed most of its growing population that tripled from 350 million when the country became independent in 1947 to more than 1.2 billion people today."
- Mira Kamdar

 

Infact, it is Bengal that has caught up since the 1980's wrt to agriculture.  Bengal was still dependent on the central government to meet its food demands as it missed the green revolution.  Punjab, on the other hand, was at the heart of the green revolution has been feeding the nation.

 

Even in its current form today, Punjab is richer than Bengal and outperforms in various indicators

 

"Among major states, people in Delhi and Punjab are the richest with more than 60% of their households in the top wealth quintile "

source

 

Even for GSDP per capita income, Punjab is way higher than Bengal.

 

Btw, where's that list of Bengali Nobel prize winners you keep flaunting in other threads? Still waiting on that for you to enlighten us

 

 

 

Edited by PBN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Hindoos wouldn’t have to worry about the islamic cult if they got their act together, shun superstition, embrace science and collectively build a better country. But they are too busy protecting cows more than humans, interfering in others life by telling them who to marry/what to eat, and marketing gau mutra/dung cakes as the solution to every problem. The dumbest people IMHO out of the 3 major religions 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OP nailed it!!! I for one give Jinnah the highest regards for his impact on future of India. If it wasn’t for him, we would have seen more Kashmir independence pattern in various provinces, large scale riots like Godhra train burning. 

 

Jinnah in a way saved so many Hindu Indians lives. Thank you Jinnah. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, PBN said:

what's the source for the 55-45% economy distribution?

 

There's a reason Punjab was called the Bread basket of India.

 

a little old quote but drives across the message

"With just 1.5 per cent of India's land area, Punjab produces 20 per cent of the country's wheat and 12 per cent of its rice. It provides 60 per cent of the Central government's reserve stocks of wheat and 40 per cent of its reserves of rice, the country's buffer against starvation. Punjab's amazing productivity made it possible for India to feed most of its growing population that tripled from 350 million when the country became independent in 1947 to more than 1.2 billion people today."
- Mira Kamdar

 

 

Yes, this is true post green revolution, as green revolution + irrigation in Punjab has made Punjab hugely productive. However, as a matter of history, Punjab has not had irrigation since Indus valley, all the way till less than 150 years ago. This is a matter of history- we have Mughal chauth records dating back to Akbar all the way to after Aurangzeb. Of all the provinces, Bengal subah produced by far the greatest chauth. 

 

What Punjab has done in the last 100 years is largely irrelevant to the point that Punjab's importance to the Mughals were far more strategic than of material value. 

Edited by Muloghonto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Singh bling said:

The disparity ratio per capita GDP of West Pakistan to East Pakistan  was 1.6 in 1971.Its population was 45% So West Pakistan Economy was bigger than East Pakistan

we are not talking wealth distribution but productivity. In terms of GDP, Bangladesh generated greater GDP and especially Forex than Pakistan did. This is because Pakistan's biggest export commodity till 1971 was jute and Bengal utterly dominates in Jute production, especially Bangladesh.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, PBN said:

As for the topic, it's a win win for Jinnah and Muslims.  Two majority muslim countries in Pakistan and Bangladesh and still a strong muslim population in the 3rd country of India.

You hit the nail on the head. Bangladesh had a sizeable Hindu population post partition but that is dwindling.

 

I just don't understand the mentality of Hindus. They in fact even promote Islam in Bollywood movies these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/30/2018 at 5:06 AM, Muloghonto said:

Yes, this is true post green revolution, as green revolution + irrigation in Punjab has made Punjab hugely productive. However, as a matter of history, Punjab has not had irrigation since Indus valley, all the way till less than 150 years ago. This is a matter of history- we have Mughal chauth records dating back to Akbar all the way to after Aurangzeb. Of all the provinces, Bengal subah produced by far the greatest chauth. 

 

What Punjab has done in the last 100 years is largely irrelevant to the point that Punjab's importance to the Mughals were far more strategic than of material value. 

Regarding Irrigation:

To say there’s been no irrigation in Punjab would be grossly inaccurate.   There’s been mention of various forms of irrigation techniques in Punjab from different sources.  The most widely used being the pulley wheel system i.e the water wheel/Persian wheel.  Sources mention such irrigation methods in Rigveda and the works of Panini also mention irrigation methods around the rivers of Punjab.. likely in the form of early forms of Inundation canals.   Even discarding those ancient sources, there’s definite mention of the water wheels for irrigation  in Punjab around  15th or 16th century if not earlier  for small scale cultivation.    While they have been replaced with modern  tubewell electric pump system now, you can even see some old ones remaining even today in Punjab.

 

Again, more sources mentions of inundation canals  and some form of early perennial canals during the Mughal period as well as during Ranjit Singh’s reign.  While the reason for these irrigation methods may have been for small scale cultivation or to irrigate the royal gardens, there’s  certainly evidence of irrigation methods in Punjab prior to the 150 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, PBN said:

Regarding Irrigation:

To say there’s been no irrigation in Punjab would be grossly inaccurate.   There’s been mention of various forms of irrigation techniques in Punjab from different sources.  The most widely used being the pulley wheel system i.e the water wheel/Persian wheel.  Sources mention such irrigation methods in Rigveda and the works of Panini also mention irrigation methods around the rivers of Punjab.. likely in the form of early forms of Inundation canals.   Even discarding those ancient sources, there’s definite mention of the water wheels for irrigation  in Punjab around  15th or 16th century if not earlier  for small scale cultivation.    While they have been replaced with modern  tubewell electric pump system now, you can even see some old ones remaining even today in Punjab.

No one knows how old the Rig Veda is. And even if Rig veda is true, it still does not change the fact that there has been no evidence of irrigation in Punjab from 300s BC till around 1600s AD. Persian wheel arrives around 1600s AD but massive irrigation canals like which we see in the ganges valley for 1500 years or so, does not appear in Punjab till 1800s AD.  We have Greek sources describing Punjab for eg and they specifically mention that the land is not irrigated. 

31 minutes ago, PBN said:

 

Again, more sources mentions of inundation canals  and some form of early perennial canals during the Mughal period as well as during Ranjit Singh’s reign.  While the reason for these irrigation methods may have been for small scale cultivation or to irrigate the royal gardens, there’s  certainly evidence of irrigation methods in Punjab prior to the 150 years.

we have no evidene whatsoever, for example, of the large scale irrigation canals dug by the Gurjaras & Palas in the ganges valley or massive rain-collection tanks built by them. This is reflected in the taxes collected by Mughals, where Punjab is a low tax revenue province due to its lack of productivity. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/30/2018 at 2:40 PM, Muloghonto said:

we are not talking wealth distribution but productivity. In terms of GDP, Bangladesh generated greater GDP and especially Forex than Pakistan did. This is because Pakistan's biggest export commodity till 1971 was jute and Bengal utterly dominates in Jute production, especially Bangladesh.

 

How Bengal generated greater GDP? If per capita gdp of 45% population is 1.6 and 55% population is 1 then 45% population is generating more gdp than 55%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Singh bling said:

How Bengal generated greater GDP? If per capita gdp of 45% population is 1.6 and 55% population is 1 then 45% population is generating more gdp than 55%.

Again, you are confusing GDP with wealth. If province 1 generates 60% of the nation's GDP and province 2 does 40%, but province 2 takes 60% of the national GDP, then wealth of province 2 will be greater, despite province 1 having greater GDP.

 

On paper, Pakistan had a greater GDP because the bulk majority of military and government spending was in Pakistan, not Bangladesh.

But in terms of GDP generated, Bangladesh generated greater GDP than Pakistan. It is especially relevant when it comes to FOREX, as Bangladesh earned the bulk majority of Pakistan's Forex, due to the fact that Pakistan's biggest FOREX earning item till 1971 was jute and Bangladesh produced 99% of jute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, rageaddict said:

An interesting thread about Jinnah and impact of Pakistan's creation on present day India turned into a useless Punjab v/s Bengal Agricultural output debate. 

muloghonchu always derails every thread he enters

Edited by kira

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Coming back to the original thread topic.

Few facts:

a) per capita income & education levels of muslims in India are below national average

b) per capita income & education levels of muslims in India are higher than in Pakistan

 

This leads to the whole conundrum of power : would you rather be upper class, in relative terms but poorer/less educated in absolute terms, or would you rather be a lower class in relative terms & more educated in absolute terms ? 

 

The answer to this question, determines if Jinnah did more harm than good for the Muslims. In Pakistan, the muslim elites have more power, but are less rich & educated than Indian muslims. 

 

India is also a much free-er society than Pakistan is- we don't kill people for dissing a prophet or an avatar, from the legally sanctioned POV. Yes, mobs in India can get super-charged and commit crimes against the person- same as in Pakistan or practically anywhere in the third world. But the KEY difference, is that Pakistan has state-sanctioned discrimination against religions (Ahmadiyyas for eg) and state sanctioned religious impositions (such as no open dissing of Mohammed). 

 

To me its a no-brainer and i think any NRI/Overseas-Pakistanis, if they have integrity enough, they'd agree that Jinnah disadvantaged the muslims. Because like NRIs and overseas Pakistanis, the Indian muslims lead higher quality of life in actual, real world parameters, even though they are not the social elites of the society.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jinnah,Nehru,Mountbatten were all culprits  in the partition of India

 

They all were equally responsible for one of the largest  human migration and probably the biggest acts of communal violence( on either side )in the history of mankind

 

Now technically that gets Jinnah only part of the blame 

 

However apparently the  Pakistanis and obviously Indians want to give/take all the credit as  Jinnah the architect for the partition 

 

Do the Pakistanis admit that  he gets the blame for all the violence and mass human displacement as well?

 

You can’t have it both ways.

 

Anyway my personal opinion Is all 3 are equally to blame.

Edited by maniac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, maniac said:

Jinnah,Nehru,Mountbatten were all culprits  in the partition of India

 

They all were responsible for one of the largest  human migration and probably the biggest acts of communal violence on either side in the history of mankind

 

Now technically that gets Jinnah only part of the blame 

 

However apparently the  Pakistanis want to give all the credit to Jinnah for the partition 

 

Do the Pakistanis admit that  he gets the blame for all the violence and mass human displacement as well?

 

You can’t have it both ways.

 

Anyway my personal opinion Is all 3 are equally to blame.

How are they all equally to blame ?

 

Gandhi was staunchly against partition- so how does a man get blamed for something he is against ?!?

Partition falls mostly on the Muslim League - not so much as Jinnah himself ( who was the facilitator more than the one who conceptualized it). But amongst the three, Jinnah clearly deserves most of the blame.

 

Nehru too did not really want partition as much as once he saw there was no living harmoniously with the muslim league ( the whole federated India was a nonsense concept that would've ripped India apart in the communist-capitalist struggle of USSR-USA. We'd have been another Congo in that aspect). 

He was in the 'partition is a foregone conclusion, so lets make the best of it for India' camp.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/29/2018 at 2:37 AM, panther said:

Harm for muslims of India not for those of what makes Pakistan now.

I know you are trolling, but no. Of all the places in the sub continent, India is the safest for Muslims. And also the place where Muslims actively look forward to a better future.

We're happy our grand parents chose India. Most of us wouldn't change that for anything in the world.

Edited by Mariyam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Muslim ruled over Indian Hindus for almost 1000 years and Jinah anticipated of a backlash from Hindus once Brits would leave. Still he tried his best to mingle with Hindus and others in united India and was not in favor of partition earlier. But after 30 years of so he had no hope , hence worked for partition. What we're seeing now in Modi's India, particularly what happened in Delhi showed he was right. To be honest Pakistan did not turn out 100%  what Jinnah imagined but still Muslims in Pakistan are far happier than I guess Muslim in India in Modi's era.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, First class said:

Muslim ruled over Indian Hindus for almost 1000 years and Jinah anticipated of a backlash from Hindus once Brits would leave. Still he tried his best to mingle with Hindus and others in united India and was not in favor of partition earlier. But after 30 years of so he had no hope , hence worked for partition. What we're seeing now in Modi's India, particularly what happened in Delhi showed he was right. To be honest Pakistan did not turn out 100%  what Jinnah imagined but still Muslims in Pakistan are far happier than I guess Muslim in India in Modi's era.

Spoken like a true Jihadi turd. You *ing vermins killed more Muslims in 1971 than literally any other nation post WW2 and still have the cheek to post this bollocks here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, First class said:

Muslim ruled over Indian Hindus for almost 1000 years and Jinah anticipated of a backlash from Hindus once Brits would leave. Still he tried his best to mingle with Hindus and others in united India and was not in favor of partition earlier. But after 30 years of so he had no hope , hence worked for partition. What we're seeing now in Modi's India, particularly what happened in Delhi showed he was right. To be honest Pakistan did not turn out 100%  what Jinnah imagined but still Muslims in Pakistan are far happier than I guess Muslim in India in Modi's era.

Secular/Liberal India is all bullshit now with the likes of Modi. You have BJP's leaders openly calling out to "exchange" people on the basis of religion. 

 

It's good that partiton was made back then on way too many financial and non-financial grounds. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, First class said:

Muslim ruled over Indian Hindus for almost 1000 years and Jinah anticipated of a backlash from Hindus once Brits would leave. Still he tried his best to mingle with Hindus and others in united India and was not in favor of partition earlier. But after 30 years of so he had no hope , hence worked for partition. What we're seeing now in Modi's India, particularly what happened in Delhi showed he was right. To be honest Pakistan did not turn out 100%  what Jinnah imagined but still Muslims in Pakistan are far happier than I guess Muslim in India in Modi's era.

Is this what they teach you in madarsa there ?....that you guys are decendent of Turks and subcontinent Muslims were came from turky/Afg/ Arab and not converted forcibly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Autonomous said:

Modi is basically "India's very own Zia-ul-Haq"

 

An extremist who was able to damage our expenditure norms, culture and progressive behavior. 

Ok have fun in ur gutteristan. Islamist jihadisare curse for entire world. How can India be untouchable of it. India is still secular only issue is islamist jihadis they are vermins for whole world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Autonomous said:

Modi is basically "India's very own Zia-ul-Haq"

 

An extremist who was able to damage our expenditure norms, culture and progressive behavior. 

Progressive behavior? Wasn't your nation was carved out when a pork eating mass murderer Jinnah unleashed terror through Direct Action Day? Prior to Zia-ul-Haq becoming President, didn't your "progressive behavior" included butchering 3 million of your own citizens in 1971? Since then your progressive behavior has involved becoming the terror back office of the world as well as being China's pet bitch. Lets not even get into how your "progressive" laws deal with minorities. I know you lot can't hide your glee at what's happening in Delhi but bsdk apni aukaat mein raho.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

Progressive behavior? Wasn't your nation was carved out when a pork eating mass murderer Jinnah unleashed terror through Direct Action Day? Prior to Zia-ul-Haq becoming President, didn't your "progressive behavior" included butchering 3 million of your own citizens in 1971? Since then your progressive behavior has involved becoming the terror back office of the world as well as being China's pet bitch. Lets not even get into how your "progressive" laws deal with minorities. I know you lot can't hide your glee at what's happening in Delhi but bsdk apni aukaat mein raho.

Your country is going downhill with your love affair for Modi. 

 

Pakistan was much better before Zia regime. 

 

Anyways, goodluck to you with your delusions for new india. 

 

You cannot even talk with manners.

 

 

Edited by Autonomous

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, raki05 said:

Ok have fun in ur gutteristan. Islamist jihadisare curse for entire world. How can India be untouchable of it. India is still secular only issue is islamist jihadis they are vermins for whole world.

India is anything but secular right now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Autonomous said:

Your country is going downhill with your love affair for Modi. 

 

Pakistan was much better before Zia regime. 

 

Anyways, goodluck to you with your delusions for new india. 

 

You cannot even talk with manners.

 

 

I don't give a rats ass about Modi and neither do most of the people around me. People largely think of him as a lesser evil compared to Kangress.  If you think Pakistan was "much better" before Zia-ul-Haq when it was butchering 3 million Bengali Muslims that says a lot about the rotten standards set by Pakistan, doesn't it? Good luck being Chinkistan. I only talk in the language that is best suited for the topic and gets the point across. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

I don't give a rats ass about Modi and neither do most of the people around me. People largely think of him as a lesser evil compared to Kangress.  If you think Pakistan was "much better" before Zia-ul-Haq when it was butchering 3 million Bengali Muslims that says a lot about the rotten standards set by Pakistan, doesn't it? Good luck being Chinkistan. I only talk in the language that is best suited for the topic and gets the point across. 

"stats" for india illustrate a contradictory story to the one that you try to narrate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...