Kharavela, Hindu majority is not in question but new partitions may take place due to low fertility (compared to Muslims) among Hindus, conversions and illegal infiltration.
We may see a greater beggardesh in the North East soon due to illegal infiltration, Kerala is heading towards a Hindu minority (when Muslims+Xtians are combined), and Tamilnadu and AP will I suspect be reduced to only 75% Hindu mainly because evangalical types are pumping in conversion money towards those 2 states.
The main factor is breeding
How many of the so called hindutva hindus are willing to breed 5 to stop islam?
Goa in fact got de-xtianised from 60% xtian to 30% xtian by hindu over-breeding
Regarding conversions,
in south India the best bet is to fund SV.Badri
and in rest of India to fund ekal vidyalaya
Regarding xtianity
it is in terminal decline in the west
The west is likely to see internal muslim civil war in 20 years
and Indian economy is getting stronger reducing the exchange rate effect of the dollar
Quote:In a new light
A.J. THOMAS
"I would not be surprised if this novel turns out to be his magnum opus eventually."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Partitions, Kamleshwar, translated by Ameena Kazi Ansari, Penguin India, 2006, p.369+xi, Rs.350.
Against prejudice
Beginning with Gilgamesh, the narration proliferates, spanning several centuries of known history with Time and Space as the main characters: Other characters turn out to be rivers and dates like 1947, sharing space along with real and imaginary historic characters. Open the book at random and you are sure to find one shocking revelation or the other, tearing the mask off established history, or bringing to spotlight what has been dimmed or blurred through usage or prejudice. For instance, every Muslim-baiter in this country would harp on the theme of Muslim marauders like Chengiz Khan, Timur and Babur laying waste our motherland. But Chengiz Khan was not even a Muslim. He was a Mongol idol worshipper! Though this is known to historians, the layman has to be sensitised to this fact.
Another incident involves Aurangazeb's sacking of Kashi Vishwanath Temple. Kamleshwar borrows the authority of Pattabhi Sitaramaiah, President of Indian National Congress (1938) to assert that Aurangazeb did what he did to retrieve the wife of one of the Hindu Rajahs in his entourage who had visited the temple and whom some of the priests there had abducted and raped! Scores of such instances crop up in the book.
The brahminical partitioning of the body and soul based on the caste system, in which genuine religion and spirituality are subjugated to cast-iron structures, the Upanishads ending up as apologies for the upper castes ââ¬â all these come under the scanner in the court of human consciousness.
http://www.hindu.com/lr/2006/06/04/stori...110300.htm
Here is an article by Elst debunking this myth peddled by Sitaramaiah and other scumbags of his ilk about Aurangzeb's reasons for demolishing the Kashi Vishwanath mandir:
http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/artic...anath.html
And I don't see any Hindus claiming that Genghis was Muslim but what can you expect from a Galilaean scumbag (going by reviewers name) except lies.
Wish Kamleshwar got tortured to death by his beloved sullas.
Quote:ââ¬Å½'Ranjeet Singh's rise led to creation of Pakistan' - The Times of India
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india...439767.cms
So now its Ranjit Singh who was responsible for partition!
Earlier it was Savarkar.
How about the real reason, Islam itself?
Oh right I forgot surely this beatific religion of "peace" can never be blamed for anything.
Quote:TINDERBOX: The Past and Future of Pakistan
Author: MJ Akbar
Publisher: HarperCollins
Price: Rs 499
Prafull Goradia and KR Phanda wonder why MJ Akbar, while dealing with the creation of Pakistan, ignores the separatist tendencies inherent in Islam
The book under review is a masterly exposition by a journalist distinguished for his knowledge. He is also perceived to be objective in his views on communal issues. With his high credibility, he has tried to put the weight of the blame for Partition on the Congress, especially Jawaharlal Nehru. By implication, he has attempted to free Indian Muslims of all responsibility. If he has blamed any Muslim, it is Mohammed Ali Jinnah.
Like other Muslim authors of the past, MJ Akbarââ¬â¢s book, Tinderbox: The Past and Future of Pakistan, puts the entire blame for Partition on the Congress leadership. Akbar writes: ââ¬ÅThere were five swivel moments in the relations between the Congress and the Muslims before the formation of Pakistan. The pact negotiated by Jinnah in 1916, in which the Congress accepted separate electorates, was widely described as the basis on which the two communities could unite against the British. The second moment, Gandhiââ¬â¢s Khilafat struggle, promised liberation but ended in despair. Jinnah crafted the third opportunity, in 1927 and 1928, when an all-party effort was made to create a constitution for India by Indians; he failed to bridge the League-Congress gap. In 1937, the two parties could have cemented an ongoing understanding with a post-election coalition, but an ascendant Congress underestimated the potential of a disappointed Jinnah. The fifth and the most tantalising chance appeared at the very last minute, in 1946, when the Congress and the League accepted the British Cabinet Mission Plan to retain a united India, but the Congress, fearful of balkanisation, reversed its decision. After this, their separate paths became irreversible.ââ¬Â
Muslim writers, including Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad, have blamed Nehru for Partition. He had not agreed to the inclusion of Muslim League candidates in the United Provinces Cabinet formed in 1937. Again, in 1946, it was Nehru who had rejected the Cabinet Mission Plan. Since he did not clarify his stand on these issues, it encouraged Muslim writers to put the blame on the Congress for Partition.
The fact of the matter is that separatism is an integral part of Islamic theology. Islam divides humanity into momins and kafirs. It is ordained in the holy book that momins should persuade non-Muslims to embrace Islam. On their refusal to do so, they should be killed. The imposition of jizya on Hindus (kafirs) by Muslim rulers was an exception. The status of dhimmi or zimmi was accorded to ahle-kitab or people of the Book only. According to the Hanafi law, Hindus had only two options: Convert to Islam or face death. For economic advantage to the rulers, however, Hindus were allowed to survive on payment of jizya.
In short, non-Muslims cannot coexist with Muslims under Islamic rule as equal citizens. What is happening to Christians in Lebanon, Sudan, Nigeria today is a replay of the Armenian Christian genocide by the Turks in the last quarter of the 19th century. The advent of British rule in India deprived Muslims of their privileged status, and reduced them to the status of common people. They were unhappy and made their last attempt to restore Muslim rule in 1857. Having failed, they decided to cooperate with the British. Sir Syed Ahmad Khan even told Muslims not to join the Congress. He was also one of the original exponents of the two-nation theory.
Akbar assigns a prominent role to Jinnah in the struggle for the creation of Pakistan. He quotes what Jinnah said on June 5, 1946, to the Muslim League Council: ââ¬ÅLet me tell you that Muslim India will not rest content until we have established full, complete and sovereign Pakistan. Acceptance of the Cabinet Missionââ¬â¢s proposal was not the end of their struggle for Pakistan. They should continue their struggle till Pakistan is achieved.ââ¬Â
The fact is that Jinnah did not lead, but was led by the Muslim consensus. His role was that of a sincere and clear-headed lawyer who could formulate and articulate in precise terms what his client really wanted (Studies in Islamic Culture by Aziz Ahmad). This is further reinforced by the election results of 1945-46. Prof M Mujeeb writes: ââ¬ÅThe party which demanded the creation of Pakistan, a separate homeland for Indian Muslims, was the Muslim League. In the elections held early in 1946, which proved decisive, it secured 425 out of 492 seats reserved for Muslims in the central and different provincial legislatures. It could be said, therefore, that Muslims were overwhelmingly in favour of Pakistan. It insisted that the right to a separate homeland should be conceded first (Islamic Influence on Indian Society).
Partition, therefore, took place because Indian Muslims felt themselves to be Muslims first and Indians later. Given this background leading to the creation of Pakistan, it is surprising that the Congress leadership ââ¬â Mahatma Gandhi, Nehru and Vallabhbhai Patel ââ¬â did not ask Muslims to leave for their dar-ul-Islam. Jinnah, on the contrary, was clear. He along with other seven League leaders had asked for an exchange of population. The Congress did not agree. It seems the Indian leadership deluded itself that Partition was territorial and not a religious division!
http://www.dailypioneer.com/315674/Not-j...-show.html