‘Can never be forgotten’: August 14 to be observed as ‘Partition Horrors Remembrance Day’ : PM Modi

[Major]

Partition was completed on 14th August so ofcourse thats the date for the remembrance day.

Secondly, this remembrance day is for those who suffered the pain of partition and then on 15th august became Indian citizens.

So ofcourse there is nothing to talk about pakistanis. Pakistan is free to have its own remembrance day or whatever.

Lets not forget what muslims did on direct action day. So only an idiot in India will try to have any sympathies with pakistanis on that day.

-Partition happened on the midnight of 15th august.
-India and Pakistan were dominions. India became a Republic in January of 1950s.
-Migration of people did not take place in a single day. Alot of the people migrated after 15th of August. Massacres had started from the early months of 1947

 

[AamchiMumbaikar]

India was always a banana republic. You think anyone outside India believes that your third world country has an equitable justice system? India literally executes Kashmiris through the same judicial "machinery". Also just for the record, us Pakistanis view the Congress as the same as the BJP/RSS - they're all Indian nationalists who seek to establish Indian hegemony in the region. They're two sides of the same coin.

That's good to know, so it does not matter whether Bjp/ Congress whoever is in power to you.

 

[IMMY69]

That's good to know, so it does not matter whether Bjp/ Congress whoever is in power to you.

Why is it good to know? Does it fit your narrative?

Rather then deflecting are you brave enough to denounce your PM and the minister who made that statement in the opening post?

 

[Deewana Mastana]

90% of India supports this RSS and Hindutva ideology so it is not surprising seeing what some had to say in here.

The hatred Indians mostly have for Pakistanis and Pakistan is way beyond what Pakistan and Pakistanis have for India and Indians which is a reality and no matter whatever happens these 2 nations will never become friends or have a friendly atmosphere it continues the way it has.

 

[UzmanBeast]

sorry but you are wrong.

Pakistan doesnt really use India to ignite patriotism.... This is always done by the local media, and as Pakistani media is free they dont do this as much as India does.

Pakistan can use religion to unite the people, but they dont do an India-Pakistan thing to garner public unity. India does that very much so, but not Pakistan

Pakistan media doesn't, but the government does.

Imran Khan's Twitter is mostly used to demonize India almost once a week.

No country is in the clear in this regard. Media in Pakistan does appear to be more "free" based on what I've seen and read, but then again, that's just my opinion.

 

[Lego20]

Who is a closet sicular politician? Someone who sympathizes with Pakistan? Someone who sympathizes with Muslims? Someone who sympathizes with anyone that is being treated unfairly?

Does your closet have a garbage bin from where this trash is leaking?

Sicular = Selective secularism, selective outrage.

People of this ilk invoke religion when it suits them Please note my posts have not invoked any religion.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Last I checked, far more muslims died in the riots than hindus.

So yeah, the Gujarat riots will always be more about the muslim deaths.

Last i checked muslims started it by burning a train in which 60 Hindus died.

No amount of white washing by the likes of you will change that. Hindus and Indians remember it well.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Yep, Jinnah forced them to pick a date or else .....
So even the British listened to Jinnah.

Jinnah listened to what the British said. Thats why he got the much curtailed territory than what he demanded.

 

[KB]

Commenting on the decision to observe August 14 as Partition Horrors Remembrance Day, Vijay Chauthaiwale, in charge of the foreign affairs department of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), said it is time to acknowledge the horrors of Partition and the violence that ensued after India and Pakistan were carved out as two countries in 1947.

“This is a long-overdue recognition that Partition resulted in violence, displacement of millions of people, incidents of killing and rape of those who came from the present-day Pakistan. The stories are still vivid and observing this day is a recognition of their sacrifices. Partition was a tragic part of history and the violence that followed it as well. PM Modi has shown tremendous courage by acknowledging the same,” Chauthaiwale said.

The purpose behind an act of remembrance or commemoration matters. As the above quotation reveals, this is a cynical move, not aimed at deepening historical understanding but promoting a selective reading, which reinforces the ethno-centric agenda of the Modi led BJP.

Remembrance can be powerful if it is designed to stimulate and enhance collective understandings of the historical event and which ultimately aims to deepen our common humanity. Modi’s insidious move is aiming for the opposite.

 

[MP2011]

90% of India supports this RSS and Hindutva ideology so it is not surprising seeing what some had to say in here.

No. The tally is 40% who are gullible enough to buy whatever hate-filled narrative the bigot sells to them. Don't paint every Indian with that brush. There are still quite a few sensible Indians left in India.

 

[MP2011]

The purpose behind an act of remembrance or commemoration matters. As the above quotation reveals, this is a cynical move, not aimed at deepening historical understanding but promoting a selective reading, which reinforces the ethno-centric agenda of the Modi led BJP.

Remembrance can be powerful if it is designed to stimulate and enhance collective understandings of the historical event and which ultimately aims to deepen our common humanity. Modi’s insidious move is aiming for the opposite.

He is aiming to polarize the electorate ahead of UP elections, something which he is quite adept at.

 

[MP2011]

Never before in our history, we've ever been as hateful towards other nations as we're now. Things were far better even when BJP was ruling us for 6 years.

Now everything is viewed through the Hindu-Muslim prism.

 

[street cricketer]

Last i checked muslims started it by burning a train in which 60 Hindus died.

No amount of white washing by the likes of you will change that. Hindus and Indians remember it well.

Terror attacks by extremist muslims have happened in many countries.

In civilized countries though, people of that country don't bay for the blood of innocent muslims just because of some extremists belonging to the muslim community committed a heinous act. Instead of punishing the extremists who committed the terrible act, the rioters committed rapes and massacres of innocent muslim families just to avenge those deaths of hindus who died in the train burning. Such people are no different from the people who burnt the train. They are terrrorists too and people sympathising with such people are terrorist sympathisers.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

That's good to know, so it does not matter whether Bjp/ Congress whoever is in power to you.

To Muslims Congress was always soft Hindutva. This is why in the 1946 election almost all the Muslim seats were won by the Muslim League.

However now most Pakistanis prefer Congress to BJP, as Pakistanis see them as not hating Muslims, or the Muslim history of the subcontinent, which they perceive BJP to do so.

The exception is the establishment who prefer BJP.

 

[street cricketer]

To Muslims Congress was always soft Hindutva. This is why in the 1946 election almost all the Muslim seats were won by the Muslim League.

However now most Pakistanis prefer Congress to BJP, as Pakistanis see them as not hating Muslims, or the Muslim history of the subcontinent, which they perceive BJP to do so.

The exception is the establishment who prefer BJP.

I mean, it's not like the Muslim League was some secular party..

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

I mean, it's not like the Muslim League was some secular party..

True, even though they were secular Muslims among them. In fact the more hardliner religious Muslims called Jinnah Kafir e Azam. However as Muslims saw Congress representing Hindu interest, the Muslim League was created to represent Muslim interests.

I would aruge had Jinnah lived as long as Nehru Pakistan would be a secular state today. Jinnah was vague on how he wanted Pakistan to be, as he needed to win Muslim voters of all backgrounds, however his August 11 speech made it clear what he wanted.

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. As you know, history shows that in England conditions, some time ago, were much worse than those prevailing in India today. The Roman Catholics and the Protestants persecuted each other. Even now there are some States in existence where there are discriminations made and bars imposed against a particular class. Thank God, we are not starting in those days. We are starting in the days where there is no discrimination, no distinction between one community and another, no discrimination between one caste or creed and another. We are starting with this fundamental principle: that we are all citizens, and equal citizens, of one State.

http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00islamlinks/txt_jinnah_assembly_1947.html

 

[street cricketer]

True, even though they were secular Muslims among them. In fact the more hardliner religious Muslims called Jinnah Kafir e Azam. However as Muslims saw Congress representing Hindu interest, the Muslim League was created to represent Muslim interests.

I would aruge had Jinnah lived as long as Nehru Pakistan would be a secular state today. Jinnah was vague on how he wanted Pakistan to be, as he needed to win Muslim voters of all backgrounds, however his August 11 speech made it clear what he wanted.




http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00islamlinks/txt_jinnah_assembly_1947.html

Beg to disagree here. Secularism as a concept is anathema for most muslims, particularly the desi ones.

Even Jinnah was hardly the most secular person and he himself disapproved of his daughter marrying a Parsi man, despite himself marrying a Parsi lady.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

Beg to disagree here. Secularism as a concept is anathema for most muslims, particularly the desi ones.

Even Jinnah was hardly the most secular person and he himself disapproved of his daughter marrying a Parsi man, despite himself marrying a Parsi lady.

How does that make you not secular? If you support a law that its illegal for a Muslim women to marry a non Muslim, sure that's not secular. But if you in your personal capacity oppose your daughter marrying a non Muslim then that a different matter.

Also that Parsi lady that Jinnah married converted to Islam, so technically she was a Muslim lady.

 

[street cricketer]

How does that make you not secular? If you support a law that its illegal for a Muslim women to marry a non Muslim, sure that's not secular. But if you in your personal capacity oppose your daughter marrying a non Muslim then that a different matter.

Also that Parsi lady that Jinnah married converted to Islam, so technically she was a Muslim lady.

It was not just that. He also supported ideas like separate electorates for muslims, all of which would clash with the idea of secularism.

I mean sure, Jinnah married the Parsi lady only after she converted to Islam but you get my drift. Yes, it was only Jinnah's stance in his personal life and it doesn't necessarily reflect his views on secularism for a state he governs. But equally, one can also conclude that when a man does not approve of his own daughter marrying a person from another religion, it is very likely that he would also not have been supportive of a law allowing such a union to take place in the society he leads, which would be the norm in a secular society.

 

[Giannis]

That's good to know, so it does not matter whether Bjp/ Congress whoever is in power to you.

It doesn't matter to Pakistanis, they're both two sides of the same coin.

 

[Giannis]

Beg to disagree here. Secularism as a concept is anathema for most muslims, particularly the desi ones.

Even Jinnah was hardly the most secular person and he himself disapproved of his daughter marrying a Parsi man, despite himself marrying a Parsi lady.

It's only Indians I've seen use "secular" as an adjective to describe someone, it's never used in that way in the west. You can support pluralism and separation of church & state (secularism) and still follow the edicts of your religion - Jinnah was a progressive man, ( I wouldn't use the word "Secular" the way Indians do as it doesn't make much sense in American English) but that doesn't mean he has to approve of his child marrying a non Muslim as that goes against his faith. There are a lot of Christians in American that support freedom of religion and the constitution but they wouldn't be happy to see their child marry a non-Believer as it goes against their faith (2 Corinthians 6:14) and I'm sure there are many Hindus despite being "proudly secular" that wouldn't approve of their child marrying a lower caste - I wonder what would've been Nehru or Ambani's reaction if their daughters married a Dalit, I'm sure they'd rather them marry a Parsi as they would be "racially superior" in India's caste hierarchy even if they're not formally part of the caste system.

 

[street cricketer]

It's only Indians I've seen use "secular" as an adjective to describe someone, it's never used in that way in the west. You can support pluralism and separation of church & state (secularism) and still follow the edicts of your religion - Jinnah was a progressive man, ( I wouldn't use the word "Secular" the way Indians do as it doesn't make much sense in American English) but that doesn't mean he has to approve of his child marrying a non Muslim as that goes against his faith. There are a lot of Christians in American that support freedom of religion and the constitution but they wouldn't be happy to see their child marry a non-Believer as it goes against their faith (2 Corinthians 6:14) and I'm sure there are many Hindus despite being "proudly secular" that wouldn't approve of their child marrying a lower caste - I wonder what would've been Nehru or Ambani's reaction if their daughters married a Dalit, I'm sure they'd rather them marry a Parsi as they would be "racially superior" in India's caste hierarchy even if they're not formally part of the caste system.

You're going into semantics here. I obviously meant the separation of the church and the state when I wrote the word secular, easier to write it in a single word rather than typing "a person supporting the separation of the church and the state".

I very much agree that Jinnah was definitely liberal in his views compared to his counterparts and even most muslims today, but if he can disapprove of his daughter marrying a person from another religion and still be progressive, then does that make the "love jihad" activists of India progressive people too?

 

[Bhaijaan]

Checked some social media after yesterday’s Bharat vs Pakistan match.

Some observations :-

• Many Kashmiri Muslims celebrated Bharat’s win
• Apparently many people from Pakistan were seen cheering for Virat Kohli’s century
• Many Pakistani social media accounts in complete awe of the Bharatiya cricket team and Bharatiya cricket system

There is visible change in attitude of Pakistanis towards Bharat in the last few years. A lot of praise. A lot of discussions on the shared history. A lot of notable people openly saying their real identity is Bharatiya. Some even questioned 1947 partition.

Things are changing.

My hypothesis stands firm.

100 years. A reunification is on the cards. Pakistan controlled Kashmir, Pakistani Punjab and Sindh for sure.

I think the Baloch will want to stay a separate nation.

 

[boomboomcheema]

Checked some social media after yesterday’s Bharat vs Pakistan match.

Some observations :-

• Many Kashmiri Muslims celebrated Bharat’s win
• Apparently many people from Pakistan were seen cheering for Virat Kohli’s century
• Many Pakistani social media accounts in complete awe of the Bharatiya cricket team and Bharatiya cricket system

There is visible change in attitude of Pakistanis towards Bharat in the last few years. A lot of praise. A lot of discussions on the shared history. A lot of notable people openly saying their real identity is Bharatiya. Some even questioned 1947 partition.

Things are changing.

My hypothesis stands firm.

100 years. A reunification is on the cards. Pakistan controlled Kashmir, Pakistani Punjab and Sindh for sure.

I think the Baloch will want to stay a separate nation.

What about Reunification with Bangladesh first ? When will Bharat annex Dhaka and Chittagong into the Indian Union ?

 

[Bhaijaan]

What about Reunification with Bangladesh first ? When will Bharat annex Dhaka and Chittagong into the Indian Union ?

Reunification can only happen when there is mutual respect and love.

If it will ever be done it will be by mutual cooperation. Not through force.

No domination. But supportiveness.

With Bangladesh, we do not have that kind of bonding. So there’s no desire as such to reunify with them and i suppose it’s the same with them. They also do not feel any binding with us the way Pakistanis especially Punjabi, Sindhi Pakistanis do.

Kashmir is a sensitive topic and I don’t think any of us is mature enough to address that matter and it’s the biggest reason the reunification might take 100 years rather than 20 years. Everyone would have to be extremely open minded and respectful in dealing with this topic.

 

[Technics 1210]

Will never forget?

Yup, the Saffron cult made sure of that by murdering Gandhi.

India's enemy is the cult.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

Checked some social media after yesterday’s Bharat vs Pakistan match.

Some observations :-

• Many Kashmiri Muslims celebrated Bharat’s win
• Apparently many people from Pakistan were seen cheering for Virat Kohli’s century
• Many Pakistani social media accounts in complete awe of the Bharatiya cricket team and Bharatiya cricket system

There is visible change in attitude of Pakistanis towards Bharat in the last few years. A lot of praise. A lot of discussions on the shared history. A lot of notable people openly saying their real identity is Bharatiya. Some even questioned 1947 partition.

Things are changing.

My hypothesis stands firm.

100 years. A reunification is on the cards. Pakistan controlled Kashmir, Pakistani Punjab and Sindh for sure.

I think the Baloch will want to stay a separate nation.

While I applaud your sincere efforts to lift the spirit of Bharat Bhaijaan, it feels like Sanatan or whatever you call it is a shrinking and defensive movement which lacks confidence outside of the subcontinent. Even there it appears to be losing ground surrounded by Islam on the outside, and western influence on the inside. Perhaps it looks different from where you are sitting and I am seeing through an island lens of Great Britain.

 

[Bhaijaan]

While I applaud your sincere efforts to lift the spirit of Bharat Bhaijaan, it feels like Sanatan or whatever you call it is a shrinking and defensive movement which lacks confidence outside of the subcontinent. Even there it appears to be losing ground surrounded by Islam on the outside, and western influence on the inside. Perhaps it looks different from where you are sitting and I am seeing through an island lens of Great Britain.

There is a reason why i am giving it 100 years rather than 20 years.

We all have to go a long way to make it happen.

 

[sweep_shot]

World tends to focus on present and future. Chaiwala prefers to focus on past.

No wonder Indians are leaving India in big numbers.

 

[Bhaijaan]

My brothers in Lahore going absolutely MAD over Vikrant Gupta

Reunification will happen. Nothing can stop it now. @DeadlyVenom @Cpt. Rishwat @Stewie @cricketjoshila @Rajdeep

https://twitter.com/x/status/1895154900423844025

At this point, it makes no sense that Lahore & Delhi are cities of two different nations.