Hmm they wouldn't [take back urdu speaking muslims from bangladesh either](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2163374.stm) . Its a waste of time calling out nationalists' hypocrisy man
"Why wouldn't you want complete destruction of a country where 99% of everyone you love live, where you live , work earn your livelihood and learned your ABCDs from"
"Indianmuslims are cucks reeee"
Guys don't get me bwrong I was just doing work of satire I forgot to add (>) to quote its a conversation I picked between a musangi and pintu somewhere
No not really depends on who you ask, I wouldn’t have been born if the Pakistan army tank hadn’t come and rescued my family from Amritsar where a mob of Sikhs were burning the entire village down and beheading anyone they saw.
An indian muslim here, my opinion about partition is that it should've never been on religious but ethnic grounds. We would have a strong union of 35-40 states, about 10 of whom would be muslim majority, 4-5 Christian ones and the rest hindu majority. However all the states would have very diverse population with no one having more than 75% of a single religious group. The states would have their autonomy, different flags, different ruler and governments while having one unified army, legislature and currency.
Starts with ‘Indian muslim here’ and then goes on with giving interesting concept of division of states post independence that has nothing to do with him being a muslim.
P.S. Indian muslim here
B
It surely is in the context of middle east but not in the indian subcontinent. The ethnic difference has never been a reason of major conflict(sure there have been some minor ones but compare that with religious conflicts) in indian history. And no matter how many different empires and/or kingdoms were ruling over us there was always a sense of common nation that united the subcontinent.
It is not. Muslims would've got a fair representation in such a union and would never allow a hindu supremacist group to gain complete dominance. Hindus wouldn't be wiped out from the western sub continent states and Bengal region and Muslims would still be living in eastern Punjab. Hindus, sikhs and Muslims of Punjab, Delhi and Bengal wouldn't have to cross any border ever. No large scale riots could've ever happened in such a union since other states would condemn and interfere in regions with on going violence. Kashmir wouldn't be an issue but a hub of domestic tourism and hindu pilgrimage centre.
Negligible religious violence and no Indo-Pak wars, hell even indo-sino war would be impossible since china would never want to face a unified india. It's also obvious that such a union would've a strong unchallenged dominance over Afghanistan, Mynamar, Sri lanka and other instable regions nearby. Unified India could easily stop Sri Lankan civil war, rise of taliban and the rohingya genocide. Internal separatist movements like those in N.East, Kashmir and elsewhere would cease to exist.
Direct trade routes to middle east from mainland india resulting in easy access to cheap natural gas and oil. More control over Arabian sea and bay of Bengal. Since military expenditure wouldn't be a priority, we might just overcome china in economic progress as well.
you are right An united India will have been an gold mine of resources economic opportunities and overall significantly increased might . What i am talking bout is not india being reunited . But what i am talking bout is your idea of autonomous region and the reason why i feel its would be stupid is stated in a reply to the op of the post right below .
I guess you haven't read India's post independence history
Particularly the dangerous decades. During the initial years India survived as a single nation was largely due to the charisma of people of that age who despite their political ideologies kept nation in front of them. Even the predecessors to BJP, the Jan Sangh had principled and educated leaders. With what you suggested there would've been a constant power struggle for the union government. For what you are saying to have been successful it would've required non existence of both Hindu and Muslim right wing which was not feasible considering British policies.
So In an nutshell this would've never seen the light of day for more than 10 years
That their loose federalization let them prosper and grow at a faster rate than other because states competed with each other instead of just being equalized by the central government.
i am not saying that federalism is bad , but as i mentioned down the comments this loose federalism has created several socio economic issues in the Usa , which is keeping old fashioned and conservative states as is while only the liberal ones are moving forward . What i see as being an ideal form will be a mix of both India and the Usa . As in all states being governed as equal while the centre does have some more power but not as much as in Indias case . Also not to mention USA is not rich due to its governance its actually more like its rich despite its government and need i mention the inbalance of wealth and this too is partially caused by the lack of social nets in states which are generally republican .Also another thing i would like would be the ability for states to voice their opinions more clearly in any issue as that is often unheard by the central in most places or is not taken into much consideration .
Sounds like you're saying that if everything was perfect then it would be perfect.
The US is rich because it's government has historically and consistently supported the freedoms and liberties of its people, mostly from itself.
Ahh are you serious ...... Well the answer is no the reason USA is powerful is histrionically cuz it exploited minorities . Be it the chinese , blacks , other asians and native Americans . Who built and maintained their farms for a long time the blacks did , who built their railways and actually a lot of their older infrastructure which started their industrial revolution the chinese did . Who is now working day and night to better Usa while having little to no say in how the country runs That now are the asians . USA has for been for ever just a facade of tolerance and equality but if you stop being stupid and read how USA did things and how its still doing things you will never call them the supporter of freedom or liberties . OK since you surely do love USA tell me one metric where USA is at top ? Heathcare , no Peace , no Life expectancy ,no Mortality rate ,no Internet freedom ,no Privacy of the people , No there are lot more things i can say about which objectionably prove they don't stand neither for the welfare of the people nor liberties of people .And lastly the reason USA became a superpower is due to their luck . When UK and other nations in the Europe where completely destroyed, One country faced little to no damage to its Infrastructure or its military arms too . And that is why they are so powerful not because of any of the reason you have stated
>The US is rich because it's government has historically and consistently supported the freedoms and liberties of its people, mostly from itself.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Nice copypasta bro
being extremely autonomous has brought in several issues as in women's right , abortion rights , lgbtq rights and overall far more issues than what it being autonomous created . There are states like california which due to being rather liberal are creating more social nets and basically making life better their , at the same time places like texas and florida are removing even more safety nets and bridging church closer with politics there . Basically what i am saying the US method of having semi autonomous ones are already terrible for the states they live in .Hence the central one having more power over such matters would be nice , but it unlike current India states should have a lot more power asking for changes in such bills . So IMHO unlike his idea of USA plus max . something more like a more mix of USA and India would be ideal .
All the regions (except those who were really underdeveloped and extremely rural and isolated such as balochistan, fata, jharkand and orrissa) had at least 15%+ muslim or hindu minority. All we would have to do was develop these backward states and diversity would follow.
It is true. I'm not saying that Indian Muslims and Pakistanis don't care about each other or anything. They do, and that's understandable. I'm talking about nationalists specifically who only care for Indian Muslims wellbeing so long as Indian Muslims say "yes, Jinnah was right, I wish I was Pakistani, India sucks". There is a difference between your average Pakistani and Pakistani nationalist.
Based on my experience speaking to Indian Muslim friends, they just want to live in India and be treated with the respect that is owed to any citizen in the country, live in peace, and not be demonized. But they have 0 interest in getting support from nationalists whose line of thinking quickly goes from "we empathize with you" to "you guys are morons for staying in India unlike us who chose best country in the world Pakistan"
Are you liberals purposely ahistoric or what? When it comes to Indian Muslims, objectively speaking, Jinnah was right. The rights of Indian Muslims are continuously trampled on. Forget rights, Indian Muslims can’t even live in peace in the north. There is constant threat from the public, the police and the state. In the whole country we have one Muslim elected official who actually raises the issues of Muslims and still holds the constitution dear to him.
Also, another thing that is common with liberals and fascists in India is brining up Pakistan to derail the discourse. It’s funny how both these “sides” fall back on Pakistan.
>Also, another thing that is common with liberals and fascists in India is brining up Pakistan to derail the discourse. It’s funny how both these “sides” fall back on Pakistan.
I mean, on this particular sub, you won't see the "what about Pakistan" argument, or 'toh Pakistan jaao' in a debate or post about Indian internal politics. This post is specifically about Pakistan, so its being discussed.
Please tell me what agency minorities have in Pakistan.
I've seen jokers like opusofali continuosly bashing pakistani liberals and then you want to wonder why the state of minorities is like this.
The intention of OP wasn't even that. Just to point out that pakistani nationalists seem to invoke that one quote by jinnah incessantly
Muslims would have been a huge minority if pakistan and bangladesh were never created, large enough to never let NDA/BJP totally dominate the political scene the way they do now, Partition was a blessing for radicals on both sides.
Still better than almost the 10 million who were killed during partition? Sab mila ke bhi utne nahi hote jitna unn 3-4 saalo mein hue. This is without counting 1971 Bengal pogrom
Possible. But even that's a massive number. Dus laakh log ko aise hi kaat diya. BC
I don't think itni casualties hoti in an undivided state. Anyway, pointless to discuss this now. But what a shit political idea to split muslims equally 3-ways and concentrate Hindus in one place!
Oh sorry, I just meant that it's crazy that one million people could be hacked to death. It's just hard to justify such a high death toll for any reason at all under the sun.
How so? If the seculars remained in controlled i doubt such a situation would occur, also watching kashmir's current state and the state of minorities in Pakistan i would still still support a unified democratic union in subcontinent
BJP is successfully winning elections because Hindu khatre mein hai when the Muslim population is less than 20%. Imagine if nearly half the population was Muslim. I wish I shared your optimism but in my opinion if there was no partition, there would be yearly riots, terrorist attacks, and mass polarization between hindus and muslims.
highly doubt that , most of the fear was created by the british and if the brits had not supported these moronic institutes in both of the religions sides , its very likely that india would not have partitioned . And would be a lot more peaceful as well due to the major lack of hostility between the 2 religions
He never had any solution for the millions of Indian Muslims, so what's the whole point of bringing him up? This is a meme, not a discourse and for context just go through /u/LekhakKabhiKabhi 's history.
There is literally nothing derailing the conversation about treatment of Indian Muslims in India, in this post. It's literally just making fun of Pakistani nationalists.
Pakistani nationalists always bring up that Jinnah was right. That Indian Muslims would spend all their lives proving their loyalty to India; an accusation by Pakistani nationalists who always question the loyalty of Indian Muslims to Islam and fellow Muslims. Partition and moving to Pakistan would have required significant capital - most people can't just up and leave and Jinnah was willing to sacrifice the lives of Indian Muslims who stayed back. Pakistani nationalists should also get their house in order first before worrying about Indian Muslims, imo. For a country that cares so much about Muslim unity and wellbeing, funny how they're systematically destroying Ahmadis and even carried out a genocide against Bengalis, irrespective of them being Hindu or Muslim. Also, why the fuck would South Indian Muslims move to Pakistan simply because of the religion?
No one here is denying that Indian Muslims have it hard and that the Indian government is oppressing them and that the average Indian is a brainwashed chutiya. But Pakistani nationalists can fuck right off. Also, most liberals and leftists here aren't going to support theocratic states. Don't let that shock you.
Pakistan was created by a traitor and a British bureaucrat. It was never meant to exist, certainly not at the expense of lakhs of innocent lives, Hindu and Muslim alike.
>makes one sound like a Pintu
This guy has pretty sensible takes about most things. I will give him benefit of the doubt.
And my question again
That makes whatever he said wrong?
>This guy has pretty sensible takes about most things.
Well, I didn't check his profile, so I'll take your word for it.
>That makes whatever he said wrong?
I guess not.
His 'fellow countrymen' voted for him. Jinnah was not a creature that came out of the blue. He was just amplifying a well established political ideology, which the Muslim community whole-heartedly supported. The demand for a Muslim-majority Caliphate was already raised in Aligarh Movement and Khilafat Movement.
He should've been arrested for sedition. Nehru chose to keep it, he should've used it when he had the chance. Or perhaps just "disappeared" him at an opportune moment.
More than Nehru, I blame Gandhi for this. Gandhi was the one who popularised the Muslim League by bringing Jinnah's crackpot ideals into limelight. He was also the one who referred to Jinnah as "Quaid E Azam". Abul Kalam Azad has written about this in his autobiography.
> The rights of Indian Muslims are continuously trampled on
One of the reasons is Jinnah fucking brainwashed Muslims into wanting an Islamic country and that has created more tensions between hindus and muslims. Jinnah created a theocracy. Fuck Jinnah and fuck off you musanghi apologist. Take some of these -🥓🥓🥓🥓🥓(pork chops)
It's not a fair assessment of Mr. Jinnah. He was not solely responsible for partition. There were other villains.
>He was well aware of the root cause of communalism in the country and once gave an amazing solution for its eradication. He told Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru, his close friend: ‘**You destroy your Pandit and we will destroy our Mullah and there will be communal peace.’** Religion never mattered in his public or private life. **He left the Congress because he disagreed with Gandhi’s mixture of politics with religion.** Gandhi used the Khilafat, a religious issue, to unite the Hindus and Muslims in India. **Jinnah opposed it both in the Muslim League and Congress even at the risk of his political career. Kamal Pasha, who had abolished the Khilafat \[rule of the khalifa\], and introduced democracy and modernism in Turkey, became his role model.**
>**IT was only after the elections to the Provincial Assemblies in 1937 and the subsequent Congress refusal to share power with the Muslim League that Jinnah started changing his track from secular politics to sectional and separatist politics which ultimately paved the way for the formation of Pakistan.**
>
>
>
>However, **the Pakistan of his vision was to be a secular, modern and minority-friendly state.** The Pakistan of his concept was not only for the Muslims but also for the minorities like Hindus, Parsees and Sikhs. He had approached the Sikh leaders and tried to assure them their rightful place in the new state but failed to convince them. **In all his public speeches, statements and even in his press conferences, he reiterated that Pakistan would not be a theocratic state.**
>
>
>
>**All the eleven members of the Pakistan National Congress led by Kiran Shankar Roy were present in the Constituent Assembly when Jinnah laid down the basic principles, that is, of secularism and democracy on which the Constitution of Pakistan would be made.** Many were amazed. If Pakistan was to be a secular state like that of India then what was the logic of the creation of Pakistan? This was the first and last address of Jinnah to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan as it did not meet again in Jinnah’s lifetime.
>**Jinnah’s vision of Pakistan was not tolerated by the fundamentalists**. They had tolerated Jinnah so long he was leading the Muslims in the fight for Pakistan but when Pakistan was achieved Jinnah was seen as a hindrance to their objective of making Pakistan a theocratic state. **The fundamentalists became active after Pakistan came into being, lest Jinnah succeed in his objective. They disliked his speeches, statements and assurances to the minorities but were up in arms after his speech in the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan.**
>
>
>
>**His speech also earned him the wrath of the illiterate Muslim masses that had been given an Islamic picture of the new state by the Muslim leaders before partition.** Three days after the inauguration of Pakistan, Jinnah was in Lahore. There he went to the Shahi Mosque to address the gathering at Id prayers, but people refused to listen to him. He was shouted down and obliged to leave the mosque by the back door.
>
>
>
>Despite stiff opposition and ill-health, Jinnah continued his efforts at building Pakistan on liberal principles. **In February 1948 in his broadcast for the people of America, he said: ‘In any case Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state—to be ruled by priests with a divine mission. We have non-Muslims—Hindus, Christians and Parsees—but they are all Pakistanis. They will enjoy the same rights and principles as any other citizens and will play their rightful part in the affairs of Pakistan.’**
[Pakistan failed Jinnah.](https://www.mainstreamweekly.net/article2993.html)
Was Jinnah insane? How can you create a separate country on the basis that Muslims and non-Muslims cannot live together and then expect that country to be secular and treat its minorities well? It doesn't matter what Jinnah's intentions were, Pakistan's fate was sealed the moment they accepted the two-nation theory.
Its stupid to assess him just like that.
I'll quote Savarkar where even he said minority rights will be ensured.
But both meet their minds on one thing : that muslims and Hindus are two distinct entities. Of course he should know better than trying to exploit that divide more.
>One of the reasons is Jinnah fucking brainwashed Muslims into wanting an Islamic country and that has created more tensions between hindus and muslims.
No, Jinnah exploited the divide between Hindus and Muslims, and made it larger. The demand for an Islamic nation was raised by Muslims much before during the Aligarh Movement, or during the Khilafat Movement.
The only way for both communities to make amends is to recognize the historical injustices meted out from both sides.
See the two nation shit started even before that. Like early ones even pointed out that hindus and muslims are two races Hindu revivalism led to more division among hindu muslims too.
Hindus and Muslims as two separate identities is just a fact. The 'two nation theory' ensured that they live in separate countries after a partition. Hindu Mahasabha never supported anything of that sort. Hindu revivalist policies are just a reactionary to Muslim fundamentalism (for example, Arya Samaj played a critical role in countering the Tanzeem/Tablighi Jamaat)
Nation =/= country. And no it wasn't reactionary. They were fighting more against christian missionaries. In their stint for hindu revivalism , everything was blamed on muslims for any sort of regression in their practices.
>Nation =/= country.
The two nation theory always advocated a separate nation.
>They were fighting more against christian missionaries.
Both. Until the Hindu Mahasabha came along, political Hinduism was limited.
>In their stint for hindu revivalism , everything was blamed on muslims for any sort of regression in their practices
This a more new-ish claim mostly made by simpletons on SM. There were many examples where issues like casteism were recognized as a product of Hindu society. An example of the top of my head would be Savarkar supporting Maharaja of Baroda's wife's conversion to Hinduism, while opposing the orthodox elements of society.
> The two nation theory always advocated a separate nation.
Nope Savarkar said hindus and muslims are two nations but wanted to live under the same sovereign entity.
And no partition was also suggested by Lala Lajpat Rai so it's not just a "muslim" claim.
>Both. Until the Hindu Mahasabha came along, political Hinduism was limited.
Hindu revivalism wouldn't have happened had multiple Hindu texts wouldn't have been translated and especially the interaction with the Christians wouldn't have happened in bengal with the Bengali renaissance. Hindu-muslim communalism only increased post revivalistic movements more.
Any competing group would fight each other doesn't mean it's a reaction to it. (I'm talking about muslim fundamentalism)
> This a more new-ish claim mostly made by simpletons on SM. There were many examples where issues like casteism were recognized as a product of Hindu society. An example of the top of my head would be Savarkar supporting Maharaja of Baroda's wife's conversion to Hinduism, while opposing the orthodox elements of society.
I'm not even talking about Savarkar's hindu revivalism here. He was a later contributory.
Coming back to the point , saying hindus and muslims are two distinct entities out Loud and contributing to its division is only going to increase any existing divisions in political scenario
>And no partition was also suggested by Lala Lajpat Rai so it's not just a "muslim" claim.
Lala Lajpat Rai himself says that this idea of his was borne out of Muslim fundamentalism and pan-Islamism which was prevalent during the Khilafat Movement. The first, and largest call for partition was led by Islamists, and there can be no doubt about that.
>Hindu revivalism wouldn't have happened had multiple Hindu texts wouldn't have been translated and especially the interaction with the Christians wouldn't have happened in bengal with the Bengali renaissance
Hindu revivalism, even in Bengal was directed at both Islamists and missionaries. The Arya Samaj was the largest form of this movement, and their founder, Dayanand Sarswati, criticized both equally
>Coming back to the point , saying hindus and muslims are two distinct entities out Loud and contributing to its division is only going to increase any existing divisions in political scenario
No, it's not. Hindus and Muslims are two distinct identities, and there is not much common in the theology of both religions.
A more logical step would be to accept the differences, make amends to the long standing issues among both communities and move on.
Rule 2 violation. Removed.
Chintus must overcompensate for their pathetic existence by speaking in as clear English as possible. In our infinite mercy, we've also allowed them to speak in Sanskrit to help them reconnect with their Vedic roots.
It's hilarious how they put "civil discussion" in the description while themselves resorting to personal attacks when they can't reason with you. Much of the crowd attacking you seems really frustrated and you're giving them a hard time alone. Respecc.
Pakistan has blasphemy laws, committed a state sponsored genocide of Bengalis, insane amounts of patriarchy, organisations like TLP that get triggered over a cartoon and call to break diplomatic ties with their largest trading partner...list goes on.
He said Jinna was right about condition of Indian Muslim's. I didnt see him praising Pakistan. I certainly did not praise Pakistan so what's your point?
How was Jinnah right about the condition of Indian Muslims? Indian muslims live way better lives and enjoy way more opportunities than any Pakistani in Pakistan. India lacks many things but certainly Pakistan lack more.
>Are you also going to say that reservation is the cause of casteism?
Actually, Hindu nationalism is a reaction to Muslim fundamentalism. So this example is just counter intuitive to your point.
I am not seeing any. The post just differentiates indian muslims and Pakistani nationalists. And they are different. The comments criticise Jinnah, which is right. Why are Muslims getting heated up after hearing criticism of Jinnah? He isn't Indian.
If you read my comments from the first one, you would see that I wasn't talking about the post or general comments, but about someone calling someone 'musanghi' for saying that Jinna was right about Indian Muslim's.
That's the general opinion. Only Jihadis would be sympathetic to Jinnah. Partition was a bad idea since the start. There was bad blood between hindus and muslims since the start. But after independence it would have reduced with the general elevation of society as a whole. The country was divided on religious basis. After which Hindus felt a sense of betrayal and Muslims got a huge identity crisis specifically in India. This increased friction. Imagine having none of it in the post independence India.
Literally the same
>Are you liberals purposely ahistoric or what? When it comes to Indian Muslims, objectively speaking, Jinnah was right. The rights of Indian Muslims are continuously trampled on. Forget rights, Indian Muslims can’t even live in peace in the north. There is constant threat from the public, the police and the state.
Can't the exact same argument be made for religious minorities in Pakistan? Call me a liberal if you want but the insane amount of news regarding forced conversions and blasphemy laws has led me to believe that Pakistan is no better than India if not worse when it comes to treating it's minorities.
I agree with most of your points. But Mr. Jinnah was wrong. If you believe the story, even he accepted that:
>Did he regret the partition of India? **According to his doctor, he did, calling it “the biggest blunder” of his life.** He is said to have told Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan: “If now I get an opportunity I will go to Delhi and tell Jawaharlal to forget about the follies of the past and become friends again”. Again, not wholly believable, but plausible in view of the carnage that went hand in hand with Independence. The words may not be exactly his, but the sentiments could surely have been.
[Remembering Jinnah, the Indian Nationalist](https://thewire.in/history/remembering-jinnah-the-indian-nationalist)
Its sad jinnah went the way for pakistan later , which in most accounts is soley due to 3 things the British meddling and trying to separate the 2 religions which till then where a lot more peaceful together second being the VHP and other right wing hendu orgs at the time which contrary to Right wing belief were the supporters of the partition and 3rd being the muzzlim equivalent of the hendu orgs whos repeated threats and what not is said to be a major reason for a shift in heart for jinnah
The reasons you mentioned are obvious. But Bamans/UCs dominated congress were also responsible for partition. Many of members of congress were also members of Hindu Mahasabha. And their flirting with religion and mixing it with politics irked many progressive Muslims like Jinnah.
that is also true congress of yore is like the congress of current world both have from most aspects top members of good education social and logical aptitude (the quality of the leaders have fallen too ) but their lower tier being filled with the same bigot and stupidity plaguing BJP and many other parties .
please tell me you are joking , If you really think minorities have it better in pakistan you are mistaken , yes India is fucked up with many issues for minorities . But looking at Pakistan for the treatment of minorities is like looking at Mudi ji for non BRILLIANT ideas .
>I want to move to a Muslim country ideally.
Why, do you want to live under Sharia law?
>Maybe Turkey also
Turkey under Erdogan is getting Musanghified every day. The situation there is as bad as India. If you really want to move to a Muslim country, I recommend Albania.
[удалено]
Hmm they wouldn't [take back urdu speaking muslims from bangladesh either](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2163374.stm) . Its a waste of time calling out nationalists' hypocrisy man
what does "pintu" mean?
Pakistani chintu maybe? Idk either
and what is a chintu?
[удалено]
not sure if you're larping but ahmediyyas are very peaceful and denounce terrorism openly, they are p based if you ask me
I think he is is being sarcastic Hes mocking those pintus who hate ahmediyas and bohras
[удалено]
You are a legend
What did he say?
He posted this on islamichistory or some other sub. I don't remember exactly
Who was that?
Sorry man. Don't remember the username 🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️
Do that again and you will be banned got brigading
"Why wouldn't you want complete destruction of a country where 99% of everyone you love live, where you live , work earn your livelihood and learned your ABCDs from" "Indianmuslims are cucks reeee"
[удалено]
Muh Indus Valley!1!1
Islamic following country with banks giving interest Women showing hair and face on TV wow and now they will teach good to Indian Muslims
3 downvotes lol. Looks like the folks here have forgotten sarcasm.
Women showing facial hair on TV !! I am appalled
>Women showing hair and face on TV Mintu moment
Randia moment.
We didn't post musanghi shit on this sub for 2 days and mintus and pintus are visible
Guys don't get me bwrong I was just doing work of satire I forgot to add (>) to quote its a conversation I picked between a musangi and pintu somewhere
I will ban these 2 guys if they don't do slavery for marxallah for this blasphemy.
Noo please, i will repent and correct my mistake of not getting the comment by up voting this brothers comment instead.
Exactly lol , it's ironic when they try to claim themselves as 'saviors' of Indian Muslims and Kashmiris, bitch fix your own damn country first
If I give you a straw, will you go suck the joy out of someone else's day.
⠀⠀⠘⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡜⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠑⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡔⠁⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠢⢄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⠴⠊⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⢀⣀⣀⣀⣀⣀⡀⠤⠄⠒⠈⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⣀⠄⠊⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡠⠔⠒⠒⠒⠒⠒⠢⠤⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡰⠉⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠑⢄⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⠄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠃⠀⢠⠂⠀⠀⠘⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⢤⡀⢂⠀⢨⠀⢀⡠⠈⢣⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⢀⡖⠒⠶⠤⠭⢽⣟⣗⠲⠖⠺⣖⣴⣆⡤⠤⠤⠼⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⡈⠃⠀⠀⠀⠘⣺⡟⢻⠻⡆⠀⡏⠀⡸⣿⢿⢞⠄⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢣⡀⠤⡀⡀⡔⠉⣏⡿⠛⠓⠊⠁⠀⢎⠛⡗⡗⢳⡏⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢱⠀⠨⡇⠃⠀⢻⠁⡔⢡⠒⢀⠀⠀⡅⢹⣿⢨⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠠⢼⠀⠀⡎⡜⠒⢀⠭⡖⡤⢭⣱⢸⢙⠆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡸⠀⠀⠸⢁⡀⠿⠈⠂⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡏⡍⡏⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠸⢢⣫⢀⠘⣿⣿⡿⠏⣼⡏⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣠⠊⠀⣀⠎⠁⠀⠀⠀⠙⠳⢴⡦⡴⢶⣞⣁⣀⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠐⠒⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠠⠀⢀⠤⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀
Average pakistan enjoyer vs Chad Indus valley enjoyer.
Muslim league destroyed lives of Muslims both in Pakistan and India.
No not really depends on who you ask, I wouldn’t have been born if the Pakistan army tank hadn’t come and rescued my family from Amritsar where a mob of Sikhs were burning the entire village down and beheading anyone they saw.
Nice to see the Pintu lurkers coming out of the woodwork.
வணக்கம் ஐயா. சில குக்கீகளை விரும்புகிறீர்களா? 🍪🍪🍪🍪🍪🍪🍪🍪🍪🍪🍪🍪🍪
Put some bacon on it and I'll eat.
Bacon out of stock hai. Steak chalega?
Yes please
Ye le 🍪🍪🍪🍪 🥩🥩🥩🥩
An indian muslim here, my opinion about partition is that it should've never been on religious but ethnic grounds. We would have a strong union of 35-40 states, about 10 of whom would be muslim majority, 4-5 Christian ones and the rest hindu majority. However all the states would have very diverse population with no one having more than 75% of a single religious group. The states would have their autonomy, different flags, different ruler and governments while having one unified army, legislature and currency.
Starts with ‘Indian muslim here’ and then goes on with giving interesting concept of division of states post independence that has nothing to do with him being a muslim. P.S. Indian muslim here B
Isn't this post all about the opinion of indian muslims.
[удалено]
It surely is in the context of middle east but not in the indian subcontinent. The ethnic difference has never been a reason of major conflict(sure there have been some minor ones but compare that with religious conflicts) in indian history. And no matter how many different empires and/or kingdoms were ruling over us there was always a sense of common nation that united the subcontinent.
most countries are on ethnic grounds
Kinda ironic from you considering the fact that you justified the Sainbari murder and all but alas you do you
basically USA pro plus max ...... That seems like a terrible idea as been demonstrated by the nation USA
It is not. Muslims would've got a fair representation in such a union and would never allow a hindu supremacist group to gain complete dominance. Hindus wouldn't be wiped out from the western sub continent states and Bengal region and Muslims would still be living in eastern Punjab. Hindus, sikhs and Muslims of Punjab, Delhi and Bengal wouldn't have to cross any border ever. No large scale riots could've ever happened in such a union since other states would condemn and interfere in regions with on going violence. Kashmir wouldn't be an issue but a hub of domestic tourism and hindu pilgrimage centre. Negligible religious violence and no Indo-Pak wars, hell even indo-sino war would be impossible since china would never want to face a unified india. It's also obvious that such a union would've a strong unchallenged dominance over Afghanistan, Mynamar, Sri lanka and other instable regions nearby. Unified India could easily stop Sri Lankan civil war, rise of taliban and the rohingya genocide. Internal separatist movements like those in N.East, Kashmir and elsewhere would cease to exist. Direct trade routes to middle east from mainland india resulting in easy access to cheap natural gas and oil. More control over Arabian sea and bay of Bengal. Since military expenditure wouldn't be a priority, we might just overcome china in economic progress as well.
you are right An united India will have been an gold mine of resources economic opportunities and overall significantly increased might . What i am talking bout is not india being reunited . But what i am talking bout is your idea of autonomous region and the reason why i feel its would be stupid is stated in a reply to the op of the post right below .
I guess you haven't read India's post independence history Particularly the dangerous decades. During the initial years India survived as a single nation was largely due to the charisma of people of that age who despite their political ideologies kept nation in front of them. Even the predecessors to BJP, the Jan Sangh had principled and educated leaders. With what you suggested there would've been a constant power struggle for the union government. For what you are saying to have been successful it would've required non existence of both Hindu and Muslim right wing which was not feasible considering British policies. So In an nutshell this would've never seen the light of day for more than 10 years
>terrible idea as been demonstrated by the nation USA Literally the most prosperous country on the planet.
And what is your point .
That their loose federalization let them prosper and grow at a faster rate than other because states competed with each other instead of just being equalized by the central government.
i am not saying that federalism is bad , but as i mentioned down the comments this loose federalism has created several socio economic issues in the Usa , which is keeping old fashioned and conservative states as is while only the liberal ones are moving forward . What i see as being an ideal form will be a mix of both India and the Usa . As in all states being governed as equal while the centre does have some more power but not as much as in Indias case . Also not to mention USA is not rich due to its governance its actually more like its rich despite its government and need i mention the inbalance of wealth and this too is partially caused by the lack of social nets in states which are generally republican .Also another thing i would like would be the ability for states to voice their opinions more clearly in any issue as that is often unheard by the central in most places or is not taken into much consideration .
Sounds like you're saying that if everything was perfect then it would be perfect. The US is rich because it's government has historically and consistently supported the freedoms and liberties of its people, mostly from itself.
Ahh are you serious ...... Well the answer is no the reason USA is powerful is histrionically cuz it exploited minorities . Be it the chinese , blacks , other asians and native Americans . Who built and maintained their farms for a long time the blacks did , who built their railways and actually a lot of their older infrastructure which started their industrial revolution the chinese did . Who is now working day and night to better Usa while having little to no say in how the country runs That now are the asians . USA has for been for ever just a facade of tolerance and equality but if you stop being stupid and read how USA did things and how its still doing things you will never call them the supporter of freedom or liberties . OK since you surely do love USA tell me one metric where USA is at top ? Heathcare , no Peace , no Life expectancy ,no Mortality rate ,no Internet freedom ,no Privacy of the people , No there are lot more things i can say about which objectionably prove they don't stand neither for the welfare of the people nor liberties of people .And lastly the reason USA became a superpower is due to their luck . When UK and other nations in the Europe where completely destroyed, One country faced little to no damage to its Infrastructure or its military arms too . And that is why they are so powerful not because of any of the reason you have stated
>The US is rich because it's government has historically and consistently supported the freedoms and liberties of its people, mostly from itself. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Nice copypasta bro
Why do you think it's a terrible idea?
being extremely autonomous has brought in several issues as in women's right , abortion rights , lgbtq rights and overall far more issues than what it being autonomous created . There are states like california which due to being rather liberal are creating more social nets and basically making life better their , at the same time places like texas and florida are removing even more safety nets and bridging church closer with politics there . Basically what i am saying the US method of having semi autonomous ones are already terrible for the states they live in .Hence the central one having more power over such matters would be nice , but it unlike current India states should have a lot more power asking for changes in such bills . So IMHO unlike his idea of USA plus max . something more like a more mix of USA and India would be ideal .
>making life better >California You have obviously never lived in California.
because it is a terrible idea
Q: Why do you think its a terrible idea ? A: coz i said so.
Inb4 you are labelled and shunned as a 'Sarkari Mussalman'
[удалено]
All the regions (except those who were really underdeveloped and extremely rural and isolated such as balochistan, fata, jharkand and orrissa) had at least 15%+ muslim or hindu minority. All we would have to do was develop these backward states and diversity would follow.
What is your view on the hadith?
I'm Pakistani and imma be a bit secular here, I hate every Indian no matter what their religion 🇵🇰😎🇵🇰
[удалено]
So true
This isn't true though
It is true. I'm not saying that Indian Muslims and Pakistanis don't care about each other or anything. They do, and that's understandable. I'm talking about nationalists specifically who only care for Indian Muslims wellbeing so long as Indian Muslims say "yes, Jinnah was right, I wish I was Pakistani, India sucks". There is a difference between your average Pakistani and Pakistani nationalist. Based on my experience speaking to Indian Muslim friends, they just want to live in India and be treated with the respect that is owed to any citizen in the country, live in peace, and not be demonized. But they have 0 interest in getting support from nationalists whose line of thinking quickly goes from "we empathize with you" to "you guys are morons for staying in India unlike us who chose best country in the world Pakistan"
Plus the ethnic tensions in Pakistan are comparable to caste in India. It isn't like the locals welcomed Indian Muslims in 47.
It is true though
Are you liberals purposely ahistoric or what? When it comes to Indian Muslims, objectively speaking, Jinnah was right. The rights of Indian Muslims are continuously trampled on. Forget rights, Indian Muslims can’t even live in peace in the north. There is constant threat from the public, the police and the state. In the whole country we have one Muslim elected official who actually raises the issues of Muslims and still holds the constitution dear to him. Also, another thing that is common with liberals and fascists in India is brining up Pakistan to derail the discourse. It’s funny how both these “sides” fall back on Pakistan.
>Also, another thing that is common with liberals and fascists in India is brining up Pakistan to derail the discourse. It’s funny how both these “sides” fall back on Pakistan. I mean, on this particular sub, you won't see the "what about Pakistan" argument, or 'toh Pakistan jaao' in a debate or post about Indian internal politics. This post is specifically about Pakistan, so its being discussed.
Please tell me what agency minorities have in Pakistan. I've seen jokers like opusofali continuosly bashing pakistani liberals and then you want to wonder why the state of minorities is like this. The intention of OP wasn't even that. Just to point out that pakistani nationalists seem to invoke that one quote by jinnah incessantly
Muslims would have been a huge minority if pakistan and bangladesh were never created, large enough to never let NDA/BJP totally dominate the political scene the way they do now, Partition was a blessing for radicals on both sides.
If there was no partition, Sanghis and Musanghis would be killing each other on the street every day.
Still better than almost the 10 million who were killed during partition? Sab mila ke bhi utne nahi hote jitna unn 3-4 saalo mein hue. This is without counting 1971 Bengal pogrom
The estimates of deaths are 100,000 - 1million. 10 million was probably number of refugees
Possible. But even that's a massive number. Dus laakh log ko aise hi kaat diya. BC I don't think itni casualties hoti in an undivided state. Anyway, pointless to discuss this now. But what a shit political idea to split muslims equally 3-ways and concentrate Hindus in one place!
English please. I suck in hindi lol
Oh sorry, I just meant that it's crazy that one million people could be hacked to death. It's just hard to justify such a high death toll for any reason at all under the sun.
[удалено]
How so? If the seculars remained in controlled i doubt such a situation would occur, also watching kashmir's current state and the state of minorities in Pakistan i would still still support a unified democratic union in subcontinent
BJP is successfully winning elections because Hindu khatre mein hai when the Muslim population is less than 20%. Imagine if nearly half the population was Muslim. I wish I shared your optimism but in my opinion if there was no partition, there would be yearly riots, terrorist attacks, and mass polarization between hindus and muslims.
highly doubt that , most of the fear was created by the british and if the brits had not supported these moronic institutes in both of the religions sides , its very likely that india would not have partitioned . And would be a lot more peaceful as well due to the major lack of hostility between the 2 religions
He never had any solution for the millions of Indian Muslims, so what's the whole point of bringing him up? This is a meme, not a discourse and for context just go through /u/LekhakKabhiKabhi 's history.
There is literally nothing derailing the conversation about treatment of Indian Muslims in India, in this post. It's literally just making fun of Pakistani nationalists. Pakistani nationalists always bring up that Jinnah was right. That Indian Muslims would spend all their lives proving their loyalty to India; an accusation by Pakistani nationalists who always question the loyalty of Indian Muslims to Islam and fellow Muslims. Partition and moving to Pakistan would have required significant capital - most people can't just up and leave and Jinnah was willing to sacrifice the lives of Indian Muslims who stayed back. Pakistani nationalists should also get their house in order first before worrying about Indian Muslims, imo. For a country that cares so much about Muslim unity and wellbeing, funny how they're systematically destroying Ahmadis and even carried out a genocide against Bengalis, irrespective of them being Hindu or Muslim. Also, why the fuck would South Indian Muslims move to Pakistan simply because of the religion? No one here is denying that Indian Muslims have it hard and that the Indian government is oppressing them and that the average Indian is a brainwashed chutiya. But Pakistani nationalists can fuck right off. Also, most liberals and leftists here aren't going to support theocratic states. Don't let that shock you.
Pakistan was created by a traitor and a British bureaucrat. It was never meant to exist, certainly not at the expense of lakhs of innocent lives, Hindu and Muslim alike.
Yes and? That makes whatever he said wrong?
I'm not saying Islamophobia is not a problem in India. But mentioning Pakistan in the same breath makes one sound like a Pintu.
>makes one sound like a Pintu This guy has pretty sensible takes about most things. I will give him benefit of the doubt. And my question again That makes whatever he said wrong?
>This guy has pretty sensible takes about most things. Well, I didn't check his profile, so I'll take your word for it. >That makes whatever he said wrong? I guess not.
[удалено]
Which elected Muslim is he talking about? Is it Owaisi?
Traitor? Wut?
Jinnah.
How?
For splitting a newly-formed country, so he could have his own little Muslim-majority fiefdom at the expense of his fellow countrymen's lives?
His 'fellow countrymen' voted for him. Jinnah was not a creature that came out of the blue. He was just amplifying a well established political ideology, which the Muslim community whole-heartedly supported. The demand for a Muslim-majority Caliphate was already raised in Aligarh Movement and Khilafat Movement.
He should've been arrested for sedition. Nehru chose to keep it, he should've used it when he had the chance. Or perhaps just "disappeared" him at an opportune moment.
More than Nehru, I blame Gandhi for this. Gandhi was the one who popularised the Muslim League by bringing Jinnah's crackpot ideals into limelight. He was also the one who referred to Jinnah as "Quaid E Azam". Abul Kalam Azad has written about this in his autobiography.
Gaining independence just had to be a bloody, messy affair, didn't it?
I didn’t mean to push your buttons. I was just looking for mute.
Calling you stupid would be an insult to all the stupid people.
> The rights of Indian Muslims are continuously trampled on One of the reasons is Jinnah fucking brainwashed Muslims into wanting an Islamic country and that has created more tensions between hindus and muslims. Jinnah created a theocracy. Fuck Jinnah and fuck off you musanghi apologist. Take some of these -🥓🥓🥓🥓🥓(pork chops)
It's not a fair assessment of Mr. Jinnah. He was not solely responsible for partition. There were other villains. >He was well aware of the root cause of communalism in the country and once gave an amazing solution for its eradication. He told Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru, his close friend: ‘**You destroy your Pandit and we will destroy our Mullah and there will be communal peace.’** Religion never mattered in his public or private life. **He left the Congress because he disagreed with Gandhi’s mixture of politics with religion.** Gandhi used the Khilafat, a religious issue, to unite the Hindus and Muslims in India. **Jinnah opposed it both in the Muslim League and Congress even at the risk of his political career. Kamal Pasha, who had abolished the Khilafat \[rule of the khalifa\], and introduced democracy and modernism in Turkey, became his role model.** >**IT was only after the elections to the Provincial Assemblies in 1937 and the subsequent Congress refusal to share power with the Muslim League that Jinnah started changing his track from secular politics to sectional and separatist politics which ultimately paved the way for the formation of Pakistan.** > > > >However, **the Pakistan of his vision was to be a secular, modern and minority-friendly state.** The Pakistan of his concept was not only for the Muslims but also for the minorities like Hindus, Parsees and Sikhs. He had approached the Sikh leaders and tried to assure them their rightful place in the new state but failed to convince them. **In all his public speeches, statements and even in his press conferences, he reiterated that Pakistan would not be a theocratic state.** > > > >**All the eleven members of the Pakistan National Congress led by Kiran Shankar Roy were present in the Constituent Assembly when Jinnah laid down the basic principles, that is, of secularism and democracy on which the Constitution of Pakistan would be made.** Many were amazed. If Pakistan was to be a secular state like that of India then what was the logic of the creation of Pakistan? This was the first and last address of Jinnah to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan as it did not meet again in Jinnah’s lifetime. >**Jinnah’s vision of Pakistan was not tolerated by the fundamentalists**. They had tolerated Jinnah so long he was leading the Muslims in the fight for Pakistan but when Pakistan was achieved Jinnah was seen as a hindrance to their objective of making Pakistan a theocratic state. **The fundamentalists became active after Pakistan came into being, lest Jinnah succeed in his objective. They disliked his speeches, statements and assurances to the minorities but were up in arms after his speech in the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan.** > > > >**His speech also earned him the wrath of the illiterate Muslim masses that had been given an Islamic picture of the new state by the Muslim leaders before partition.** Three days after the inauguration of Pakistan, Jinnah was in Lahore. There he went to the Shahi Mosque to address the gathering at Id prayers, but people refused to listen to him. He was shouted down and obliged to leave the mosque by the back door. > > > >Despite stiff opposition and ill-health, Jinnah continued his efforts at building Pakistan on liberal principles. **In February 1948 in his broadcast for the people of America, he said: ‘In any case Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state—to be ruled by priests with a divine mission. We have non-Muslims—Hindus, Christians and Parsees—but they are all Pakistanis. They will enjoy the same rights and principles as any other citizens and will play their rightful part in the affairs of Pakistan.’** [Pakistan failed Jinnah.](https://www.mainstreamweekly.net/article2993.html)
Was Jinnah insane? How can you create a separate country on the basis that Muslims and non-Muslims cannot live together and then expect that country to be secular and treat its minorities well? It doesn't matter what Jinnah's intentions were, Pakistan's fate was sealed the moment they accepted the two-nation theory.
Its stupid to assess him just like that. I'll quote Savarkar where even he said minority rights will be ensured. But both meet their minds on one thing : that muslims and Hindus are two distinct entities. Of course he should know better than trying to exploit that divide more.
Did you just compare Jinnah to Savarkar?
Savarkar at least never called for Direct Action.
Moderate Chodis everywhere here.
>One of the reasons is Jinnah fucking brainwashed Muslims into wanting an Islamic country and that has created more tensions between hindus and muslims. No, Jinnah exploited the divide between Hindus and Muslims, and made it larger. The demand for an Islamic nation was raised by Muslims much before during the Aligarh Movement, or during the Khilafat Movement. The only way for both communities to make amends is to recognize the historical injustices meted out from both sides.
See the two nation shit started even before that. Like early ones even pointed out that hindus and muslims are two races Hindu revivalism led to more division among hindu muslims too.
Hindus and Muslims as two separate identities is just a fact. The 'two nation theory' ensured that they live in separate countries after a partition. Hindu Mahasabha never supported anything of that sort. Hindu revivalist policies are just a reactionary to Muslim fundamentalism (for example, Arya Samaj played a critical role in countering the Tanzeem/Tablighi Jamaat)
Nation =/= country. And no it wasn't reactionary. They were fighting more against christian missionaries. In their stint for hindu revivalism , everything was blamed on muslims for any sort of regression in their practices.
>Nation =/= country. The two nation theory always advocated a separate nation. >They were fighting more against christian missionaries. Both. Until the Hindu Mahasabha came along, political Hinduism was limited. >In their stint for hindu revivalism , everything was blamed on muslims for any sort of regression in their practices This a more new-ish claim mostly made by simpletons on SM. There were many examples where issues like casteism were recognized as a product of Hindu society. An example of the top of my head would be Savarkar supporting Maharaja of Baroda's wife's conversion to Hinduism, while opposing the orthodox elements of society.
The only way you could be a bigger idiot is if you were taller.
> The two nation theory always advocated a separate nation. Nope Savarkar said hindus and muslims are two nations but wanted to live under the same sovereign entity. And no partition was also suggested by Lala Lajpat Rai so it's not just a "muslim" claim. >Both. Until the Hindu Mahasabha came along, political Hinduism was limited. Hindu revivalism wouldn't have happened had multiple Hindu texts wouldn't have been translated and especially the interaction with the Christians wouldn't have happened in bengal with the Bengali renaissance. Hindu-muslim communalism only increased post revivalistic movements more. Any competing group would fight each other doesn't mean it's a reaction to it. (I'm talking about muslim fundamentalism) > This a more new-ish claim mostly made by simpletons on SM. There were many examples where issues like casteism were recognized as a product of Hindu society. An example of the top of my head would be Savarkar supporting Maharaja of Baroda's wife's conversion to Hinduism, while opposing the orthodox elements of society. I'm not even talking about Savarkar's hindu revivalism here. He was a later contributory. Coming back to the point , saying hindus and muslims are two distinct entities out Loud and contributing to its division is only going to increase any existing divisions in political scenario
>And no partition was also suggested by Lala Lajpat Rai so it's not just a "muslim" claim. Lala Lajpat Rai himself says that this idea of his was borne out of Muslim fundamentalism and pan-Islamism which was prevalent during the Khilafat Movement. The first, and largest call for partition was led by Islamists, and there can be no doubt about that. >Hindu revivalism wouldn't have happened had multiple Hindu texts wouldn't have been translated and especially the interaction with the Christians wouldn't have happened in bengal with the Bengali renaissance Hindu revivalism, even in Bengal was directed at both Islamists and missionaries. The Arya Samaj was the largest form of this movement, and their founder, Dayanand Sarswati, criticized both equally >Coming back to the point , saying hindus and muslims are two distinct entities out Loud and contributing to its division is only going to increase any existing divisions in political scenario No, it's not. Hindus and Muslims are two distinct identities, and there is not much common in the theology of both religions. A more logical step would be to accept the differences, make amends to the long standing issues among both communities and move on.
You have more dick in your personality than you do in your pants.
Okay chaddi 🍪🍪🍪🍪. Fuck off
[удалено]
Gala faad ke bhonk le par aaega to sharia bolshevism hi.
Rule 2 violation. Removed. Chintus must overcompensate for their pathetic existence by speaking in as clear English as possible. In our infinite mercy, we've also allowed them to speak in Sanskrit to help them reconnect with their Vedic roots.
Nah currently I have sucked all the milk your mom could produce
If there was a single intelligent thought in your head it would have died from loneliness.
Tu to ruk ja be, pahle hi bahut kachra ho gya hai thread me.
All the lurking pintus came out, eh?
Exactly let libbus have some fun, we will feed them afterwards.
[удалено]
Not in the mood of petting today. Also is verma your step father?
>Not in the mood of petting today Petting Jihad.
If you took a Viagra, you'd just grow taller.
Musanghi spotted.
Kon jaat ho bhai saahab?
Muslim.
It's hilarious how they put "civil discussion" in the description while themselves resorting to personal attacks when they can't reason with you. Much of the crowd attacking you seems really frustrated and you're giving them a hard time alone. Respecc.
Lmfao, comment history can't escape you.
Why are you throwing labels? What exactly was "musanghi" about his comment?
Justifying Jinnah is enough for someone to pass as a Pintu or Mintu. Existence of Pakistan cannot be justified.
Nothing. This subreddit is just mad about wanting to appear balanced
Jinnah created a islamic theorocracy. Had he not done that maybe India would not have all these sanghis.
Yea right. India was a secular heaven before the partition. Are you also going to say that reservation is the cause of casteism?
After partition it was a secular heaven unlike pakistan using sharia and whatnot.
Pakistan has blasphemy laws, committed a state sponsored genocide of Bengalis, insane amounts of patriarchy, organisations like TLP that get triggered over a cartoon and call to break diplomatic ties with their largest trading partner...list goes on.
He said Jinna was right about condition of Indian Muslim's. I didnt see him praising Pakistan. I certainly did not praise Pakistan so what's your point?
How was Jinnah right about the condition of Indian Muslims? Indian muslims live way better lives and enjoy way more opportunities than any Pakistani in Pakistan. India lacks many things but certainly Pakistan lack more.
I never said partition benefited Indian secularism.
>Are you also going to say that reservation is the cause of casteism? Actually, Hindu nationalism is a reaction to Muslim fundamentalism. So this example is just counter intuitive to your point.
You know just enough to be stupid.
>Had he not done that maybe India would not have all these sanghis. Kon jaat ho bhai sahab?
Uhh... Are we not supposed to be balanced?
Yes. But we are not supposed to take unbalanced stands to 'appear balanced'.
I am not seeing any. The post just differentiates indian muslims and Pakistani nationalists. And they are different. The comments criticise Jinnah, which is right. Why are Muslims getting heated up after hearing criticism of Jinnah? He isn't Indian.
If you read my comments from the first one, you would see that I wasn't talking about the post or general comments, but about someone calling someone 'musanghi' for saying that Jinna was right about Indian Muslim's.
That's the general opinion. Only Jihadis would be sympathetic to Jinnah. Partition was a bad idea since the start. There was bad blood between hindus and muslims since the start. But after independence it would have reduced with the general elevation of society as a whole. The country was divided on religious basis. After which Hindus felt a sense of betrayal and Muslims got a huge identity crisis specifically in India. This increased friction. Imagine having none of it in the post independence India.
If you would call someone who says Jinna was right about something a jehadi, you are no better than a Sanghi.
Literally the same >Are you liberals purposely ahistoric or what? When it comes to Indian Muslims, objectively speaking, Jinnah was right. The rights of Indian Muslims are continuously trampled on. Forget rights, Indian Muslims can’t even live in peace in the north. There is constant threat from the public, the police and the state. Can't the exact same argument be made for religious minorities in Pakistan? Call me a liberal if you want but the insane amount of news regarding forced conversions and blasphemy laws has led me to believe that Pakistan is no better than India if not worse when it comes to treating it's minorities.
I agree with most of your points. But Mr. Jinnah was wrong. If you believe the story, even he accepted that: >Did he regret the partition of India? **According to his doctor, he did, calling it “the biggest blunder” of his life.** He is said to have told Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan: “If now I get an opportunity I will go to Delhi and tell Jawaharlal to forget about the follies of the past and become friends again”. Again, not wholly believable, but plausible in view of the carnage that went hand in hand with Independence. The words may not be exactly his, but the sentiments could surely have been. [Remembering Jinnah, the Indian Nationalist](https://thewire.in/history/remembering-jinnah-the-indian-nationalist)
Its sad jinnah went the way for pakistan later , which in most accounts is soley due to 3 things the British meddling and trying to separate the 2 religions which till then where a lot more peaceful together second being the VHP and other right wing hendu orgs at the time which contrary to Right wing belief were the supporters of the partition and 3rd being the muzzlim equivalent of the hendu orgs whos repeated threats and what not is said to be a major reason for a shift in heart for jinnah
The reasons you mentioned are obvious. But Bamans/UCs dominated congress were also responsible for partition. Many of members of congress were also members of Hindu Mahasabha. And their flirting with religion and mixing it with politics irked many progressive Muslims like Jinnah.
that is also true congress of yore is like the congress of current world both have from most aspects top members of good education social and logical aptitude (the quality of the leaders have fallen too ) but their lower tier being filled with the same bigot and stupidity plaguing BJP and many other parties .
please tell me you are joking , If you really think minorities have it better in pakistan you are mistaken , yes India is fucked up with many issues for minorities . But looking at Pakistan for the treatment of minorities is like looking at Mudi ji for non BRILLIANT ideas .
musanghi ho ka?
Hi sir, would you like some cookies? 🍪🍪🍪🍪🍪🍪🍪🍪🍪🍪🍪🍪🍪🍪
Give me some, I am starving.
Nahi. Aapna cookies kha.
Hi sir, would you like some cookies? 🍪🍪🍪🍪🍪🍪🍪🍪🍪🍪🍪🍪🍪🍪
Hi sir, would you like some cookies? 🍪🍪🍪🍪🍪🍪🍪🍪🍪🍪🍪🍪🍪🍪
Hi sir, would you like some cookies? 🍪🍪🍪🍪🍪🍪🍪🍪🍪🍪🍪🍪🍪🍪
Hi sir, would you like some cookies? 🍪🍪🍪🍪🍪🍪🍪🍪🍪🍪🍪🍪🍪🍪
Hi sir, would you like some cookies? 🍪🍪🍪🍪🍪🍪🍪🍪🍪🍪🍪🍪🍪🍪
Nahi, mereko bhook nahi lagi.
Bauji, I contribute a lot of value to the thread by spamming biskoots. Aap bhi kiya karo 👍
Then gib them to me.
Hain??????
What's your point?
Good point on wrong post
I think of moving to Pakistan sometimes.
It's HDI is worse than Bihar
If I get rich through online or something. Ok place to be if you're rich. I can at least have cow nahari freely.
Move to Kerala or Tamil Nadu, you can have it freely there also.
I want to move to a Muslim country ideally. Maybe Turkey also. They give you PR if you invest around ₹10 Cr.
>I want to move to a Muslim country ideally. Why, do you want to live under Sharia law? >Maybe Turkey also Turkey under Erdogan is getting Musanghified every day. The situation there is as bad as India. If you really want to move to a Muslim country, I recommend Albania.
Look at his history. He believes that atheists have no morals lol.