As I promised, I shall address the point which I mentioned in a previous post.
Today, we accept that Pakistan exists as a separate, sovereign, Islamic republic of Pakistan. Pakistan is not just a country, though, but an ideology. The proponents of Pakistan argue that the creation of Pakistan was a necessity in order to protect the Muslims' way of life. They show articles of cow vigilantism, the demolition of the Babur's Mosque*(we will come back to this), and communal riots in India as a proof of how a unified Hindu majority India would have oppressed Muslims. The actual reason for the Pakistan movement was, of course, the Two-Nation Theory. The father of the Two-Nation Theory is considered to be Ahmad Sirhindi, who opposed Akbar's syncretic religion din-e-ilahi.
Shah Waliullah Dehlawi was the ideological successor of Sirhindi, who had been against the powerful emperor Akbar at the time. Dehlawi on the other hand was appointed by emperor Aurangzeb after he lost battles to the Marathas, Rajputs, Sikhs and Ahoms and the Mughal empire started declining. Dehlawi was appointed to write the Fatawa-e-Alamgiri - the Sharia based Muslim law code which still is the basis for Muslim personal law in post-colonial India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Dehlawi wrote how a Muslim mingling with Hindu corrupts the Muslim mind.
Clearly, the primary objective of Pakistan was to create a separate state which was to be ruled by Muslims in accordance to Islamic laws, and everything else is assigned retroactively based on simplifying extremely complex issues. The subcontinent's Muslims' fear of assimilating into the surrounding Hindu environment, the fear of getting "corrupted" by the Hindu kuffar mushrikun over time was so strong that it made subcontinent's Muslims rally for a separate Islamic state with a Muslim majority and Sharia. It was a valid fear, of course. There are myriad examples of Muslims (in name) who are drawn to Hindu gods, they aren't just leaving Islam because apostasy in Islam is punishable by death.
Even if we can understand their reasoning, do Hindus have to accept it? Pakistan was imposed on us Hindus, we were never asked when Clement Attlee brought about the "Indian Independence Act 1947", which stipulated the two independent dominions, setting a precedent that Islamic separatism is acceptable and that it can be achieved through violent pogroms against non-Muslims. As if that was not enough, Hindus have no legal rights in Pakistan.
O Hindu, they have changed the demographics of Gandhara, Gosthana, Bahlika and Vanga, broken our Holy Motherland, our only Homeland, and they are attempting to change the demographics and break our Motherland even more.
Hutatma Shri Nathuram Godse assassinated Mohandas K. Gandhi for allowing the Partition of India. He was executed for that. Before his death, he expressed his wish that his ashes be sprinkled in the Sindhu nadi (Indus river) once She is freed from Pakistan occupation and flowing under the aegis of the flag of Hindustan. This is the spirit which every Hindu should harbour.
*As promised, we are coming back to the issue of Babri Mosque. It was a structure constructed by Mir Baqi on top of a temple. Here is the link for the Allahabad (Prayagraj) court papers. Adding excerpts here too, because everyone believes that oppressed and colonised people have the right to resist their oppressors with all means necessary, but when it comes to us Hindus, we should roll over and die.
titsay
yousharknotpass
izzy806
amandla
pixelskylines
2087
turnnoffyourmind
