Is Secular India really Secular and Islamic Pakistan really Islamic?

August 13, 2005

...and now to teach the eunuch a lesson in objectivity

Khamkhwa {``this is what started it all...please don`t be confused with hiro who is salim who is also premwala...who is also a thousand other nicks...;) ``}

Again you lie and are blatantly engaged in yellow journalism. This is NOT what started it all. What started this particularly cycle of profanity was your action in causing my friends` and my messages and threads to be arbitrarily deleted. Because you and your cohorts, almost all Paki liberals assisted by one gay Mahratti from Pune, cannot debate issues successfully, you resort to deleting responses and preseting one-sided explanations. I do not blame you, of course, because this is typically Paki behavior. Let me explain and also try to return to the topic in hand:

The British citizens of Paki descent who bombed the London transportation system were not at all influenced by Pakis.
Kashmir belongs to Pakis because a majority of its people are Moose Limbs.
India started all the wars against Pakiland and Pakis won every one of them.
The Bengalis were committing horrible massacres in East Pakistan and they are traitors.
The US is wrong in being concerned about Pakis` leading role in planning and executing terrorism throughout the world.
Pakis who don`t agree with the Paki majority need to be muzzled and eliminated as traitors.
Ahmedis, Shias, Christians, Jews, Hindus are all kafirs and want to do Moose Limbs in.
Salim is NOT a Rajput, NOT a Turk, NOT Irani, NOT Shia, NOT educated, and definitely NOT a Paki. He must be something, but he is defintely not a Moose Limb and a Paki, otherwise he would not be speaking his mind and pointing out the truth.

Khamkhwa, you may have the power to regulate what is posted in threads and messages, but you CANNOT control what I say or do in real life. I am very disappointed by the so-called ``liberal and progressive`` Paki hypocrisy and I plan to expose it whereever and whenever I have the opportunity.

You are not so bright, are you?

Salim



August 13, 2005

A far far more stupid person than we understood him to be.

Mr. Temporal,
Please do not resort to insulting me with your abuse via alternate means by addressing Mr. Hamidm2 and Mr. Tahmed as if you were educating them about the imminent amoral atmosphere on Chowk.

Sir, and I use the word hesitatingly, you are a fraud, a hypocrite, and a charlatan. You accuse me of using profanity and have not offered a single word about the vulgarity used by Saminasha, Scout, Succubus, Jagdeesh (Tytler) Godbole aka JohnGalt, and Atif. You have been an amused spectator when Scout has fantasized about ``penises rotting and falling off.`` You were peculiarly silent when Saminasha referred to my young, religious wife as a ``Turkish whore.`` You were definitely one-sided in your deafening silence about the abuse Atif has been hurling at me, Mr. Tahmed, Mr. Montag, Mr. Arjun, and Mr. Delhiwalla. You have even encouraged the feces-mouthed Succubus in her abusive rage against my female relatives. Very recently I offered proof of dirty, filthy, and intolerable language posted by several so-called ``females`` such as Succubus, Scout, Saminasha, and Mizz Nadia. ``Women,`` who want to be treated with the respect they demand as the ``fairer`` sex, need to refrain from using unlady-like language with which they are often caught with their pants down. And then ``men,`` such as Atif aka Dr. Israr Ahmed and Jagdeesh (Tytler) Godbole aka JohnGalt, have been using abusive, horrible, and dirty language against other men and their female relatives. But belonging to the Brahmin cast of Chowk, they and their ``she-male`` pom pom girls are immune from being muzzled and being banned.

So, Mr. Hypocrite, now do you understand why some of us have to resort to multiple nics? By banning people with whom you and your cohorts disagree, by deleting their polite and reasonable messages, and by erasing their threads, you yourselves are forcing us to resort to multiple nics and evasive measures.

Mr. Temporal, you have often complained about the draconian measures employed by the military dictators in Pakiland. I must say I am pleased to note your plight and your consternation at being muzzled, being banned, and being arbitrarily barred from decision making in your wretched country. The Lahore Marathon, the Mukhtar Mai tragedy, the Dr. Shazia injustice are all testatments to your utter failure in being credible. When you practice intolerance yourself, it is natural that others will do unto you what you are doing to others. You deserve every Yahya, every Zia, every Musharraf that is imposed on your miserable lives.

Mr. Temporal, YOU HAVE NO CREDIBILITY WHATSOEVER, and please don`t ever compare yourself to Mr. Tahmed. I know Mr. Tahmed and believe me, Mr. Temporal, Sir, you are no Mr. Tahmed. He is brilliant, honest, just, compassionate, friendly, logical, and most of all not at all a hypocrite like you.

By the way, I do not care what you think. Go ahead and label me as you wish. You are so perceptive that you have determined or negated my ethnic, religious, national, and residential identitiies, or lack of them. You know, you are even more stupid than I gave you credit for.

Salim


The rejected ``lover`` keeps coming back for more

Succubus,
I wanted to ignore you, but you insist on continuing your macabre act of playing a victim. You have insulted in very vivid and horrible profanity me and my family, including my mother and my sister-in-law. Even now you resort to using words such as ``jackass.`` I assure you that you do not have to interact with me for any reason. You started this series of insidious remarks against me and I just wanted to give you an ample response. The so-called ``40 thousand`` identities are due to the prevailing atmosphere of biased, one-sided, and definitely Paki-style of censorship found on Chowk, where they muzzle opinion they don`t like and ban interactor with whom they disagree. I would have been content with my own initial nic.

Please get over me. I am not interested in you and do not want to get into another slugfest with the likes of you. Get on with your life, I have.

Thanks,
Salim

Use of abusive language by Pakis - a she-male no doubt

Another example of ``polite`` interaction by Pakis, this time a ``female`` no doubt. Notice the use of expletives in almost every sentence. She can`t put together sixteen words without using fu ck, sh it, or ass:

{``#8 by Mizz_Nadia on August 12, 2005 4:55pm PT
Injuns getting proud of a industry that sucks money outta the public...Thats fucked up....and hilarious...

Wouldnt it b better if they gave half of what they earn to the Indian public and clean up the cow shitted streets ...and put sum clothes on those nasty ass women with sagging bodies....

Better put money towards having the ganges purified what with all that shit floatin in it....grosss.... :}

And these are the literate she-males of Pakiland, the Land of the Pure. Notice the free use of ``invented`` verbs and adjectives.

Salim



August 13, 2005

Circumventing the malicious deletion of my viewpoint by Khamkhwa and Chowk Staff

Now that Khamkhwa and his Chowk Staff cohorts are deleting my responses, I am compelled to repeat them here. Please read and accept my apologies for any inconvenience caused by this one-sided, biased, and repressive Paki website.
Mr. Jagdeesh (Tytler) Godforbidbole, Hoshiyaar Hole, You Jhoot Bole.
******************************************************
Is this what you meant by polite interaction when you were pontificating about Salim and Mr. Tahmed in this forum earlier?

{``#5 by JagdeeshGodbole on August 13, 2005 6:29am PT
delhiwala why dont you take your history and shove it up your ass``}

You Jagdeesh are a hypocrite.

Salim
****************************************
Hypocrisy

Is this what Succubus, Atif, Scout, Saminasha, and Jagdeesh (Tytler) Godforbidble mean by polite interactin and refrain from abusive language?


#2 by atif2 on August 12, 2005 5:30am PT
arjun madarchod idiotic smelly injun - instead of gloating over these human rights abuses, you should be condemning them.
***********************************************
Advice to Ms Succubus
In the case of Ms. Succubus, I think it is simply a case of ``sour grapes.``

Succu,
I am happily married. Please find someone else and hopefully you will be able to get rid of some of your own personal rage. Who knows you could possibly channel all this negative energy into something, let`s say, productive and fun.
Sounds like a case of ``sour`` grapes to me.

Response to Nonsense from Succubus

Succubus,
I have been deliberately ignoring you and your ridiculous nonsense for several months now. I have not said a thing to you or about you, despite your several attempts to malign Mr. Tahmed and me. Suffice it to say that, just like your sense of humor, your sense of fairplay is also biased.
Please refrain from accusing me of profanity when you yourself have uttered your vulgarity at my female relatives in the worst possible language. I never thought that, with the exception of Scout and Saminasha, any Paki girl could use such colorful profanity. You are such a turn off.
If you and your cohorts cannot confront Mr. Tahmed with logic and polite discussion, then please don`t resort to using his friendship with me as ammunition to assail his well-established reputation as a polite, logical, and accurate interactor. Please move on and get a life.

By the way, you said ``As you have done earlier, please do not take this personal.`` The correct word that you should have used here is ``personally`` and not ``personal.``
Please don`t take this advice personally. In my desire to enlighten Pakis and encourage them to use proper English, I invariably end up rectifying their use of this foreign language. I can`t believe that the standards of academic attainment have sunk to this low level in the UAE. And they are about to give you a degree?

Salim
******************************************

Thank you, my friends

Mr. Tahmed, Monty, and Jang,

Thank you for your kind words and attempt to respond to Succubus, Jagdeesh (Tytler) Godforbidbole, Atif, KK, and the other members of the Scout/Saminasha gang. While they constantly whine about my verbal ``abuse`` hurled at them, they conveniently neglect to confess to their own substantially vulgar attacks on me, my wife, my sister-in-law, and my mother. Just recently, Saminasha posted, right here on FP, a remark referring to my wife as a ``Turkish whore.``
Yes, I do respond and as I have often said with ten times the effect. I can`t help it, that`s the American way and I AM an American. Usually, I am quite a gentle, polite, and compassionate interactor, whose only desire is to laugh and bring laughter to others. But once this gang of Scout, Saminasha and their cohorts resorts to lewd and vulgar assaults on me and my family, I am entitled to teach them a lesson in ``French`` - and that is exactly what they receive.
I apologize to Mr. Tahmed, Mr. Dilliwalla, Mr. Jang, Ms Zeena, Mr. Montag, and other fine friends for any inconvenience that may have come their way because of their friendship with me.

Salim
******************************************************
Response to Nonsense from Succubus

#165, Succubus,
I have been deliberately ignoring you and your ridiculous nonsense for several months now. I have not said a thing to you or about you, despite your several attempts to malign Mr. Tahmed and me. Suffice it to say that just like your sense of humor your sense of fairplay is also biased.
Please refrain from accusing me of profanity when you yourself have uttered your vulgarity at my female relatives in the worst possible language. I never thought that, with the exception of Scout and Saminasha, any Paki girl could use such colorful profanity. You are such a turn off.
If you and your cohorts cannot confront Mr. Tahmed with logic and polite discussion, then please don`t resort to using his friendship with me as ammunition to assail his well-established reputation as a polite, logical, and accurate interactor. Please move on and get a life.

Salim :)

Romair#161:

``You keep looking at the partition as a one-sided affair, where people were driven out from Pakistan. Do keep in mind a lot were driven out from India.``

When did I say it was one-sided? But you were talking about West Panjab and how it was backward in human capital before 1947 and I was responding to that. You said that Pakistan was not based on religion, this is why I asked where are the 25-30 million hindu-sikhs who should have been there if the demographics had remained the same. Although it is not relevant to the topic, the proportion of Muslims is now about the same as it was prepartition in the areas which are now India: I find it amazing that the people of the country whose hindu-sikh minority has disappeared have the temerity to question the one whose percentage of minorities is increasing despite tragic episodes.

``Did Pakistan want Punjab to stay with Pakistan, or did it try to split it? To the best of my understanding it was the Sikh leadership that split Punjab?``

The ``wise`` men decided to divide first India and then Panjab and Bengal. It was all part of the same compromise in which your and my ancestors had no say, except those who marched in the streets saying ``Pakistan ka matlab kya?``....you know the rest. I have not met a single hindu or sikh who wanted to leave Pakistan because it had become a muslim majority country; they had lived under Muslim rule before and the typical refrain was that ``raja badalde nain, praja nain badaldi``. In fact almost every one of them thought that they would return to their homes after the ``rollays`` (turbulence) were over.

``It is always the job of the majority to make the minority feel secure.``

I agree, but it is also the job of the minority to have the right leadership; if IM leadership in India empahsises the right to have Muslim personal law, right to have haj subsidies and the right to teach whatever they want in government supported Madrassas by government paid teachers, then that`s what it is going to get.

``As someone who is part of the, ``separation`` of Kashmir, I can safely say, I am quite happy about it, as is everyone in the separated part.....And in the end that is what counts. Not what one Maharaja thinks.......``

How about the happiness of your hindu-sikh cousins who were in a majority in Muzzafarnagar? By that one action and by throwing Hindus out of the valley, separatist Kashmiris have raised doubts about whether they are deserving of human rights.

``I would be interested in your comments about Junagarh, which was signed off to Pakistan, in its entirity.``

I have said it before that neither India nor Pakistan occupied a high moral ground. Both claimed Junagarh, Kashmir and Hyderabad while applying differing criterian; Pakistan kept talking about all three right until the sixties while Indians have been using clever reasoning to justify the same.

Romair

People`s feelings are much more a reflection of their own INTERNAL SPIRITUAL/EMOTIONAL environments, rather than a reflection of their external contingencies. That`s why people feel differently on most issues.

On the basis of the FEELINGS of some people, the lives and livelihoods of other people cannot be undemocratically affected.

We are entering a stage in which many non Muslims (increasingly) FEEL insecure with Muslims living amongst them.*

Your logic - one hopes it is your logic alone - points to a rather dismal future.

Dost-Mittar #160: You keep looking at the partition as a one-sided affair, where people were driven out from Pakistan. Do keep in mind a lot were driven out from India.

Did Pakistan want Punjab to stay with Pakistan, or did it try to split it? To the best of my understanding it was the Sikh leadership that split Punjab? You seem to have simply called it an act of, ``Wise men.`` I have nothing against the Sikh leadership splitting Punjab. If they did not feel secure with Muslims. But then you need to acknowledge that............

There was indeed, great insecurity amongst Mulsims in India. They did not feel they would get a fair deal with a majority Hindu population. You may think they were going neck and neck with Hindus in human development. But I don`t think they were. Even in the areas they were in a majority (geographic Pakistan), it was the Hindus dominating them. You yourself seem to accept that.........

It is always the job of the majority to make the minority feel secure. Not the other way around. Which is why I accept the partition of Punjab, by Sikhs. I am surprised to see you arguing both way. As I say, the status and progress of Indian Muslims in India is the criteria I use. If they are the new Dalits and whipping boys, then I am left with no argument but to accept that Pakistanis are better off, where they are........

``You are right about Kashmir whose separation was forced by Pakistan. The Mahahraja acceded it in its entirety.``

This is exactly the point I am trying to make. No one wanted Hindu Maharajas to control the destiny of millions of Muslims. I certainly didn`t. What kind of civilized system allows a Maharaja to write off his whole population into slavery, like this. I am truly suprised you support it. This is why I think Pakistan was a better option (as do a majority of Kashmiris). Look at the situtaion in Kashmir now. That could have been all of South Asia, had Pakistanis not acted when they did.........As someone who is part of the, ``separation`` of Kashmir, I can safely say, I am quite happy about it, as is everyone in the separated part.....And in the end that is what counts. Not what one Maharaja thinks.......

I would be interested in your comments about Junagarh, which was signed off to Pakistan, in its entirity. The signing papers are still sitting in Karachi. Do you apply identical standards to Kashmir and Junagarh. Or do you have different standards? Another reason, why I think Muslims would not have gotten a fair deal in India..........

As I keep highlighting it is the job of the majority to make the minority feel secure........

Romair:

``The population of Karachi at Partition was 400,000. That of Bombay was already 4 million.``

I was comparing the influx in Karachi to that in Delhi. Delhi too was a small city of, though larger than Karachi, and grew enormously between 1947 and 1951. Karachi grew even faster because it became the political and commercial capital of Pakistan, in addition to attracting a large number of refugees.

``You can compare East Punjab to Pakistan. That is a legitimate comparison. But you cannot compare all of India. Nearly all the infrastructure, technical, and most of all human resource capital of South Asia was in what is today India. Pakistan was Lahore, a wheat mandi in Faisalabad, a couple of cottage industries in Sialkot type small cities, a 400k port in Karachi and military cantonments.``

Punjab had its fair share of human capital. Ninety percent of India at that time was rural, so agricultural prosperity meant more than anything else and Punjab was ahead in that area than any other state. And you keep repeating Lyalpur derisively as a wheat mandi, instead of calling it the heart of agricultural industry which accounted for more than 60% of the national output and ignoring what I said about it having a large textile mill and the only agricultural post-secondary institution.

``Pakistan`s whole human capital was based on Muhajirs coming in from India..........``

Assuming that the decision to drive out the existing human capital had already been taken.

``Even if India had experienced 6% growth for 4 decades, only a tiny % of that would have gone into the areas of NWFP, Baluchistan, and Sind and much of Punjab............``

Until the militancy took hold in Punjab, it was the most prosperous state in India. According to a Pakistani economist in Daily Times, Indian Punjab is way ahead of Pakistani Punjab even though it was way behind the West before the Partition. After the end of militancy it is on a roll again. Here are some excerpts on an article - url: http://us.rediff.com/money/2005/aug/13spec.htm

[Acccording to a survey by the National Council for Applied Economic Research, while there were 267 households with an annual income above Rs 1 crore (Rs 10 million) in 2001-02 in Ludhiana, there were only 96 such families in Jalandhar.

In fact, Ludhiana is ahead of the state capital Chandigarh as well, which had 199 households with an annual income of Rs 1 crore and above. But looking at recent developments in both Jalandhar and Ludhiana, these numbers are bound to have risen.``

`` Banks in both cities rank industrialists in Jalandhar and Ludhiana high. ``In the year ending March 31, 2005, we extended term loans of Rs 2,000 crore (Rs 20 billion) to 45 units in Ludhiana -- and they have all complied,`` says a senior official in the State Bank of India, Ludhiana{This is just one bank in one city}. ``There is only one case of default, and that too is under debt restructuring - and the default amount is Rs 20 crore (Rs 200 million), which will not be difficult to get.``]


``However the only two provinces that were truly split were Bengal and Punjab (Kashmir, but that was a forced separation).``

Are you saying that the split of Bengal and Punjab was with the consent of the people? The two provinces were split because three ``wise`` men decided to do that. Millions who were killed, raped, looted and uprooted did not do so voluntarily. You are right about Kashmir whose separation was forced by Pakistan. The Mahahraja acceded it in its entirety.

``Secondly, one cannot view the partition as a mere religious thing. It wasn`t.``

How many Hindus and Sikhs are there in Pakistani Punjab today? If it wasn`t a religious thing, there would have been 25-30 million of them there today. [introspection, anyone?]

re: romair # 158

``Or am I misreading something.``

OK, I am going to make a sincere effort to explain what you are missing.


Step 1:

Do you see the PROCESS AND ACT OF PARTITION ITSELF introducing any factors affecting the social and competitive situation of Muslims in free India?


Work with me here, Romair. I promise you will get it.

Hindvi #149: ``lastly the composite culture i was reffering to was the commonality in food, clothes, language etc which were more common withing provinces than within religions. and i was referring to the common culture of Amir khusro, nanak,.............crucible of the indo-gangetic plane but has now slowly dissapeared.``

Actually the cultural and linguistic argument goes agaisnt the Sub-Continent being one country. In fact, it goes towards it being several different countries, based more on current provinces, that anything else. If it went towards being one country, as you are suggesting, then South Asia would have been one country over thousands of years. Yet it has only been one country for a brief time, under the Brits and Mauryans. And that too, due to large scale conquests........

The moment the pressures were off, it broke into different pieces.........Had the British not conquered India, after the Mughals fell, India would be many different countries today. India and Pakistan being two countries, instead of ten or fifteen (like Europe), is a mere unnatural coincidence, due to British rule. It is not an organice cultural phenomenon. It is the opposite of one. Even within Pakistan, what to talk of much larger India, there is so much cultural difference. NWFP and Punjab are so different. Baluchistan and Tamil Nadu are even more different......

There is more commanality within provinces on these subjects as you suggested. However the only two provinces that were truly split were Bengal and Punjab (Kashmir, but that was a forced separation). The others remained.......

Secondly, one cannot view the partition as a mere religious thing. It wasn`t. It was related to security because of relgion. Pakistan was not created just because Muslims were Muslims. It was created because Muslims felt they would be discriminated against and would be insecure in a large India. Specifically after the refusal of the Cabinet Mission Plan......Much like Bangladesh wasn`t created just becaue they were Bengalis. But because they felt discriminated against because of being Bengalis.

This is what I am trying to figure out (albeit with great difficulty, since everyone gets so defensive, when India is critiqued) i.e. would Pakistani Muslims have been better off as Indian Muslims. And to do that one has to understand where Indian Muslims sit, at the moment. Would I have had the same opportunities in life, as an Indian Muslim? For example, you mentioned India`s advancement in IT etc. That is correct. But why don`t I see any Indian Muslims in the North American IT industry or university? Nearly every South Asian Muslim I meet is a Pakistani. Even though I have met hundreds of Indian Hindu IT engineers. I have met more Sikhs than Indian Muslims IT people here......

I am not attacking India here. I am accepting its advancement in IT, while trying to figure out where Indian Muslims sit (Azim Premji excluded), and where I would have sat, had I been and Indian Muslim....

On the one hand, you say they are the new Dalits and whipping boys of India. On the other hand you say Pakistani Muslims would have been better off in India. Why would I be better of as a Dalit and a whipping boy? Or are you suggesting that had India not split, the Muslims would not have been the whipping boys and Dalits in India? Or am I misreading something.........Hopefully through statistics and arguments (and hopefully without personal attacks), we can discuss this.........

Ref Romair #155

[....As I said, the view of Indian Muslims and Pakistani Muslims will be different on the Partition. I am willing to accept your view. You should be willing to accept mine, while attempting to counter it. I think it was bad for Indian Muslims and good for Paksitani Muslims......]

Still being under the thumbs of the feudals is good for the Pakistani peasants.

Being jailed under the Huddod ordinance is good for Pakistani women who are raped.

Being honor-killed or karo-kari`ed is good for Pakistani women.

Banning music and dance is good for Pakistan`s cultural development.

Being denied the right to run in marathons is good for Pakistani women.

Do you have anything else to add to the list?

Hindvi #149: ``Even if u ignore her its evident to the naked eye which country has the better educational institutions which has better industrial development and which has the market and expertise to grow faster. which has the better political situation and which has the better PR.``

The infrastructure development in Pakistan is actually quite good. I am not sure if you have ever visited Pakistan. Infrastructure and lack of street-level urban poverty is usually what people give it high marks for, with respect to other countries in South Asia....Education and market expertise in india is better.

The economy of India has been better in the 90s. However, that is an up and down thing. It changes. In the late 80s, India was being considered a basketcase and almost bankrupt. While in the 60s, Pakistan was the primary candidate for making it out of the third world. Over the past 55 years, Pakistan has had a higher economic growth average, than India. Generally on the HDI, both countries are usually pretty close. Even though India would have been quite a bit ahead in 47........

In any case, I really have no time to get into an argument or a pissing contest on who is better. For the sake of argument, lets assume India is way ahead of Pakistan

Now that, that is out of the way........What I am interested in is the condition of Muslims in India. Not where India is as a whole. That is what I am trying to figure out. That is what, at least in my opinion, decides, where Pakistan would have been had it stayed with India. If every Hindu in India becomes a millionaire and every Muslim is a pauper than I would be more affected by the pauper part.........

You seem to have a lot of knowledge on the subject. If you are willing to not get defensive and not get into a competition on who is better, we can have an interesting discussion......As I stated earlier, lets work with the pre-requisite that India is a far superior country........Hopefully that should satisfy you and others........Lets now discuss the other issues..........

Hindvi #varouis: ``Romair pakistanis are obsessed with color stop dishing out this bull......ofcourse their were many who continued to stick to your stand but then ignorance and obstinacy are not virtues in my book.``

Asking someone about skin color and how it affects the society, after they themselves posted a long post on it, quoting from Mahabharta is a valid question. Also, just because someone is happy with the creation of their country doesn`t make them ignorant and obstinate.....

Is it possible to have a discussion on India, including critiques of India, without people getting personal. I have found that to be an impossible task on this site.........One should view introspection as a positive and not a negative. One should not view it as an attack. Take a look at all the abuse that is hurled on Pakistan. In the end I think Pakistan will be better off, for it. You have continously made a long list of, ``critiques`` of Pakistan and its uselessness, but have i made a personal comment agaisnt you?

Introspection is a good thing. Not a bad thing..........One should not get defensive over it.......

Similarly, kindly stick to the point...........As I said, the view of Indian Muslims and Pakistani Muslims will be different on the Partition. I am willing to accept your view. You should be willing to accept mine, while attempting to counter it. I think it was bad for Indian Muslims and good for Paksitani Muslims......

Ref Romair #140

[I have always felt that if Indian Hindus really want to, “defeat” Pakistan and specifically defeat the, “idea” of Pakistan, there is only one way: they have to raise the living standards of Indian Muslims to a very high level. Higher than that of Pakistani Muslims. After that, no one will have an argument. I would accept the fact that I would have been much better off in a united India, with no Canbinet Mission Plan…… ]

India doesn`t have to do squat for Indian Muslims just to prove something to Pakistanis. In fact, if Indian Muslims want something, they should get off their butt and start working for it.

Anyway, we buy off Indian Muslims by subsidizing their Hajj pilgrimage. So at least a certain portion of Indian Muslims are guaranteed their 24 ghilmans and 72 houris without having to wear an explosive-laden belt around their midriff.

As to the Cabinet Mission Plan, nobody in Congress was dumb enough to buy the idea that a united Punjab and a united Bengal would be part of Class B provinces (those with a Muslim majority) and then be free to secede after 10 years. Better to partition the provinces and let Jinnah have his moth-eaten Pakistan.

Jinnah was just too clever for himself and for Pakistanis. You can`t whitewash THAT fact away.

#147 by hindvi

“Dalit when I said muslims are the new lowest caste i didnt mean it literally, I meant in terms of only physical security, this too mostly in urban areas and some rural ones like gujarat. What u say about the discrimination is true, but liberal hindus are now breaking these taboos and the habits of several millenia canot be changed over night.”

Falling for this liberal Hindu stuff? No such creature exists and if there is any animal by this name in the Hindu society, it cannot be more than 0.10% of the total Hindu population. The trend in the current Hindu society is more towards conservatism than liberalism. This is in keeping with the worldwide trend of conservatism. The Hindu society is so rigidly patterned along the caste lines that the more you turn the clock back, the harder Hindu attitude would get.

Hindu attitude with Muslims is exactly what it was for Dalits and untouchables. Hindu by nature has to find people to hate or it would be hard for Hindu to hold on to his stupid, obsolete, inhuman, and pagan rituals that clearly show that it is the only religion in the current world which is intellectually just a tad above the grotesque ritual following and often men eating naked tribes of Africa and Amazon.
This pagan religion has no values, teachings or defined set of rituals to follow.

Dalit conditions have not changed in the several thousands of years in India. In the emerging suburban sprawls, it is whole lot easier to howl and growl at Muslims now than alienate Dalits any further for the obvious political reasons. unfortunately, most of the Dalits still hold Hindu beliefs and are counted as Hindu in the census. The city dwelling Hindus political interests prevent them from going after Dalit like their forefathers did and still do in the rural India. But Muslims are a fair game as former or new Dalits.

Forcing Muslims into ghettoes, depriving them of jobs, and making them social outcast supports that the Muslims are the new Dalits at least in the urban India.

Good recap of the history….the attempt to deny Aryan invasion or Aryan arrival is part of the effort to contradict the reality that the current Hindu at least in the north and central India is a bast-ard child of the marauding hordes from the west.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Infact if u look at Iqbal`s pakistan it is actually a racial unit not religous, it excluded bengal and included hindus and sikhs of the north west.

by the way there is also evidence that dravidians discriminated against the evn darker adivasis, so racial discrimination appears to be universal.

Romair pakistanis are obsessed with color stop dishing out this bull. infact if u look closely under the arguments that iqbal and the others were putting forward their was a fear of miscegination as much as one of being crushed by hindus, they wanted to preserve their racial differences. but then this is common to upper caste hindus as well. for example the kashmiri pandits settled in hindustan would search for kashmiri brides from as far as calcutta and madras in order to preserve their sharp features and fair skin, so with hindu punjabis and bengalis and muslim pathans settled in hindustan and every other fair race in india and pakistan.

since the culture of the movies was created by these upper caste hindus and muslims and since india had been ruled by fairer people for millenia (aryan hindu, muslim, British) the local population whether it was fair or dark came to look upon fair colour as a sign of attractiveness, class and beauty. moreover the fair people will not accept a dark hero/heroine (they just dont find them attractive) where as the darker people accept fair actors hence logic dictates taking lighter skinned people.

Romair

I am not in the business of convincing anybody here, but if u are interested u can look into what Ayesha Jalal who pakistanis on chowk often quote thinks about its creation. i have outlined some costs below but she has her own litany to add. She thinks it was a blunder whose costs are being paid till date starting from its inception when it got locked into a permanent struggle witha much larger country which has inturn resulted in a permanent huge military and debt overhang thereby strangling dev. expenditure. she ascribes to it the rise of the military and the maintainence of feudal forces which might have been abolished in a united india and she thinks that the creation of pakistan was a curb on liberalism and a cause for rise in religous conservatism.

by the way she is indulging in her own little bit of confidence building, atleast when i was in the US she was either living in with or married to sugato bose.

Even if u ignore her its evident to the naked eye which country has the better educational institutions which has better industrial development and which has the market and expertise to grow faster. which has the better political situation and which has the better PR.

On the question of diversity being a good in itself you can have a look at both the societial level and the individual. In india the south in general and delhi are more hospitable to IT and other outsourcing, this has been a great boon to the rest of the north - bihar and UP which have both sent large numbers of people their and to bombay which is a thriving industrial belt. thus the backwardnes of one area has been mitigated by the advance of another.

similarly at an individual level can one imagine Zia taking such a conservative line if his colleaguse had been general raina or sundarji or maneckshaw? Could the soviet union imagine invading afghanistan witha two million man defense force on the other side of the border? thereby saving pakistan the agony of the lat 26 years.

for that matter can one imaging china invading a united Indian army or the amount of energy, money and lives that India and Pakistan have spent on combating each other. but then the losses India suffered due to partition are another story.

Also the pakistanis I have interacted with, once i had explained the costs of partition, have had a slightly diff. view of partition than you, more so the mohajirs but also the non mohajirs, ofcourse their were many who continued to stick to your stand but then ignorance and obstinacy are not virtues in my book.

lastly the composite culture i was reffering to was the commonality in food, clothes, language etc which were more common withing provinces than within religions. and i was referring to the common culture of Amir khusro, nanak, bhulley shah, chishti, nizzammudin, Awadhi court, akbar`s court (tansen etc),shah jehan`s architecture, jahangir`s paintings, aurangzeb`s generals all of whom were hindu inspired and ghalib (yes ghalib the agnostic), the progresive writers and poets from Faiz, sahir and krishen chandra to bedi and manto and Kaifi. from Mehboob Khan who made mother india to Yusuf Khan who was the perpetual bhayya. the formation of a common tongue, hindustani/urdu which was born and raised in the crucible of the indo-gangetic plane but has now slowly dissapeared.