'Pakistanis themselves give a bad name to Pakistan and Islam,'

[mishra]

On 4/16/2017 at 6:01 PM, Gollum said:

Malala is a true hero 

After getting the Nobel, The true Hero has nothing to say in case of Asia Bibi blasphemy case where a fellow sisters family is in threat.

 

LOL. How quickly whole world was made Chewtiya. She is just as die hard Muslim as anyone else vising her local mosque

[Clarke]

1 hour ago, mishra said:

After getting the Nobel, The true Hero has nothing to say in case of Asia Bibi blasphemy case where a fellow sisters family is in threat.

 

LOL. How quickly whole world was made Chewtiya. She is just as die hard Muslim as anyone else vising her local mosque

Are you serious ? The padosi govt & fauj is negotiating with the jahils and u want Malala to speak against the same mob ? How could one not blame the govt/army as opposed to Malala ?

 

Regardless of her religious beliefs, she or any other ordinary citizen shouldn't be expected to speak out against the mullahs. Doing so is immensly courageous or maybe foolhardy depending on the consequences but not doing so is not to be judged on every step of the way.

[Ranvir]

Killing people for blasphemy and lynching people for cow slaughter are equally as stupid as each other. Both rules show that the people truly don't value the more important aspects of life. There is no evidence that God exists or that Muhammad was a messenger, nor is there evidence that cows are special.

 

As for Kashmir, the Hindu king may have chosen to join India but the vast majority of the people would most likely have wanted to join Pakistan. The best solution would have been to give Muslim majority Kashmir to Pakistan and Hindu majority Jammu to India. Then there would have been no reason to have continual wars over this region. Has the price of war been worth it for either nation?

 

Indians should not get so happy at Pakistan's problems because India is not much better. It's like saying a broken leg is better than a broken back.

 

If you want to improve in life you have to look at people who are better than you not compare yourself to people who are at your level or below.

[mishra]

6 hours ago, Clarke said:

Are you serious ? The padosi govt & fauj is negotiating with the jahils and u want Malala to speak against the same mob ? How could one not blame the govt/army as opposed to Malala ?

 

Regardless of her religious beliefs, she or any other ordinary citizen shouldn't be expected to speak out against the mullahs. Doing so is immensly courageous or maybe foolhardy depending on the consequences but not doing so is not to be judged on every step of the way.

Fauj isnt human right activists. Malala is Nobel Laurette, champion of human rights and women's rights, a beacon of hope for that part of world. Hence as a adult, why can she not now?

 

[mishra]

1 hour ago, Ranvir said:

As for Kashmir, the Hindu king may have chosen to join India but the vast majority of the people would most likely have wanted to join Pakistan. The best solution would have been to give Muslim majority Kashmir to Pakistan and Hindu majority Jammu to India. Then there would have been no reason to have continual wars over this region. Has the price of war been worth it for either nation?

why atre you going tangent on every topic. Hindu king wanted more time to talk to its people. Pakistan was in rush. It decided to attack the king. India sent its army for protection of kingdom on request of king. If vast majority wants to join hell hole, why not Pakistan fulfills the UN mandate of plebiscite on Kashmir. Why is it so scared that vast majority may end up joining India?

[Ranvir]

32 minutes ago, mishra said:

why atre you going tangent on every topic. Hindu king wanted more time to talk to its people. Pakistan was in rush. It decided to attack the king. India sent its army for protection of kingdom on request of king. If vast majority wants to join hell hole, why not Pakistan fulfills the UN mandate of plebiscite on Kashmir. Why is it so scared that vast majority may end up joining India?

You clearly don't understand the Muslim mentality. The Kashmiris would ideally like to have independence but if given a choice between India and Pakistan they would choose Pakistan. Why would they want to be ruled by non believers? The King would always have chosen India because he was a Hindu but the people themselves would rather join Pakistan. There are also stories of the King killing Muslim people in his land.

 

What's the point in having people in your country who don't want to live with you?

 

India would have been much better off having a bare minimum amount of a Muslim population. Like 1-3%.

 

[mishra]

8 minutes ago, Ranvir said:

You clearly don't understand the Muslim mentality. The Kashmiris would ideally like to have independence but if given a choice between India and Pakistan they would choose Pakistan. Why would they want to be ruled by non believers? The King would always have chosen India because he was a Hindu but the people themselves would rather join Pakistan. There are also stories of the King killing Muslim people in his land.

 

What's the point in having people in your country who don't want to live with you?

 

India would have been much better off having a bare minimum amount of a Muslim population. Like 1-3%.

 

Wtf u are on abbout. At the time of partition indian government and pakistani governments talked to the respective rulers. 

Who gives a eff about what common man thinks. Once as a nation, you sign document with another nation. Then thats that. Just because now its bjp government it cant change the signed documents at will of people unless there is option.

btw, its muslim workd which is killing most muslims even now. Same was true in past too.

[rahulrulezz]

3 minutes ago, mishra said:

Wtf u are on abbout. At the time of partition indian government and pakistani governments talked to the respective rulers. 

Who gives a eff about what common man thinks. Once as a nation, you sign document with another nation. Then thats that. Just because now its bjp government it cant change the signed documents at will of people unless there is option.

btw, its muslim workd which is killing most muslims even now. Same was true in past too.

Rather than abusing him, atleast understand what he is trying to say.. He is not being an anti-Indian..its rather opposite... He is just suggesting what would have been good for India in a long run...

[someone]

14 minutes ago, Ranvir said:

You clearly don't understand the Muslim mentality. The Kashmiris would ideally like to have independence but if given a choice between India and Pakistan they would choose Pakistan. Why would they want to be ruled by non believers? The King would always have chosen India because he was a Hindu but the people themselves would rather join Pakistan. There are also stories of the King killing Muslim people in his land.

 

What's the point in having people in your country who don't want to live with you?

 

India would have been much better off having a bare minimum amount of a Muslim population. Like 1-3%.

 

That time has gone. Also how can you ignore Kashmiri pandits? Next, Today Kashmir is a strategic point. You do realise our security agencies say 1/3 of our districts are not in our governance so the breaking India forces are out there and any Kashmir breakup will led to a domino effect.

[mishra]

14 minutes ago, rahulrulezz said:

Rather than abusing him, atleast understand what he is trying to say.. He is not being an anti-Indian..its rather opposite... He is just suggesting what would have been good for India in a long run...

No, I am not abusing him. I am trying to make simple point. No one cares about common man in street. Its signed documents between heads that matter.

 

But as i said. Giving the example Of Malala. Pakistani will never change. 

[Clarke]

2 hours ago, mishra said:

Fauj isnt human right activists. Malala is Nobel Laurette, champion of human rights and women's rights, a beacon of hope for that part of world. Hence as a adult, why can she not now?

She was a teen advocate for education of girls, that's it. She got shot unfortunately and that gained attention, but she isn't Nelson Mandela despite getting a Nobel or whatever. To begin with, I would not expect much of her. 

 

I was trying to suggest that she'd not want to be the target of all Islamic hardliners (as opposed to the few that shot her) by coming out in favor of blasphemy victims. Additionally, if she spoke of Kashmir in a balanced manner, the entire country would be after her as a liberal fascist traitor or whatever they can come up with. 

 

Their fauj is solely responsible for the state of affairs including islamization, the bigoted legislation and its supporters AND they are the only ones who can face these droves of jahils. It is their job not to surrender to the blackmail from the fanatics and unfortunately they are caving in. 

 

Edited November 7, 2018 by Clarke

[Ranvir]

1 hour ago, mishra said:

No, I am not abusing him. I am trying to make simple point. No one cares about common man in street. Its signed documents between heads that matter.

 

But as i said. Giving the example Of Malala. Pakistani will never change. 

Yeah a ruler who was a minority in the land he ruled. It’s like India having a Muslim prime minister without a vote. The majority simply would not like it.

[mishra]

16 hours ago, Ranvir said:

Yeah a ruler who was a minority in the land he ruled. It’s like India having a Muslim prime minister without a vote. The majority simply would not like it.

There wass nothing called majority  minority in 1947. It was English, India Pakistan and various rulers. Maharaja of Kashmir was either selfish or naive to have waited for that long. He wanted to rule without understanding that India may respect the wishes, but Pakistan wont. Pakistan is dangerous neighbor with expansionist mindset. A neighbor Like Bhutan or Nepal can not exist with Pakistan. Hari Singh couldn't see it

 

So had he agreed accession before that, there wouldn't have been anything. There were various places with Muslim majority which became India and have no problem similar to Kashmir.

 

Now documents are signed, Like Sardar Patel said at the time. If India is forced to defend the boundry we not hesitate to defend the boundry.

 

You are aware but just to remind, Anyone who didnt wanted to stay in India, Pakistan welcomed them with open arms. Kasmiri Muslims had a choice at the time.

 

Now we have lost so much blood at partition, Pakistan and Pakistanis wont get anything but bullets for their bullets. Simple as that.

 

So, its document signed which are valued. Look at CPEC. IK went to Begging assuming that he can renegotiate with Chinese Premier who probably pointed him to re-read the document.

 

India Pakistan have signed Shimla agreement, where it says No UN involvement is needed. So Pakistan has alltready sold the right of Kashmiri self determination. Now it can go and bark at hundredth of places but, everyone knows. At the end, Its agreement and accord signed.

 

If Pakistan bypasses bilateral Shimla accord, that simply gives sign to whole world that Pakistan must be cornered to accept as they tend to forget once they leave the meeting room

 

[mishra]

17 hours ago, Clarke said:

 

Their fauj is solely responsible for the state of affairs including islamization, the bigoted legislation and its supporters AND they are the only ones who can face these droves of jahils. It is their job not to surrender to the blackmail from the fanatics and unfortunately they are caving in. 

 

Fauj itself is Jahil. Long back, I was going through a video on youtube about Kargil. There was this Pakistani Army even with top officers  attending it with family. A soldier/terrorist whatever you call it was narrating how inhumanely he gave capt Kalia's death and post death treatment to his body. And the eff were cheering

https://www.indiatoday.in/india/north/story/capt-kalia-pakistan-soldier-narrates-story-of-his-encounter-with-kargil-martyr-capt-kalia-172280-2013-07-31

 

[mishra]

^ loos like video has been edited since then. It had details of how he dismembered his body

Edited November 8, 2018 by mishra

[Mariyam]

Pakistanis are like Indian politicians. 99% give a bad name to the rest.

 

_{I kid. I kid}

[Ranvir]

On 11/8/2018 at 11:15 AM, mishra said:

There wass nothing called majority  minority in 1947. It was English, India Pakistan and various rulers. Maharaja of Kashmir was either selfish or naive to have waited for that long. He wanted to rule without understanding that India may respect the wishes, but Pakistan wont. Pakistan is dangerous neighbor with expansionist mindset. A neighbor Like Bhutan or Nepal can not exist with Pakistan. Hari Singh couldn't see it

 

So had he agreed accession before that, there wouldn't have been anything. There were various places with Muslim majority which became India and have no problem similar to Kashmir.

 

Now documents are signed, Like Sardar Patel said at the time. If India is forced to defend the boundry we not hesitate to defend the boundry.

 

You are aware but just to remind, Anyone who didnt wanted to stay in India, Pakistan welcomed them with open arms. Kasmiri Muslims had a choice at the time.

 

Now we have lost so much blood at partition, Pakistan and Pakistanis wont get anything but bullets for their bullets. Simple as that.

 

So, its document signed which are valued. Look at CPEC. IK went to Begging assuming that he can renegotiate with Chinese Premier who probably pointed him to re-read the document.

 

India Pakistan have signed Shimla agreement, where it says No UN involvement is needed. So Pakistan has alltready sold the right of Kashmiri self determination. Now it can go and bark at hundredth of places but, everyone knows. At the end, Its agreement and accord signed.

 

If Pakistan bypasses bilateral Shimla accord, that simply gives sign to whole world that Pakistan must be cornered to accept as they tend to forget once they leave the meeting room

 

The difference is that Kashmir is a border state like Punjab and Bengal. The whole point of partition was to partition the current border areas according to demographics.

 

Even if Hari Singh continued to rule as an independent ruler after partition the Muslims would eventually have revolted against him. No way would they want to be ruled by a Hindu when they are the majority.

[mishra]

12 minutes ago, Ranvir said:

The difference is that Kashmir is a border state like Punjab and Bengal. The whole point of partition was to partition the current border areas according to demographics.

 

Even if Hari Singh continued to rule as an independent ruler after partition the Muslims would eventually have revolted against him. No way would they want to be ruled by a Hindu when they are the majority.

Ok, info is available, but let me clarify one more time.

there was India. There was Pakistan and there were 5 princely states.

The five princely states leaders signed doc of anexation with either India or Pakistan,

Only in case of Hari Singh, he signed when Kashmir was allrewdy attacked by Pakistan. Boundry state means nothing.

Kashmir has been kept backward by those various clause in doc signed during Hari Singhs rule. Else it would have been a bubbling economy.

btw, There is no question in plebiscite which will say whether Kashmiri can become independent. The question agreed as per UN will be, Who they want to join. India or Pakistan.

Now, all studies Pakistani, Indian and Independent one point that For above question , people will vote for the country they are part off.

Thats true reason, why Pakistan doesnt want referendum. Cos it will be settled for good

[Vilander]

On 4/15/2017 at 9:54 PM, Sajid_Rana said:

Blashemy is sensitive topic for Muslims just like slaughtering cows for beef for Hindus.

many hindus eat beef. are some muslims liberal about religious freedom and dont call everything blasphemous  ? i highly doubt it. It has got to do with a very narrow interpretation of your holy book, and how islam dislikes reform in their theology. 

[Vilander]

4 hours ago, Ranvir said:

The difference is that Kashmir is a border state like Punjab and Bengal. The whole point of partition was to partition the current border areas according to demographics.

 

Even if Hari Singh continued to rule as an independent ruler after partition the Muslims would eventually have revolted against him. No way would they want to be ruled by a Hindu when they are the majority.

how is this relevant to what he said ?