Re: If there had been no Partition in 1947.
where was this majority for 800 years muslim rule in india under muslim rulers...!!!!
they rule only when opponent is weak..when opponent is powerful..they become honey...a historical fact....
Re: If there had been no Partition in 1947.
^So by that token, occupations around the world are justified.
Re: If there had been no Partition in 1947.
^^ no..just saying taht why he giving false coluration to the history....
Re: If there had been no Partition in 1947.
I am going by the current condition of Muslim in India...
Gujrat massacre would have been larger. More Muslims would have been killed.
More poor Muslims with lack of education
Second class citizenship
Mixing of hindus and Muslim in marriages which is against Quran and Sunnah of the prophet
Some would do better if they start believing they were Hindustani first and Muslim second like many prominent Indian Muslims. I rather be in a Muslim country no matter how bad it is.
Re: If there had been no Partition in 1947.
^^ no..just saying taht why he giving false coluration to the history....
Why is it false? Muslims did invade India, whatever the reasons may be at that time.
Re: If there had been no Partition in 1947.
as much as i'd like to believe in unity, i wouldnt want to live in india and to tell you the truth ive not forgiven hindus and sikhs for the partition massacres or gujrat riots.
im happy to belong to the land of the pure*
*disputed territory actually
Re: If there had been no Partition in 1947.
and how did u imply that?....Fact is a faction of your jamaat opposed partition, coz village after village were getting converted!!!..wait.. yes...steps had already taken in that direction nearly 600 years ago. Afterall india was a islamic state(atleast partially)
When someone says one step closer, that means they already took steps in that direction... Simple English.
What is my jamaat? Dont know what you talking about there...
Re: If there had been no Partition in 1947.
^^jamaat e islami. yes..u r right. steps are already in that direction...infact through out the world.
Re: If there had been no Partition in 1947.
Divine-light: It is a historical fact that Muslim invaders ruled major parts of india for several hundred years. But by the time the British came, they were losing their grip and the Marathas, Sikhs and other parts were revolting against them.
The British exploited our weakness / infighting and ruled us for the next 200 years.
The world had changed after the 2nd world war and pressure was being put by the USA on Britian & other powers to relinquish their colonys.
Democracy based on majority rule was going to be the way Governments were to be set up. That is why I mentioned above that the Hindu's would have wanted to rule based on majority, whereas the Muslims would have resisted ( based on past glories.)
Re: If there had been no Partition in 1947.
^^jamaat e islami. yes..u r right. steps are already in that direction...infact through out the world.
What the hell makes you think im part of Jamaat Islami? Have you ever read a single one of my posts?!?!
You really starting to border on the ridiculous here...
I might aswell accuse you of being a BJP and RSS... Are you?!?!
As for the rest of the world, I havent seen any steps in that direction... The Muslims I know, stick to themselves and dont bother anyone. I think your exagerating things a bit.. Emotion can do that to people.
In fact, when was the last time Muslim came to you and tried to force you to convert?!?!?
Anyways, if you want to remain on amicable terms, I suggest we not make idiotic stereotyped accusations.
Just because I dont agree with a thing you have to say in regards to Pak Indian relations, doesnt make me3 a religous extremist... Thats just your bias speaking.
Re: If there had been no Partition in 1947.
What the hell makes you think im part of Jamaat Islami?
when i said "your" jamaat...didn't mean it that u r a part of it. so chill !!
Re: If there had been no Partition in 1947.
I am going by the current condition of Muslim in India... Gujrat massacre would have been larger. More Muslims would have been killed. More poor Muslims with lack of education Second class citizenship Mixing of hindus and Muslim in marriages which is against Quran and Sunnah of the prophet Some would do better if they start believing they were Hindustani first and Muslim second like many prominent Indian Muslims. I rather be in a Muslim country no matter how bad it is.
excellent post..i fully agree...some foolish muslims of india belive that the are first indians ..then muslims....and i cannot accept ..anyone ruling me and looking down upon me just that he has majority....!!!!!
do you want to say Umar(ra) also INVADED persia..and Rome .....and if umar(ra) invaded can you tell me why he invaded those countries and for which reason ??????
The British exploited our weakness / infighting and ruled us for the next 200 years.
The world had changed after the 2nd world war and pressure was being put by the USA on Britian & other powers to relinquish their colonys.
Democracy based on majority rule was going to be the way Governments were to be set up. That is why I mentioned above that the Hindu's would have wanted to rule based on majority, whereas the Muslims would have resisted ( based on past glories.)
Oh sir..i am not in amood of laughing !!!!!
you are a genius man..dont give such ridiculous comments.....
majority has a right to rule minority ...like hindus and christians are living in Pakistan....like Justice Bhagwandas has the most respected and poerful personality today....they are not raped..burnt alive ..and tortured ..etc etc....
We have seen your MAJORITY RULE in 1937-1939 6 provincial governments....you did what with muslims in these 2 years..go and read Pir Pur report ..or many others.....
thats why inn 1940 jinnah demanded a seperate land..as we experinced what you did with us in these 2 years....
and 20 crore mulsims of india are experincing ...how they have no chance to excel in any field..in any field...nothing..they are poor..no business..top class jobs..no healtha nd education facilities..Go and read Sachhar Report of this present government ....
man ..you cannot fool the whole world ..in this computer age....Muslims are also living in minority in US ..UK...etc..but atleast they are not being tortured ..raped ..and burnt alive ..as they are being killed and raped .in Gujrat by CM ....Moodi.....they face some racism abroad ..but not such horrible conditions....
which democracy and which majority ou are talkig about !!!!!!
thats why ..i always think that 20 crore muslism of insdia should revolt against india and demad a seperate land inside india..so that they can break the chainss of slavery of 60 years....
Re: If there had been no Partition in 1947.
when i said "your" jamaat...didn't mean it that u r a part of it. so chill !!
When someone says YOUR.. Thats generally means they are refering to YOU...
Re: If there had been no Partition in 1947.
Divine: Open your mind - not all Hindu's are bad, just as not all Muslims are bad.
There will always be some extremists in our societies. The qestion is - do you want to be known as one of the extremists or one of the moderate ones?.
From your 'hate' filled posts on this discussion board, you are dangerously close to being labelled as an extremist.
Re: If there had been no Partition in 1947.
Divine: Open your mind - not all Hindu's are bad, just as not all Muslims are bad.
There will always be some extremists in our societies. The qestion is - do you want to be known as one of the extremists or one of the moderate ones?.
From your 'hate' filled posts on this discussion board, you are dangerously close to being labelled as an extremist.
sir ..i have never said that all hindus are bad..i am jsut telling you the extremism in indian society ..and its after effects...
the hindus live with much better peacer in pakistan then 20 crore mulsims in india..you can yourself ask that which society is more extremism oriented......
and my posts are not hate filed..but tell the bitter reality....how much you put curtains over that..reality will reamuin as reality....
Re: If there had been no Partition in 1947.
LOCK THE THREAD!
lock the thread? what's the thread done? it's just a damned thread.
look around, there's worse things that need to be locked up. don't look too far though.
Re: If there had been no Partition in 1947.
If there was no partition
Film industry in Lahore would be thriving and competing with Mumbai
Sindh culture would be intact and not destroyed by large scale Muslim immigration to Karachi.
Punjabi and Bengali would be on par with Hindi/Urdu (population wise)
Millions of people would not be uprooted and missing their home where they were raised.
Millions of people would not have been killed.
Re: If there had been no Partition in 1947.
If there was no partition
Film industry in Lahore would be thriving and competing with Mumbai
we have no interest inm kan*** indian fil industry !!!!!
[quote]
Sindh culture would be intact and not destroyed by large scale Muslim immigration to Karachi.
[/quote]
There is nothing with sindh culture ..it wasalready changed in 712 AD when Muhammad Biun Qaim defeated Raja Dahir ....and spreaded the lights of islam here....from then ..only islamic culture is there like in Multan ..the oldest ,osque is ther etc etc...
[quote]
Millions of people would not be uprooted and missing their home where they were raised.
[/quote]
My family is originally from Batala..District Gordaspur...but i have no nostalgia of that....i damn care about Batala Watala.....now ..my everything is pakistan..
[quote]
Millions of people would not have been killed.
[/quote]
millions of muslims been killed as they just denadeda seperate land..why hindus and sikhs weer not willing to divide this sub continent and killed them ???
Re: If there had been no Partition in 1947.
I am in no way advocating joining back only a bit of fun analysis as to what could have been the state of South east Asia? (Good & bad)
- It would have been a very very big country, with the largest population in the world, povery, hunger with racial & religious problems.
- To appease the minority's to stay with India - Jinnah would have been the first Prime Minister (& Governor General).
- Ofcourse if there was not partition, there would have been no mass killings or refugees.
- If there was no mass killings or refugees - the hate factor would have been minimal, say pre - partition level.
- Urdu (or Hindustani) would have been the Official language.
- Hyderabad, Kashmir problem would have never arisen. What do you think...........
Although it might sound counter intuitive, but I would think that religion would had been a bigger part of the united India than it is now. India probably would have a ruling Hindu party. And India would be more backwards than it is now and there would be many many more riots as well.
So thank god and thank the queen for the partition.