Any Desi people who disagree with the Indian-Pak partition ?

You could say that. I would usually just say 'British.'



Thanks.

OP's gone for now, that means no dahej

Hahaha Ikr! Actually, OP gave us a funny time, we should thank him, though, OP dahej nu changaa nayo kende, ay ik bot vaadi lanat aa.

Yeah, we derailed his thread so he decided he wanted to marry me

But no dahej, if he comes back here.

Why did you ask me specifically to marry you? Yaha par aur bhi ladkiyan aur ladke aye the

You can have my dead grandad's house and his neighbours house for free, okay?

Mujhe Tumhare Taste Acha Lagta Hai.
I am your type darling

What? When did I say I had a type?

You like muscular guys. Right?

How do you know?

Come on. Because you said you like John Abraham

Where did you read that? You joined a few days ago

Mr. Jinnah himself stated that the English had an England to go back to but the Muslims of India didn't. The Mughal and Persian empires had collapsed and India was therefore our only home. Their was bloodshed before the partition and that is exactly why Mr. Jinnah was called upon in order to form a nation. Once the Hindus had kicked out the British they would have turned to the people that ruled over them for hundreds of years, the Muslims of Mughal and Persian descent. Ghandi and Jinnah both were against the partition. Ghandi offered Jinnah to be the first prime minister of India or for him to have a Muslim ruling government. I can't recall right now. Anyway, that was never going to happen because of Nehru wanting that position and due to a minority leading a majority being impossible. Mr. Jinnah refused to Ghandi's offers and was forced to create a nation for not only Muslims but other minorities.


Posted from TSR Mobile

Muslims of India are/were as Indian as the Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, Jains etc. and therefore India is/was their home.
You realize that only a minority of South Asian Muslims are actually of Persian/Mughal descent. Majority of Indian and Pakistani Muslims just fake their relationship to Persians and Mughals to distance themselves from the fact that they are of Hindu descent (my family and I fully accept that our ancestors were Hindus).
Also the founding father of Pakistan himself was of Gujarati Hindu descent; his grandfather was Premjibhai Thakkar, a Hindu who converted to Islam.


As for minority leading majority being impossible; it is very much possible, especially in India.

We have had a person from a very small minority community leading India for 10 years: Manmohan Singh, a Sikh, was Prime Minister between 2004 - 2014. Sikhs are less than 2% of India's population.

We have had 1 Sikh as President (Zail Singh) and 3 Muslims becoming President (Zakir Hussain (as early as 1967), Fakhruddin A Ahmed and APJ Abdul Kalam) where we make up just under 15% of India's population.

And we have had (and still continue to have) a Christian woman, Sonia Gandhi, as the head of one of 2 national political parties in a nation where Christians are 2% of the population.

All of this in a country where 80% of its population is Hindu.

Now compare it to Pakistan; how many people from minority communities have you had becoming Prime Ministers, Presidents and leaders of national parties?
I submit, sir, that it is in Pakistan where minority leading majority is impossible.
It was the ego of Nehru and Jinnah that clashed, rather than the minority leading majority factor.

I do realise that only a few Muslims in India are of Persian/ Mughal descent. I am one of those people that have that ancestry. I do also agree with what you say about Hindu converts claiming to be of that descent. Mr. Jinnah was a Khoja Shia and that was not his father's name as far as the Internet states.

You're political facts are not related to the period in which we are talking about. History is not discussed in a pick and choose manner. It is discussed periodically. If you are to say that minority power is impossible than how is it that India does not have a Sikh marital law. Pakistan does.


Posted from TSR Mobile

I said grandfather's name is Premjibhai Thakkar, not father's name.

But you never wrote that minority leading majority being impossible was only meant in the context of those times; it seemed like a blanket statement.
If you had written "minority leading a majority being impossible in those days" then I wouldn't have replied to it.
But we don't really know either, if the egos of Nehru and Jinnah had not clashed maybe rest of India might have accepted Jinnah even being from minority community.

I freely admit that independent India not allowing Sikhs to have a separate marital law was a failure of India, however that wrong has been righted: India passed Sikh Marriage Act (also called Anand Marriage Act) in 2012:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Sikhs-can-register-marriages-under-Anand-Act/articleshow/13393220.cms?referral=PM
http://www.indiaamericatoday.com/article/sikhs-hail-passage-sikh-marriage-act-indian-parliament

Also having separate marital law is nothing compared to the population actively choosing someone from the minority community to lead them either as PM, President or Head of political party.
Giving marital laws is like khairaat from rulers to the people.

Ultimately, India (and Pakistan too) should have only one secular law which serves everybody. Uniform Civil Code is the way forward.

If you needed a translation, OP said dowry is his right

me and @Eternalflames

I google translated it

Omfg my sides