What's new

Is it harder to be a Muslim in India or a Hindu in Pakistan, or a Hindu in Bangladesh?

Which community is most vulnerable in the Indian subcontinent?


  • Total voters
    19

The Bald Eagle

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Nov 25, 2023
Runs
23,924
Persecution of minorities is unfortunately a common recurring theme in the Indian subcontinent. But as a neutral observer who do you think is living a more miserable and restriction-laden life.

Are it the Hindus and Christians in Islamic Republic of Pakistan?

Or are the Sikhs, Muslims, and Untouchables in India the glaring example of trampling of human rights?

Or are the Hindus and Womens, the biggest victim of tyranny of majority?

So let's explore this topic with proper examples, facts and stats instead of overwhelming biases.
CountryTotal Population (approx.)Minority Population (%)Minority Population (approx.)
India1.4 billion~20% (various minorities)~280 million (including 14.5% Muslims)
Pakistan207 million3.53%~7.3 million
Bangladesh165 million~10%~16.5 million
 
Being a Hindu in Pakistan is the hardest. They may not be beaten in the streets, but there is substantial structural racism that makes them second-class citizens in the country. No Hindu has ever progressed to a position of authority in Pakistan.

I don't have facts or figures, but this is my observation.
 
I have a couple of Muslim clients in India. They say they'd never vote for BJP because it's hard to be a Muslim there. They are not free to follow their religion and festivals. Only a couple of areas are safe.

Not only this, but my paternal relatives from Shahjahanpur also narrate similar stories.

On the flip side, in four years of my post-graduation education, I made up to 10 Hindu friends. Having their roots from India, they are pretty safe and happy here, especially in Karachi. They roam freely. I don't know about interior sides, but my own city has been a safe-heaven for them.

For example a Hindu Mandir in a famous park in Karachi - nobody says anything, instead people are visiting out of excitement.

Even my brother's wife is an Indian Muslim. She never felt this level of 'safe' in her own country, but feels safest, protected, free to follow her religion in India.
 
If India is not safe for Muslims, then why are the people getting deported refusing to leave? :kp
 
If India is not safe for Muslims, then why are the people getting deported refusing to leave? :kp
Wow, I didn't know it...May be Christians are more fed up than Muslims
====

Analysed on religious basis, only 9.7 percent Muslims showed willingness to leave the country while over 43.5 percent Christian showed interest in leaving the country if provided with the opportunity.

Read more at: https://southasiamonitor.org/india/only-6-indians-would-want-leave-india-only-97-muslims-want-leave
 
Is this even a question bro?

Just on the basis of constitution Pakistan & Bangladesh are Islamic nations where minorities cant hold any public figure. India on the other hand boasts of its secular constitution.

Now if we add the ground realities to it, the distinction gets more startling.

So it is on the following order, starting from hardest:

1. Minorities in Pak
2. Minorities in BD
3. Daylight
4. Some more daylight
5. So called dara hua minorities in Ind


:kp
 
Wow, I didn't know it...May be Christians are more fed up than Muslims
====

Analysed on religious basis, only 9.7 percent Muslims showed willingness to leave the country while over 43.5 percent Christian showed interest in leaving the country if provided with the opportunity.

Read more at: https://southasiamonitor.org/india/only-6-indians-would-want-leave-india-only-97-muslims-want-leave
So now you coming from Muslim to christian? What next?

Tell me % of hindu population in Pakistan in 71 and now ?

Tell me % of muslim population in india in 48 and now ?

:kp
 
No doubt in my mind, Minorities in india specially under the Hindutwa Regime, always have to watch their back.
 
Harder to be a Muslim in India definitely.

Whatever incidents happen in Bangladesh or Pakistan are not state-sponsored. Those happen at people level and happen much less compared to what happens in India.

In India, Muslim oppression is state-sponsored (removal of article 370, anti-waqf bill, bulldozing Muslim homes, mosque demolitions etc.).
 
Is this even a question bro?

Just on the basis of constitution Pakistan & Bangladesh are Islamic nations where minorities cant hold any public figure. India on the other hand boasts of its secular constitution.

Now if we add the ground realities to it, the distinction gets more startling.

So it is on the following order, starting from hardest:

1. Minorities in Pak
2. Minorities in BD
3. Daylight
4. Some more daylight
5. So called dara hua minorities in Ind


:kp
So misleading... Besides being Head of state and PM...they can hold any position...Hindu and Christian individuals have become Chief Justice of Pakistan too and they have a specific QUOTA in civil services too not sure if such quota exist in Indian civil service.
 
No doubt in my mind, Minorities in india specially under the Hindutwa Regime, always have to watch their back.
That is all in your mind. I am in India now and there is no Hindutva regime like you put it out. India has 28 states and where BJP is in power, the Muslim population is in check to a certain extent. However, where BJP is not in power like where I am now in Bengal, it feels like mini Pakistan. Just a month ago, hindus were driven out from their home in a place called Murshidabad by Islamists. Will it ever happen that Muslims are driven out from their home by Hindus in an area near Karachi?

Comparing Muslims of India with minority treatment of Islamic republics like Pakistan or Bangladesh is a joke. The population figure from the census board tells all the story.

Please bro, dont speak on topics without knowing ground realities.
 
Btw @The Bald Eagle , this is yet another question to be asked to Indian minority posters here. Not sure why you tagged us as you know our viewpoint. Neither British Pakistanis will be able to give right answer.

Can you pls tag them (Indian Muslim, Sikh & Christian posters) and get their opinion? Last time I tried with Muslim posters by personally tagging them but most of their were scared to put forward an opinion. Can you give another try?

:inti
 
Btw @The Bald Eagle , this is yet another question to be asked to Indian minority posters here. Not sure why you tagged us as you know our viewpoint. Neither British Pakistanis will be able to give right answer.

Can you pls tag them (Indian Muslim, Sikh & Christian posters) and get their opinion? Last time I tried with Muslim posters by personally tagging them but most of their were scared to put forward an opinion. Can you give another try?

:inti
Sure I have done this before in Muslim bias thread...and you are welcome to tag others that I have missed... Remember my friend how you argued with them when they didn't speak up your mind 🙂

And you can discuss your "women oppression" topic in Bangladesh here too.
 
So misleading... Besides being Head of state and PM...they can hold any position...Hindu and Christian individuals have become Chief Justice of Pakistan too and they have a specific QUOTA in civil services too not sure if such quota exist in Indian civil service.
Can the minorities elect their own representatives? :kp

Its funny that you are even trying to debate this stuff
 
So misleading... Besides being Head of state and PM...they can hold any position...Hindu and Christian individuals have become Chief Justice of Pakistan too and they have a specific QUOTA in civil services too not sure if such quota exist in Indian civil service.
An Ahmadiyya, gave Pakistan a Nobel Prize, gave world a landmark jump in Physics, nuclear weapon to Islamabad and Pakistan desecrated his grave :ROFLMAO:

A Muslim gave India the missile and Rocket tech and India made him its President.

This is how modern Pakistanis see their minority,

 
Neither.
It is in fact, hardest to be a Hindu in Bharat as well as anywhere else in the world.

Muslims with control of 50+ nations of the world and who generally try to operate as 1 front, 1 Ummah regardless of their troubles in keeping that on the track try to make this situation seem like a case of *** for tat with Hindus struggling in Pakistan and Muslims struggling in Bharat (as per them) when the truth is that there are 250-400 million muslims in Bharat alone who by themselves could be arguably the largest muslim country in the world and its a very strong hypothesis that within a few centuries they mightily eventually become the majority also and afterwards dramatically change the demography within decades which is what generally happens in muslim dominated nations.

We Hindus live under the illusion that this land, our so called ancestral homeland, the cradle of our civilization is a safe haven for us. But the truth is, we are not truly safe even here, nor anywhere else in the world.

On a planet with 120+ Christian majority nations, 50+ Islamic nations, 10+ Buddhist nations, and one fiercely protected Jewish state, we Hindus are still struggling to hold on to even one land which is the very birthplace of our civilization. And yet we spend our days debating with leftists/secularists about whether we are even entitled to a voice.


The brutal truth is, we don't even have any genuine alliances and are on our own in a world focussed on eliminating our religion from the planet. Every international relationship we have is transactional, built on strategic or economic interests, not on the principle tp preservation of our identity, our temples, or our people.

One attack on Israel and the entire Zionist block stands up in their support.
One attack on GAZA, and the other half of the world stands up in their support.
Who has ever stood up for Hindus as fiercely as that? When Hindus are massacred in Bengal, Kashmir, Bangladesh, Pakistan etc all we get are hollow tweets, empty condemnations, and silence from the so-called international community.

No global power, no international body, no media powerhouse cares when Hindus are lynched, vilified, converted, or erased. We are the only major civilization without a global protector, without a nation willing to stand up and say that they exist solely to safeguard Hindus.

Pakistan's army chief can boldly say he exists to protect muslims against Hindus. Their parliament openly talks about razing our temples and hoisting Islamic flag on our land. Our PM and Our army chiefs however have to act with their hands tied, they cannot dare to say they will hoist Hindu flags on Pakistani soil , they cannot dare to say they exist to fight for Hindus against Islam. That would be considered a blasphemy for the whole world. That's our situation. That's our helplessness in our own so called homeland.

In our own country, we must approach the Supreme Court to prove that Lord Ram is not fictional.
Muslims openly talk about ruling India again, about demolishing temples and replacing them with mosques without any fear or consequence. In our country a prominent muslim leader can openly say if given 15 minutes without police protection they will go on a killing spree against Hindus. Tell me one muslim country where a prominent political from another religion can make a statement like that and get away with it.

But if a Hindu dares speak of reclaiming Kashi or Mathura, he is immediately branded a fascist, extremist, or communal thug.

Our festivals are branded as pollution. Our gods are mocked in films. Our saints are ridiculed in media. But question the sanctity of any other religion, and within moments there are calls for beheadings.

The world lectures us on secularism and tolerance, while themselves carrying the bloodstains of indigenous genocides and colonial brutality. We, the only civilization that never invaded another’s land for religious dominance, are painted as the oppressors.

So please spare us this illusion of equivalence. Being a Hindu was tough yesterday, today and is going to remain tough in the future.

We are witnessing an open threat to the very survival of Sanatan Dharma, and yet the world sees our pain as bigotry and extremism only.
 
Is this even a question bro?

Just on the basis of constitution Pakistan & Bangladesh are Islamic nations where minorities cant hold any public figure. India on the other hand boasts of its secular constitution.

Now if we add the ground realities to it, the distinction gets more startling.

So it is on the following order, starting from hardest:

1. Minorities in Pak
2. Minorities in BD
3. Daylight
4. Some more daylight
5. So called dara hua minorities in Ind


:kp

Not sure what you mean by "public figure". Can you clarify before I attempt to respond?
 
Muslims in general bring religion in every aspect of their life. There are N number of cases where “ A muslim prays on the center of the road and stops the traffic” in India.

For some reason, they also have the biggest victim mentality which can be seen in posts from @sweep_shot . He finds it harder in Canada too as they dont implement Sharia law.

So, being a Muslim minority is the hardest I think, because they will not be happy util they become a majority in that region. Look at hyderabad in South India. There are places where even a normal government official will not enter. Feel pity for them.
 
Hinduism has been in an existential war at the Western front for thousand years.

Pakistan is just the latest manifestation of the constant threat.

Pakistan as an idea carries the legacy of a thousands years old Anti Hindu Jihad. Even if it falls, after few decades there will be others taking over the same agenda.
 
An Ahmadiyya, gave Pakistan a Nobel Prize, gave world a landmark jump in Physics, nuclear weapon to Islamabad and Pakistan desecrated his grave :ROFLMAO:

A Muslim gave India the missile and Rocket tech and India made him its President.

This is how modern Pakistanis see their minority,

Are you even aware of the fact, how your brethren recall this president?

Another little known fact about Kalam. When he was the president, he got himself a thinking hut made in the gardens. He got it made from bamboos and craftsmen from Tripura. Just a vanity project for himself.

Was later demolished after he vacated it.

Imagine the vanity of a fake Doctorate and scientist who needs to build an expensive hut so that he can think in it. He just loved to play with the peoples perception of himself.

Another gem: He gave his name for a stent made by his doctor friend, and called it Raju-Kalam stent. The guy who has no knowledge of surgery, used his brand name to show that he has made invention for heart patients.
.
 
No need to respond...thanks

But you made the claim that "Just on the basis of constitution Pakistan & Bangladesh are Islamic nations where minorities cant hold any public figure"

What do you mean by public figure? If you don't want to answer can we just assume it was a nonsense statement?
 
Are you even aware of the fact, how your brethren recall this president?
The funny this is how based on one PP member view, you think that APJ abdul kalam is demeaned in India while he is still one of the most revered political figures with statues all over India.

Going by that, we can call that the whole Pakistan is Anti-Hindu nation which does propaganda against Hinduism day-in day-out right?
 
Sure I have done this before in Muslim bias thread...and you are welcome to tag others that I have missed... Remember my friend how you argued with them when they didn't speak up your mind 🙂

And you can discuss your "women oppression" topic in Bangladesh here too.
Why should I discuss women oppression in a thread about minorities? Yes one thing for sure, Muslim women gets much better treatment in India than Muslim women in Pak or BD. That's why I wanted that discussion in a separate thread but its all right.

Lets ask the question about Indian minorities and whether they are better off in India than minorities in Pak & BD from Indian minority posters. They are the best to answer. So let me tag a few:

@Hitman (Christian)
@hoshiarpurexpress (Sikh)
@Bhaijaan (Sikh)
@sam_ahm (Muslim)
@Human786 (Muslim)
@kaayal (Muslim woman)
@anikrc1 (Dalit??) :yk

I think I am missing some more but its all right they wont respond :inti


:kp
 
The funny this is how based on one PP member view, you think that APJ abdul kalam is demeaned in India while he is still one of the most revered political figures with statues all over India.

Going by that, we can call that the whole Pakistan is Anti-Hindu nation which does propaganda against Hinduism day-in day-out right?
Nope I know some other posters posts too...but the point is you guys let him be the President because of being just a figurehead non consequential post but will you guys ever let a Muslim be your PM? Nearly 80 years and still no sign
 
But you made the claim that "Just on the basis of constitution Pakistan & Bangladesh are Islamic nations where minorities cant hold any public figure"

What do you mean by public figure? If you don't want to answer can we just assume it was a nonsense statement?
Not that difficult to understand bro.

Maybe “public figure” isn’t the right term, but according to the constitution, non-Muslims cannot become the President, Prime Minister, Chief of Army Staff, or hold similar top positions. This is legally mandated. And that’s without even accounting for the systemic bias they face in other spheres—like national cricket team selection, intelligence leadership, or top bureaucratic roles.

So, any comparison with India is inherently lopsided based purely on the legal and constitutional frameworks.

Now, if we start talking about ground realities—setting aside the legalities—that would steer the conversation in an entirely different direction, one that's already been debated extensively. But for the purpose of this thread, we don’t need to go that far. The fact that the Pakistani and Bangladeshi constitutions themselves discriminate against minorities is enough to close this particular debate.
 
Nope I know some other posters posts too...but the point is you guys let him be the President because of being just a figurehead non consequential post but will you guys ever let a Muslim be your PM? Nearly 80 years and still no sign
PM?

BJP under Modi is the only party in India to achieve the majority without any support from other national parties. Congress was always led by the Nehru family. But there have been Muslim Chief ministers in India.

  1. Barkatullah Khan (Rajasthan):
    • Served as the Chief Minister of Rajasthan from 1971 until his death in 1973.
    • Known for his close association with Indira Gandhi, referring to her affectionately as "Bhabhi" [source].
  2. Abdul Ghafoor (Bihar):
    • Chief Minister from 1973 to 1975.
    • His tenure ended following the JP Movement, a significant political agitation led by Jayaprakash Narayan [source].
  3. C.H. Mohammed Koya (Kerala):
    • Served as the Chief Minister for a brief period in 1979.
    • Made significant contributions to the state's education and health sectors [source].
  4. Syeda Anwara Taimur (Assam):
    • Assam's first and only female Muslim Chief Minister, serving from 1980 to 1981.
    • Made substantial efforts in promoting women's education and social welfare [source].
  5. A.R. Antulay (Maharashtra):
    • Chief Minister from 1980 to 1982.
    • His tenure ended amid controversy and legal issues related to the construction of a medical college [source].
  6. Mohammad Alimuddin (Manipur):
    • Served as the Chief Minister in 1972.
    • His term was cut short due to political instability and frequent changes in the state's governance [source].


Do you get the sign?

In Chief justices in Supreme court, there have always been a minimum representation and this is not just a figure head post - one of the most powerful positions in India rivaling political power of a CM.

Since the 1950s, the tradition has been to appoint one Muslim judge to the Supreme Court, making them one of eight judges in the top court and guaranteeing a 12.5 percent representation. As the Court strength increased to 16 by the end of 1970s, it was par for the course to have two Muslim judges on the bench.
 
Are you even aware of the fact, how your brethren recall this president?
Must be a Pakistani pretending to be an Indian like this Viru.

Remove the restriction and I can quote the bigotry of so many Pakistani posters side by side.
Come on equal terms. Allow me to quote the true gem posts by posters too. :D
 
Last edited by a moderator:
PM?

BJP under Modi is the only party in India to achieve the majority without any support from other national parties. Congress was always led by the Nehru family. But there have been Muslim Chief ministers in India.

  1. Barkatullah Khan (Rajasthan):
    • Served as the Chief Minister of Rajasthan from 1971 until his death in 1973.
    • Known for his close association with Indira Gandhi, referring to her affectionately as "Bhabhi" [source].
  2. Abdul Ghafoor (Bihar):
    • Chief Minister from 1973 to 1975.
    • His tenure ended following the JP Movement, a significant political agitation led by Jayaprakash Narayan [source].
  3. C.H. Mohammed Koya (Kerala):
    • Served as the Chief Minister for a brief period in 1979.
    • Made significant contributions to the state's education and health sectors [source].
  4. Syeda Anwara Taimur (Assam):
    • Assam's first and only female Muslim Chief Minister, serving from 1980 to 1981.
    • Made substantial efforts in promoting women's education and social welfare [source].
  5. A.R. Antulay (Maharashtra):
    • Chief Minister from 1980 to 1982.
    • His tenure ended amid controversy and legal issues related to the construction of a medical college [source].
  6. Mohammad Alimuddin (Manipur):
    • Served as the Chief Minister in 1972.
    • His term was cut short due to political instability and frequent changes in the state's governance [source].


Do you get the sign?

In Chief justices in Supreme court, there have always been a minimum representation and this is not just a figure head post - one of the most powerful positions in India rivaling political power of a CM.

Since the 1950s, the tradition has been to appoint one Muslim judge to the Supreme Court, making them one of eight judges in the top court and guaranteeing a 12.5 percent representation. As the Court strength increased to 16 by the end of 1970s, it was par for the course to have two Muslim judges on the bench.
These posters from Pakistan don't even know that minorities dont get equal voting, political rights in Pakistan and are preaching us.
Leave it, bhai!!
 
Not that difficult to understand bro.

Maybe “public figure” isn’t the right term, but according to the constitution, non-Muslims cannot become the President, Prime Minister, Chief of Army Staff, or hold similar top positions. This is legally mandated. And that’s without even accounting for the systemic bias they face in other spheres—like national cricket team selection, intelligence leadership, or top bureaucratic roles.

So, any comparison with India is inherently lopsided based purely on the legal and constitutional frameworks.

Now, if we start talking about ground realities—setting aside the legalities—that would steer the conversation in an entirely different direction, one that's already been debated extensively. But for the purpose of this thread, we don’t need to go that far. The fact that the Pakistani and Bangladeshi constitutions themselves discriminate against minorities is enough to close this particular debate.

Right, that's why we needed to clear up exactly what you meant by public figure. So you mean a Hindu can't become President or Chief of Army, basically any role which would give them final decision on the security of the country. That's fair enough.

But that wasn't the question posed in the OP which was just whether it was harder to be a Hindu in Pakistan/Bangladesh or a Muslim in India. Not whether it was easier or harder to be the leader of the nation. Two different things, as you could quite easily be an ex-Muslim called Fahan (for example) who believes fervently that Islam is evil and Hindu culture is great.

The questions which are really the heart of this are things like, are you prevented from worshipping as a Hindu in Pakistan? Are you prevented from being a vegetarian in Bangladesh? Are Muslims in India prevented from owning homes in some areas of India?
 
Being Hindu in Bangladesh must really suck. You are twice as gifted as the majority and still won't be able to make it big in life thanks to discrimination
 
Why should I discuss women oppression in a thread about minorities? Yes one thing for sure, Muslim women gets much better treatment in India than Muslim women in Pak or BD. That's why I wanted that discussion in a separate thread but its all right.

Lets ask the question about Indian minorities and whether they are better off in India than minorities in Pak & BD from Indian minority posters. They are the best to answer. So let me tag a few:

@Hitman (Christian)
@hoshiarpurexpress (Sikh)
@Bhaijaan (Sikh)
@sam_ahm (Muslim)
@Human786 (Muslim)
@kaayal (Muslim woman)
@anikrc1 (Dalit??) :yk

I think I am missing some more but its all right they wont respond :inti


:kp
One of them lives abroad, but I still have regard for them and you must one great name @jamie smith fan
 
Neither.
It is in fact, hardest to be a Hindu in Bharat as well as anywhere else in the world.

Muslims with control of 50+ nations of the world and who generally try to operate as 1 front, 1 Ummah regardless of their troubles in keeping that on the track try to make this situation seem like a case of *** for tat with Hindus struggling in Pakistan and Muslims struggling in Bharat (as per them) when the truth is that there are 250-400 million muslims in Bharat alone who by themselves could be arguably the largest muslim country in the world and its a very strong hypothesis that within a few centuries they mightily eventually become the majority also and afterwards dramatically change the demography within decades which is what generally happens in muslim dominated nations.

We Hindus live under the illusion that this land, our so called ancestral homeland, the cradle of our civilization is a safe haven for us. But the truth is, we are not truly safe even here, nor anywhere else in the world.

On a planet with 120+ Christian majority nations, 50+ Islamic nations, 10+ Buddhist nations, and one fiercely protected Jewish state, we Hindus are still struggling to hold on to even one land which is the very birthplace of our civilization. And yet we spend our days debating with leftists/secularists about whether we are even entitled to a voice.


The brutal truth is, we don't even have any genuine alliances and are on our own in a world focussed on eliminating our religion from the planet. Every international relationship we have is transactional, built on strategic or economic interests, not on the principle tp preservation of our identity, our temples, or our people.

One attack on Israel and the entire Zionist block stands up in their support.
One attack on GAZA, and the other half of the world stands up in their support.
Who has ever stood up for Hindus as fiercely as that? When Hindus are massacred in Bengal, Kashmir, Bangladesh, Pakistan etc all we get are hollow tweets, empty condemnations, and silence from the so-called international community.

No global power, no international body, no media powerhouse cares when Hindus are lynched, vilified, converted, or erased. We are the only major civilization without a global protector, without a nation willing to stand up and say that they exist solely to safeguard Hindus.

Pakistan's army chief can boldly say he exists to protect muslims against Hindus. Their parliament openly talks about razing our temples and hoisting Islamic flag on our land. Our PM and Our army chiefs however have to act with their hands tied, they cannot dare to say they will hoist Hindu flags on Pakistani soil , they cannot dare to say they exist to fight for Hindus against Islam. That would be considered a blasphemy for the whole world. That's our situation. That's our helplessness in our own so called homeland.

In our own country, we must approach the Supreme Court to prove that Lord Ram is not fictional.
Muslims openly talk about ruling India again, about demolishing temples and replacing them with mosques without any fear or consequence. In our country a prominent muslim leader can openly say if given 15 minutes without police protection they will go on a killing spree against Hindus. Tell me one muslim country where a prominent political from another religion can make a statement like that and get away with it.

But if a Hindu dares speak of reclaiming Kashi or Mathura, he is immediately branded a fascist, extremist, or communal thug.

Our festivals are branded as pollution. Our gods are mocked in films. Our saints are ridiculed in media. But question the sanctity of any other religion, and within moments there are calls for beheadings.

The world lectures us on secularism and tolerance, while themselves carrying the bloodstains of indigenous genocides and colonial brutality. We, the only civilization that never invaded another’s land for religious dominance, are painted as the oppressors.

So please spare us this illusion of equivalence. Being a Hindu was tough yesterday, today and is going to remain tough in the future.

We are witnessing an open threat to the very survival of Sanatan Dharma, and yet the world sees our pain as bigotry and extremism only.

Hindutva is
 
Neither.
It is in fact, hardest to be a Hindu in Bharat as well as anywhere else in the world.

Muslims with control of 50+ nations of the world and who generally try to operate as 1 front, 1 Ummah regardless of their troubles in keeping that on the track try to make this situation seem like a case of *** for tat with Hindus struggling in Pakistan and Muslims struggling in Bharat (as per them) when the truth is that there are 250-400 million muslims in Bharat alone who by themselves could be arguably the largest muslim country in the world and its a very strong hypothesis that within a few centuries they mightily eventually become the majority also and afterwards dramatically change the demography within decades which is what generally happens in muslim dominated nations.

We Hindus live under the illusion that this land, our so called ancestral homeland, the cradle of our civilization is a safe haven for us. But the truth is, we are not truly safe even here, nor anywhere else in the world.

On a planet with 120+ Christian majority nations, 50+ Islamic nations, 10+ Buddhist nations, and one fiercely protected Jewish state, we Hindus are still struggling to hold on to even one land which is the very birthplace of our civilization. And yet we spend our days debating with leftists/secularists about whether we are even entitled to a voice.


The brutal truth is, we don't even have any genuine alliances and are on our own in a world focussed on eliminating our religion from the planet. Every international relationship we have is transactional, built on strategic or economic interests, not on the principle tp preservation of our identity, our temples, or our people.

One attack on Israel and the entire Zionist block stands up in their support.
One attack on GAZA, and the other half of the world stands up in their support.
Who has ever stood up for Hindus as fiercely as that? When Hindus are massacred in Bengal, Kashmir, Bangladesh, Pakistan etc all we get are hollow tweets, empty condemnations, and silence from the so-called international community.

No global power, no international body, no media powerhouse cares when Hindus are lynched, vilified, converted, or erased. We are the only major civilization without a global protector, without a nation willing to stand up and say that they exist solely to safeguard Hindus.

Pakistan's army chief can boldly say he exists to protect muslims against Hindus. Their parliament openly talks about razing our temples and hoisting Islamic flag on our land. Our PM and Our army chiefs however have to act with their hands tied, they cannot dare to say they will hoist Hindu flags on Pakistani soil , they cannot dare to say they exist to fight for Hindus against Islam. That would be considered a blasphemy for the whole world. That's our situation. That's our helplessness in our own so called homeland.

In our own country, we must approach the Supreme Court to prove that Lord Ram is not fictional.
Muslims openly talk about ruling India again, about demolishing temples and replacing them with mosques without any fear or consequence. In our country a prominent muslim leader can openly say if given 15 minutes without police protection they will go on a killing spree against Hindus. Tell me one muslim country where a prominent political from another religion can make a statement like that and get away with it.

But if a Hindu dares speak of reclaiming Kashi or Mathura, he is immediately branded a fascist, extremist, or communal thug.

Our festivals are branded as pollution. Our gods are mocked in films. Our saints are ridiculed in media. But question the sanctity of any other religion, and within moments there are calls for beheadings.

The world lectures us on secularism and tolerance, while themselves carrying the bloodstains of indigenous genocides and colonial brutality. We, the only civilization that never invaded another’s land for religious dominance, are painted as the oppressors.

So please spare us this illusion of equivalence. Being a Hindu was tough yesterday, today and is going to remain tough in the future.

We are witnessing an open threat to the very survival of Sanatan Dharma, and yet the world sees our pain as bigotry and extremism only.

An interesting read .

Is Lord Ram accepted by all hindus ?

There is no threat to hinduism or hindus apart from the extremists who bend the faith for political benefits . The majority non extreme Hindus need to debate them openly and expose them . Keep on your journey
 
PM?

BJP under Modi is the only party in India to achieve the majority without any support from other national parties. Congress was always led by the Nehru family. But there have been Muslim Chief ministers in India.

  1. Barkatullah Khan (Rajasthan):
    • Served as the Chief Minister of Rajasthan from 1971 until his death in 1973.
    • Known for his close association with Indira Gandhi, referring to her affectionately as "Bhabhi" [source].
  2. Abdul Ghafoor (Bihar):
    • Chief Minister from 1973 to 1975.
    • His tenure ended following the JP Movement, a significant political agitation led by Jayaprakash Narayan [source].
  3. C.H. Mohammed Koya (Kerala):
    • Served as the Chief Minister for a brief period in 1979.
    • Made significant contributions to the state's education and health sectors [source].
  4. Syeda Anwara Taimur (Assam):
    • Assam's first and only female Muslim Chief Minister, serving from 1980 to 1981.
    • Made substantial efforts in promoting women's education and social welfare [source].
  5. A.R. Antulay (Maharashtra):
    • Chief Minister from 1980 to 1982.
    • His tenure ended amid controversy and legal issues related to the construction of a medical college [source].
  6. Mohammad Alimuddin (Manipur):
    • Served as the Chief Minister in 1972.
    • His term was cut short due to political instability and frequent changes in the state's governance [source].


Do you get the sign?

In Chief justices in Supreme court, there have always been a minimum representation and this is not just a figure head post - one of the most powerful positions in India rivaling political power of a CM.

Since the 1950s, the tradition has been to appoint one Muslim judge to the Supreme Court, making them one of eight judges in the top court and guaranteeing a 12.5 percent representation. As the Court strength increased to 16 by the end of 1970s, it was par for the course to have two Muslim judges on the bench.
Check this list first, from Chief Justices, Air Marshals, Air commodore to other prominent positions....the difference between Pakistan and India is one constitution explicitly prohibits non Muslim to be head of state or government while the other has imposed a non declared prohibition over it. Why was Mohammed Ali Jinnah denied Premiership despite that being a guarantee of United India?? Muslim factor??
 
Which country bulldozes houses of minorities (state-sponsored)? Answer is India. It doesn't happen in any other subcontinental country.

Add to that, there are state-sponsored initatives in India like removal of article 370, anti-waqf bill etc. I don't know the logic behind anti-waqf bill. Waqfs are private assets; why should Indian government seize those? Makes no sense.

I am not aware of any state-sponsored anti-Hindu bill in either Pakistan or Bangladesh. Minorities are in much better conditions there compared to in India.

:inti
 
Which country bulldozes houses of minorities (state-sponsored)? Answer is India. It doesn't happen in any other subcontinental country.

Add to that, there are state-sponsored initatives in India like removal of article 370, anti-waqf bill etc. I don't know the logic behind anti-waqf bill. Waqfs are private assets; why should Indian government seize those? Makes no sense.

I am not aware of any state-sponsored anti-Hindu bill in either Pakistan or Bangladesh. Minorities are in much better conditions there compared to in India.

:inti
Guys like @Aang_The_last_airbender will always ignore such incisive posts.
 
Check this list first, from Chief Justices, Air Marshals, Air commodore to other prominent positions....the difference between Pakistan and India is one constitution explicitly prohibits non Muslim to be head of state or government while the other has imposed a non declared prohibition over it. Why was Mohammed Ali Jinnah denied Premiership despite that being a guarantee of United India?? Muslim factor??
1. There is a world of difference between explicitly prohibiting and theorizing that muslims were systematically neglected - The former already showcases a clear cut discrimination for minorities.

2. I just showed you that Muslims held top government posts. I dont know whether you understood the above post but Muslims has ~10% reservation explicitly in chief justices of India. Its not some banana post. Judiciary is one of the most powerful position in India unlike Pakistan. Even a military leader cannot challenge them, to hell with politicians unlike in Pakistan.

3. Now, I dont have the complete knowledge on why Jinnah was denied premiership but atleast in the history of our freedom struggle told to us in schools, Jinnah was a muslim leader rather than a freedom fighter like Gandhi, Bose and other prominent leaders. U even wanted to question why Nehru got PM position, must be politics, rather than religious discrimination. But again, I will not completely rule that out.

In public sector, muslims have a given reservation in most positions. Private sector in India is very competitive and doesn't care zilch about religion.

Muslims have Waqf board in India. Does Pakistan have something similar for Hindus?
 
Right, that's why we needed to clear up exactly what you meant by public figure. So you mean a Hindu can't become President or Chief of Army, basically any role which would give them final decision on the security of the country. That's fair enough.

But that wasn't the question posed in the OP which was just whether it was harder to be a Hindu in Pakistan/Bangladesh or a Muslim in India. Not whether it was easier or harder to be the leader of the nation. Two different things, as you could quite easily be an ex-Muslim called Fahan (for example) who believes fervently that Islam is evil and Hindu culture is great.

The questions which are really the heart of this are things like, are you prevented from worshipping as a Hindu in Pakistan? Are you prevented from being a vegetarian in Bangladesh? Are Muslims in India prevented from owning homes in some areas of India?
There is exact co relation in what is asked in OP and what I said. The constitution of Pakistan and Bangladesh discriminates against minorities at constitutional level where as India's constitution is secular. It means that a person will never be able to lead the nation or army or hold constitutional posts simply due his/her faith where as in India we had Sikh PM and Muslim/Dalit president. So this question itself is moot in my opinion as simply by law it is harder for minorities in Islamic republics. If we add other things like population census or how many minorities represents Pakistan in cricket team etc., it is one sided traffic. However, as I alluded to before we don't even have to discuss all that because your constitution itself on which your country was formed had discriminatory laws against minorities. Rest all is moot.
 
Guys like @Aang_The_last_airbender will always ignore such incisive posts.
:kp

and as for sweepie, I have utter disdain for people celebrating and sharing videos of innocent people running from terror attacks. Politics is one thing but celebrating massacres is an easy line to draw against for any human with a pulse.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Which country bulldozes houses of minorities (state-sponsored)? Answer is India. It doesn't happen in any other subcontinental country.

Add to that, there are state-sponsored initatives in India like removal of article 370, anti-waqf bill etc. I don't know the logic behind anti-waqf bill. Waqfs are private assets; why should Indian government seize those? Makes no sense.

I am not aware of any state-sponsored anti-Hindu bill in either Pakistan or Bangladesh. Minorities are in much better conditions there compared to in India.

:inti
Please stop with these hyperbolic statements. Bulldozing happens for illegal encroachments. Government looks the other way for many of these but started using this as a weapon against criminals. Tell me what is illegal about this?

Is government bulldozing any legal constructions? Who asked the people to encroach government properties? If the government is looking the other way, then the least they could do is be a law-abiding citizen.

Do you think Indian judiciary is like a banana system like in Pakistan where they convict IK for a meagre 1-2Cr case but leave Shariffs who smuggled billons according to you? Even the much publicized Waqf bill is yet to get nod from Supreme court.

Article 370 is still contentious. Why does people from other states cannot buy lands in J&K when they can come to Bangalore and Hyderabad for jobs and settle here? We have many people from J&K coming for IT jobs down South India. Did Waqf or Article 370 discriminate muslims?
Stop asking for special rights in every corner.

Muslims have a special law recognized for their personal issues. Does Hindus have the same privilege in Pakistan and Bangladesh? When the law itself favors Muslims in Pakistan and Bangladesh, what it the state-sponsored thing you are calling?
Hypocrisy of the highest order and nothing else.
 
There is exact co relation in what is asked in OP and what I said. The constitution of Pakistan and Bangladesh discriminates against minorities at constitutional level where as India's constitution is secular. It means that a person will never be able to lead the nation or army or hold constitutional posts simply due his/her faith where as in India we had Sikh PM and Muslim/Dalit president. So this question itself is moot in my opinion as simply by law it is harder for minorities in Islamic republics. If we add other things like population census or how many minorities represents Pakistan in cricket team etc., it is one sided traffic. However, as I alluded to before we don't even have to discuss all that because your constitution itself on which your country was formed had discriminatory laws against minorities. Rest all is moot.

The Pakistan constitution doesn't pretend to be secular, so no one is arguing on this matter. It is an Islamic republic and it would make absolutely no sense for a Hindu to be leading an Islamic nation if he didn't believe in Islam. It would be like appointing Jeremy Corbyn to lead the Conservative party, or appointing a Maulvi to head the Anglican Church.

But does that mean Hindus don't have the rights to practice their religion in Pakistan? Not as far as I am aware, they are free to practice it privately and in their own temples.

In India there is a secular constitution but the Muslims are not protected by it. Their mosques are demolished, their Islamic rights are overturned while beef bans are brought in for Hindus benefit. I am not saying any of this is wrong, but there is nothing secular about it. In truth, it is Hindu fundamentalism which is flourishing in India under the guise of democracy, due to majority vote of Hindus.
 
The Pakistan constitution doesn't pretend to be secular, so no one is arguing on this matter. It is an Islamic republic and it would make absolutely no sense for a Hindu to be leading an Islamic nation if he didn't believe in Islam. It would be like appointing Jeremy Corbyn to lead the Conservative party, or appointing a Maulvi to head the Anglican Church.
Haha, this is an amazing nugget.
We are bigots by design so expected fairness from us is inconsequential. :kp
 
The Pakistan constitution doesn't pretend to be secular, so no one is arguing on this matter. It is an Islamic republic and it would make absolutely no sense for a Hindu to be leading an Islamic nation if he didn't believe in Islam. It would be like appointing Jeremy Corbyn to lead the Conservative party, or appointing a Maulvi to head the Anglican Church.

But does that mean Hindus don't have the rights to practice their religion in Pakistan? Not as far as I am aware, they are free to practice it privately and in their own temples.

In India there is a secular constitution but the Muslims are not protected by it. Their mosques are demolished, their Islamic rights are overturned while beef bans are brought in for Hindus benefit. I am not saying any of this is wrong, but there is nothing secular about it. In truth, it is Hindu fundamentalism which is flourishing in India under the guise of democracy, due to majority vote of Hindus.
My point is simple, you cant compare between these 3 countries as two are Islamic republic where minorities have curtailed rights as per constitution where as India's constitution is secular. Now crime and injustice against minorities happen in every country but India doesnt constitutionally restrict anyone based on faith. That is a huge difference.

And LOL at muslims are not protected by secular constitution. Bhai yeh drama kahi aur kar. :ROFLMAO:

I am sitting in Waste Bengal now which feels like Islamic republic itself.

Anyway, we can agree to disagree. However if you think minorities in Pakistan & Bangladesh gets better treatment than in India, you are living in fools world. That's why I have tagged Indian minority posters as only they can clarify. (post #30)
 
The Pakistan constitution doesn't pretend to be secular, so no one is arguing on this matter. It is an Islamic republic and it would make absolutely no sense for a Hindu to be leading an Islamic nation if he didn't believe in Islam. It would be like appointing Jeremy Corbyn to lead the Conservative party, or appointing a Maulvi to head the Anglican Church.

But does that mean Hindus don't have the rights to practice their religion in Pakistan? Not as far as I am aware, they are free to practice it privately and in their own temples.

In India there is a secular constitution but the Muslims are not protected by it. Their mosques are demolished, their Islamic rights are overturned while beef bans are brought in for Hindus benefit. I am not saying any of this is wrong, but there is nothing secular about it. In truth, it is Hindu fundamentalism which is flourishing in India under the guise of democracy, due to majority vote of Hindus.
Do you know we even have a ban on Crackers during Diwali, one of the biggest festival in India?


When government feels that, a practice hurts sentiments of others, is it wrong to ban? There should be arguments on both sided and decisions have to be made. That is what is secular right?

Does Hindu sentiments always get the favors? I dont think so. I can share atleast 4 major places where crackers were banned or similar practices were stopped for Hindus too.

So, stop putting as beef ban is something discriminatory towards Muslims. Because India is a secular country as you quoted and you always dont get your way because of your religion like Pakistan.

Mosques are being demolished??

“India has a high per capita concentration of mosques, ranking fourth globally in terms of mosques per 10,000 Muslims, after Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, and Bangladesh. For every 1,000 Muslims, there are roughly 15.3 mosques in India”

Contrary to your post, India is well amd truly a secular nation but the true fundamentalist Pakistanis are throwing stones at it. How farcical?
 
Haha, this is an amazing nugget.
We are bigots by design so expected fairness from us is inconsequential. :kp

Bigots is the wrong word, it is like calling secularists bigots for not ruling by religious edicts. Everyone believes in their own way is the right way, that is the whole point in having different viewpoints. Are you a bigot because you say Pakistan constitution is wrong and Indian constitution is right?
 
My point is simple, you cant compare between these 3 countries as two are Islamic republic where minorities have curtailed rights as per constitution where as India's constitution is secular. Now crime and injustice against minorities happen in every country but India doesnt constitutionally restrict anyone based on faith. That is a huge difference.

And LOL at muslims are not protected by secular constitution. Bhai yeh drama kahi aur kar. :ROFLMAO:

I am sitting in Waste Bengal now which feels like Islamic republic itself.

Anyway, we can agree to disagree. However if you think minorities in Pakistan & Bangladesh gets better treatment than in India, you are living in fools world. That's why I have tagged Indian minority posters as only they can clarify. (post #30)

Indian constitution may be secular in theory, but in practice it is implemented in favour of the majority religion. This is why you vote for a party based on Hindu revivalism, and why rules like beef bans and abolition of Islamic rights are being brought in. Secularism is very much going to be tainted by hindutva right through the system. From governance, through the police, all the way to the courts and media.

If that is what you call secular, then I guess might be better to be a religious administration where at least you know where you stand.
 
Bigots is the wrong word, it is like calling secularists bigots for not ruling by religious edicts. Everyone believes in their own way is the right way, that is the whole point in having different viewpoints. Are you a bigot because you say Pakistan constitution is wrong and Indian constitution is right?
Pakistani constitution discriminates based on religion, indian constitution does not. As far as I am aware it's not legal for a Muslim to change his faith to Hinduism in Pakistan, opposite is allowed in India. Indian constitution by priniciple gives equal rights to all religion. I think it's fair to say a constitution which discriminates based on religion is worse than one which does not. Also everyone has his own viewpoints does not mean that no view point can't be called out. Leave India and Pakistan for a moment. Soutf Africa pre 1992 practised apartheid constotutionally. Would you be ok with ot and say that their constitution have different view points? Ensuring equal opportuni regardless of faith, race etc is a hallmark for fair constitution. A country can have a different constitution, and others are perfectly right in calling it out.
 
Are NRIs, who chose to ran away from India themselves, really in a position to decide how difficult life is for Muslims in India? How many Hindus in Bangladesh and Pakistan are told daily to return to India? Compare that to the situation in India. This highlights a certain mindset, just post something they disagree with, and you will be quickly labeled a 'Pakistani'. Since 2014, life has become increasingly difficult for Muslims in India, largely due to the actions of the Chaiwala and his blindly devoted supporters. :inti
 
Pakistani constitution discriminates based on religion, indian constitution does not. As far as I am aware it's not legal for a Muslim to change his faith to Hinduism in Pakistan, opposite is allowed in India. Indian constitution by priniciple gives equal rights to all religion. I think it's fair to say a constitution which discriminates based on religion is worse than one which does not. Also everyone has his own viewpoints does not mean that no view point can't be called out. Leave India and Pakistan for a moment. Soutf Africa pre 1992 practised apartheid constotutionally. Would you be ok with ot and say that their constitution have different view points? Ensuring equal opportuni regardless of faith, race etc is a hallmark for fair constitution. A country can have a different constitution, and others are perfectly right in calling it out.


Yes I agree, you are right everyone has the right to disagree with something they don't believe in. This is what you do anyway right?

For what it's worth I don't believe in religious parties running govt either. But everyone discriminates one way or the other according to their own belief. Just because India calls itself secular, does not mean it is free from discrimination or that it rules fairly according to it's constitution. The rulings and administration usually reflects the party in power, and the party in power is vehemently hindutva.
 
Indian constitution may be secular in theory, but in practice it is implemented in favour of the majority religion. This is why you vote for a party based on Hindu revivalism, and why rules like beef bans and abolition of Islamic rights are being brought in. Secularism is very much going to be tainted by hindutva right through the system. From governance, through the police, all the way to the courts and media.

If that is what you call secular, then I guess might be better to be a religious administration where at least you know where you stand.
All of this sounds like your personal opinion, bro. The beef ban has existed in some Indian states since as far back as 1965—it’s not something new. No Islamic rights are being legally banned. If you're referring to incidents like lynchings, unfortunately, such violence occurs on both sides. Just look at what happened recently in Murshidabad.

We've debated all of this in multiple threads. You’ll continue to believe that Dara Hua Musalman are being mistreated in India, and I’ll continue to believe that this narrative is exaggerated.

However, this thread is about something entirely different. The fact remains: the Constitution of Pakistan explicitly discriminates against minorities—by law. That alone makes this a separate issue. We can have a different conversation about how minorities are treated in India, and yes, we can criticize it too. But equating it with an Islamic Republic where discrimination is codified in the constitution is simply not a fair comparison.
 
Btw, why are we discussing Hindu and Muslim only?

How about treatment of Ahmedis and Pashtoons in Pakistan? Can anyone shed some light?

@Major
 
That is all in your mind. I am in India now and there is no Hindutva regime like you put it out. India has 28 states and where BJP is in power, the Muslim population is in check to a certain extent. However, where BJP is not in power like where I am now in Bengal, it feels like mini Pakistan. Just a month ago, hindus were driven out from their home in a place called Murshidabad by Islamists. Will it ever happen that Muslims are driven out from their home by Hindus in an area near Karachi?

Comparing Muslims of India with minority treatment of Islamic republics like Pakistan or Bangladesh is a joke. The population figure from the census board tells all the story.

Please bro, dont speak on topics without knowing ground realities.

Bro. I'm in construction industry. I've done alot of work for Muslim gujraatis. They paint a different picture to you.
 
All of this sounds like your personal opinion, bro. The beef ban has existed in some Indian states since as far back as 1965—it’s not something new. No Islamic rights are being legally banned. If you're referring to incidents like lynchings, unfortunately, such violence occurs on both sides. Just look at what happened recently in Murshidabad.

We've debated all of this in multiple threads. You’ll continue to believe that Dara Hua Musalman are being mistreated in India, and I’ll continue to believe that this narrative is exaggerated.

However, this thread is about something entirely different. The fact remains: the Constitution of Pakistan explicitly discriminates against minorities—by law. That alone makes this a separate issue. We can have a different conversation about how minorities are treated in India, and yes, we can criticize it too. But equating it with an Islamic Republic where discrimination is codified in the constitution is simply not a fair comparison.

But no one is arguing that Pakistan constitution discriminates against minorities to hold sensitive positions in govt or military. It is the national constitution. Are you saying all nations constitutions should be identical and follow the same belief system? Based on what?
 
But no one is arguing that Pakistan constitution discriminates against minorities to hold sensitive positions in govt or military. It is the national constitution. Are you saying all nations constitutions should be identical and follow the same belief system? Based on what?
No...what I am saying is, since constitutionally Pakistan discriminates against its minorities, this question posted on OP comparing minority of both these countries is moot considering India has secular constitution. It is a non comparison and rest of the discussion is meaningless.

We can ofcourse have a separate discussion on poor treatment of muslims in India and I guess we already have a thread on it. But no comparison between a secular republic against Islamic nation. It is a chalk and cheese comparison.
 
We should have some introspection before pointing fingers at India. Yes they are no paradise for minorities but we have no leg to stand on when our COAS starts talking about civilisation divides between Hindus and Muslims.

We can criticise the treatment of minorities in both countries. It doesn't have to be a competition.
 
We should have some introspection before pointing fingers at India. Yes they are no paradise for minorities but we have no leg to stand on when our COAS starts talking about civilisation divides between Hindus and Muslims.

We can criticise the treatment of minorities in both countries. It doesn't have to be a competition.

Sure there are problems for minorities in all lands and have nutters who make insulting remarks, Pakistan does have these also . COAS is not elected and wont be there for long . However india has voted in , elected a party which has fascist roots and ideology, they believe in a superior race idea . Divide and hate was their birth. In large a population the numbers aren't close in terms of discrimination and facing physical abuse. Imagine if this type of government is around for another 100 years in charge? This question wouldn't need to be asked.
 
Its a Pakistan forum so definitely Hindus in Pakistan because the posters here have 10 Hindu friends :srt
 
Neither.
It is in fact, hardest to be a Hindu in Bharat as well as anywhere else in the world.

Muslims with control of 50+ nations of the world and who generally try to operate as 1 front, 1 Ummah regardless of their troubles in keeping that on the track try to make this situation seem like a case of *** for tat with Hindus struggling in Pakistan and Muslims struggling in Bharat (as per them) when the truth is that there are 250-400 million muslims in Bharat alone who by themselves could be arguably the largest muslim country in the world and its a very strong hypothesis that within a few centuries they mightily eventually become the majority also and afterwards dramatically change the demography within decades which is what generally happens in muslim dominated nations.

We Hindus live under the illusion that this land, our so called ancestral homeland, the cradle of our civilization is a safe haven for us. But the truth is, we are not truly safe even here, nor anywhere else in the world.

On a planet with 120+ Christian majority nations, 50+ Islamic nations, 10+ Buddhist nations, and one fiercely protected Jewish state, we Hindus are still struggling to hold on to even one land which is the very birthplace of our civilization. And yet we spend our days debating with leftists/secularists about whether we are even entitled to a voice.


The brutal truth is, we don't even have any genuine alliances and are on our own in a world focussed on eliminating our religion from the planet. Every international relationship we have is transactional, built on strategic or economic interests, not on the principle tp preservation of our identity, our temples, or our people.

One attack on Israel and the entire Zionist block stands up in their support.
One attack on GAZA, and the other half of the world stands up in their support.
Who has ever stood up for Hindus as fiercely as that? When Hindus are massacred in Bengal, Kashmir, Bangladesh, Pakistan etc all we get are hollow tweets, empty condemnations, and silence from the so-called international community.

No global power, no international body, no media powerhouse cares when Hindus are lynched, vilified, converted, or erased. We are the only major civilization without a global protector, without a nation willing to stand up and say that they exist solely to safeguard Hindus.

Pakistan's army chief can boldly say he exists to protect muslims against Hindus. Their parliament openly talks about razing our temples and hoisting Islamic flag on our land. Our PM and Our army chiefs however have to act with their hands tied, they cannot dare to say they will hoist Hindu flags on Pakistani soil , they cannot dare to say they exist to fight for Hindus against Islam. That would be considered a blasphemy for the whole world. That's our situation. That's our helplessness in our own so called homeland.

In our own country, we must approach the Supreme Court to prove that Lord Ram is not fictional.
Muslims openly talk about ruling India again, about demolishing temples and replacing them with mosques without any fear or consequence. In our country a prominent muslim leader can openly say if given 15 minutes without police protection they will go on a killing spree against Hindus. Tell me one muslim country where a prominent political from another religion can make a statement like that and get away with it.

But if a Hindu dares speak of reclaiming Kashi or Mathura, he is immediately branded a fascist, extremist, or communal thug.

Our festivals are branded as pollution. Our gods are mocked in films. Our saints are ridiculed in media. But question the sanctity of any other religion, and within moments there are calls for beheadings.

The world lectures us on secularism and tolerance, while themselves carrying the bloodstains of indigenous genocides and colonial brutality. We, the only civilization that never invaded another’s land for religious dominance, are painted as the oppressors.

So please spare us this illusion of equivalence. Being a Hindu was tough yesterday, today and is going to remain tough in the future.

We are witnessing an open threat to the very survival of Sanatan Dharma, and yet the world sees our pain as bigotry and extremism only.
Nice post, bro. (y)
 
Nice post, bro. (y)
Lol guess its hard to be a Hindu in South Asia.

Hindus killed in Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Lanka(Tamils),thrown out of Bhutan(Nepalese).

I guess Nepal and Fiji are the safest countries for Hindus.
 
Its a Pakistan forum so definitely Hindus in Pakistan because the posters here have 10 Hindu friends :srt
This post gave me an idea.

@The Bald Eagle I have managed to tag multiple minority Indian posters here asking their opinion. There are many many more posters but I dont remember everyone's user ID to tag them.

Any minority Pakistani poster here to tag and get their opinion? It can be Ahmadi as well

:kp
 
This post gave me an idea.

@The Bald Eagle I have managed to tag multiple minority Indian posters here asking their opinion. There are many many more posters but I dont remember everyone's user ID to tag them.

Any minority Pakistani poster here to tag and get their opinion? It can be Ahmadi as well

:kp
Thing is this, all these Pakistani and wannabe Pakistani posters have met and heard from Indian Muslims but Indians have never met Pakistani Hindus across the world, our only view is from Danish Kaneria lol
 
I would say a minority in Pakistan.

We have examples of Muslims, Chirstians, Sikhs, Jains etc making it to the highest level in India. We have seen some examples in BD too. However, it is rare to see a minority from Pakistan becoming the face of the country at any level.
 
I would say a minority in Pakistan.

We have examples of Muslims, Chirstians, Sikhs, Jains etc making it to the highest level in India. We have seen some examples in BD too. However, it is rare to see a minority from Pakistan becoming the face of the country at any level.
You have example of Col Sofia Qureshi and Pilot Kamran Bashir Mashih...who is being chastised and who is being celebrated??
 
You have example of Col Sofia Qureshi and Pilot Kamran Bashir Mashih...who is being chastised and who is being celebrated??
No one knows their names at international level. I am talking about celebrities, sports icons, business tycoons.

When you say Bollywood, we remember Khans. India has Muslim and Parsi business tycoons. Sports icons like Sania Mirza, Amritraj brothers and minority Muslim and Sikh captains in sports like cricket and Hockey. These are all well recognized all over the world.

I am not diminishing the contributions of your Christian Soldiers. But they are not recognized around the world. If they become the COAS Pakistan or Airforce head or PM or Prez of Pakistan, then they will be recognized.
 

RSS-BJP fueling hate against Kashmiris across India: IIOJK MP Ruhullah Mehdi​

Srinagar: In Indian illegally occupied Jammu and Kashmir, National Conference senior leader and Member of Indian Parliament from Srinagar, Agha Syed Ruhullah Mehdi has said that the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh-Bharatiya Janata Party (RSS-BJP) network is fueling hatred against Kashmiris, who are doing business or pursuing education in different Indian states.

According to Kashmir Media Service, Agha Syed Ruhullah in a statement issued in Srinagar strongly criticized the concerted efforts by right-wing groups to create hostility against the people of Kashmir. He described these actions as part of a larger “ecosystem” driven by forces like the RSS and BJP, which he said is trying to portray Kashmiris as the enemy.

He highlighted recent incidents of assault and harassment targeting Kashmiris in Indian cities like Dehradun, New Delhi and Chandigarh as evidence of an organized pattern intended to isolate and marginalize the Kashmiri community. “Being a Kashmiri, a real Kashmiri, is seen as a threat. This is not just about individuals, our rights are also under attack,” he asserted.

Ruhullah questioned the recent termination of government employees in IIOJK, demanding transparency around the reasons and legal grounds for such actions. The authorities must explain who holds the power and who is behind these decisions, he emphasized.

Shttps://kmsnews.org/kms/2025/06/05/rss-bjp-fueling-hate-against-kashmiris-across-india-iiojk-mp-ruhullah-mehdi.html
 
Let’s see how many Muslims are playing in ipl.
Now let’s see how many Hindus are playing in PSL.

So forget Hindus and Christians becoming PM or CM in Pakistan. They should at least aspire to become at least be in the playing XI of some PSL team.
 
India unlawfully expels hundreds of Muslims to Bangladesh

After India deported hundreds of people to Bangladesh without trial, as confirmed by officials from both sides, activists and counsels have condemned the new expulsions, saying they are illegal and based on ethnic profiling.

The Indian authorities have said the deported individuals are undocumented migrants.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi's Hindu nationalist government has long maintained a strict stance against immigration, especially from Bangladesh, a country with a majority of Muslim population. Top Indian officials have called these immigrants "termites" and "infiltrators".

It has also sparked fear among India’s estimated 200 million Muslims, especially among speakers of Bengali, a widely spoken language in both eastern India and Bangladesh.

"Muslims, particularly from the eastern part of the country, are terrified," said veteran Indian rights activist Harsh Mander.

"You have thrown millions into this existential fear."

Bangladesh, largely encircled by land by India, has seen relations with New Delhi turn icy since a mass uprising in 2024 toppled Dhaka’s government, a former friend of India.

But India also ramped up operations against migrants after a wider security crackdown in the wake of an attack in the west — the April 22 killing of 26 people, mainly Hindu tourists, in Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IIOJK).

New Delhi blamed that attack on Pakistan, claims Islamabad rejected, with arguments culminating in a four-day conflict that left more than 70 dead.

Indian authorities launched an unprecedented countrywide security drive that has seen many thousands detained — and many of them eventually pushed across the border to Bangladesh at gunpoint.

We will shoot you’

Rahima Begum, from India’s eastern Assam state, said police detained her for several days in late May before taking her to the Bangladesh frontier.

She said she and her family had spent their life in India.

"I have lived all my life here — my parents, my grandparents, they are all from here," she said. "I don’t know why they would do this to me."

Indian police took Begum, along with five other people, all Muslims, and forced them into swampland in the dark.

"They showed us a village in the distance and told us to crawl there," she told AFP.

"They said: ‘Do not dare to stand and walk, or we will shoot you.’"

Bangladeshi locals who found the group then handed them to border police who "thrashed" them and ordered they return to India, Begum said.

"As we approached the border, there was firing from the other side," said the 50-year-old.

"We thought: ‘This is the end. We are all going to die.’"

She survived, and, a week after she was first picked up, she was dropped back home in Assam with a warning to keep quiet.

Bengali speaking Muslims being targeted
Rights activists and lawyers criticised India’s drive as "lawless".

"You cannot deport people unless there is a country to accept them," said New Delhi-based civil rights lawyer Sanjay Hegde.

Indian law does not allow for people to be deported without due process, he added.

Bangladesh has said India has pushed more than 1,600 people across its border since May.

Indian media suggests the number could be as high as 2,500.

The Bangladesh Border Guards said it has sent back 100 of those pushed across — because they were Indian citizens.

India has been accused of forcibly deporting Muslim Rohingya refugees from Myanmar, with navy ships dropping them off the coast of the war-torn nation.

Many of those targeted in the campaign are low-wage labourers in states governed by Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), according to rights activists.

Indian authorities did not respond to questions about the number of people detained and deported.

But Assam state’s chief minister has said that more than 300 people have been deported to Bangladesh.

Separately, Gujarat’s police chief said more than 6,500 people have been rounded up in the western state, home to both Modi and interior minister Amit Shah.

Many of those were reported to be Bengali-speaking Indians and later released.

"People of Muslim identity who happen to be Bengali speaking are being targeted as part of an ideological hate campaign," said Mander, the activist.

Nazimuddin Mondal, a 35-year-old mason, said he was picked up by police in the financial hub of Mumbai, flown on a military aircraft to the border state of Tripura and pushed into Bangladesh.

He managed to cross back, and is now back in India’s West Bengal state, where he said he was born.

"The Indian security forces beat us with batons when we insisted we were Indians," said Mondal, adding he is now scared to even go out to seek work.

"I showed them my government-issued ID, but they just would not listen."

Source: https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/1325023-india-unlawfully-expels-hundreds-of-muslims-to-bangladesh
 
Both countries are disasters when it comes to minority rights, and let’s be honest, they’re not exactly paradise for their majorities either.

Stop playing the game of “who’s the bigger bigot.” In India, a cow lyncher doesn’t just act, he votes for the people who cheer him on. In Pakistan, a mere accusation of blasphemy is enough to spark a mob with pitchforks.

Both nations are dry tinder, just waiting for a spark, and we all know how fast the body bags pile up once it lights.

So spare us the "who's more humane" debate, you're just comparing different flavors of the same sickness.

But let’s not ignore the elephant in the room, hatred toward Muslims in India runs deep. And Gaza's genocide laid it bare, too many Indians didn’t just stay silent, they cheered it on.
 
Back
Top