For Indians and Pakistanis(and brits too if you want to comment)
Scroll to see replies
Original post by InItToWinItGetIt?
Because not everyone is as narrow minded as you?
I'm a Hindu and most of my friends are Muslims, Pakistani and non-Pakistani and we get on perfectly fine. It's a shame the two countries can't get on more.
Some of the most famous Indians are Muslims. Shah Rukh Khan, Aamir Khan (the actor), A. R. Rahman, the list goes on and on. If they are 2nd class citizens how the hell have they achieved such MASSIVE stardom.
I'm a Hindu and most of my friends are Muslims, Pakistani and non-Pakistani and we get on perfectly fine. It's a shame the two countries can't get on more.
Some of the most famous Indians are Muslims. Shah Rukh Khan, Aamir Khan (the actor), A. R. Rahman, the list goes on and on. If they are 2nd class citizens how the hell have they achieved such MASSIVE stardom.
Ahem, 85% of India's muslims live in poverty because of Hindu opression. Not everybody can become a bollywood star you know..
As a comparison, just because there are some black hollywood stars doesn't excuse the fact that majority of african-americans are poor.
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by A.K85
Ahem, 85% of India's muslims live in poverty because of Hindu opression. Not everybody can become a bollywood star you know..
As a comparison, just because there are some black hollywood stars doesn't excuse the fact that majority of african-americans are poor.
As a comparison, just because there are some black hollywood stars doesn't excuse the fact that majority of african-americans are poor.
Give me sources so I can verify what you say. Clashes between religions isn't a one way street.
Yes I know that but the way you are talking suggests you think if you are born Muslim in India you are destined for a 2nd class life.
India have had a Muslim president, a Muslim captain of the national cricket team (you may not think this is big, but cricket is like a religion in India so it is significant).
AFAIK, Pakistan, have never had an high ranking Hindu government official, or a Hindu captain or vice-captain of their cricket team. The only person that comes close is Danish Kaneria. I may be wrong though, if I am feel free to correct me.
(edited 12 years ago)
Just a quick thing regarding Britain's role. I said this before, but everyone ignored me.
You guys give us way too much credit for our actions. The concept that we created anomosity between the hindu's and muslims out of nothing purposefully ignores the sheer size and population of india and the relatively few civil servants Britain had managing it.The feelings of anger, nationalism and violence could not be created by a couple of british imperial elites, rather were driven by long standing economic and religious factors which, admittedly, were appropriated by britain but weren't caused by them.
Its easy to just blame britain. But by doing so you remove the agency of the people of india who both gained independance and lived under British rule. Millions of people and their elites bought into British governance, fought for Britain, made money under british rule. They often chose britain subconceously, and their importance must be noted in any discussion, as it justified the assertion by Britain that they had proper cause to remain.
It was these factors of sociological, relgious and economic origin that drove partition, not a couple of 'great men' at the top
You guys give us way too much credit for our actions. The concept that we created anomosity between the hindu's and muslims out of nothing purposefully ignores the sheer size and population of india and the relatively few civil servants Britain had managing it.The feelings of anger, nationalism and violence could not be created by a couple of british imperial elites, rather were driven by long standing economic and religious factors which, admittedly, were appropriated by britain but weren't caused by them.
Its easy to just blame britain. But by doing so you remove the agency of the people of india who both gained independance and lived under British rule. Millions of people and their elites bought into British governance, fought for Britain, made money under british rule. They often chose britain subconceously, and their importance must be noted in any discussion, as it justified the assertion by Britain that they had proper cause to remain.
It was these factors of sociological, relgious and economic origin that drove partition, not a couple of 'great men' at the top
Original post by InItToWinItGetIt?
Give me sources so I can verify what you say. Clashes between religions isn't a one way street.
Yes I know that but the way you are talking suggests you think if you are born Muslim in India you are destined for a 2nd class life.
India have had a Muslim president, a Muslim captain of the national cricket team (you may not think this is big, but cricket is like a religion in India so it is significant).
AFAIK, Pakistan, have never had an high ranking Hindu government official, or a Hindu captain or vice-captain of their cricket team. The only person that comes close is Danish Kaneria. I may be wrong though, if I am feel free to correct me.
Yes I know that but the way you are talking suggests you think if you are born Muslim in India you are destined for a 2nd class life.
India have had a Muslim president, a Muslim captain of the national cricket team (you may not think this is big, but cricket is like a religion in India so it is significant).
AFAIK, Pakistan, have never had an high ranking Hindu government official, or a Hindu captain or vice-captain of their cricket team. The only person that comes close is Danish Kaneria. I may be wrong though, if I am feel free to correct me.
Ahem, just because you have a few token muslims for political correctness sake doesn't free you from the fact that majority of muslims are oppressed by Hindus in India. If you want verfication then google yourself, I'm not doing any work for you.
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by A.K85
Ahem, just because you have a few token muslims for political correctness sake doesn't free you from the fact that majority of muslims are oppressed by Hindus in India. If you want verfication then google yourself, I'm not doing any work for you.
Well I'll just take that statistic as made up then
Point is if you are a Muslim in India, you can get to the top, if you are a Hindu in Pakistan there is a drastically lower chance (if any) that you will get to the same position. And that looking at the two countries' history so far is a FACT.
India had a President who was Muslim. Had a woman Prime minister, who remains till date, the longest serving woman Prime Minister. Has a Sikh as the current PM. India is Hindu dominated yes, but we allow other people to succeed too.
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by KNOB-head
theres no hatred. just too many clashes in terms of ideals and beliefs. can you imagine all this cow worship/monkeys roaming around like gods in the streets of lahore or islamabad? would be annoying as fek (yes i am indeed immature).
hinduism and islam are really different.
hinduism and islam are really different.
If by imagine you mean "realise as a damn good historian that that was in fact the way it was was for thousands of generations before Islam came to the subcontinent" then yes. Why are you so intolerant?
EDIT: Also does anyone know if the Hindus actually worship monkeys? I mean I know cows yes, but monkeys?
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by Tonn
Just a quick thing regarding Britain's role. I said this before, but everyone ignored me.
You guys give us way too much credit for our actions. The concept that we created anomosity between the hindu's and muslims out of nothing purposefully ignores the sheer size and population of india and the relatively few civil servants Britain had managing it.The feelings of anger, nationalism and violence could not be created by a couple of british imperial elites, rather were driven by long standing economic and religious factors which, admittedly, were appropriated by britain but weren't caused by them.
Its easy to just blame britain. But by doing so you remove the agency of the people of india who both gained independance and lived under British rule. Millions of people and their elites bought into British governance, fought for Britain, made money under british rule. They often chose britain subconceously, and their importance must be noted in any discussion, as it justified the assertion by Britain that they had proper cause to remain.
It was these factors of sociological, relgious and economic origin that drove partition, not a couple of 'great men' at the top
You guys give us way too much credit for our actions. The concept that we created anomosity between the hindu's and muslims out of nothing purposefully ignores the sheer size and population of india and the relatively few civil servants Britain had managing it.The feelings of anger, nationalism and violence could not be created by a couple of british imperial elites, rather were driven by long standing economic and religious factors which, admittedly, were appropriated by britain but weren't caused by them.
Its easy to just blame britain. But by doing so you remove the agency of the people of india who both gained independance and lived under British rule. Millions of people and their elites bought into British governance, fought for Britain, made money under british rule. They often chose britain subconceously, and their importance must be noted in any discussion, as it justified the assertion by Britain that they had proper cause to remain.
It was these factors of sociological, relgious and economic origin that drove partition, not a couple of 'great men' at the top
I fully agree, it's not like the Empire did EVERYTHING bad by Jesus. There had been ill feelings from the natives towards the Muslims since the Ghanzarib days, expounded by the Mughals and made a million times worse. Then you have the treatment of Sikhs/Buddhists/Jains by "Orthodox" Hindus, the cultural clashes between North and Sound, the fuedings of Hindu Princelings etc....
Yes the British Empire did sow dissent, did exploit divide and conquer policies but it wasn't out of nothing, and enough of the natives were ready to believe/exploit this.
Original post by Mr-Dangerous
Pakistani
guessed that when i first read it :P
Original post by InItToWinItGetIt?
Well I'll just take that statistic as made up then
Point is if you are a Muslim in India, you can get to the top, if you are a Hindu in Pakistan there is a drastically lower chance (if any) that you will get to the same position. And that looking at the two countries' history so far is a FACT.
India had a President who was Muslim. Had a woman Prime minister, who remains till date, the longest serving woman Prime Minister. Has a Sikh as the current PM. India is Hindu dominated yes, but we allow other people to succeed too.
Point is if you are a Muslim in India, you can get to the top, if you are a Hindu in Pakistan there is a drastically lower chance (if any) that you will get to the same position. And that looking at the two countries' history so far is a FACT.
India had a President who was Muslim. Had a woman Prime minister, who remains till date, the longest serving woman Prime Minister. Has a Sikh as the current PM. India is Hindu dominated yes, but we allow other people to succeed too.
You're right mate, 100%. I mean it's not like India has far more muslims and sikhs than pakistan does hindus and sikhs is it? Oh wait. Pakistan has around 1.5% hindus and <0.04% sikhs (wikipedia it) while india has 20% muslims and 2% sikhs, and in terms of a 1 billion population thats a massive number, so obviously they're going to have some support from people of their same religion there. How the hell do you expect some hindu or sikh with about about the support of 2% of the population to become president/prime minister in the ISLAMIC republic of pakistan? And dont pull that "we're hindu dominated but we let other people succeed" crap, there's a massive difference when domination is 80.5% (hindu in india) and 96.3% (muslim in pakistan)
Original post by InItToWinItGetIt?
Well I'll just take that statistic as made up then
Point is if you are a Muslim in India, you can get to the top, if you are a Hindu in Pakistan there is a drastically lower chance (if any) that you will get to the same position. And that looking at the two countries' history so far is a FACT.
India had a President who was Muslim. Had a woman Prime minister, who remains till date, the longest serving woman Prime Minister. Has a Sikh as the current PM. India is Hindu dominated yes, but we allow other people to succeed too.
Point is if you are a Muslim in India, you can get to the top, if you are a Hindu in Pakistan there is a drastically lower chance (if any) that you will get to the same position. And that looking at the two countries' history so far is a FACT.
India had a President who was Muslim. Had a woman Prime minister, who remains till date, the longest serving woman Prime Minister. Has a Sikh as the current PM. India is Hindu dominated yes, but we allow other people to succeed too.
But I think it's quite important to look at the make-up of the populations. Hindus make up less than 2% of Pakistan's population whilst Muslims make up around 14% of India's population. Plus Pakistan is an "Islamic republic".
Edit: forsaker got to it before me.
Original post by GiddensFTW
But I think it's quite important to look at the make-up of the populations. Hindus make up less than 2% of Pakistan's population whilst Muslims make up around 14% of India's population. Plus Pakistan is an "Islamic republic".
Edit: forsaker got to it before me.
Edit: forsaker got to it before me.
Original post by forsaker
You're right mate, 100%. I mean it's not like India has far more muslims and sikhs than pakistan does hindus and sikhs is it? Oh wait. Pakistan has around 1.5% hindus and <0.04% sikhs (wikipedia it) while india has 20% muslims and 2% sikhs, and in terms of a 1 billion population thats a massive number, so obviously they're going to have some support from people of their same religion there. How the hell do you expect some hindu or sikh with about about the support of 2% of the population to become president/prime minister in the ISLAMIC republic of pakistan? And dont pull that "we're hindu dominated but we let other people succeed" crap, there's a massive difference when domination is 80.5% (hindu in india) and 96.3% (muslim in pakistan)
According to wikipedia, Hindus constituted of 22% of the Pakistani population in 1951. By 1998 the proportion of Hindus was down to around 1.7%. Why the sudden massive drop after 4 years of Partition?
Yes, Pakistan was created to increase the religious freedom of Muslims, but that doesn't mean that you suppress other religions. The fact is that you will never see a Hindu (or Sikh for that matter) as a prominent figure in Pakistan whether it is politics or sport or anything else. Is that what Pakistan was made for, no I don't think so? http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/may/18/pakistan-textbooks-religious-extremism
You talk about demographics, about 2% of India is Sikh (similar to the proportions of Hindus in Pak), Sikhs have largely been very prominent in India and have been allowed to be by the whole nation.
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by InItToWinItGetIt?
According to wikipedia, Hindus constituted of 22% of the Pakistani population in 1951. By 1998 the proportion of Hindus was down to around 1.7%. Why the sudden massive drop after 4 years of Partition?
Yes, Pakistan was created to increase the religious freedom of Muslims, but that doesn't mean that you suppress other religions. The fact is that you will never see a Hindu (or Sikh for that matter) as a prominent figure in Pakistan whether it is politics or sport or anything else. Is that what Pakistan was made for, no I don't think so? http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/may/18/pakistan-textbooks-religious-extremism
You talk about demographics, about 2% of India is Sikh (similar to the proportions of Hindus in Pak), Sikhs have largely been very prominent in India and have been allowed to be by the whole nation.
Yes, Pakistan was created to increase the religious freedom of Muslims, but that doesn't mean that you suppress other religions. The fact is that you will never see a Hindu (or Sikh for that matter) as a prominent figure in Pakistan whether it is politics or sport or anything else. Is that what Pakistan was made for, no I don't think so? http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/may/18/pakistan-textbooks-religious-extremism
You talk about demographics, about 2% of India is Sikh (similar to the proportions of Hindus in Pak), Sikhs have largely been very prominent in India and have been allowed to be by the whole nation.
Pakistan is an Islamic state. It's for muslims only. Everybody else has to convert or face the consequences. Pakistan never claimed to be a secular state. Even before partition there were 30-40% Hindus in pakistan. So from 40% to 1,5% is a big drop isn't it? Who cares.
On the other hand, India claims to be a secular democratic republic, so you have to respect the rights of the minorities over the majority, that's how republics work. Muslims come first, as quoted by Prime minister manmohan singh. Sigh, if only you practiced what you preach.
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by A.K85
Pakistan is an Islamic state. It's for muslims only. Everybody else has to convert or face the consequences. Pakistan never claimed to be a secular state. Even before partition there were 30-40% Hindus in pakistan. So from 40% to 1,5% is a big drop isn't it? Who cares.
On the other hand, India claims to be a secular democratic republic, so you have to respect the rights of the minorities over the majority, that's how republics work. Muslims come first, as quoted by Prime minister manmohan singh. Sigh, if only you practiced what you preach.
On the other hand, India claims to be a secular democratic republic, so you have to respect the rights of the minorities over the majority, that's how republics work. Muslims come first, as quoted by Prime minister manmohan singh. Sigh, if only you practiced what you preach.
First of all Pakistan isn't an Islamic ''state''. As stated before by others, it is an Islamic ''Republic''. There is a difference.
But of course, as usual with certain people like you, it's always the case that when something happens to Muslims it's the end of the world, but when worse things happen to non-muslims it's ''who cares'' and ''they must face the consequences''.
I'm just glad the majority of people (in the West at least) don't share your views, and treat religions with respect and try and incorporate all religions into their society as best they can. I'm not even gonna bother arguing with you anymore seeing how narrow minded and ignorant you are.
Original post by A.K85
The bigger question is, why can't bangladeshi muslims get along with pakistani muslims under one muslim nation? They are both sunni muslims after all...
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by InItToWinItGetIt?
Sikhs have largely been very prominent in India and have been allowed to be by the whole nation.
Like who mate, Manmohan Singh is a Congress puppet, thinking lets get a Singh in there, genocide and attacks on Sikhs during last 25 yrs will be 4gotton. Manmohan Singh has done next to nothing for Sikhs, he is only a Sikh in name. What a joker, please don't think Manmohan Singh being a PM is an example of Sikhs being properous and important in India!!
Original post by okapobcfc08
Like who mate, Manmohan Singh is a Congress puppet, thinking lets get a Singh in there, genocide and attacks on Sikhs during last 25 yrs will be 4gotton. Manmohan Singh has done next to nothing for Sikhs, he is only a Sikh in name. What a joker, please don't think Manmohan Singh being a PM is an example of Sikhs being properous and important in India!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikhism_in_India#Prominent_Sikhs_in_India
Another is Harbhajan Singh.
And according to wikipedia, Manmohan Singh is regarded very very highly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manmohan_Singh
Original post by InItToWinItGetIt?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikhism_in_India#Prominent_Sikhs_in_India
Another is Harbhajan Singh.
And according to wikipedia, Manmohan Singh is regarded very very highly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manmohan_Singh
Another is Harbhajan Singh.
And according to wikipedia, Manmohan Singh is regarded very very highly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manmohan_Singh
lol you put up a wikipedia link, I rad the section 'Prominent Sikhs in India', 11 names I saw. 2/11 are traitors of Sikhs, who achieved high positions and did jack for us. Manmohan Singh is a puppet. So thats 3/11 gone. Harbhajan Singh is prominent yes, but I'm arguing on the basis that Sikhs are treated as 4th class citizens in India, so please dont assume that Sikhs have more change in India or Pakistan.
Original post by okapobcfc08
lol you put up a wikipedia link, I rad the section 'Prominent Sikhs in India', 11 names I saw. 2/11 are traitors of Sikhs, who achieved high positions and did jack for us. Manmohan Singh is a puppet. So thats 3/11 gone. Harbhajan Singh is prominent yes, but I'm arguing on the basis that Sikhs are treated as 4th class citizens in India, so please dont assume that Sikhs have more change in India or Pakistan.
So........ are you planning to expand on that anytime soon or is that it for now? Regarding Manmohan Singh, from what I read he is highly regarded around the world (much more than I initially thought he was if I am honest).
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by InItToWinItGetIt?
So........ are you planning to expand on that anytime soon or is that it for now? Regarding Manmohan Singh, from what I read he is highly regarded around the world (much more than I initially thought he was if I am honest).
I dont deny Manmohan Singh is highly regarded around the world. He's not regarded highly by Sikhs, well shouldnt be anyway. Only in India could a Sikh PM not get justice for 1%-4% of Sikh population being killed whilst he was loving it up as Finance Minister or Panjab University graduate or whatever. Like I said, Sikhs dont enjoy a great life in India.
Original post by InItToWinItGetIt?
Give me sources so I can verify what you say. Clashes between religions isn't a one way street.
Yes I know that but the way you are talking suggests you think if you are born Muslim in India you are destined for a 2nd class life.
India have had a Muslim president, a Muslim captain of the national cricket team (you may not think this is big, but cricket is like a religion in India so it is significant).
AFAIK, Pakistan, have never had an high ranking Hindu government official, or a Hindu captain or vice-captain of their cricket team. The only person that comes close is Danish Kaneria. I may be wrong though, if I am feel free to correct me.
Yes I know that but the way you are talking suggests you think if you are born Muslim in India you are destined for a 2nd class life.
India have had a Muslim president, a Muslim captain of the national cricket team (you may not think this is big, but cricket is like a religion in India so it is significant).
AFAIK, Pakistan, have never had an high ranking Hindu government official, or a Hindu captain or vice-captain of their cricket team. The only person that comes close is Danish Kaneria. I may be wrong though, if I am feel free to correct me.
Justice Rana Bhagwan Das
Former chief Justice
i hope you are aware of the current situation and impotance of Judiciary in our country in the past months, this was something very significant..
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- do girls like Pakistanis over Indians?
- Drop ur ethnicity
- Do Japanese/ Korean girls like Indian/ Pakistan/ Bangladesh guys?
- I think I love her
- Food: Indian vs Turkish
- Pakistani vs Indian men
- why are asians (pakistanis) all about money
- I feel like people don't want to date me because of my race
- Indian men
- how to reconnect with my roots as a brown girl living in the UK
- Caucasus International University in Georgia
- Learning to love my culture
- Im 18 My lazy Asian parents forces me to do chores like a maid along with my studies
- Can anyone here speak an asian language?
- Student Accommodation AVAILABLE Birmingham!
- Is Zante busy in August?
- Crush on black girl at uni ? (Uofg)
- brown girls: have you ever been in a relationship with a white guy?
- westminister sixth form review
- Black girl and Pakistani guy
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
