What's new

How long will India continue the policy of hate?

S

srh

Senior T20I Player
Joined
Jan 25, 2009
Runs
18,288
Neutral observers know that Pakistan keep taking steps for peace and love with India but India has rebutted all those steps with hate. How long will India continue this policy of hate towards anything Pakistan does? Is there a light at the end of tunnel?
 
If Pakistan gives up Kashmir aspirations, there will not be any enmity left between both countries.

Even if Kashmir issue is resolved, the current generation has grown up with a lot of unpleasant news about Pakistan. So it will take another 50 years and a couple of generations for everyone to forget the past enmity.
 
troodon said:
If Pakistan gives up Kashmir aspirations, there will not be any enmity left between both countries.

Even if Kashmir issue is resolved, the current generation has grown up with a lot of unpleasant news about Pakistan. So it will take another 50 years and a couple of generations for everyone to forget the past enmity.
Click to expand...

Even if Pakistan gives up its claim and doesn't say anything about Kashmir in the future that won't end the seperatist movement. Saddam Hussein thought the Kurds were being incited by israel and that was his mistake, he didn't understand that it was a homegrown movement for independence
 
srh said:
Neutral observers know that Pakistan keep taking steps for peace and love with India but India has rebutted all those steps with hate. How long will India continue this policy of hate towards anything Pakistan does? Is there a light at the end of tunnel?
Click to expand...

What steps have Pakistan taken? Kargil? Mumbai attacks?

Pakistan needs to stop funding supporting arming terrorists in Kashmir. Until then nothing matters.

And lol at neutral observers.Which observer?
 
Pakistanian said:
Even if Pakistan gives up its claim and doesn't say anything about Kashmir in the future that won't end the seperatist movement. Saddam Hussein thought the Kurds were being incited by israel and that was his mistake, he didn't understand that it was a homegrown movement for independence
Click to expand...

Let India and Kashmiris deal with the issue. If Pakistan doesnot interfere in it then it has no issues with India and it will have normal relations.
 
cricketjoshila said:
What steps have Pakistan taken? Kargil? Mumbai attacks?

Pakistan needs to stop funding supporting arming terrorists in Kashmir. Until then nothing matters.

And lol at neutral observers.Which observer?
Click to expand...

Stop sending Kulbushans to Pakistan.
 
cricketjoshila said:
Let India and Kashmiris deal with the issue. If Pakistan doesnot interfere in it then it has no issues with India and it will have normal relations.
Click to expand...

Didn't India intefere in Pakistan to free the Bengalis? Pakistan is doing the same.
 
It won't happen. It will only happen when Pakistan focuses on its economy and elevating people out of poverty, then we can be on equal terms. Right now they only laugh at us when we talk about peace. Like Imran Khan said no one will respect you if you don't respect yourself.
 
King kohli said:
India never cross the international border at that time until Pak airforce attack on some of Indian air force station.
Click to expand...

India was supporting and training militants in East Pakistan, the exact same thing India accuses Pakistan of doing in Kashmir.
 
Pakistanian said:
India was supporting and training militants in East Pakistan, the exact same thing India accuses Pakistan of doing in Kashmir.
Click to expand...

There are two different things .Pak army kill lot of people so people came in India ( west bangal) .but here u heard any Kashmiri people going to POK?? Ans is no.
 
King kohli said:
There are two different things .Pak army kill lot of people so people came in India ( west bangal) .but here u heard any Kashmiri people going to POK?? Ans is no.
Click to expand...

Lmao who are you kidding, India has killed hundreds of thousands of Kashmiris [MENTION=131678]Madplayer[/MENTION] [MENTION=132658]m.shah[/MENTION] [MENTION=139867]dauntless[/MENTION] and there are refugees from IoK in Azad Kashmir.
 
Pakistanian said:
Lmao who are you kidding, India has killed hundreds of thousands of Kashmiris [MENTION=131678]Madplayer[/MENTION] [MENTION=132658]m.shah[/MENTION] [MENTION=139867]dauntless[/MENTION] and there are refugees from IoK in Azad Kashmir.
Click to expand...
It's only in your point of view sir . Some poople killed because they r supporting terrorist activities in J&K .our army there because of Pak army & jihadi spread the insurgency here .
 
Kargil in 99', parliament attack in 01', and then mumbai attacks in 08'. Does Pakistan still expect peace after that?
 
Now India can not trust Pakistan anymore just like Vajpayee trust in 1999 we know how u response whenever India trust Pakistan.
 
Pakistanian said:
India was supporting and training militants in East Pakistan, the exact same thing India accuses Pakistan of doing in Kashmir.
Click to expand...

Pakistan killed 100s of 1000s of bengalis. More that 10mn then entered into India. Despite India's repeated pleas to Pakistan to stop this exodus into India nothing was done by Pakistan. When these same refugees started going back into east Pakistan why would India stop them?
 
Pakistanian said:
Even if Pakistan gives up its claim and doesn't say anything about Kashmir in the future that won't end the seperatist movement. Saddam Hussein thought the Kurds were being incited by israel and that was his mistake, he didn't understand that it was a homegrown movement for independence
Click to expand...

Even with all the conflicts, vajpayee tried to bring peace. I don't think even Pakistani will deny that part. But what followed created a great distrust. An irreparable one.
 
Mango season has almost gone..only some dirty indian mangoes in the market left.. but saw some fresh ripe and huge mangoes again, so asked the vendor how come these mangoes are still fresh. he said huzoor these are from pakistan. i felt snakes crawling all over me, so only bought 2 kgs of these enemy mangoes. turned out to have pathetic taste...not even good for mangoshake. no one can beat our indian mangoes in taste and texture.
 
KingKhanWC said:
When Hindus get over the fact Muslims , came , conquered & ruled .
Click to expand...

What has that got to do with Pakistan or Pakistanis? No one from present day Pakistan conquered. They were themselves conquered and ruled by others.

The invaders came from Central Asia or Afghanistan or Arab lands, and India has excellent relations with them.
 
CricketCartoons said:
Mango season has almost gone..only some dirty indian mangoes in the market left.. but saw some fresh ripe and huge mangoes again, so asked the vendor how come these mangoes are still fresh. he said huzoor these are from pakistan. i felt snakes crawling all over me, so only bought 2 kgs of these enemy mangoes. turned out to have pathetic taste...not even good for mangoshake. no one can beat our indian mangoes in taste and texture.
Click to expand...

I will have what he is having
 
This is a variation of a Billy Connelly Rangers v Celtics fans joke.

It reflects the direction in which nearly every thread involving India or Pakistan takes.
...........

A Pakistan cricket fan made the mistake of his life when he mistakenly went to the Indian section of fans during a Pakistan v India match.

The Indian fans around him realised he was a Pakistan fan (Perhaps due to him wearing a Pakistan shirt!), and when a Pakistan wicket fell, one of the Indian fans ordered him to go and get them cups of chai.

"And in case you try to run away and don't come back... take off one of your shoes and leave it here!"

So the Pakistan fan takes off his shoe, and goes to get the cups of chai.

He comes back with the cups, "Here's your chai."
The Indian fan replies "Here's your shoe."

The Pakistan fan puts on the shoe, and *squelch*! There's a huge sh*t in it!

The Indian team take two more quick Pakistan wickets. "Go get us some more chai! And leave your other shoe this time" He's told by the Indian fans.

So he takes off his (still clean) shoe and limps away, gets the chai, comes back and gives the chai cups to the Indian fans, gets the shoe back, puts it on, and *squelch*! It too has a huge sh*t in it!

Eventually the game ends, and he *squelch*, *squelch* slowly walks out of the stadium.

As he's leaving he came's across a television crew.

"Hello! Excuse me sir. We're doing a piece on camaraderie between cricket fans. We noticed you, a Pakistan fan, was enjoying the match amongst the Indian fans. Do you think if more fans did that, it will send a signal and start reducing the hostility between Indians and Pakistanis?"

The Pakistan fan stares the camera straight in the eye and says, "You're mistaken sir! In my sincere opinion, animosity between Pakistan and Indian fans will never end, not as long as they are sh*t*ing in our shoes, and we are pis*ing in their chai!"
 
cricketjoshila said:
What has that got to do with Pakistan or Pakistanis? No one from present day Pakistan conquered. They were themselves conquered and ruled by others.

The invaders came from Central Asia or Afghanistan or Arab lands, and India has excellent relations with them.
Click to expand...
So in your esteemed opinion, what happened to these 'others' who did the conquering and ruling? Did they magically disappear without leaving any descendants behind? Were they all sterile and unable to breed?
 
cricketjoshila said:
What has that got to do with Pakistan or Pakistanis? No one from present day Pakistan conquered. They were themselves conquered and ruled by others.

The invaders came from Central Asia or Afghanistan or Arab lands, and India has excellent relations with them.
Click to expand...

did you visit rss re-education camp recently?
 
Yossarian said:
This is a variation of a Billy Connelly Rangers v Celtics fans joke.

It reflects the direction in which nearly every thread involving India or Pakistan takes.
Click to expand...

India is the mother of civilisation and gave the ideals of non violence and universal brotherhood to the world. Sadly these were lost during our enslavement by invaders and slow poisoning of western and middle eastern culture.
 
KingKhanWC said:
When Hindus get over the fact Muslims , came , conquered & ruled .
Click to expand...

The whole of India accepted that years and years ago. The entire history of the Muslim empires right from Mahmud of Ghazni till the end of the Mughal rule is taught in history books in school.

The slight issue here is that Pakistan has absolutely nothing to do with those empires.
 
An "intellectual" and "secular" man like Nehru wished for the disintegration of Pak, what do you expect from 100s of millions of "non intellectual" and "Hindu nationalist" Indians popping up on the political scene ?

The Hindus will never accept an Islamic republic, which they see as a militant avatar of a foreign conquering, dominating and virile religion, like the Ghaznavid's, the Mughal's, etc who might have been different from all other aspects (ethnicity, type of imperialism, inter-rivalry ...) but are glued altogether in the Hindu psyche because of Islam.

I advise to all my Muslim friends to read the book "The Continent of Circe" by the Bengali intellectual (yet not "secular" or "Khangress"), Nirad Chaudhuri, and he shows how violent the history of the Hindus has been, itself beginning by the subjugation from a foreign people (the Aryans) who have imposed their ways unto the aboriginal sons of the soil (till today we talk of "Adivasi" for a reason.) The recent cow vigilantism is a good showcase of that.

The only reason Hindus ever appeared peaceful was because they were forcefully made to be peaceful, being under foreign subjugation for 1000 years, but with Hindu nationalism they're trying to find their old ways again, and even more than Muslims, the first casualties will in fact be Dalits/Adivasis.
 
enkidu_ said:
An "intellectual" and "secular" man like Nehru wished for the disintegration of Pak, what do you expect from 100s of millions of "non intellectual" and "Hindu nationalist" Indians popping up on the political scene ?
Click to expand...

What poor logic again. This is a repeat offence. Do you think a secular person is superior to a practicing muslim?
 
enkidu_ said:
No but I think a secular Indian is more nuanced than a Hindu Indian when it comes to deal with Islam.
Click to expand...

Oh you think a secular non practicing hindu is more tolerant than a practicing hindu.

But the opposite is true. the tolerant indians hate pakistan, they say india is becoming hindu pakistan, and they call us hindu taliban. It is us, the hindus, who are your mirror image, your twins. who only want the rule of the Almighty on this land, not man made abominations.
 
CricketCartoons said:
Oh you think a secular non practicing hindu is more tolerant than a practicing hindu.

But the opposite is true. the tolerant indians hate pakistan, they say india is becoming hindu pakistan, and they call us hindu taliban. It is us, the hindus, who are your mirror image, your twins. who only want the rule of the Almighty on this land, not man made abominations.
Click to expand...

They're actually right, the Rig-Veda was written on the banks of the Indus, so a more religious India (the name itself comes from the Indus river) means a more Pak-like India.

Both are our existential foes, but while secular Indians hate India as an hypothetical Pak the Hindus hate Pak as a factual Pak.
 
enkidu_ said:
They're actually right, the Rig-Veda was written on the banks of the Indus, so a more religious India (the name itself comes from the Indus river) means a more Pak-like India.

Both are our existential foes, but while secular Indians hate India as an hypothetical Pak the Hindus hate Pak as a factual Pak.
Click to expand...

Foes maybe, but mirror images of each other. We hindus understand your pain of a gustakh-e-Rasool, because we know the pain when a cow is slaughtered. These seculars will never understand our pain, whether muslim or hindu. Our common enemy are the seculars and the liberals first. We can deal with each other later. These liberals want wine and women, while we religious muslims and hindus only want the rule of the Almighty Lord Bhagwan ji (Allah in your lexicon) in this land.
 
cricketjoshila said:
What has that got to do with Pakistan or Pakistanis? No one from present day Pakistan conquered. They were themselves conquered and ruled by others.

The invaders came from Central Asia or Afghanistan or Arab lands, and India has excellent relations with them.
Click to expand...

Once again I will have to remind you, no one from present day Pakistan was conquered, that would be impossible as they weren't alive hundreds of years ago. The people who were conquered would in fact have been Hindus, although no shame in it, even we Brits were conquered by the Vikings and the Romans, you don't see us with any hang ups about it.
 
cricketjoshila said:
What has that got to do with Pakistan or Pakistanis? No one from present day Pakistan conquered. They were themselves conquered and ruled by others.

The invaders came from Central Asia or Afghanistan or Arab lands, and India has excellent relations with them.
Click to expand...

Yossarian said:
So in your esteemed opinion, what happened to these 'others' who did the conquering and ruling? Did they magically disappear without leaving any descendants behind? Were they all sterile and unable to breed?
Click to expand...

Hitman said:
The whole of India accepted that years and years ago. The entire history of the Muslim empires right from Mahmud of Ghazni till the end of the Mughal rule is taught in history books in school.

The slight issue here is that Pakistan has absolutely nothing to do with those empires.
Click to expand...
I'll pose you the same question I posed to [MENTION=76058]cricketjoshila[/MENTION]

In your esteemed opinion, what happened to the descendants of these "Muslim empires right from Mahmud of Ghazni till the end of the Mughal" who did the conquering and ruling? Did their descendants magically disappear without leaving any trace? Were they all sterile, unable to breed and thus became extinct? Or the most plausible explanation being that their descendants constitute large sections of current Pakistan's population.
 
CricketCartoons said:
Foes maybe, but mirror images of each other. We hindus understand your pain of a gustakh-e-Rasool, because we know the pain when a cow is slaughtered. These seculars will never understand our pain, whether muslim or hindu. Our common enemy are the seculars and the liberals first. We can deal with each other later. These liberals want wine and women, while we religious muslims and hindus only want the rule of the Almighty Lord Bhagwan ji (Allah in your lexicon) in this land.
Click to expand...

Muslims actually eat the cow, considered as mother by the Hindus, while the gustakh e rasool are a minority, not many having the courage.

Hinduism is more like a broken mirror which reflects some truths of the Aryans, but Hindus have inserted many of their own superstitions. For instance the Arya Samaj of Swami Saraswati considered the pollution of monotheism and the introduction of the rigid caste system as such betrayals (and he wasn't particularly pro Islam, to say the least). The cow reverence is also post-Vedic.

We will deal with all of you at once, this confederacy of the miscreants is already materializing since 9/11, but a faithful candle fire doesn't mind a mountain of ephemeral snow nor does the sun bothers about an assembly of clouds.

But we're getting off-topic.
 
Yossarian said:
I'll pose you the same question I posed to [MENTION=76058]cricketjoshila[/MENTION]

In your esteemed opinion, what happened to the descendants of these "Muslim empires right from Mahmud of Ghazni till the end of the Mughal" who did the conquering and ruling? Did their descendants magically disappear without leaving any trace? Were they all sterile, unable to breed and thus became extinct? Or the most plausible explanation being that their descendants constitute large sections of current Pakistan's population.
Click to expand...

How will they answer that..... I am not sure if you noticed that the ones with a warped outlook are from far flung Indian regions. Their desperation to be like North Indians causes them to go overboard and behave like more loyal than the king...

Their only connection to "India" is because some foreigner lumped them together with North Indians and told them you are now the same....
 
Yossarian said:
I'll pose you the same question I posed to [MENTION=76058]cricketjoshila[/MENTION]

In your esteemed opinion, what happened to the descendants of these "Muslim empires right from Mahmud of Ghazni till the end of the Mughal" who did the conquering and ruling? Did their descendants magically disappear without leaving any trace? Were they all sterile, unable to breed and thus became extinct? Or the most plausible explanation being that their descendants constitute large sections of current Pakistan's population.
Click to expand...

This is a good point which they will ignore. Safe to say that around 50% of today's Pakistani population would be from the bloodline of the conquerers, who may have been less than 1% of the population during their rule, but had the advantage of virility and being rulers, so would have easily spread to around 50% while the general people were slow at multiplying.
 
Eagle_Eye said:
How will they answer that..... I am not sure if you noticed that the ones with a warped outlook are from far flung Indian regions. Their desperation to be like North Indians causes them to go overboard and behave like more loyal than the king...

Their only connection to "India" is because some foreigner lumped them together with North Indians and told them you are now the same....
Click to expand...

While the general population multiplied linearly, the rulers followed the fibonacci sequence, therefore most of the population has direct bloodline from the conquerers, and the common people, who were ruled, have fallen behind due to survival of fittest. Safe to say, they would be a minority today. Also explains why there are disproportionate numbers of Syeds in the sub continent.
 
CricketCartoons said:
While the general population multiplied linearly, the rulers followed the fibonacci sequence, therefore most of the population has direct bloodline from the conquerers, and the common people, who were ruled, have fallen behind due to survival of fittest. Safe to say, they would be a minority today. Also explains why there are disproportionate numbers of Syeds in the sub continent.
Click to expand...

My own bloodline is pure Hindu of origin, whereas my kids is not and therefore their kids will not either.
 
Yossarian said:
I'll pose you the same question I posed to [MENTION=76058]cricketjoshila[/MENTION]

In your esteemed opinion, what happened to the descendants of these "Muslim empires right from Mahmud of Ghazni till the end of the Mughal" who did the conquering and ruling? Did their descendants magically disappear without leaving any trace? Were they all sterile, unable to breed and thus became extinct? Or the most plausible explanation being that their descendants constitute large sections of current Pakistan's population.
Click to expand...

Actually peoples of the Indus integrated Mahmud of Ghazni's armies, it's well attested in medieval chronicles (like Alexander's army which entered ancient Pak was of majority Persian) and this momentum continued, with Muslims of Punjab notoriously being over-represented in the British Indian Army. That's not even talking of all the Mughal-era governors, etc who were from modern day Pak, and ofc descendants of the rulers themselves are found, there are still many "Mughals" in Pak, etc adding to that the Syeds, etc who are also into the millions.

The single largest indigenous group in Pak, the Jatts, who are at around 30 millions (more than 10% of the total pop), are initially from Sindh even if spread out in Punjab as well, but themselves ultimately have roots in West Asia (Scythians).

If Gengis Khan alone can have millions of descendants in Asia all these peoples can too.

I don't know if they left the same legacy as the Aryans in India, but the legacy is still important.
 
Last edited:
Yossarian said:
I'll pose you the same question I posed to [MENTION=76058]cricketjoshila[/MENTION]

In your esteemed opinion, what happened to the descendants of these "Muslim empires right from Mahmud of Ghazni till the end of the Mughal" who did the conquering and ruling? Did their descendants magically disappear without leaving any trace? Were they all sterile, unable to breed and thus became extinct? Or the most plausible explanation being that their descendants constitute large sections of current Pakistan's population.
Click to expand...

These descendents are living in India Pakistan BD not only Pakistan and these descendents didnot do any conquering. Did they?

Secondly many of them mixed with the local population, so they are as much local as most others.

Fact remains that none of these invaders originated from anywhere in present day Pakistan but from elsewhere. Their mixed descendents live all over the subcontinent but some how Pakistanis think that Pakistanis conquered and ruled India.
 
Eagle_Eye said:
How will they answer that..... I am not sure if you noticed that the ones with a warped outlook are from far flung Indian regions. Their desperation to be like North Indians causes them to go overboard and behave like more loyal than the king...

Their only connection to "India" is because some foreigner lumped them together with North Indians and told them you are now the same....
Click to expand...

Desperation seems more in people like you who think they conquered India when fact is the invaders were Arab or Turkic or Central Asian in origin. Pakistan itself was a territory that got invaded and conquered.

Now some people converted to the religion of the invaders and now think they are the ones who conquered. Lol.

Why dont you read a bit of history. I am sure you will know that you dont decide the connection between people of India.
 
cricketjoshila said:
These descendents are living in India Pakistan BD not only Pakistan and these descendents didnot do any conquering. Did they?

Secondly many of them mixed with the local population, so they are as much local as most others.

Fact remains that none of these invaders originated from anywhere in present day Pakistan but from elsewhere. Their mixed descendents live all over the subcontinent but some how Pakistanis think that Pakistanis conquered and ruled India.
Click to expand...

Funniest bit being Arab muslims themselves consider Pakistanis second class people in their countries. Watch the below video from 5:07 onwards where Hasan Nisar gives a dose of reality about Pakistanis claiming that they ruled Hindustan -


 
cricketjoshila said:
These descendents are living in India Pakistan BD not only Pakistan and these descendents didnot do any conquering. Did they?

Secondly many of them mixed with the local population, so they are as much local as most others.

Fact remains that none of these invaders originated from anywhere in present day Pakistan but from elsewhere. Their mixed descendents live all over the subcontinent but some how Pakistanis think that Pakistanis conquered and ruled India.
Click to expand...

True for BD but their descendants in India mainly formed the élite of UP, which is known to have migrated to Pak at Partition.

In attempting to trace the factors that have led to this situation, Christophe Jaffrelot and Laurent Gayer identify several proximate causes, namely the decline of Urdu and the Muslim aristocracy following the revolt of 1857, the stigma and violence of Partition in 1947 as well as the migration of much of the old Muslim elite to Pakistan and, perhaps most importantly in the contemporary context, the rise of Hindu nationalism and communal violence in the last two decades.
Click to expand...

https://www.dawn.com/news/1084234

While millions of Indian Muslims either chose to or were compelled by circumstances to remain in India (they and their descendants now number about 160 million), the vast majority of the Muslim elite of India migrated to Pakistan at partition or subsequently.
Click to expand...

https://dailytimes.com.pk/104361/what-if-there-was-no-partition/

Some did remain in India, and end up giving peoples like Abul Kalam Azad, Aamir Khan, etc but the majority of the Mughal élite went to Pak (Karachi), that's why they're over-represented in all fields, because they had a large cultural capital.
 
Hitman said:
Funniest bit being Arab muslims themselves consider Pakistanis second class people in their countries. Watch the below video from 5:07 onwards where Hasan Nisar gives a dose of reality about Pakistanis claiming that they ruled Hindustan -
Click to expand...

Guld Arabs even consider their own Arab brothers from North Africa to be second class citizens, while it's not to you that I'll teach how Hindus of the same ethnicity discriminate on the basis of caste, but that doesn't change the ethnology of Pak.

In Iran too there are millions (6-7) of seyyeds (descendants of Arab soldiers/scholars), incl. Khamenei, and their geopolitical crisis with Saudi Arabia doesn't change this fact either.

Also Hindu nationalists are the first to put Bin Qasim, Mahmud of Ghazni, the Lodhi dynasty, Mughals, etc all into one bracket, Muslims, despite all the differences between them (and rivalries, sometimes), so yes Muslims did rule Hindus, and that's what Pakistanis claim.
 
King-Misbah said:
Its a fact and nothing to do with being a spokesperson. And because Kashmiris are our people; they share our blood, culture and religion.
Click to expand...

Its not a fact.The non muslim kashmiris want nothing to do with these terrorists. The Shias of Kashmir who are mainly in Ladakh have nothing to do with the terrorists either.

So Pakistan will poke its nose in other countries on the basis of religiou identity?
 
enkidu_ said:
True for BD but their descendants in India mainly formed the élite of UP, which is known to have migrated to Pak at Partition.



https://www.dawn.com/news/1084234



https://dailytimes.com.pk/104361/what-if-there-was-no-partition/

Some did remain in India, and end up giving peoples like Abul Kalam Azad, Aamir Khan, etc but the majority of the Mughal élite went to Pak (Karachi), that's why they're over-represented in all fields, because they had a large cultural capital.
Click to expand...

I understand what you are doing here, but be accurate. You can't mix up Mughal with Afghan. Actual Mughal / Central Asian representation in the SC and Pak is low. This is something you yourself have argued under one of your previous avatars.

The UP Muslim elite tended to be made up of original Rajput converts to Islam, along with some some random Pathan mercenaries who had found favour with the King, or went and established their own kingdoms went the Mughal's went on the decline. Mughal or Turks would have made up of a handful of the population, and their bloodline would be very much diluted, given that women did not tend to migrate.

We are all conquered people here. This idiocy that the Muslim's represent rulers is something that has corrupted the Muslim psyche in South Asia, and is something we need to shed in order to move forward.
The moment we are likely to accept that we have much more in common with the Christians in Youhanabad or a Hindu in Karachi, as opposed to some random Turk sitting thousands of miles away, who is probably unaware of Pakistan's very existence, is the day we move out of this identity crisis and are able to forge our own path.
 
cricketjoshila said:
Desperation seems more in people like you who think they conquered India when fact is the invaders were Arab or Turkic or Central Asian in origin. Pakistan itself was a territory that got invaded and conquered.

Now some people converted to the religion of the invaders and now think they are the ones who conquered. Lol.

Why dont you read a bit of history. I am sure you will know that you dont decide the connection between people of India.
Click to expand...

Once again I will have to remind you, there was no Pakistan back then, it was Hindustan, and the people who were conquered were Hindus. I don't know why so much denial about it, history is like this the world over.
 
Hitman said:
The whole of India accepted that years and years ago. The entire history of the Muslim empires right from Mahmud of Ghazni till the end of the Mughal rule is taught in history books in school.

The slight issue here is that Pakistan has absolutely nothing to do with those empires.
Click to expand...

Neither has modern India which did not exist before 1947..
 
Cpt. Rishwat said:
Once again I will have to remind you, there was no Pakistan back then, it was Hindustan, and the people who were conquered were Hindus. I don't know why so much denial about it, history is like this the world over.
Click to expand...

I am referring to the territory thats Pakistan today.

People who were conquered were hindus buddhists jains etc. Some of them converted to islam and their descendents think they are conquerors and not the conquered.
 
Zahid87 said:
I understand what you are doing here, but be accurate. You can't mix up Mughal with Afghan. Actual Mughal / Central Asian representation in the SC and Pak is low. This is something you yourself have argued under one of your previous avatars.

The UP Muslim elite tended to be made up of original Rajput converts to Islam, along with some some random Pathan mercenaries who had found favour with the King, or went and established their own kingdoms went the Mughal's went on the decline. Mughal or Turks would have made up of a handful of the population, and their bloodline would be very much diluted, given that women did not tend to migrate.

We are all conquered people here. This idiocy that the Muslim's represent rulers is something that has corrupted the Muslim psyche in South Asia, and is something we need to shed in order to move forward.
The moment we are likely to accept that we have much more in common with the Christians in Youhanabad or a Hindu in Karachi, as opposed to some random Turk sitting thousands of miles away, who is probably unaware of Pakistan's very existence, is the day we move out of this identity crisis and are able to forge our own path.
Click to expand...

By "Mughal élite" it obviously included large part of indigenous converts, being a pastoral/semi-nomad group, like the Arabs had to co opt the Syrians during the Umayyad and the Persians during the Abbassid dynasties, the Mughals couldn't run a State/administration on their own. In this "Mughal élite" was also included the Pashtun mercenaries.

The denial is on the part of those who think that all Syed's, Mughal's, ... descendants are basically fake, which is a common trope in Hindu nationalist narrative if you bother following it, and for whom even Afghans are ex-Hindus for that matter.

And yes we have more in common with a Hindu of our ethnicity, but the point you miss is that the main ethnicities in Pak (in descending order : Punjabis, Sindhis, Pashtuns, Baloch) are not represented by 97-98% of India either.

We should see Pak as what it is geographically to begin with, an intermediary zone which was always open to foreign influences (the Gandharan civilization gave rise to the first image of the Buddha specifically because it was open to the Greek figurative art), and these foreign influences included Mughals, Persians and Arabs, on a cultural as well as genetic level.
 
cricketjoshila said:
Who made you their spokesman? And why is an issue between India and Kashmiris a problem for Pakistan?
Click to expand...

its an international dispute recognised by the UN. You talk about the "world" when you want to talk about terrorism but when it comes to kashmir it becomes a problem between kashmiri's and India.

Also if your so concerned about them why don't you first demilitarise the Kashmir like AJK? The fact is that India has no real intention of doing anything for the Kashmiris and is actually implementing new policies that will ultimately lead to the ethnic cleansing of the Muslim population of the valley.
 
the Great Khan said:
Neither has modern India which did not exist before 1947..
Click to expand...

India or Bharat as a concept and name of the territory surrounding and beyond the indus river is lot older. The greeks called the area as India based on the river Indus. The europeans were looking for a place called India during their expeditions. The central asians and arabs had a different name.

Yes ofcourse a republic didnot exist.
 
the Great Khan said:
its an international dispute recognised by the UN. You talk about the "world" when you want to talk about terrorism but when it comes to kashmir it becomes a problem between kashmiri's and India.

Also if your so concerned about them why don't you first demilitarise the Kashmir like AJK? The fact is that India has no real intention of doing anything for the Kashmiris and is actually implementing new policies that will ultimately lead to the ethnic cleansing of the Muslim population of the valley.
Click to expand...

Pakistan is not UN. UN is not supporting any terrorists in India. UN isnt interfering in Kashmir. UNGA hasnt discussed Kashmir for 50 years.

The fact is there were no soldiers in civilian areas of Kashmir until Pakistan suppiryed terrorists decided to kill people who were not Muslim or who didnot support their ideology.
 
Its funny that both countries are having their fair share of dark deeds yet they claim to be the peaceful one.
 
cricketjoshila said:
I am referring to the territory thats Pakistan today.

People who were conquered were hindus buddhists jains etc. Some of them converted to islam and their descendents think they are conquerors and not the conquered.
Click to expand...

You are misinformed if that is your understanding, Pakistanis are aware that their ancestors were Hindus once, just as they aware they were probably cavemen at some point as well. Many Hindus today are still abandoning their old faith, it is only natural as they find new beliefs to replace them, it was evolution then and it is ongoing.
 
Cpt. Rishwat said:
You are misinformed if that is your understanding, Pakistanis are aware that their ancestors were Hindus once, just as they aware they were probably cavemen at some point as well. Many Hindus today are still abandoning their old faith, it is only natural as they find new beliefs to replace them, it was evolution then and it is ongoing.
Click to expand...

Can you tell this to your friend KKWC? He keeps on harping that the deed of invasion of India and rule by muslim invaders was done by the people from the territory thats present day Pakistan.

People who live in countries where changing religion isnt punishable by death do change their religion. I wonder why some countries punish changing of religion by death. Why are they so afraid.
 
King kohli said:
There are two different things .Pak army kill lot of people so people came in India ( west bangal) .but here u heard any Kashmiri people going to POK?? Ans is no.
Click to expand...

My whole in law and their family migrated to Azad (free) Kashmir 25 years ago to flee from Indian army’s astrocities. So your post is a lie.
 
cricketjoshila said:
India or Bharat as a concept and name of the territory surrounding and beyond the indus river is lot older. The greeks called the area as India based on the river Indus. The europeans were looking for a place called India during their expeditions. The central asians and arabs had a different name.

Yes ofcourse a republic didnot exist.
Click to expand...

Pakistan and India did not exist before 1947. In history what is called India is similar to Khorasan or transoxiana. Areas that do not exist today but in Khorasans case anyway, have adopted names of entities of the past. So for example it would be silly to say afghanistan ruled pakistan just becasue Babar ruled from kabul. And it would be equally silly to say India conquered XYZ in the past..

It is also silly to talk about a monolithic Hindu identity in the past based on the nationalism of today. The same goes for those who say "we (pakistanis) ruled you (Indians) for thousands of years." What can be said accurately is that Muslims ruled large parts of the subcontinent for centuries.
 
cricketjoshila said:
Pakistan is not UN. UN is not supporting any terrorists in India. UN isnt interfering in Kashmir. UNGA hasnt discussed Kashmir for 50 years.

The fact is there were no soldiers in civilian areas of Kashmir until Pakistan suppiryed terrorists decided to kill people who were not Muslim or who didnot support their ideology.
Click to expand...

Sorry but you need to read up on UN resolutions. It is agreed that both India and Pakistan are party to the dispute. This is from the "world".

Your second assertion is also largely inaccurate as Kashmir has always had a military and para military presence. The numbers may have changed but the presence has always been there..
 
enkidu_ said:
By "Mughal élite" it obviously included large part of indigenous converts, being a pastoral/semi-nomad group, like the Arabs had to co opt the Syrians during the Umayyad and the Persians during the Abbassid dynasties, the Mughals couldn't run a State/administration on their own. In this "Mughal élite" was also included the Pashtun mercenaries.

The denial is on the part of those who think that all Syed's, Mughal's, ... descendants are basically fake, which is a common trope in Hindu nationalist narrative if you bother following it, and for whom even Afghans are ex-Hindus for that matter.

And yes we have more in common with a Hindu of our ethnicity, but the point you miss is that the main ethnicities in Pak (in descending order : Punjabis, Sindhis, Pashtuns, Baloch) are not represented by 97-98% of India either.

We should see Pak as what it is geographically to begin with, an intermediary zone which was always open to foreign influences (the Gandharan civilization gave rise to the first image of the Buddha specifically because it was open to the Greek figurative art), and these foreign influences included Mughals, Persians and Arabs, on a cultural as well as genetic level.
Click to expand...

yes indeed. The territory that we now call Pakistan has traditionally been seen as a crossroads and the intersection between various states over the years. My grandmother had green eyes and my father has inherited that trait. According to studies anybody who has coloured eyes can trace their ancestry to a single individual born in central asia hundreds of years ago. We know that this area has seen a steady influx of tribes for centuries. Our DNA is so mixed you could probably find elements of everything in there!!
 
MY COMMENTS ON THE SIDHU ISSUE IN ANOTHER THREAD THAT I THINK ARE PERTINENT HERE AS WELL.

Interesting how the perception of the Sikhs differ from that of the Hindus, as you can see not only on Youtube comments (where 95% of the Sikhs are pro Sidhu, the reverse for the Hindus), and the first old man is right that it's anyway the Sikhs who die over-proportionally in these conflicts - apart from the religious angle, the ethnic angle is also to note, the first man talking of "Punjabis", second lady of "Jatts", etc :
Click to expand...

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/DL-mtSxjPR8" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
the Great Khan said:
Sorry but you need to read up on UN resolutions. It is agreed that both India and Pakistan are party to the dispute. This is from the "world".

Your second assertion is also largely inaccurate as Kashmir has always had a military and para military presence. The numbers may have changed but the presence has always been there..
Click to expand...

No. If you read the UN resolution it asks Pakistan to vacate PoK.

Ofcourse there was a presence along the LoC. Not in civilian areas as for that AFSPA is needed and that came only in 1990.
 
I don’t think that anyone is serious about the issue. Both Indian and Pakistani politicians use the Kashmir issue for public consumption. Off course the Military rule in Pakistan didn’t help the Kashmir cause either.
 
cricketjoshila said:
No. If you read the UN resolution it asks Pakistan to vacate PoK.

Ofcourse there was a presence along the LoC. Not in civilian areas as for that AFSPA is needed and that came only in 1990.
Click to expand...
And if, theoretically, it happens, then what? Would there be a plebiscite in Kashmir? Would there be a referendum in Kashmir?
 
It is the policy of current government to keep the hate alive in order to be elected by vast majority of Hindus.

Hate has been an important tool to get elected, it has happened in US, Trump. It has happened in Pakistan in the past and it will happen again in India.

Hate rhetoric has worked for BJP, it is evident by just talking to ordinary Indian, by watching Indian media and the treatment of Sidhu after his return to India from Pakistan. Even the sane celebrity, who had visited other part of the world are afraid to speak their mind in India due to fear of losing money and their life.

I do not see any sign of Hate from India to die down, it will continue, at least until next Election in India and the naive people of India will continue to fall for hate rhetoric and narrative towards Muslims of India and Pakistan, and at times towards Hindus and Sikh who speak in favor or peace, muslims of India and Pakistan.
 
Last edited:
It also give false sense of victory to radicalized extremists Hindu of counter acting against Pakistan, India has achieved nothing so far by spreading extremists narrative, no issue has been solved, India hasn't gain anything from "hate" narrative rather it has caused the rise of extremism within India, which can be seen in the news almost daily by lynching to death of it's own citizens, Muslims of India, and the educated population defending this narrative by giving countless different excuse.

India has decided to take a dangerous course in order to gain somewhat self respect after being taken over by many different forces in the past.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

ElRaja
After the Clash: The Way Forward for India
Replies
55
Views
1K
Bhaijaan
Bhaijaan
The Bald Eagle
Does Pakistan need another Zia-ul-Haq or Aurangzeb to deal with a mischievous neighbor like India?
Replies
40
Views
2K
Farhan The Man
F
CricketCartoons
The cult of Modi haters: Why do they hate India more than they hate Modi?
2
Replies
110
Views
4K
RexRex
RexRex
Savak
Pakistani government needs to announce and implement a blanket no-compromise ban on all things Indian in Pakistan
Replies
22
Views
846
Technics 1210
Technics 1210
R
How will world cricket be impacted if India maintains its stance of not playing against Pakistan?
Replies
20
Views
488
IAJ
IAJ
Back
Top