Why Pakistanis have a problem with India---my personal view

Discussion in 'Asia' started by ashdoc, Dec 29, 2013.

  1. ashdoc

    ashdoc Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2013
    Messages:
    153
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    28
    not at all...

    india is a secular state and muslims can stay in india . pakistan is a fanatical muslim state and no hindu or sikh or christian or buddhist should stay in pakistan . india has every right to muslim majority areas because of it secularism but pakistan has no right to non muslim areas because it is fundamentalist muslim state . for claiming hyderabad and junagadh you should have practised the secularism that jawaharlal nehru practiced rather than calling yourself an islamic state . india is not a hindu state and is officially secular .
     
  2. ashdoc

    ashdoc Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2013
    Messages:
    153
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    28
    you should thank india for defeating pakistan in 1971 and cutting off bangladesh from you , because if east pakistan had remained in pakistan then cruel treatment of east pakistanis by west pakistanis would have definitely affected any survey today .

    indian visa is better than pakistani visa because indians are considered less prone to terrorism than pakistanis . even though you accuse indians of spreading terrorism in pakistan the world does not automatically think of indians as terrorists like they do of pakistanis .
     
  3. Pak

    Pak New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2016
    Messages:
    112
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    My friend, You have been repeating this in almost every post of yours that Pakistani visa/passport is among one of the worst to own. Well, what you seem to be unaware of is the fact that Indian visa/passport isn't much better either.

    A reality check:


    In the list of "The most powerful passports in the world", India ranks 48th, just one slot above countries like Iraq (50th) and Afghanistan (51st) ..


    http://indy100.independent.co.uk/ar...-powerful-passports-in-the-world--eJWESZ4jC1W
    http://www.goeuro.com/ultimate-passport-ranking



    And in Visa Restrictions Index (2006-2016), India ranks 85th:

    http://visaindex.com/#



    What's all the gloating about ??


    Well, British India was partitioned on the basis that the Muslim Majority Areas should become Pakistan and the Hindu majority areas should become India. You are wrong. India had no right to Muslim majority areas. Kashmir was almost 80% Muslim, and it was never supposed to become a part of India. India invaded and captured Kashmir. 70 years on, and you have failed in integrating Kashmir into India !!.


    And for your information, Pakistan wasn't created an Islamic Republic, it became one much later. At the time when India invaded and captured Junagadh, Hyderabad and Kashmir,(1947-1949), Pakistan was Dominion of Pakistan. Under that system, Pakistan was an independent Commonwealth realm with a hereditary, constitutional monarch as the head of state. The monarch was the monarch of the United Kingdom. Pakistan adopted a new constitution on 23 March 1956. This constitution abolished the monarchy, making Pakistan a republic in the Commonwealth of Nations. And until 1973, Pakistan had no state religion. So, saying that India had right to Muslim majority areas as it was secular but Pakistan had no right to Hindu majority areas as it was an Islamic Republic only shows one's sheer ignorance of historical facts.
     
  4. ashdoc

    ashdoc Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2013
    Messages:
    153
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    28
    http://tribune.com.pk/story/704044/...-worst-to-travel-with-visa-restriction-index/

    according to above ( see above link ) report by a pakistani newspaper , pakistan ranks 91 and near iraq and afghanistan in worst visas . so pakistan ranks with terror ridden countries . india ranks 74 , so it is not ranked alongside terror ridden countries . kuwait has refused to take pakistani nationals in partly because of the terror that abounds in pakistan .

    india was opposed to the partitioning of british india on basis of religion and remains opposed . it was only at the point of the gun ( muslim league sponsered great calcutta killings ) that india accepted partition . why should everything happen according to pakistan's logic of partitioning nations according to religion ? that is certainly not india's logic .

    and it was pretty clear as to what pakistan was heading to---an islamic republic . all the minorities like sikhs and hindus were expelled at partition and pakistan rapidily became more than 90 percent muslim . today pakistan is 95 percent muslim . in india muslims were expelled only from punjab ( in retaliation for post partition riots in pakistani punjab ) but in remaining parts muslims were allowed to stay . in india muslims have grown from 10 percent according to 1951 census to 14.2 percent according to 2011 census . hindus are now less than 80 percent of population in india ( 2011 census figures ) and minorities are more than 20 percent---the hallmark of a truly secular republic . on the other hand pakistani hindus have only dwindled in numbers since partition . so india can keep a muslim majority state . pakistan on the other hand has no right to hindu majority areas .
     
  5. Pak

    Pak New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2016
    Messages:
    112
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Read my post again. India is ranked 48th, near Iraq(50th) and Afghanistan(51st). So, by your own logic, India too ranks with terror ridden countries. As a matter of fact, both India and Pakistan rank very poorly on these indices. An Indian trying to tell a Pakistani (or vice versa) that his country ranks poorly on this index is a case of 'The pot calling the kettle black'.


    There was no India or Pakistan back then. It was the Hindu-dominated Indian National Congress that was opposed to partition, and the All India Muslim League that demanded partition. However, quite ironically, the Muslim League accepted the Cabinet mission plan in 1946, and agreed to withdraw its demand for a separate Muslim homeland, Congress, on the other hand, rejected this plan outright.. The rejection of cabinet mission plan led to a resurgence of confrontational politics beginning with the Muslim League's Direct action day ..... and eventually, the British India was divided into India and Pakistan in August 1947. The portioning of responsibility of the League, the Congress and the British Colonial Administration for the breakdown continues to be a topic of fierce disagreement.


    Maulana Azad (who served on the Congress Working Committee and in the offices of general secretary and president many times) said :

    " Looking back after ten years, I concede that there was force in what Mr.Jinnah said. The Congress and the League were both parties to the agreement, and it was on the basis of distribution among the center, the provinces and the groups that the League had accepted the plan. Congress was neither wise nor right in raising doubts. It should have accepted the Plan unequivocally if it stood for the unity of India. Vacillation would give Mr.Jinnah the opportunity to divide India."




    Quite the contrary.... Jinnah, while addressing the constituent Assembly in August 1947, said:

    ".....You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place or worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed that has nothing to do with the business of the State.....

    ..... Now I think we should keep that in front of us as our ideal and you will find that in course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State..... "



    As per 1951 Census, (West)Pakistan had 1.6 % Hindu population .... Today Hindus make up 1.8 - 2% of Pakistan's population .. This percentage has remained fairly constant for nearly 65 years.
     
  6. ashdoc

    ashdoc Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2013
    Messages:
    153
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    28
    well the pakistani newspaper tribune tells a different story from your report . in fact many pakistanis in US take advantage of their knowledge of indian culture pretend to be indians because if they come out openly as pakistanis they will be shunned because of the terror tag that comes with being a pakistani .

    and one speech by jinnah does not change anything . after raising the cry of 'islam khatrey mey' ( islam in danger ) and playing communal politics what was the point in backtracking ? anyway jinnah died too early to implement his ideas .

    Hindus%u00252Bin%u00252BPakistan.png

    the above chart ( from a pakistani website---haq's musings ) shows a massive drop in hindu population in west pakistan from 1941 census to 1951 census . shows how hindus were butchered to extinction in pakistan in 1947 . i assure you no such massive drop occurred in india's muslim population .

    http://www.gktoday.in/cabinet-mission-plan-1946/

    the cabinet mission plan was rejected for the following reasons ( from the above link )---

     
  7. Pak

    Pak New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2016
    Messages:
    112
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    NO, it does not. That newspaper article is based on the report prepared by the "Henley & Partners" in 2014. And I posted the latest report prepared by the same "Henley & Partners" in 2016.

    As for the other report, prepared by the Berlin-based GoEuro, in which India ranks 48th along with countries like Afghanistan and Iraq, the founder of GoEuro is Naren Shaam, an Indian himself.


    Please quote a single speech/interview by him in which Jinnah had said that "Islam was in danger", or 'islam khatrey mey' is the rationale behind demanding Pakistan. As for communal politics, Blame Gandhi and Nehru. Jinnah had been an apostle of Hindu-Muslim unity. Gandhi brought religion into politics first. Jinnah strongly disapproved of this idea.


    About 4.7 million Hindus and Sikhs moved from West Pakistan (now Pakistan) to India in 1947. ( and 6.5 million Muslims moved from India to West Pakistan). Simple maths is needed to calculate/understand this drop in percentage (i.e., from 14% to 1.6%) of Hindu population in West Pakistan. (The total population of West Pakistan at that time was around 30 million). Hindus were butchered to extinction ?? I wonder what other lies do they tell/teach you in your schools ? Sir Francis Mudie, the governor of West Punjab, estimated that 5,00,000 Muslims died trying to enter his province, while the British high commissioner in Karachi put the full total at 8,00,000.


    For whatever reasons, but the Congress rejected this plan. And as pointed out by Maulana Azad, Congress was neither wise nor right in raising doubts. It should have accepted the Plan unequivocally if it stood for the unity of India.
     
  8. ashdoc

    ashdoc Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2013
    Messages:
    153
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    28
    https://www.henleyglobal.com/files/download/HP/hvri/HP Visa Restrictions Index 160223.pdf

    the above link gives the 2016 henley and partners visa restriction index . on reading i found that it is pakistan that sits with iraq and afghanistan and somalia , and india is above that level .

    jinnah was apostle of hindu muslim unity and was going to be the leader of the indian independence movement . but gandhi came onto the scene and he found himself dislodged from that . so like a typical politician jinnah increased his importance by raising the bogey that muslims would be threatened by hindu majority . in reality jinnah wanted an important role for himself but because gandhi was now occupying that role , he turned to separatist politics . this is of course typical of politicians to change their ideology when their political position is threatened , but in case of jinnah this would have terrible consequences for the subcontinent .

    percentage wise , hindus fell from 14 percent in west pakistan to something above one percent . so at partition their population was largely decimated in west pak . on the other hand muslims stood at 10 percent according to the first ( 1951 ) census of independent india , so hindu treatment of muslims was not so horrifying .

    the cabinet mission plan would have led to a very weak nation . anyway , the division of india into A , B and C parts was a kind of pseudo partition in itself . worse , punjab was left undivided and even hindu majority areas were left inside muslim majority section B along with sikh majority areas . similarly assam and west bengal ( both hindu majority regions ) were left in section C . so hindus were left prey to the communal wolves of the muslim league who would control section B and C . this was totally unacceptable .

    now dont say the muslim league was not communal . its very name ( muslim league ) gives away the fact that it was solely for the interests of muslims and muslims only . at least the name of the congress party was not so communal .

    any way , i have decided to stop arguing because of lack of time and have decide to quit this thread . so no more posts from me .
     
  9. Pak

    Pak New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2016
    Messages:
    112
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Good that you have actually started reading. Now look at my posts. That's what I have been trying to tell you. Indians aren't much better either. This kind of fault-finding and criticism against Pakistan, by an Indian, is a case of "The pot calling the Kettle black".

    And India too sits (sic) with countries like Afghanistan and Iraq. Check out the GoEuro report.


    Gandhi did not like Jinnah from day 1. Jinnah welcomed Gandhi when he came to India in 1915 . Below is an excerpt from Jinnah: India-Partition-Independence by Jaswant Singh; one of the founder members of BJP.



    Although the families of both Jinnah and Gandhi had once lived just about 40 miles or so apart in Kathiawar (Gujarat), this adjacency of their places of origin did nothing to bring their politics close together. At their very first meeting, at the Gurjar Sabha in January 1915, convened to felicitate Gandhi upon his return from South Africa, in response to a welcome speech, with Jinnah presiding, Gandhi had somewhat accommodatingly said he was 'glad to find a Muslim not only belonging to his own region's sabha but chairing it.' Gandhi had singled out Jinnah as a Muslim, though, neither in appearance or in conduct was Jinnah anywhere near to being any of the stereotypes of the religious identity ascribed by Gandhi. Jinnah, on the other hand, was far more fulsome in his praise.

    Gandhi had reached India by boat in January 1915 when many leaders, including Jinnah and Gokhale, went to Bombay to give him an ovatious welcome. By this date Jinnah had already engaged as an all India leader and was committed to attaining his stated goals of unity, not just between the Muslims and the Hindus, Extremists and Moderates, but also among various classes of India. To receive Gandhi, Jinnah had forsaken attending the Madras Congress meet of 1914. Gandhi, upon reaching Bombay, had been warmly welcomed by Jinnah who wanted to enlist his services for the cause of Hindu-Muslim unity. It was because of his popularity and standing that Jinnah had been invited to preside over a garden party given by the Gurjar Sabha, an association of the Gurjar (Gujar) community, arranged to welcome Mr and Mrs Gandhi, on his arrival on 13 January 1915.

    In his presidential address, Jinnah 'welcomed... Mr and Mrs Gandhi, not only on behalf of Bombay but on behalf of the whole of India.' He impressed upon Gandhi that the greatest problem was 'to bring about unanimity and co-operation between the two communities so that the demands of India (from Imperial Britain) may be made absolutely unanimously.' For this he desired 'that frame of mind, that state, that condition which they had to bring about between the two communities, when most of their problems, he had no doubt, would easily be solved.' Jinnah went to the extent of saying: 'Undoubtedly he [Gandhi] would not only become a worthy ornament but also a real worker whose equals there were very few.' This remark was greatly applauded by a largely Hindu audience, accounts of that meeting report. Gandhi, however, was cautious and somewhat circuitous in his response. He took the plea that he would study all the Indian questions from 'his own point of view,' a reasonable enough assertion; also because Gokhale had advised him to study the situation for at least a year before entering politics. This, too, was all right but then, needlessly, he thanked Jinnah for presiding over a Hindu gathering. This was an ungracious and discouraging response to Jinnah's warm welcome and had a dampening effect.

    Gandhi, somewhat hesitant at first, could, in that early phase, see no other route but of following Gokhale, Jinnah and some of the other moderate leaders. This was also because (Bal Gangadhar) Tilak had also, by then, come around to the moderate line. Gandhi did cooperate with all of them, but only until about 1920, after which he clearly became the prominent voice and position. Besides, by then (1920) Gandhi had won acceptance from the British government too, even though that was through the good offices of Gokhale, who 'exerted the full weight of his prestige and influence upon the Viceroy, Lord Hardinge, to bring the Government of India solidly behind Gandhi.' This was the period when the British government, very concerned about Jinnah, his Hindu-Muslim unity moves, was endeavouring hard to keep the All India Muslim League away from the Indian National Congress



    About 4.7 million Hindus and Sikhs moved from West Pakistan (now Pakistan) to India in 1947. ( and 6.5 million Muslims moved from India to West Pakistan). Simple maths is needed to calculate/understand this drop in percentage (i.e., from 14% to 1.6%) of Hindu population in West Pakistan. (The total population of West Pakistan at that time was around 30 million). Hindus were butchered to extinction ?? I wonder what other lies do they tell/teach you in your schools ? Sir Francis Mudie, the governor of West Punjab, estimated that 5,00,000 Muslims died trying to enter his province, while the British high commissioner in Karachi put the full total at 8,00,000.


    The Indian National Congress was not serious in keeping India united. They wanted to get rid of permanent headache. Rejection of Cabinet Mission Plan by Congress in 1946 makes them equally (if not more) responsible for partition.


    Have a nice day, mate.
     
  10. ashdoc

    ashdoc Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2013
    Messages:
    153
    Likes Received:
    32
    Trophy Points:
    28
    i have already decided to not argue any more , so i wont argue against your other points . but before quitting this thread completely , i will make one last point .

    you say that 4.7 million hindus and sikhs moved from west pak to india and on the other hand 6.5 million muslims moved out from india to pak .

    but the drop of percentage of hindus from 14 percent to 1. 6 percent means that west pakistanis drove out virtually every hindu they could lay their hands on . more were not driven out because there were hardly any hindus left .

    by saying that hindus were butchered to extinction i mean that they became practically extinct in west pakistan . i didn't mean they were all murdered . but enough of them were killed to force practically the entire hindu population of west pakistan to flee .

    even though 6.5 million muslims also fled from india to pakistan , considering india's much larger size and much vaster population the scale of any people fleeing from india was always going to be larger . more importantly , india's muslim population remained 10 percent . this means hindus did not try to drive out every muslim they could lay their hands on . muslims didn't become extinct in india the way the hindus became practically extinct in west pakistan....yeah , i know they became extinct more by fleeing than by massacre , but that does not change the fact that there are practically no hindus left in west pakistan . another point is that even the sikhs had to flee , not just the hindus .

    according to CIA world factbook pakistan is 97 percent muslim . which means minorities practically dont exist . a far cry from 1931 when ( according to haq's musings ) hindus alone were 15 percent and also a significant sikh minority existed .

    on the other hand hindus are less than 80 percent of india today . 20 percent are minorities . that is clear evidence of the fact that india has been far more liberal towards it's minorities .

    now i really have nothing more to say and wont argue against any points you make .
     
  11. Pak

    Pak New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2016
    Messages:
    112
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0

    At the time of independence in 1947, British India had 17 provinces. Upon the Partition of British India into the Dominion of India and Dominion of Pakistan, 11 provinces were given to India, 3 (Baluchistan, North-West Frontier and Sindh) joined Pakistan, and 3 (Punjab, Bengal and Assam) were partitioned between India and Pakistan.

    Today, Pakistani Punjab is home to almost 60% of Pakistan's total population.

    Before partition, more than 35% of the population of the areas that constitute Indian Punjab now was Muslim. Today, Muslims make up less than 2% of the total population of Indian Punjab. And those 2% are not local Punjabis but Muslim laborers from other Indian provinces who have migrated to Indian Punjab.

    So, Indian Hindus and Sikhs (too) drove out virtually every Muslim they could lay their hands on in Indian Punjab. You have repeatedly pointed out that the Hindu population dropped from 14 % to 1.6% in West Pakistan, but what about the East Punjab where Muslim population dropped from above 35% to less than 1% ?? Muslims were in majority in Tehsils like Ferozepur, Zira, Batala, Gurdaspur, Nakodar, Jullundur, Dasuya etc. but once these Areas were included in India, All Muslims (even) from these Muslim majority areas were either expelled or killed by Hindus and Sikhs.


    [​IMG]
     
  12. ThirdTerm

    ThirdTerm Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2012
    Messages:
    4,318
    Likes Received:
    456
    Trophy Points:
    83
    The population exchange was the result of a civil war which broke out between Muslim and Hindu communities in British India. It was no longer safe for Muslims to live side by side with Hindus and Muslims fled to Pakistan. When India gained independence in 1947, it started a period of religious turmoil in India and Pakistan that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands. Gandhi was assassinated by a Hindu fanatic in January 1948 during a prayer vigil to an area of Muslim-Hindu violence, about which Churchill was deeply concerned. Britain had to abandon the jewel in the crown of the British Empire as the British lost the war against the Japanese in Asia, thus losing the mythic aura of invincibility that was necessary to sustain European colonial rule in Asia.
     
  13. mueed311

    mueed311 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2016
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Recently there are many events occur on the border of Pakistan and India but on actions of Pakistani army to defend Pakistan against India, Indian Army have started advising its government to attack on Pakistan and start war .. <a href="http://earfulinfo.com/indo-pak-tension/">Now days indo-pak tension increasing</a>
     

Share This Page