I know this is a sensitive subject given our current reality - but let us try and discuss this without rancour or abusivenes .
Here is what Praful Goradia wrote in the Pioneer :
Go 'home', Geelani & friends' (Nov 2), by Mr Chandan Mitra contains what many Indians strongly feel. However, their's is an after-thought. Qaid-e-Azam MA Jinnah and some of his Muslim League colleagues had considered the need for an exchange of populations. All the Muslims were to emigrate to Pakistan and the non-Muslims were to come to Hindustan. Their demands came out in Dawn which was then published from Delhi. A few relevant extracts from these reports were reproduced in a recently published book called the Muslim League's Unfinished Agenda. Dr BR Ambedkar had considered a transfer of population an absolute necessity way back in 1940. "The only way to make Hindustan homogeneous is to arrange for exchange of population,"according to Volume 8 of his Speeches and Writings.
The neglect of the question of population transfer by Hindu leaders in 1947 was yet another link in the chain of our civilisation's failure. The root of the failure could lie in the Hindu disinterest in history, political theory, strategic thinking and national or civilisational unity. Muhammad bin Qasim might not have conquered Sind in 712 AD if only the kings of India had realised the long-term danger that an Islamic invasion posed. Had they done so, they might have combined their strength to ensure Raja Dhir's survival. In many ways, history was repeated in 1192 when Prithviraj Chauhan was let down by Jaichand and his allies, duly defeated and killed by Muhammad Ghauri at the Second Battle of Terain.
The Slave Dynasty established by Qutbuddin Aibak was not permanent. It was succeeded by one dynasty after another, whether Khilji or Tughlak or Lodhi, eventually ending with the Mughal emperors. Many an opportunity must have arisen in the five centuries when the Hindus could have overturned the Muslim rulers. Yet nothing happened. It is estimated that during the greater part of this period the Muslim population did not exceed 10 per cent. Yet, 90 per cent took the foreign oppression lying down most of the time.
Arnold Toynbee, the British historian, spent a lifetime arriving at a theory which he called, "Challenge and Response". The thrust of his thesis was that a civilisation flourished only when it could rise and respond to a challenge. To carry Mr Toynbee to his logical conclusion might have been to fear the end of the Hindu civilisation. Had the British not intervened to defeat what was largely Muslim rule, the fate of the Hindu ethos could have been sad. It is not widely recognised that the service Lord Clive and his successors performed was to reduce the Muslims from rulers to subjects thus giving the Hindus a level-playing field.
The Hindu Renaissance beginning with Raja Ram Mohun Roy was unlikely to have taken place had the British not intervened. Contrast Indian history with what happened in Europe. Only a year before Qasim conquered Sind, the Moors had captured Spain. Although it took several centuries before the Europeans could extinguish Muslim rule, nevertheless western Europe was cleared.
In the second millennium the Ottoman Empire, which proved to be as powerful as the Mughal empire, was established. It left few stones unturned in order to conquer large tracts of Europe. They laid siege to Vienna twice: In 1523 and 1683. Yet, they could not break through. The only areas where the Muslim influence survived were Bosnia Herzegovina, Albania and Bulgaria. The way Europe could deal with Islam, Hindustan could also have done the same.
The only place in India which saw a major clean-up on both sides - was the Punjab.
As a result, muslims were cleared out of East Punjab, and Sikhs and Hindu's from West Punjab.
However this was not Govt policy- it was as a result of revengee killings on both sides - started bu muslims, but with "double dose" jawaab by sardars and hindus.
That had the great effect of stopping killings by the muslis - and cleared East Punjab.
My family was part of that great struggle, so I have many first hand stories of lost/killed relatives, and on the flip side the other way too.
Nalwa / Mods: Please rename this thread to The Partition of India - Discussions and carry on.
Some of my own questions, on the subject: - When Gandhi went on fasting, was it against riots happening in India or in the portion of would-be-pakistan too? Was Gandhi against muslims leaving India to Pakistan?
- HTF we got so many millions of muslims remaining in India when Pakistan kicked out all the Hindus & Sikhs?
- What's the story with Jinnah's Direct Action Day?
A specific question for Nalwa: Who started the mess in the Punjab area? The way I know, right or wrong, that when trains were coming from lahore to Amritsar with Hindus & Sikhs all the passengers were killed on the way. And in retaliation Hindus & Sikhs did the same to folks leaving Eastern Punjab?
Krishna
I purposly named the thread what I did, since I wanted the discussion to focus on a specific aspect of the Partition, the possible rationale behind the decsion, and the impacxt of that decision on India.
You are right in general terms about who and what started the killings. Yu are also right that Gandhi was dead against reciprocating the muslim favour, and some strange compulsion in him wanted muslims to stay.
Under Jinnah's Direct Action plan, Hindu's and Sikhs were massacred on the West Punjab side for several days. In addition, those trying to escape were killed in the trains, and the trains sent onwards to Amritsar.
Read Arun Shouries compilation of SUPERB Essays, "Indian Controversies. It has a whole chapter on Direct Action, called "The Pistol that Jinnah forged"
I would make it cumpolsory reading for every grade 10 student in India.When it was clear the govt was unable or unwilling to stop this, Sikhs and Hindus took matter in their own hands and the rest as they say is history.
But as I have said, my main purpose in starting this thread is to explore the rationale and the consequences of that decision.
My own view, in a nutshell, is that we have a great civilizational weakness, which saw us make this huge blunder.
Whether it was a collective blunder of the Hindus and Sikhs or not it was definitely a blunder of one man: our pujya chacha saheb, Nehruji. A wide spectrum of leaders from Vallabhbhai, Rajagopalachari, and even the Brahmin/Hindu-hater Ambedkar all proposed regulated complete population exchange. Chachaji with his secular socialist delusions put everything into disarray, costing over a million people's lives. Nehru's biogrpahy is a must read for everyone to understand what went wrong with our country. People's lives were not a major concern for him.
Posting from Kuala Lumpur airport
There definitely was discussion about an exchange of populations. But the then PM of Pakistan Liaquat Ali Khan forestalled it by signing something called the Nehru-Liaquat pact. Liaquat knew that if there was a complete exchange of populations, TSP would have no leverage over India, as it seems to think it has now. Of course Pakistan flouted the terms of the agreement from day one , while India adhered to it to the letter. so what else is new. Regardless of whether or not this issue of exchange of populations was discussed , I do not believe India would ever have gone through with this. we are not like this onlee ...
[url="http://www.storyofpakistan.com/articletext.asp?artid=A096"]http://www.storyofpakistan.com/articletext....asp?artid=A096[/url]
Quote:The two Prime Ministers met in Delhi on April 2, 1950, and discussed the matter in detail. The meeting lasted for six long days. On April 8, the two leaders signed an agreement, which was later entitled as Liaquat-Nehru Pact. This pact provided a 'bill of rights' for the minorities of India and Pakistan. Its aim was to address the following three issues:
1. To alleviate the fears of the religious minorities on both sides.
2. To elevate communal peace.
3. To create an atmosphere in which the two countries could resolve their other differences.
According to the agreement, the governments of India and Pakistan solemnly agreed that each shall ensure, to the minorities throughout its territories, complete equality of citizenship, irrespective of religion; a full sense of security in respect of life, culture, property and personal honor.
It also guaranteed fundamental human rights of the minorities, such as freedom of movement, speech, occupation and worship. The pact also provided for the minorities to participate in the public life of their country, to hold political or other offices and to serve in their country's civil and armed forces.
The Liaquat-Nehru Pact provided for the mechanism to deal with oppressive elements with an iron hand. Both the governments decided to set up minority commissions in their countries with the aim of observing and reporting on the implementation of the pact, to ensure that no one breaches the pact and to make recommendations to guarantee its enforcement. Both Minority Commissions were to be headed by a provincial minister and were to have Hindu and Muslim members among its ranks. India and Pakistan also agreed to include representatives of the minority community in the cabinet of the two Bengals, and decided to depute two central ministers, one from each government, to remain in the affected areas for such period as might be necessary. Both the leaders emphasized that the loyalty of the minorities should be reserved for the state in which they were living and for the solution of their problems they should look forward to the government of the country they were living in.
This pact was broadly acknowledged as an optimistic beginning to improve relations between India and Pakistan.
[quote name='Kaushal' date='Nov 14 2003, 01:37 AM'] Posting from Kuala Lumpur airport [/quote]
You just wanted to get away from that Posts: 420 number. Didn't you? <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='  ' /> <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='  ' /> <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='  ' /> <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':lol:' /> :devil
:clapping :clapping
Krishna, I always liked 420 as a character.
Hauma , while I agree that JL Nehru may have made a leadership blunder at the time, is it not true that till today we have the likes of Kuldeep Nayyar, Gujral, N.Ram of the Hindu, Purefool Bidwai , Karan Thapar etc. etc etc etc etc (the list is endless) - who scream like pigs when any punishment is imposed on muslims for their crimes against "kaafirs"- or even on Pukistan (the home of swine and pimps).
These people (ironically many with Hindu names!) harbour such hatred for Hindus and Sikhs that they want India's destruction (it seems). These types HAVE BEEN abundantly present in India for the last 200 years, and would scream at the top of their collective voices to prevent Population transfer at the time of partition.
Partition was the logical and correct time to make the transfer; it was the rationale for the partition on the sides of the muslis.
Hindus and Sikhs just had to go along with that logic at the time - and it would have been done. With no hue and cry.
In my view our nation threw away a golden chance to redeem itself , its past inaction , disunity and even occasional cowardice by taking that collective step.
But alas - it was not to be...
Not happy with the below piece of psyops, so we have the british to thank for ending one slavery and starting another? To say nothing of Shivaji, Krishnadevaraya, and the rise of Sikhs in Punjab...
Arnold Toynbee, the British historian, spent a lifetime arriving at a theory which he called, "Challenge and Response". The thrust of his thesis was that a civilisation flourished only when it could rise and respond to a challenge. To carry Mr Toynbee to his logical conclusion might have been to fear the end of the Hindu civilisation. Had the British not intervened to defeat what was largely Muslim rule, the fate of the Hindu ethos could have been sad. It is not widely recognised that the service Lord Clive and his successors performed was to reduce the Muslims from rulers to subjects thus giving the Hindus a level-playing field. :flush :thumbdown
In Ambedkar's book
"Pakistan or the Partition of India"
available on-line at [url="http://www.ambedkar.org"]http://www.ambedkar.org[/url]
Partition was a necessary step to stop the islamisation of India
He argued very correctly, that a society 25% muslim, 36% muslim in legislature, army and police is dangerously vulnerable to islamic takeover
So even without transfer of population, it should be viewed as a successful hindu secession movement. Full population transfer is simply icing on the cake
Islamists like Maulana Azad and Madudi, from an islamic standpoint opposed partition, since they felt that they could takeover India from within
The 20 million BD illegals are a small taste of Akhand Bharat or shall I say
Akhand Islamistan
Dr.Ambedkar argued quite rightly that after amputation of east and west pakistan, Indian muslim rioting propensity will be drastically reduced
And he was correct
All communal riots since 1949, have ONLY killed 20000,
The 5 days of rioting on Direct Action Day killed 20000
Next the boundaries that Dr.Ambedkar proposed was very close to final radcliffe line
He said full population exchange was the only cure for the internal muslim problem, however he added that even without a full population transfer, getting rid of 70% of south asian muslims would be a huge advantage of partition
He actually proposed a limited population exchange in Punjab and Bengal
He correctly foresaw in 1940 that non-muslims would be genocided in east and west pakistan
In 1940, muslims were 13% of residual India
A population transfer between east and west punjab would reduce it to 10%
and a population transfer between east and west bengal would reduce it to 7%
So going by his advice muslims would have been reduced to 7% in residual India
The exchange did not take place in bengal, and muslims were just reduced to 10% in 1951 in residual India
The population exchange in Punjab reduced muslims in residual India so much that
despite demographic warfare and BD illegals they just have managed to climb back to 13%, the same point as in 1941, in residual India
If the bengal exchange had taken place, muslims would have been at 10% today and ending at 13% by 2050
Thanks to the foolishness of bengali hindus, not only did the transfer not take place
the bengali hindus imported 15 million BD islamists
While 100% of Sindhis and 40% of sikhs and bengali hindus got screwed,
Partition was a huge hindu victory from the view point of princely states
In totality, ONLY 5% of non-muslims were trapped in east and west pakistan and 70% of muslims were removed. In short it was a very clean amputation of a gangrene as per Sardar Patel
Without partition, the muslim league would not have allowed removal of Nizam and other muslim kingdoms
Further without partition, East Punjab, Haryana, Himachal, West bengal would be under muslim rule, with non-muslims slowly being driven out as in JK
Pre-partition, 64 million non-muslims ( 20% ) were trapped under muslim rule
After partition, ONLY 16 million non-muslims ( 5% ) were trapped under muslim rule
The area gained by annexing muslim nawabdoms was about
100,000 sq.miles, twice the area of BD
Pakistan while it looks large on the map is 80% desert
In short partition fenced off 70% of muslims into 2 dense ghettos
While we may argue about the mistakes in partition such as not grabbing a few more districts or not finishing the population transfer, given the weak and chaotic nature of the congress, thanks to a few patriots like Savarkar, Master Tara Singh,
Bordoloi and Syama Prasad Mukerji, pakistan was trimmed in size and most non-muslims rescued
Yes we are stuck with a 13% muslim population
but lets look at how other countries fare, when they foolishly let in muslims
1. In Philipines, Thailand, Myanmar, they have 5% muslims and all have a muslim secessionist movement
2. In western Europe, muslims are 5% and they do 70% of rapes, attack cops, ethnic cleanse natives. In western europe, muslims are 12% by birth
3. In France, muslims are 10% and 20% by birth
4. In Russia, muslims are 10% and 20% by birth
5. In Australia and UK, muslims are 2% and they riot and ethnic cleanse natives
and attack cops
6. In Israel, ( within 1967 borders )
muslims are 15%, and 22% by birth and they riot and attack cops and do treason
Looking at the developing scenario in other countries, in India, muslims dont go into Jihadist mode till they hit 20% of a locality
Since we have co-evolved with a predatory ideology like islam, for centuries, hindu society has evolved coping mechanisms ( not perfect of course )
The 21st century will be the age of muslim civil wars as the islam % in a host society climbs thanks to illegal immigration and fertility differentials
Unfortunately the only means of countering this is counter-demographic warfare and filling in ecological niches before muslims
Next we have to look at the case of Spain
Spain took 120 years and many civil wars and inquisitions to eradicate islam
Now muslims are coming back by illegal immigration and are 2% of spain
Muslims have started riots in spain
Next we look at Greece
Greece exchanged its population with Turkey
( Dr.Ambedkar viewed this as the ideal model )
But thanks to illegal immigration, muslims are seeping back into greece and rioting
So in the long term, neither Greece nor Spain solved their muslim problem
Further, external muslim countries are enjoined to do jihad
So as long as islam exists, kafirs will face violence either from within or without
Borders cant be sealed
So the only option for the kafir is raise fertility, organise and militarise
In practical terms an active containment policy towards islam similar to the
containment policy against communism, while at the same time helping muslims escape the shackles of the mullah
Going by the record of xtianity, it took them 350 years from the start of the
renaissance to the end of the inquisition and it will take centuries for the hold of the mullah to weaken
For instance Judaism, circa 100 AD was very similar to islam and we had
jewish zealots similar to islamic jihadists, but over many centuries judaism evolved away from a literal interpretation of their texts
So in the Indian context what does this mean
1. Arresting rabble rousing muslim leaders, mullahs and mafias
2. Frequent checks on madrasas
3. Raising a 2 million man paramilitary to patrol muslim zones to deter muslim rioting. Given the muslim track record of starting 80% of riots, preventing muslim rioting will also prevent hindu counter-rioting
For instance in Godhra, muslims have been rioting since at least 1928, almost 1 major riot every 2 years and no action was taken to control the islamists
This paramilitary can consist of ex-servicemen who are retired from army at 35, but still fit for these kinds of work
4. Scholarships to muslim women
Educated women weaken the power of the mullah
5. Getting Grameen like programs to the benefit of muslim women
Working women weaken the power of the mullah
6. Enforcing laws on muslim ghettos, many of which are no-go zones
7. Finally raising kafir fertility to prevent demographic vacuums and contain islam demographically
My post on the Paki thread of BR (posting here as is relevent to this discussion):
Some "intellectuals" among the pakis have charged for decades - that it was the INC and India that caused partition of the country by going back on the "Cabnet Mission Plan" of 1946. To refresh memories, that Plan, presented to INC & the IML at Simla in 1946 proposed an Indian federation in which the center would only control foreign affairs, defence & communications. Apparently the INC went along with it. However, Nehru was asked at Bombay airport whether that Plan provided a "constitution" for India, and he said that the Indian Constitution would be what the Constitutional Assembly developed by majority vote. Jinnah recoiled from any "majority vote", so that killed the Cabnet mission plan. Well, here is my Alternate History as I posted it on BD forum:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Victor:
It is also possible that because of a similar "agni pariksha", the USA is what it is today. One cannot imagine an Amrika without Texas, Arizona and California among other states.
The 'western' interests had very clear goals when they split India. The maps show it as clearly as any lie-detector test.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This BD thread is hardly the place for this discussion, but we might try it as poetic licence. First, a civil war certainly has been the coming of age for modern great nations. Second, how does that apply to India?. Let me address your point about US first. A few years ago there was a fictional "alternate history" book published on the US. The premiss was that the US lost the civil war to the Confederate States, as a result of which three republics emerged - USA, CSA and Texas. Long story short - the three united during WW II, and a consolodated USA went on to win the cold war against the USSR (sorry, cannot remember Author or Title).
Returning to India, 1946/47, we can consider a similar alternate history. Let us say that UK leaves a very losely confederated India by 1947 (cabnet mission plan, Simla, 1946). By begining of 1948, civil war caused by secession of muslim majority provences, breaks out Jinnah's strategy all along). UN intervenes (as they later did in Korea, eg). UN forces effectively divide India - Sindh, Balochistan, NW Frontier, Kashmir, all of Punjab, & perhaps a divided Delhi (which was in undivided Punjab provence) in the west, and All of Bengal, Assam, NE frontier & tribal areas (and some parts of Bihar) in the east come under muslim rule, leaving the rest as India. No religious cleansing would occur, but Hindus & Sikhs would be subject to regular massacares behind UN drawn borders and "peace keeping forces" (Balkans, 1992-). It would have been a horrible disaster.
Truth is, the partition of India in 1947 WAS India's civil war (the begining of it).
Imo, India-Pakistan-BD represent the longest running civil war in modern history. It will end with the destruction of the break away republics.
I agree that India's partition was symptomatic of a civil war, and has been beneficial to the Hindu's and Sikhs.
However, this benefit was diluted, and now stands to be jeopardized by the rapid growth of the residual muslim populace - who through unfettered population growth has grown to become 13% of India . Compounding this is the illegal immigration from bangala-desh, which is altering the demographics of several border areas adversely- sowing the seeds of more strife and violence.
Reading Ambedkar's account of the Partition on the web site referenced above is stunning.
It reinforces my view that we have been criminal in not teaching true history to our children. We raised 3 generations of "unaware", head-in-the-sand pseudo-secularists trained to worship gandhi and nehru - but totally ignorant about history, the ruthless and barabric muslim rule and the true heroes who stemmed the green tide and stopped the "islimic" invasion.
Be that as it may, there are now more than 130 million muslims in India now, who are not going to go anywhere.
I agree that many of them are good people, despite the perverse teachings of islam, and would be happy to melt into "Indianness" or hindutva; but many more are fanatical, wedded to the fundamentals of islam which basically puts them at loggerheads with India, Hindus and Sikhs.
Our inability to weed them all out in 1947 , when it would have been easier, will cost us big time. In blood, in time and in wealth.
But we will have to deal with this problem sooner than we think.
I would like to discuss possible solutions to this problem on this thread - in addition to further defining the scope and size of the problem
11-19-2003, 08:12 AM
(This post was last modified: 11-20-2003, 04:46 AM by acharya.)
[quote name='Nalwa' date='Nov 18 2003, 12:12 PM'] It reinforces my view that we have been criminal in not teaching true history to our children. We raised 3 generations of "unaware", head-in-the-sand pseudo-secularists trained to worship gandhi and nehru - but totally ignorant about history, the ruthless and barabric muslim rule and the true heroes who stemmed the green tide and stopped the "islimic" invasion.
[/quote]
The entire plan of changing the teaching of history to remove all the partition problems and the ideology of Pakistan from the school in India for 40 years is NO accident. THis is part of a deliberate plan to change the perception of the minds of the Hindus inside India to look at the world in a non hostile manner and never see the lurking danger to their society.
The Indian society has been under a blind just like in the movie Matrix where the source keeps all the himans under a spell of a makebeleive world MATRIX
The main weapon of islam is demographic warfare
Muslims flip into Jihadist mode, when they cross a given critical mass
This critical mass is a function of the organisation and militancy of the host society
For example in UK, where they are just 2%, they are terrorising white natives,
attacking cops and ethnic cleansing natives
I will go further and claim that the external muslim is not a threat
( except for the handful of chinese supplied nukes to pakistan )
In muslim countries the main function of the army is to protect the ruling regime
and not to fight the external enemy
Hence the muslim armies are very good at killing their own civilians
and in general manage to lose most wars
Since 1680, muslim armies have lost about 95% of their battles to kafirs
Chinese, sikhs, hindus, europeans etc
We cant control the fertility of pakistani and bangladeshi muslims who will immigrate into India
Even the US cant control its borders
Illegal immigration happens only if the host society has a demographic vacuum
The 15 million BD illegals means that India has a demographic vacuum that they are filling
The only solution is to engage in demographic warfare, unpleasant as it sounds
By counter demographic warfare, you dilute the islam % below critical mass
Further demographic warfare is the last hope of islam, Once contained demographically, it will start to implode
Dr.Mahathir and his wife are both doctors and they have 7 kids
Hence 5-6 kids is a safe number for hindus
In 1970 Sudhir Luxman Hendre a hindutva activist asked for hindus to have 5-6 kids
In fact demographic warfare is the only reason we had partition in the first place
When muslim rule ended in 1800, muslims were just 15% of Akhand Bharat
a society 15% muslim will be riot prone and unpleasant, but not enough to create partition
By single minded reproduction they grew to 25% in 1947 which made them strong enough to partition
The case of bengal is particularly noteworthy
When the british took over bengal, muslims were just 30% of bengal,
The foolish bengali hindu did not remarry widows and westernised and reduced fertility
By sheer demographic warfare, muslims became majority in United bengal by 1881
and this resulted in creation of BD and resultant ethnic cleansing of hindus
The message is clear, either have 5-6 kids or be ethnic cleansed like the BD hindus
In fact failure to fight a demographic war by hindus and sikhs will result in need to actually fight a civil war a-la lebanon
per NFHS-2, by birth, muslims are
15.9% of India
43% of Assam
33% of Kerala and WB
22% of UP and Bihar
North India is doomed to fight a civil war by 2050
My personal recommendation is to evacuate the 13 million BD hindus to de-islamise WB and the north east and drop muslim % by 7-8% in those regions
The case of kerala shows very clearly the foolishness of hindus
From 1901-1961, muslims were flat at 17%
This is true in most states
1961 census is an inflexion point in muslim demographics in residual India
when foolish hindus took up family planning
Then the kerala hindu did too much family planning and this resulted in muslims being 33% by birth in kerala
It is also possible to defeat islamic demographic warfare
In JK, hindus have a higher fertility than muslims and in MP and Rajasthan and a few other states have minimal fertility differential
Then we come to the issue of Malthusian limits of India
China has twice the agricultural produce of India grown on half the agricultural land
Hence by raising agricultural productivity to chinese levels India can feed 5 billion
Next India is much less crowded than south korea
Further India can export surplus population illegally to the demographically dying west like the muslims are doing
By 2050, muslims will be 16% of India, 25% of residual Israel ( within 1967 borders ), 25% of France, 25% of Russia, 16% of western Europe and 36% of south asia
Yes, hindus were foolish in not completing population exchange
but the west is even more foolish in allowing muslim immigration and dropping their own fertility. Fortunately rural hindus did not take up family planning in large numbers
Bosnia too is a case of islamic demographics leading to civil war
Muslims expanded from 25% in 1951 to 40% by 1991
As far as internal muslims are concerned we need active containment of islamists,
ruthless law enforcement and innovative ways to weaken the hold of the mullah
for without the brainwashing of the mullah, the muslims dont flip into Jihadism
[quote name='G.Subramaniam' date='Nov 19 2003, 08:54 AM'] For example in UK, where they are just 2%, they are terrorising white natives,
attacking cops and ethnic cleansing natives
[/quote]
I hear from my Hindu and English contacts that the percentage of Moslems in some pockets of England like Bradford are extremely high. So locally the Ms may have recahed densities as high as 50%, which as we all know is more than enough to trigger at least low level rioting. Furthermore I hear some of this areas have largely become no-go areas for non-Ms.
Quote:I will go further and claim that the external muslim is not a threat
( except for the handful of chinese supplied nukes to pakistan )
This is an important point. I would add Bangladeshi immigration, but then it may also fall in the internal category. Unfortunately most Hindus in India and abroad do not seem to understand this too well. That is precisely why forums like BR are flawed and we need fora like this for an objective analysis.
The internal Moslem problem is an unknown and we are not prepared to meet for any disastrous outcomes of it.
In Bradford, they are 20% of the population, but in their ghettos, they are 90%
In fact in UK TV they had a show "Last white family"
Unfortunately as Dr.Ambedkar has put it clearly, islam at its roots forbids
peaceful co-existence
Hence a policy of containment is the only way out
This containment must include counter-demographic warfare, pro-active arrests of mullahs and mafia, and innovative means of loosening the hold of mullahs
Sort of like Diabetes, where there is no cure, but symptomatic treatment and control is possible
The first step is to educate hindus about islam
visit [url="http://www.bharatvani.org"]http://www.bharatvani.org[/url] and see online books
If we look at xtianity which has a similar abrahamist intolerant roots,
it took about 350 years for it, after the renaiisance to become secular
The biggest islamic demographic threat is in pakistan
In fact I consider BD a more dangerous enemy than pakistan
By not showing open hostility, BD has managed to ship 20 million muslims to India
whereas by open hostility, the pakistani border is sealed
As I said, the 21st century will be the age of muslim civil wars as muslim % inches upwards to critical mass in country after country
This critical mass can be as low as 18%
In 1960, Cyprus went into civil war with muslims at 18%
Hence have 5-6 kids
The following hindu leaders supported partition
along current boundaries
Lala Lajpat Rai in 1924
Ambedkar in 1940
Rajaji in 1942
Sardar Patel in 1946 after Direct Action Day
Sardar Patel called partition, the amputation of a gangrenous limb
Sardar Patel and Jinnah were both hard headed realists
They both saw that a civil war would not lead to guaranteed victory on either side
Dr.Ambedkar went further, he asked that even should hindus win the civil war, what to do with the muslim civilian population, since non-muslims dont have a policy of forced conversion
Israel is grappling with the same question, it foolishly annexed west bank and gaza
and is now trying to get out of it
The force structure within India was that
muslims were 75% of police in United Punjab and United Bengal
and 30% of the police in residual India
The muslim police of 30% in residual India participated in many riots
Even after Independence in residual India with muslims at 3% of police, they have participated in riots
In addition, muslims were 36% of army
In addition, the Nizam had an army of 45000 and 2 lakh razakars
The secular propoganda is that all the riotous muslims left for pakistan
Not true
Muslims in Assam had a referendum in 1947 to join pakistan and they failed
The leader of this effort, Moinul Haque Chaudhury was rewarded with a cabinet post by Nehru
The muslims of west bengal did Direct Action Day
The muslims of east bengal are ethnic cleansing hindus and foolish vote bankers imported them
The Nizam had 2 lakh razakars, which means virtually every able bodied muslim male in Maharashtra, Andhra and Karnataka was a Razakar
The kerala muslims did Moplah atrocities and the kerala muslim league is a direct descendant of Jinnahs party
Aligarh university has been a hotbed of pro-pakistan sentiment both pre and post partition
Finally Indian madrasas have the same curriculum as pakistani madrasas
In USSR, muslims demographically expanded from 9% in 1950 to 20% by 1990
and the Russians voluntarily withdrew from CIS to get rid of 65% of their internal muslims
The main problem is that unlike 1947, there is no clearly demarcated region that can be lopped off
Hamid Dalwai, a nationalist muslim, in 1968 warned that the muslim game plan was to create a series of mini-pakistans and do demographic warfare
Kya timing hain!
Shiv Sena asks Hindus to have more kids
The Shiv Sena has hit upon a bizarre idea to counter what it claims is the growing population of Muslims in Uttar Pradesh.
The right wing outfit has given a call to Hindu couples in the state to have more children and decided to reward those families that have more than four children.
Justifying such a call Sena Member of Parliament Chandrakant Khaire told rediff.com that family planning was supposed to be followed by all communities. "But the Muslims are not adopting family planning measures and therefore the Sena's call to Hindus to have more children is a form of protest," Khaire said.
The Shiv Sena claims the increase in the number of Muslims is a planned strategy by the community.
The Uttar Pradesh unit of Sena had sent a circular to all of its branches asking them to make Hindus aware about the new plan.
The Sena blames the central and the state governments for the failure of the family planning strategy.
Sena Uttar Pradesh unit chief Vijay Tiwari said, "In UP Muslim population is increasing rapidly. The government has failed to implement the family planning formula on Muslims although the Hindus had accepted it."
But Tiwari was quick to add that he agreed with the 'chhota parivar, sukhi parivar (small family, happy family)' slogan.
"But if Hindus become a minority then there is no sukh (happiness). We had done in-depth research on this before announcing our measure," he said.
Tiwari also expressed concern at the growing number of Bangladeshi Muslims in the state. "We have identified thousands of Bangladeshis in various cities of Uttar Pradesh and had informed the administration about it. But nobody has taken any action against them," he claimed.
[url="http://in.rediff.com/news/2003/nov/19vijay.htm"]http://in.rediff.com/news/2003/nov/19vijay.htm[/url]
As I recall, muslims in India were willing to quit but Nehru went around
asking them to stay back
Nehru was a commie minded person who wanted to keep muslims back to harass hindus
The so called soft hindus of west bengal ethnic cleansed the muslims from 30% to 20% in 3 months
B.C.Roy the West bengal CM was pro-hindu and he armed several hindu vigilante groups in 1946 prior to direct action day and afterwards in west bengal
In Punjab the congress armed the RSS ( Brotherhood in Saffron )
By November 1947, Suhrawardy was so scared that this butcher went on fast with
Gandhi to prevent muslim expulsion from west bengal
Watch the movie Hey Ram, starring Kamalahasan
It has a psec ending, but most of the movie is hindutva oriented
Muslims in kolkata protested against the film since it showed them initiating
Direct Action Day
Suhrawardy organised Direct Action Day thinking he would get West Bengal
Gandhi's kolkata fast saved the muslims of west bengal
Then in his final Delhi fast, one of his demands was that the RSS / Sikhs stop muslim expulsion from western UP
Needless to say both Western UP and West Bengal are now ISI havens
In June 1947, an army of muslim Meos from Haryana marched on Delhi to slaughter the hindus ( thinking they could repeat the feats of Timur )
They were defeated by a Jat caste sena and expelled to pakistan
In 1950, the moronic Vinobha went on a fast and recalled 3 lakhs of them
The meos have 7 kids each and 98% of their women are kept illiterate
deliberately by the mullahs so that they can be baby making machines
The meo areas are now ISI infested
And Haryana which was muslim free ( 2% in 1950) is now 8% muslim by birth
11-21-2003, 11:21 AM
(This post was last modified: 11-22-2003, 11:59 AM by Hauma Hamiddha.)
While this is not directly relevant to the thread, the irony of the meos should be noted. About 7.5 centuries ago they were the victims of the vicious Moslem ruler Balban. He converted the survivors to Islam after his assault on them. This is a good example of how Islam erases any traces of your past national identity and a conversion makes you hate your past identity.
|
