Palwama Attack : Protest in Jammu , curfew imposed after Hindus started attacking Muslims

[insouciant]

I cannot say that because it would be factually wrong.

Pre-1947 Muslim/Hindu conflict has morphed into Post-1947 Pakistan/India rift for the people of Pakistan and India. However, India is still struggling with the Muslim/Hindu conflict within it separately.

So prior to the two-nation theory, the enemies for extremist Hindus were the Muslims for ruling them for so many centuries. Post Pakistan creation, the enemy has split into two for them: Pakistan and Muslims in India.

I agree that the only solution is peace. But peace can't make its way as long as both the countries would remain ideological Muslim / Hindu state. The people would have let go of superiority complex and the right to govern others based on their "superior" belief system! It won't happen overnight. May happen in a few centuries though! Let's see!

You can also say that all this situation has its origin in 1947 partition and two nation theory!

We are still not learning these terrorists are only making the life of Kashmiri Muslims difficult nothing else

Na Musalman Aik Arab 10 crore Hindon ko khatam Ker sakty hain na Hindu subcontinent ky 55 crore Muslims ko

Only solution is to live together in peace. Pakistan and India should make up and live like good neighbors like USA or Canada or like European union

 

[insouciant]

You justify your political position at any given time in history based on ground realities at that time. The fact is that current Pakistani provinces were part of Bharat Raj in the 1940's. It doesn't matter what was their status a century or a millennium back!

The two-nation theory was local to the Indian sub-continent. Nobody has ever claimed it to be a global position. And it originated in the context of Hindu/Muslim conflicts in India and ongoing demarcation of new countries in the Middle East/Europe in the backdrop of World Wars.

Hence, given the information/knowledge and context your founding fathers had back then, the formation of Pakistan was the best rationale decision!

Yes, maybe 200-500 years down the road, when the man of this region may have evolved out of its hunter-gatherer tribesman roots where he must define in-groups against out-groups based on color/race/religion etc., then everyone may be willing to accept that a country's boundaries are imaginary constructs having no grounding in fundamental truth.

Until then! Just witness the journey of this evolution and enjoy the bloodshed that comes along! :)

The idea of, If not Pakistan, then India is a lie...

There is no need for two-nation theory to justify independence of West Pakistan as it was never a part of India before the British annexed Sindh and Punjab after 1840s.

The Indus region always had a separate identity, religion and language compared to India.

The current state of Muslim world is a nail in the coffin of Two-Nation theory, countries are not united by religion but rather by common language, culture and interest.

Even the founding fathers of Pakistan didnt fully believe in Two-Nation theory by enforcing Urdu (An Indian language) as a national language for West Pakistan, in the hopes that maybe in the future we would be able to unite India under a Muslim empire just like the Mughals. This stupidity not only cost us Kashmir, but also our language, history and identity.

 

[Liberal 000]

I cannot say that because it would be factually wrong.

Pre-1947 Muslim/Hindu conflict has morphed into Post-1947 Pakistan/India rift for the people of Pakistan and India. However, India is still struggling with the Muslim/Hindu conflict within it separately.

So prior to the two-nation theory, the enemies for extremist Hindus were the Muslims for ruling them for so many centuries. Post Pakistan creation, the enemy has split into two for them: Pakistan and Muslims in India.

I agree that the only solution is peace. But peace can't make its way as long as both the countries would remain ideological Muslim / Hindu state. The people would have let go of superiority complex and the right to govern others based on their "superior" belief system! It won't happen overnight. May happen in a few centuries though! Let's see!

Whereever two communities live... There is always a problem especially in poor illiterate third world countries

In Pakistan .... Shia Sunnis have killed each others . In Karachi Muhajir and Pathan have killed eachothers . Thousands have died in these conflicts. Punjabis have been targeted in Baluchistan.

Can you point to any big Hindu Muslim riots before 1940?

 

[insouciant]

Any?? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

There is a complete Wiki page on it! :LOL::LOL::LOL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_riots_in_India

Look at the intensity picking up after 1920! That's when Quaid joined the Muslim League. But Muslims of India finally said it's enough and bought the two-nation theory narrative in 1945/46 by giving Muslim League overwhelming victory in elections.

Whereever two communities live... There is always a problem especially in poor illiterate third world countries

In Pakistan .... Shia Sunnis have killed each others . In Karachi Muhajir and Pathan have killed eachothers . Thousands have died in these conflicts. Punjabis have been targeted in Baluchistan.

Can you point to any big Hindu Muslim riots before 1940?

 

[Liberal 000]

Any?? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

There is a complete Wiki page on it! :LOL::LOL::LOL:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_riots_in_India

Look at the intensity picking up after 1920! That's when Quaid joined the Muslim League. But Muslims of India finally said it's enough and bought the two-nation theory narrative in 1945/46 by giving Muslim League overwhelming victory in elections.

Look at your list... Just a few riots in so many years... Before 1940 not more than a 500 hundred people died in a century in such a big country.

It all started when Muslim started propagating two nation theory and separate electorate around 1915 that we see some riots

Now tell me how many people died after 1940 Lahore resolution demanding the division of India

 

[Aslan]

Correction: The USA is not a Christian state. It's totally secular. In fact so much that it doesn't even have God written in its constitution as we use it. (There is God mentioned in 2 places but as a metaphor -- Not as a literal God)

Can't say about Canada. I haven't read its constitution.

Consitutions doesn't matter.America's policies are shaped by fundamentalist Christians like George Bush,Dick Cheney and others.Remember George Bush he said god told him to attack Iraq (and kill millions of civilians).Which god was he talking about?..In UK there is no written constitution but the head of state is also the head of Church.

 

[insouciant]

First and foremost Constitution always matter as it gives the legal backing for any action. In fact, most of the founding fathers of America were atheists.

In America, Christianity is not preached in schools like Islamiat is indoctrinated here in Pakistan. There is no ministry of religious affairs in the USA like you have in Christian/Jewish/Muslim states etc. I can go on with the list. However, Christianity is the majority religion and there are some evangelicals who want it to become a Christian nation but it ain't happening!

As far as Bush's statement is concerned, it was his personal and political statement. But it has nothing to do with America becoming a Christian state. George Bush was a southerner that has a heavy concentration of Christians and the highest number of recruits in the US army. He needed public/army's backing to support America's imperial interest in the middle east and he used the religion card for that! And he was heavily criticized for using this statement in the US.


You are right about UK. UK is a Christian State and Church of England is a government body. Likewise, Israel is a Jewish state! But Benjamin Netanyahu, it's president is an Aethiest. This doesn't make Israel a secular nation. Benjamin himself uses JEW card to serve his interests wherever he can!

Consitutions doesn't matter.America's policies are shaped by fundamentalist Christians like George Bush,Dick Cheney and others.Remember George Bush he said god told him to attack Iraq (and kill millions of civilians).Which god was he talking about?..In UK there is no written constitution but the head of state is also the head of Church.

 

[Vitamin_C]

Well if you say two nation theory was only relavent in that time, then in your own words its now long obsolete. The founding place of Muslim League (Dhaka) itself seperated from Pakistan.

Burma, Bhutan, Sikkim, Nepal were also part of British Raj.

The Sindh assembly voted for Pakistan. They could have voted for independence. So religion has nothing to do with this.

States had the right to decide who they want to join. With some extreme exceptions.

You justify your political position at any given time in history based on ground realities at that time. The fact is that current Pakistani provinces were part of Bharat Raj in the 1940's. It doesn't matter what was their status a century or a millennium back!

The two-nation theory was local to the Indian sub-continent. Nobody has ever claimed it to be a global position. And it originated in the context of Hindu/Muslim conflicts in India and ongoing demarcation of new countries in the Middle East/Europe in the backdrop of World Wars.

Hence, given the information/knowledge and context your founding fathers had back then, the formation of Pakistan was the best rationale decision!

Yes, maybe 200-500 years down the road, when the man of this region may have evolved out of its hunter-gatherer tribesman roots where he must define in-groups against out-groups based on color/race/religion etc., then everyone may be willing to accept that a country's boundaries are imaginary constructs having no grounding in fundamental truth.

Until then! Just witness the journey of this evolution and enjoy the bloodshed that comes along! :)

 

[insouciant]

India had a golden chance to thrash two nation theory by annexing Bangladesh with it in 1971 but it never did. Why instead it allowed it to become an independent state, instead of making it another Muslim majority Indian state like Kashmir? If you know the answer, then you will know that the theory Muslims/Hindus are separate nations is very much alive within India! :) Which other state in India apart from J&K is a muslim majority state? :)

But at the Pakistan and India level the two-nation theory has now evolved into Nationalism.

People back in the 40's voted for annexure based on different factors. Common Religion was not the only, but a major factor that influenced their opinion!

Well if you say two nation theory was only relavent in that time, then in your own words its now long obsolete. The founding place of Muslim League (Dhaka) itself seperated from Pakistan.

Burma, Bhutan, Sikkim, Nepal were also part of British Raj.

The Sindh assembly voted for Pakistan. They could have voted for independence. So religion has nothing to do with this.

States had the right to decide who they want to join. With some extreme exceptions.

 

[Aslan]

First and foremost Constitution always matter as it gives the legal backing for any action. In fact, most of the founding fathers of America were atheists.

In America, Christianity is not preached in schools like Islamiat is indoctrinated here in Pakistan. There is no ministry of religious affairs in the USA like you have in Christian/Jewish/Muslim states etc. I can go on with the list. However, Christianity is the majority religion and there are some evangelicals who want it to become a Christian nation but it ain't happening!

As far as Bush's statement is concerned, it was his personal and political statement. But it has nothing to do with America being a Christian state. George Bush was a southerner that has a heavy concentration of Christians and the highest number of recruits in the US army. He needed public/army's backing to support America's imperial interest in the middle east and he used the religion card for that! And he was heavily criticized for using this statement in the US.


You are right about UK. UK is a Christian State and Church of England is a government body. Likewise, Israel is a Jewish state! But Benjamin Netanyahu, it's president is an Aethiest. This doesn't make Israel a secular nation. Benjamin himself uses JEW card to serve his interests wherever he can!

The pigrim fathers established the first permanent colony in Plymouth Massachusetts in 1620.They were members of English Separatist Church ,a radical form of Puritanism.Here is an excerpt from George Washingtons's diary
From George Washington’s diary:

“Let my heart, gracious God, be so affected with Your glory and majesty that I may discharge those weighty duties which Thou requirest of me. Again I have called on Thee for pardon and forgiveness of sins. For the sacrifice of Jesus Christ offered on the cross for me. Thou gavest Thy Son to die for me and has given me assurance of salvation.”
I agree the US constitution does not mention Christianity or God but the founding fathers were Christian.America separated the church and state and started calling themselves secular but most of the founding fathers were Christian.They attended Chrch regularly.

 

[insouciant]

:tensionfemale::tensionfemale::tensionfemale::tensionfemale:

Read this book to educate yourself on this topic. It discusses all the 17/18 members in complete detail with supporting evidence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Faiths_of_the_Founding_Fathers

And read about the history of Protestants in the context of separation from the church of England in the 17th century. They didn't believe in the very fundamentals of Christianity that Mary gave a virgin birth, or jesus rose from death etc.

Aethiesm in the primitive form emerged as Deism. And the majority of founding fathers were Deistic.

So if even you read the word "God" in their writings/letters it was never used in the context of spiritual being as is used in modern mainstream Christianity. It was like how Albert Einstien, a pronounced atheist, used the word God metaphorically in a couple of his letters that evangelical still use to fool people that look! he is a believer!! :cautious::cautious::cautious:

The pigrim fathers established the first permanent colony in Plymouth Massachusetts in 1620.They were members of English Separatist Church ,a radical form of Puritanism.Here is an excerpt from George Washingtons's diary
From George Washington’s diary:

“Let my heart, gracious God, be so affected with Your glory and majesty that I may discharge those weighty duties which Thou requirest of me. Again I have called on Thee for pardon and forgiveness of sins. For the sacrifice of Jesus Christ offered on the cross for me. Thou gavest Thy Son to die for me and has given me assurance of salvation.”
I agree the US constitution does not mention Christianity or God but the founding fathers were Christian.America separated the church and state and started calling themselves secular but most of the founding fathers were Christian.They attended Chrch regularly.

 

[Vitamin_C]

India didnt need to trash two nation theory. It was already trash when the founding state of Muslim Leage wanted independence.

India didnt take Bangladesh by force because the international community would never let it happen. This is common sense.

For the same reason it did not take Bhutan, Myanmar and Nepal by force. Being a Muslim doesnt make you a Pakistani, there are millions if Muslims in India who are pround to be Indian. Likewise being Hindu doesnt make you an Indian, there are millions of hindus in Nepal who are proud to be Nepalese.

Also Kashmir was a liability for the British they sold it cheaply to the Raja of Jammu in 1840s for a cheap price so it was his family property and later his heirs opted to join India, thats how India took Kashmir. But even so the international community was against this. Check the work done by UN, American and European statesmen and politicians to hold referrendum in Kashmir in 1940s and 50s, Nehru was humiliated on all international platforms, this was bulldozed by Pakistan when they took matters into their own hands in 1948 and 1965. India didnt take Kashmir, but rather Pakistan lost it. We didnt listen to China, we didnt listen to US or Societs. We had this racist and ignorant mindset that 1 Muslim can take on 10 hindus.

India had a golden chance to thrash two nation theory by annexing Bangladesh with it in 1971 but it never did. Why instead it allowed it to become an independent state, instead of making it another Muslim majority Indian state like Kashmir? If you know the answer, then you will know that the theory Muslims/Hindus are separate nations is very much alive within India! :) Which other state in India apart from J&K is a muslim majority state? :)

But at the Pakistan and India level the two-nation theory has now evolved into Nationalism.

People back in the 40's voted for annexure based on different factors. Common Religion was not the only, but a major factor that influenced their opinion!

 

[Vitamin_C]

Atheism is not a faith or a movement so it has no founding father. Atheism is simply disbelief in God. And people have disbelieved in God since existance of mankind.

Disbelief in something, ie superman, fairies or anything is not a movement. You disbelief in more things that you believe in, that doesnt mean you can take one of the things you disbelieve in and turn it into faith or belief.

:tensionfemale::tensionfemale::tensionfemale::tensionfemale:

Read this book to educate yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Faiths_of_the_Founding_Fathers

And read about the history of Protestants in the context of separation from the church of England in the 17th century. They didn't believe in the very fundamentals of Christianity that Mary gave a virgin birth, or jesus rose from death etc.

Aethiesm in the primitive form emerged as Deism. And the majority of founding fathers were Deistic.

So if even you read the word "God" in their writings/letters it was never used in the context of spiritual being as is used in modern mainstream Christianity. It was like how Albert Einstien, a pronounced atheist, used the word God in a couple of his letters that evangelical used to fool people that look! he is a believer!! :cautious::cautious::cautious:

 

[Aslan]

Atheism is not a faith or a movement so it has no founding father. Atheism is simply disbelief in God. And people have disbelieved in God since existance of mankind.

Disbelief in something, ie superman, fairies or anything is not a movement. You disbelief in more things that you believe in, that doesnt mean you can take one of the things you disbelieve in and turn it into faith or belief.

Atheism is a faith.Atheists believe there is no God ie their faith is opposite to someone who has faith in God.

 

[insouciant]

I think you have studied history enough to understand that it doesn't matter what the fuck international community thinks when your personal benefits suggest otherwise.

Because of the same pressure from the international community, Russia never went into crimea, America never went into vietnam or Iraq, China didn't annex Hong Kong/Taiwan, and India refused to hold a plebiscite in Kashmir.. Right?? :tensionfemale::tensionfemale::tensionfemale::confused::confused::confused::confused:

Had the strategic benefits of annexing Bangladesh outweighed the liabilities it would have brought India would definitely have annexed it! In the case of Kashmir, strategic benefits for India outweigh the liabilities J&K is causing it.

Don't mix an ideological state with a secular or a nationalist state. I agree, just as being a jew doesn't make you an Israeli, being a Muslim doesn't make you a Pakistani either. But!! But!! But!! Pakistan is as much a promised land for the Muslims of the sub-continent as Israel is the promised land for Jews of the Europe/Middle East.

I know the history of Kashmir and role of international community in early years. But I have never seen any evidence supporting this statement of yours: We had this racist and ignorant mindset that 1 Muslim can take on 10 hindus. Can you back it up?

India didnt take Bangladesh by force because the international community would never let it happen. This is common sense.

For the same reason it did not take Bhutan, Myanmar and Nepal by force. Being a Muslim doesnt make you a Pakistani, there are millions if Muslims in India who are pround to be Indian. Likewise being Hindu doesnt make you an Indian, there are millions of hindus in Nepal who are proud to be Nepalese.

Also Kashmir was a liability for the British they sold it cheaply to the Raja of Jammu in 1840s for a cheap price so it was his family property and later his heirs opted to join India, thats how India took Kashmir. But even so the international community was against this. Check the work done by UN, American and European statesmen and politicians to hold referrendum in Kashmir in 1940s and 50s, Nehru was humiliated on all international platforms, this was bulldozed by Pakistan when they took matters into their own hands in 1948 and 1965. India didnt take Kashmir, but rather Pakistan lost it. We didnt listen to China, we didnt listen to US or Societs. We had this racist and ignorant mindset that 1 Muslim can take on 10 hindus.

 

[insouciant]

What's the point of this post? We were not having an argument if atheism is a faith or not! :cautious::cautious::cautious:

Atheism is not a faith or a movement so it has no founding father. Atheism is simply disbelief in God. And people have disbelieved in God since existance of mankind.

Disbelief in something, ie superman, fairies or anything is not a movement. You disbelief in more things that you believe in, that doesnt mean you can take one of the things you disbelieve in and turn it into faith or belief.

 

[insouciant]

No it's not. And Vitamin_C is right here.

Take an example to understand it better. What is an absolute vacuum or "Nothing"? It's the complete absence of any matter (liquid, gas, solid, atoms, particles everything imaginable in the world). Does it make vacuum a form or a state of matter? No!!!!! :):)

Atheism is a faith.Atheists believe there is no God ie their faith is opposite to someone who has faith in God.

 

[Vitamin_C]

It is not the opposite position of someone who believes in God, but rather its the neutral position or the default position. Meaning you neither believe in it, nor do you deny it. You simply do not have the evidence to make any judgement.

For anything you experience in life your default position will first be disbelief until you have a reason to believe it.

Atheism doesnt say there is no God. It simply rejects that there is a god.

Saying something doesnt exist and rejecting something exists are two completely different positions. One makes a judgement, the other one doesn't.

For example you can say that a new starwars trilogy will be released.

(1) I can say that I dont believe you (atheism/disbelief) until you prove it

(2) I can say that I am absolutely certain that there will never be another starwars trilogy (belief)

The two are completely different positions.

Also, faith means believing in something without any proof or evidence. Atheism is the opposite of faith, it is disbelief until you have enough evidence or proof to believe in it.

If you understsnd what atheist position means now then congratulations because more than 95% on this forum don't.

Atheism is a faith.Atheists believe there is no God ie their faith is opposite to someone who has faith in God.

 

[Vitamin_C]

Dont compare Russia, China, US to India. By international opinion I also mean approval of world powers. Very few countries in the world can change international borders since ww2 without approval of US. Even Britian and France were humiliated after capturing Suez canal in 1956 without US permission. Israel was an exception.

During the 1940s and 50s Pakistan had support of world powers. They told Pakistan to back down, demilitarize Kashmir and let them deal with Nehru and they will twist his arms to do referrundum within few months. Instead we went to war and this turned everyone against us.

There was zero possibility of India taking Bangladesh. Although They could aid the Bengalis because public opinion was against Pakistan and we were the rapists and murderers of that war.

I think you have studied history enough to understand that it doesn't matter what the fuck international community thinks when your personal benefits suggest otherwise.

Because of the same pressure from the international community, Russia never went into crimea, America never went into vietnam or Iraq, China didn't annex Hong Kong/Taiwan, and India refused to hold a plebiscite in Kashmir.. Right?? :tensionfemale::tensionfemale::tensionfemale::confused::confused::confused::confused:

Had the strategic benefits of annexing Bangladesh outweighed the liabilities it would have brought India would definitely have annexed it! In the case of Kashmir, strategic benefits for India outweigh the liabilities J&K is causing it.

Don't mix an ideological state with a secular or a nationalist state. I agree, just as being a jew doesn't make you an Israeli, being a Muslim doesn't make you a Pakistani either. But!! But!! But!! Pakistan is as much a promised land for the Muslims of the sub-continent as Israel is the promised land for Jews of the Europe/Middle East.

I know the history of Kashmir and role of international community in early years. But I have never seen any evidence supporting this statement of yours: We had this racist and ignorant mindset that 1 Muslim can take on 10 hindus. Can you back it up?

 

[insouciant]

OK! Will you be fine with me comparing India with:

- Turkey occupying Cyprus?
- Armenia occupying Azerbaijan?
- Morocco occuyping Western Sahara?
- Turkey now occupying north Syria? etc... :cautious::cautious::cautious:

:tensionfemale::tensionfemale::tensionfemale::tensionfemale: Have you read about Operation Gulmerg? We went to war within as little as 4-5 days after independence and insurgencies within Kashmir started in first month after independence. Read about Poonch Insurgency. How come we went into a war after securing international powers support as you are claiming. :unsure::unsure: Dude! where are you getting your information from?:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:


We infact got the support of international powers only after the war of 1948 resulting in a cease-fire and a UN resolution for a referendum in Kashmir. However, the resolution demanded both Pakistan and India to come out of Kashmir. Neither we nor India has honored this till today! :confused::confused::confused:

Dont compare Russia, China, US to India. By international opinion I also mean approval of world powers. Very few countries in the world can change international borders since ww2 without approval of US. Even Britian and France were humiliated after capturing Suez canal in 1956 without US permission. Israel was an exception.

During the 1940s and 50s Pakistan had support of world powers. They told Pakistan to back down, demilitarize Kashmir and let them deal with Nehru and they will twist his arms to do referrundum within few months. Instead we went to war and this turned everyone against us.

There was zero possibility of India taking Bangladesh. Although They could aid the Bengalis because public opinion was against Pakistan and we were the rapists and murderers of that war.