Religious clashes erupt in India

[ravage]

ya you take them in ur country and really with the above post your mindset is reflected. No matter how much ppl are educated some of them will have this sort of mentality.

why would we need more Muslims? I was speaking of the particular dynamics in India that cause the need for more Muslims to protect against mostly one-sided communal violence.

@vineshvk

So what was his goal? Creation of a muslim majority country was his aim. He succeeded and his brothers failed him. When will you guys learn that religion cannot guarantee uniformity and nationhood.

Im not sure how he failed to create a Muslim majority country, and whether that even was his aim exactly . Perhaps you can enlighten.

edit: i see you're saying his brothers failed him. do you mean to suggest that Pakistan isnt a Muslim majority country? regardless of whether those following him allowed unfettered Muslim immigration from India or limited it after 10 years, Pakistan remains a Muslim majority country. furthermore more divisions beyond even the 2 nations dont really support the 1 nation idea :)

[quote]

Those who suspect loyal muslims ( majority of them are) are fools themselves and would be marginalized as well.

[/quote]

unfortunately, as the article, and myriad events of communal violence show the divide is vast between what should be and what is

[quote]

You need to use limited force to suppress the hardcore elements of the group, and then allow for pacification in terms of power sharing to bring them to the main stream political system and make them part of India.
India as a nation cannot be classified as a single entity having a uniform religious and cultural population. Each and every group contribute to the nation. When there was the punjab problem it was the Punjabi's themselves who fought against the separatist with active help from other part of India. But not one single group benefited or exploited any other group. Whenever such tendency occur then democracy allows for correction.
[/QUOTE]

The above arguments could also be utilized for the British Empire. There was more or less a democratic setup post the 1920s, or a trend towards it. Furthermore many revolts were suppressed by a British army that had a significant native component to it.

What you are outlining is an rough guide for successful (atleast for a period) imperialism.

[mercenary2k]

@chintu_bhopali

Dont worry dude..we know how to handle scums.

but soon the scum (aka muslims) will outnumber you

[lakkis25]

@mercenary2k

but soon the scum (aka muslims) will outnumber you

[chintu_bhopali]

@mercenary2k

but soon the scum (aka muslims) will outnumber you

they may do it in numbers(quantity) but wont be in quality.

[lakkis25]

@chintu_bhopali

they may do it in numbers(quantity) but wont be in quality.

:biggthumb

[teggy]

touche again...teggy might like it :D

Instead of making sly comments, how about talking productively and contributing to the thread?

[infiniti]

@teggy

Instead of making sly comments, how about talking productively and contributing to the thread?

I apologize for the comments, but I do not think most of the posters here are talking productively and contributing to the thread. You should know that. By the way, I replied to your verbal warning in a pm.

[vineshvk]

@ravage

Im not sure how he failed to create a Muslim majority country, and whether that even was his aim exactly . Perhaps you can enlighten.

edit: i see you're saying his brothers failed him. do you mean to suggest that Pakistan isnt a Muslim majority country? regardless of whether those following him allowed unfettered Muslim immigration from India or limited it after 10 years, Pakistan remains a Muslim majority country. furthermore more divisions beyond even the 2 nations dont really support the 1 nation idea :)

he did create it but lost it and got divided for the exact reason that u cited below.

@ravage

unfortunately, as the article, and myriad events of communal violence show the divide is vast between what should be and what is

Creation of Pakistan plays a major role in these divide wherever they exist.

@ravage

The above arguments could also be utilized for the British Empire. There was more or less a democratic setup post the 1920s, or a trend towards it. Furthermore many revolts were suppressed by a British army that had a significant native component to it.

What you are outlining is an rough guide for successful (atleast for a period) imperialism.

I never saw an Indian becoming a british prime minister. Indians outnumbered the white british didnt they. Was that a democracy.
It was selective democracy build solely for exploiting Indias natural resources.
India as a nation has no one single identity and hence each group is equally capable of governing the other. It is not perfect but it is indeed a federation of individual nation co-existing for good of all and for the betterment of all.

[ravage]

@vineshvk

he did create it but lost it and got divided for the exact reason that u cited below.

Im not sure why thats relevant wrt two nation theory, which just postulates that Hindus and Muslims cant leave in peace together, not that Muslims will stay in peace if they are in one country.

obviously that was specialized to a society where there were a significant number of Hindus and Muslims living together. That a Muslim country which split up isnt a model of such a society. A country with Hindus and Muslims living together and frequently engaging in bloodbaths is.

[quote]

Creation of Pakistan plays a major role in these divide wherever they exist.

[/quote]

Many, many riots along communal lines preceded the division, dating back centuries, but particularly strong between 1900 to partition.

[quote]

I never saw an Indian becoming a british prime minister. Indians outnumbered the white british didnt they. Was that a democracy.

[/quote]

It was a democracy in a state within the British Empire. The sovereign was British but there were elected representatives capable of passing laws and an elected executive capable of implementing them.

[quote]

It was selective democracy build solely for exploiting Indias natural resources.
India as a nation has no one single identity and hence each group is equally capable of governing the other. It is not perfect but it is indeed a federation of individual nation co-existing for good of all and for the betterment of all.
[/QUOTE]

One could again make the same argument about the British Empire, minus the fact that the sovereign was British. Kashmiries, for example, may see Indians as outsiders who only introduce democracy for the purpose of governing them (i.e. retaining control of them) and exploiting their natural resources.

[vineshvk]

Im not sure why thats relevant wrt two nation theory, which just postulates that Hindus and Muslims cant leave in peace together, not that Muslims will stay in peace if they are in one country.

I dont think that is true. Didnt you ever wonder if it had to do with paranoia of few landlords in west pakistan having to loose their jaaggir. Some of the trouble Pakistan still face seem to have come from these so called lord of the people.

@ravage

obviously that was specialized to a society where there were a significant number of Hindus and Muslims living together. That a Muslim country which split up isnt a model of such a society. A country with Hindus and Muslims living together and frequently engaging in bloodbaths is.

Muslims will not have a problem if it was a muslim majority and a hindu minority. Is that so. Many centuries, muslim kings ruled much of what is India.
A country formed out just because the majority are a particular religion and then having a bloody partition themselves is a point to ponder as to how a nation can sustain itself by just religion.

@ravage

Many, many riots along communal lines preceded the division, dating back centuries, but particularly strong between 1900 to partition.

Did creation of Pakistan solved that problem. Half of muslim population is still in India. How can you justify a two nation theory if other nation has a huge minority. Can I call those people who migrated as opportunist leaving the rest at the mercy of Hindus.

@ravage

It was a democracy in a state within the British Empire. The sovereign was British but there were elected representatives capable of passing laws and an elected executive capable of implementing them.

Not all laws and India will not be able to challenge any laws passed by the british parliament pertaining to India.

@ravage

One could again make the same argument about the British Empire, minus the fact that the sovereign was British. Kashmiries, for example, may see Indians as outsiders who only introduce democracy for the purpose of governing them (i.e. retaining control of them) and exploiting their natural resources.

Again a Kashmiri can rule the whole India while an Indian in India could not have been the prime minister of England and preside over the British empire.They had two rules, one for the white british and second for the brown british in India (indians). In India there is only one rule. India is formed by the states and each state contribute to the center. Without the states India is nothing.

[truth_finder]

Re: Religious clashes erupt in India

What my envy and nauhgty sister (neighbour) want ? she want to find consolation in the dream that her paternal home is about to broke.... about to shatter into pieces . Why such a sinister dream? Because she know that her parting was not good for anything except her mad extremist childern (mullahs) and their powerful brothers (Army). She know the fact that she retarded the progress of the entire region including that of her majority childern . But istead of accepting the fault and working for the well being of her family (including that of her paternal family) she was creating all sort of problems ,thinking of making new problems (read the hanibolic comments). She still dont know the saying " all who take the sword will perish by the sword". May god help her

[shawaiz_K]

Half of muslim population is still in India. How can you justify a two nation theory if other nation has a huge minority. Can I call those people who migrated as opportunist leaving the rest at the mercy of Hindus.

Two Nation Theory was a bogus ideology, it's unbelievable that some people still believe in this non-sense.

FYI, only 1/3rd Muslim population of the British India now lives in India.

[shawaiz_K]

I Did creation of Pakistan solved that problem. Half of muslim population is still in India. How can you justify a two nation theory if other nation has a huge minority. Can I call those people who migrated as opportunist leaving the rest at the mercy of Hindus.

They were more than opportunists. A very narrow-minded, self-centred and myopic those people were.

The biggest proponent of the so-called Two-Nation Theory and the Pakistan movement was the Muslim Salariat of UP. Although the Muslims were only 13% of the total population of UP their share in jobs was 35% and they still thought that they were being mistreated. These poor fellas are still being mistreated, but not by Hindus any more-the enemy is now Punjabi, Sindhi and Pashtun.

After the creation of Pakistan they migrated en masse to the newly created country and settled down in Karachi. But why in Karachi? Because Karachi was Pakistan's Islamabad of the 40s. It was a very well-planned city, thoroughly built by the British. It had good schools and colleges that were founded by its Parsi and Hindu population and those schools and colleges are still considered best in the town. Karachi even had a Sindhi University that was later shifted by the newcomers to Hyderabad, there was no place left for Sindhis. Karachi was made the capital of Pakistan against the wishes of Sindhi population, their language was declared its national language, money was being invested and jobs were available in abundance and the new rulers of the newly created country were mostly their own kith and kin-and getting rid of its half a million Hindu population and taking over their property was easier than they had previously thought.

[ravage]

I dont think that is true. Didnt you ever wonder if it had to do with paranoia of few landlords in west pakistan having to loose their jaaggir. Some of the trouble Pakistan still face seem to have come from these so called lord of the people.

Im not sure what you are talking about, please clarify.

[quote]

Muslims will not have a problem if it was a muslim majority and a hindu minority. Is that so. Many centuries, muslim kings ruled much of what is India.

[/quote]

True. It does seem like the tendency to have violent communal bloodbaths is somewhat curbed when Muslims were in power.

[quote]

A country formed out just because the majority are a particular religion and then having a bloody partition themselves is a point to ponder as to how a nation can sustain itself by just religion.

[/quote]

It wasnt an affirmation that we will sustain ourselves based on religion. It was a rejection of the idea that Muslims and Hindus can live in peace, thats all. Whether Bangalies can live in peace with west pakistanies wasnt really guaranteed.

[quote]

Did creation of Pakistan solved that problem. Half of muslim population is still in India. How can you justify a two nation theory if other nation has a huge minority. Can I call those people who as opportunist leaving the rest at the mercy of Hindus.

[/quote]

Yes you can call them oppurtunist, and the others as people who made an unwise choice. But it was voluntary, so they picked their poison.

[quote]

Not all laws and India will not be able to challenge any laws passed by the british parliament pertaining to India. Again a Kashmiri can rule the whole India while an Indian in India could not have been the prime minister of England and preside over the British empire.They had two rules, one for the white british and second for the brown british in India (indians). In India there is only one rule. India is formed by the states and each state contribute to the center. Without the states India is nothing.
[/QUOTE]

The idea of an analogy is not to match very single particular. Point is India behaves like an empire towards a number of these seperation oriented provinces, which is hardly a model of governance to aspire to.

[shawaiz_K]

I think it was 1946 when the big landlords of Punjab and Sindh decided to jump on the bandwagon of AIML for that they previously had no regard whatsoever-they and the Muslim Salariat joined hands to secure the parochial interests of their respective groups. The situation would be very different if the Congress had not specified that it was committed to land reform. The non-sense of TNT was only propagated to fool the uneducated and naive masses.

[vineshvk]

@ravage

Im not sure what you are talking about, please clarify.

I dont believe that the the creation of Pakistan was a genuine attempt to have a unified peaceful muslim country.

@ravage

True. It does seem like the tendency to have violent communal bloodbaths is somewhat curbed when Muslims were in power.

May be if it was a real Hindu who was ruling, he would have used much of the old muslim kings tactics to keep peace. :)

@ravage

It wasnt an affirmation that we will sustain ourselves based on religion. It was a rejection of the idea that Muslims and Hindus can live in peace, thats all. Whether Bangalies can live in peace with west pakistanies wasnt really guaranteed.

A creation of a nation based on a negative vibe. It was a rejection of the fact that Hindus and muslims can live together but it was not an affirmation that muslims can live among themselves together. I dont like the sound of it. It means that muslims are never sure what they really want. They cant live with hindus and as a fact they cant live among themselves. I think you undermine the intelligence of your own brothers.

@ravage

The idea of an analogy is not to match very single particular. Point is India behaves like an empire towards a number of these seperation oriented provinces, which is hardly a model of governance to aspire to.

To which state did India behave like an empire. Again India is a federation of states. Whenever it had deviated from democracy it was brought back to it by the people. You dont order plebiscite in Kashmir until there is degree of calmness in the area for some time, if thats what you are referring to.

[teggy]

@vineshvk

*I dont believe that the the creation of Pakistan was a genuine attempt to have a unified peaceful muslim country. *

*You don't know that! There are only two nations in the entire world whose basis/foundation was religion based, one is Pakistan and another Israel. Things have gone wrong, Pakistan has been the victim of internal and external sabotage from the day of its foundation, had it matured as a nation, a democracy, it would have been an examplry Muslim nation. *

May be if it was a real Hindu who was ruling, he would have used much of the old muslim kings tactics to keep peace. :)

Maybe! Or maybe not?!

A creation of a nation based on a negative vibe. It was a rejection of the fact that Hindus and muslims can live together but it was not an affirmation that muslims can live among themselves together. I dont like the sound of it. It means that muslims are never sure what they really want. They cant live with hindus and as a fact they cant live among themselves. I think you undermine the intelligence of your own brothers.

When a nation has the seed of hatred sowed within it by instigators, it's bound to have immense friction from within. When it comes down to it, people living in Pakistan proudly identify with being Pakistani, just as Indians living in India do. It's a no-brainer! Both nations have different ethnic and religious groups that reside there. Political wrong-doing often causes and stirs the religious feuds among different faiths, all for political gain. Sometimes ideologies clash and that leads to chaos.

:)

[Get_smart]

Re: Religious clashes erupt in India

RSS wants to expand in W.Bengal and so conduct training camp there. Why should that be a problem for muslims there? Why they go and attack instead of answering slogan with slogan?

Same people come with towel in their hands and asked piece of land next to ours to build a little mosque and our family did not object. In fact we gave them water and power connection till they got their own. Now what they do? they're blaring allahu akbar on loud speaker akka din! So somebody in the temple in next street start playing bhajans in loud speaker.

between the two loud noises, nobody can sleep.

I am going to tell our minister that in next budget all muslims must be given radio ear phones so they don't have to make those loud noises all day!

[Moonshiner]

between the two loud noises, nobody can sleep.

Yaar just smoke some charas, and you will fall asleep.

[Get_smart]

Yaar just smoke some charas, and you will fall asleep.

what kind of musalmaan are you giving this kind of shaitani advise?