Forum Menu - Click/Swipe to open
 

Pakistan vs India: Background, Conflict, Analysis

Jump to page:

You have contributed 0.0% of this topic

Thread Tools
Appreciate
Topic Appreciation
Abdur Rahman ibn Awf, sipraomer
Rank Image
sipraomer's avatar
Offline
MARS
1,823
Brother
336
sipraomer's avatar
#256 [Permalink] Posted on 2nd March 2019 17:57
ALIF wrote:
View original post


Then use a heavy dose brother.
report post quote code quick quote reply
No post ratings
back to top
Rank Image
Offline
Unspecified
1,913
Brother
2,890
#257 [Permalink] Posted on 2nd March 2019 18:05
sipraomer wrote:
View original post


The English have a saying about.."Different coarses for different horses".

Or to put it simply, a poor rickshaw owner ,might require mildness and any harshness might dishearten and cause him to become more staunch in his positions.

But when dealing with someone who is well read, highly educated mildness can be counter productive. The point may need to be put across in a more forcefull manner. Otherwise the indivdual may remain entrenched in their position and ruin their akhirah as a result.

Afterall a mother loves her child and has deep compassion in heart for him. But if he is about to put his hand in the fire, her reaction will be to give him a smack and speak in harsh tones. So as to ensure he realises he was doing something wrong and does not engage in such behaviour again in the future.

The ulemah prefer the first method but use the second method also when required.

The poor man who is jahil might be aware of his jahiliyah. As for the Educated Jahil, he is usually in love with his own intelligence.Thinks his position is an intelligent one even when it is against the Quran and Sunnah.

Unfortunately the educated jahils are the fitnah of this age. They represent a fitnah for themselves and for those they influence whilst being blissfully unaware of their ignorance, and the foolishness of the position that they are enveloping themselves in.

report post quote code quick quote reply
+5 -0Like x 3Winner x 2
back to top
Rank Image
Arfatzafar's avatar
Offline
India
1,258
Brother
1,484
Arfatzafar's avatar
#258 [Permalink] Posted on 2nd March 2019 18:14
Who is responsible.....?

* The Kashmir dispute dates from 1947. The partition of the Indian sub-continent along religious lines led to the formation of India and Pakistan. However, there remained the problem of over 650 states, run by princes, existing within the two newly independent countries.

* Because of its location, Kashmir could choose to join either India or Pakistan. Maharaja Hari Singh, the ruler of Kashmir, was Hindu while most of his subjects were Muslim. Unable to decide which nation Kashmir should join, Hari Singh chose to remain neutral.

But his hopes of remaining independent were dashed in October 1947, as Pakistan sent in Muslim tribesmen who were knocking at the gates of the capital Srinagar.

* Hari Singh appealed to the Indian government for military assistance and fled to India. He signed the Instrument of Accession, ceding Kashmir to India on October 26.

* Indian and Pakistani forces thus fought their first war over Kashmir in 1947-48. India referred the dispute to the United Nations on 1 January. In a resolution dated August 13, 1948, the UN asked Pakistan to remove its troops, after which India was also to withdraw the bulk of its forces.

* Once this happened, a "free and fair" plebiscite was to be held to allow the Kashmiri people to decide their future.


India, having taken the issue to the UN, was confident of winning a plebiscite, since the most influential Kashmiri mass leader, Sheikh Abdullah, was firmly on its side. An emergency government was formed on October 30, 1948 with Sheikh Abdullah as the Prime Minister.

Pakistan ignored the UN mandate and continued fighting, holding on to the portion of Kashmir under its control. On January 1, 1949, a ceasefire was agreed, with 65 per cent of the territory under Indian control and the remainder with Pakistan.

* The ceasefire was intended to be temporary but the Line of Control remains the de facto border between the two countries.

In 1957, Kashmir was formally incorporated into the Indian Union. It was granted a special status under Article 370 of India's constitution, which ensures, among other things, that non-Kashmiri Indians cannot buy property there.

* Fighting broke out again in 1965, but a ceasefire was established that September. Indian Prime Minister, Lal Bhadur Shastri, and Pakistani President, M Ayub Khan, signed the Tashkent agreement on January 1, 1966.
They resolved to try to end the dispute, but the death of Mr Shastri and the rise of Gen Yahya Khan in Pakistan resulted in stalemate.

In 1972 Indira Gandhi, the Indian prime minister, and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, her Pakistani opposite number, signed the Simla Agreement, which reiterated the promises made in Tashkent.

The two sides once again agreed to resolve the issue peacefully, as domestic issues dominated.

* The balance of influence had decisively tilted in Pakistan's favour by the late 1980s, with people's sympathy no longer with the Indian union as it had been in 1947-48 and 1965.

Mrs Gandhi's attempts to install puppet governments in state capitals, manipulating the democratic process in the state legislatures, deeply angered the Kashmiris.

* The status quo was largely maintained until 1989 when pro-independence and pro-Pakistan guerrillas struck in the Indian Kashmir valley. They established a reign of terror and drove out almost all the Hindus from the valley before the Indian army moved in to flush them out. Meanwhile Indian and Pakistani troops regularly exchanged fire at the border.

Whereas in 1948 India took the Kashmir issue to the UN and was all for a plebiscite, by the 1990s it hid behind the Simla agreement and thwarted any attempts at UN or third-party mediation.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1399992/A-brief-history-of-the-K...
report post quote code quick quote reply
+1 -3Dislike x 3Facepalm x 1
back to top
Rank Image
sipraomer's avatar
Offline
MARS
1,823
Brother
336
sipraomer's avatar
#259 [Permalink] Posted on 2nd March 2019 18:18
sipraomer wrote:
View original post


Quote:
If this is the thinking of a non practicing uneducated muslim then guess what will be the thinking and emotional state of practicing educated ones. Pakistan is not halwa. We have 200 million nuclear war heads (i.e. Pakhtoons) and in Ghazwat ul Hind every momin who can come here whether they are Afghanis, Irani Sunnis, Momineen of Central Asia, whoever will be able to come will come and who ever will be able to join will join because of the sacredness of this war. So our real fighters will be among the civilians without pay but with passion and eman and not from wage earning army.


sipraomer wrote:
View original post


Quote:
If Pakistan Army announces a new unit of around 20,000 "Martyr Troops" with the similar number of vehicles which are heavily loaded with explosives then (even if it is just an announcement and doesn't materialize) I think it would be deterrent enough to stop India from her evil designs.


Maulana Doctor Manzoor Mangal HA saying almost similar things.
report post quote code quick quote reply
No post ratings
back to top
Rank Image
bint e aisha's avatar
Offline
Unspecified
1,126
Sister
428
bint e aisha's avatar
#260 [Permalink] Posted on 2nd March 2019 18:24
Arfatzafar wrote:
View original post

So you have clearly sided with the filthy mushrikeen just based on nationalism. Shame on you! You too will be held responsible for the sufferings of Kashmiri Muslims on the day of judgement. I repeat the dua the brother above made: May Allah's wrath descend upon the Indian army that is oppressing the Kashmiri people and those who are supporting it. Ameen
report post quote code quick quote reply
+0 -0Ameen x 4
back to top
Rank Image
Offline
Unspecified
362
Brother
482
#261 [Permalink] Posted on 2nd March 2019 18:34
bint e aisha wrote:
View original post

May the mushrik lovers end up with their beloved on the Day of Judgement.
report post quote code quick quote reply
+0 -0Ameen x 4
back to top
Rank Image
bint e aisha's avatar
Offline
Unspecified
1,126
Sister
428
bint e aisha's avatar
#262 [Permalink] Posted on 2nd March 2019 18:39
InshaAllah if Ghazwa e Hind happens in our lifetime, we will be fighting munafiqeen along with mushrikeen.
report post quote code quick quote reply
+1 -0Agree x 2
back to top
Rank Image
Muadh_Khan's avatar
Offline
UK
9,335
Brother
7,817
Muadh_Khan's avatar
#263 [Permalink] Posted on 2nd March 2019 18:42

Mufti Tariq Masood (HA) on release of Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman

www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaN-2fmk1Lc

Question: Imran Khan has released the captive pilot so quickly, is it the right decision? Because India will think that Pakistan got scared.

Response: This action has been taken by Imran Khan so ask him!

Please understand that it does not befit everyone to comment on every single issue. For example, I issue an opinion here that he (Imran Khan) should not have released the captive pilot or should have negotiated the release of (prisoners ) etc then people will praise me (for my opinion) but what knowledge do I have to comment on the matter?

I have no idea what their plans are. I do not know what their long term planning is to avoid war. A person is not necessarily afraid but due circumstances demand a particular action. Prophet Muhammad (Sallallaho Alaihe Wassallam) accepted conditions (for a peace treaty) at Hudaybia which apparently did not look rational or fair or just, was (Ma’azallah) Prophet Muhammad (Sallallaho Alaihe Wassallam) afraid? Prophet Muhammad (Sallallaho Alaihe Wassallam) had 1400 companions who had made a pledge on death, if they were afraid then they would not have made a pledge upon death.

However prudence demanded a truce and certain conditions.

I have no idea what are the thoughts and planning of PTI Government. The only way to comment on this (release of the captive pilot) is to sit with Government and discuss the issue with them in depth. Then to sit with those with an opposing opinion and listen to their point of view in depth. Then to analyse both opinions and issue an opinion (of ours).

Until then, we do not have a choice but to trust and appreciate the decision with the caveat that the decision has been taken after due diligence and consideration. It is not praiseworthy to knit pick and look for faults and deficiencies without reason in Islam. There has to be strong evidence to the contrary. There is strong evidence supporting the opposite opinion that perhaps our Government should have bargained for the release of prisoners of war (being held by India), this is a valid point. But why didn’t they opt for this option, we do not know. We do not have the full picture and the complete knowledge.

One of our teachers narrated told us something which is worth consideration. He said that when people get married they are congratulated. There is potential for divorce, there is potential for incompatibility, if you know the boy or the girl you may (strongly) feel that it is not the right decision (for them) but you still congratulate the couple. People disregard all (potential) eventualities and they say whatever could have happened has happened and lets congratulate the couple and given them best wishes.

If Imran Khan was consulting me and you and us and if he was roaming around asking everyone then we would have also given our opinion. But now, what is done is done! Why are you all getting stressed out about it?

Right or wrong, a decision has been taken with the best of intentions so let’s all be happy and go with that.

We gave a bath to the pilot, gave him (new) clothes, gave him (free) tea and…

Actually, I am getting memes on WhatsApp about a “mess bill” from PAF (Pakistan Air force) of a “Chai Bill” in return of a MIG…These are just memes for people to enjoy…

Take a chill pill! There is no prohibition by (Government) for being happy…

Yes, they should exert pressure and also negotiate the release of (prisoners). In fact, they should say that if we have displayed good behaviour then you should also reciprocate and this should be the focus of the Government.

What is done is done! When someone is married (and you didn’t think that it was the right choice) let it go…You can of course ask them to consult when the second (child) is getting married but let it go…

Mufti Tariq Masood
Darul-Iftaa
Jamiatur Rasheed, Karachi





report post quote code quick quote reply
+2 -0
back to top
Rank Image
bint e aisha's avatar
Offline
Unspecified
1,126
Sister
428
bint e aisha's avatar
#264 [Permalink] Posted on 2nd March 2019 19:12
Today I'm feeling so happy and satisfied that I was born in Pakistan and not in India. Alhamdulillah. May Allah ta'ala have mercy on my grandparents who migrated from India and saved our Iman. May Allah ta'ala be pleased with them and grant them Jannatul Firdous.
report post quote code quick quote reply
+5 -0Like x 2Ameen x 2Winner x 3
back to top
Rank Image
Offline
Unspecified
1,913
Brother
2,890
#265 [Permalink] Posted on 2nd March 2019 19:35
Arfatzafar wrote:
View original post


Okay nice bit of revisionist history with a pro-Indian slant.

Firstly lets look at the source. The Daily Telegraph is one of the most Pro-Zionists publications in the west. Which has a history of taking an anti-Muslim slant on every issue.
Article you posted was written in 2001. During the ownership of Conrad Black of the Daily Telegraph.

Conrad Black is a fanatically pro-Israel Jewish businessman from Canada, was also the owner of the Jerusalem post.

What you have done here is use a defacto Israeli publication. In order to justify your pro-Indian position. In a court of law the Daily Telegraph would be considered a hostile witness. Whatsmore the article you have linked has not been attributed to a particular journalist or writer..Normally when there is no attribution in The Daily Telegraph it is usually to do with Palestine and they want to hide the fact the writer is an Israeli. Therefore we can surmise this particular article was written by an Indian Journalist.

And if you attend any journalism course in the U.K. you will quickly realise that lying through half truths and ommisions..is considered an art form in the west. While the Indian Journalists lie blatantly the british do it with flair and panache.

The article glosses over the fact that Kashmir a majority muslim state was sold to a non-muslim ruler in 1846 for 10 million rupees by the British. Which began the brutal rule of the dhogras and brutal oppression of the muslims in Kashmir.

The article then claims out of all the states in India Kashmir a majority muslim state was given the option of becoming independent or choosing between Pakistan or India. Why only Kashmir? Why was this option not given to Punjab for example which had signficant high non-muslim population.

The fact is no state would have been able to survive on its own in 1947 least of all Kashmir. Which is land locked and has no access tocthe sea ports.. the choice was fairly simple either a relationship with India or Pakistan.

When it looked like Hari Singh was going to hook up with the Indian side and was negotiating a deal so he would remain leader and was going against the wishes of the Kashmiri population.

The Kashmiri people revolted there was an uprising, the Kashmiris appealed for help. The pathans and others arrived in droves. Hari Singh quickly ceded to India and fled. The reasons the Indians took this to the U.N. was they where losing and the entire Kashmiri Population was against them. At the U.N . They promised a refrendum to the Kashmiris which they had no intention of honouring knowing that they would lose and placed a puppet leader as chief minister.

No mention in the article of the fact the"Black Day" has been commerated in Kashmir every year on the anniversary of Indias annexation.

No mention of the fact that Kashmiris have never accepted Indian rule...no mention of the genocide and massrape of the Kashmiri muslims.

Only the so-called ethnic cleansing of Hindu pandits by muslims...another myth.

The article is a great piece of fiction. Equivalent to the articles on the creation of Israel and annexation of Palestine.

After all the issue of Kashmir could be settled tomorrow if they gave the Kashmiri people a referendum that would end the conflict. The Indians know that the Kashmiri nation will never choose India.

So instead of posting fictionalised and revisionist history written by pro-Israeli publications.. I suggest you look up the Quran 4:75.

See what the Quran has to say on the issue of Kashmir.




report post quote code quick quote reply
+6 -0Like x 3Winner x 2
back to top
Rank Image
Abdullah1's avatar
Unspecified
532
Brother
318
Abdullah1's avatar
#266 [Permalink] Posted on 2nd March 2019 19:48
Hindu ingrates say that although abhinandan wasn't physically tortured but still he was mentally harassed. Someone ask them that did we invite him Pakistan on some walima? He came to kill Pakistani Soldiers and may be he was involved in the agression the day before he was captured. If the target was that madrassa whose board was shown on media, he would have killed small innocent kids doing hifz and dars e nizami if Allah hadn't protected them.
If still Pak released him unscathed and without squeezing information out of him, they should be very grateful. But they aren't, which disgusts me.

This whole situation reveals that your ingratitude towards beneficent is most disgusting thing to do.

Allah JJ has given us so much but still we don't give thanks to him the way we should be giving.

اللهم اجعلنا لك شكارا
report post quote code quick quote reply
+3 -0Like x 2Agree x 1Winner x 2
back to top
Rank Image
Muadh_Khan's avatar
Offline
UK
9,335
Brother
7,817
Muadh_Khan's avatar
#267 [Permalink] Posted on 2nd March 2019 20:23
report post quote code quick quote reply
+1 -0
back to top
Rank Image
Offline
Unspecified
1,913
Brother
2,890
#268 [Permalink] Posted on 2nd March 2019 21:20
In other news Khaleej Mag. Which is based in the UAE i believe has started a petition to the United Nations, on change.org. To have narendra modi declared a global terrorist.

Sorry I dont know how to post links using an android phone.
report post quote code quick quote reply
+1 -0
back to top
Rank Image
Unspecified
742
Brother
500
#269 [Permalink] Posted on 3rd March 2019 02:39
Modi is defeated !

His designs to plunge the region into a senseless,destructive war failed miserably,His efforts to use Indian armed forces for his election campaign backfired,his unholy game to use bloodshed and destruction as a political tool thwarted....

He stands alone,angry,confused and frustrated.

His defeat is NOT the defeat of India.India is a great country with a wonderful civilisation and history.For thousands of years it has kept its arms open to different civilisations and cultures,absorbing the good in them into its own.It is the narrow minded,arrogant and ignorant ‘Hindutva’ mentality which is defeated.

Time for Indians to give them a sound thrashing in up coming elections.Only then will India shine,else it will break up into multiple small pieces.

The rise of India depends upon the fall of Modi and his safron extremism.
report post quote code quick quote reply
+1 -0Agree x 2Winner x 1
back to top
Rank Image
Arfatzafar's avatar
Offline
India
1,258
Brother
1,484
Arfatzafar's avatar
#270 [Permalink] Posted on 3rd March 2019 05:27
The United Arab Emirates, the current chair of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, said on Saturday that it looked forward to the grouping strengthening its relations with India.

UAE foreign minister Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nahyan told a news conference at the end of the meeting of OIC’s Council of Foreign Ministers, “I think the OIC has sent a very clear and positive sign to India... that the OIC appreciates the relationship with India and looks forward to strengthening such a relationship to a point where we can embrace India one day in the OIC.”

He was responding to an Indian journalist’s question about resolutions passed by the meeting that referred to alleged atrocities in Kashmir and the air strike against a Jaish-e-Mohammed facility at Balakot.

External affairs minister Sushma Swaraj addressed the inaugural session of the meeting on Friday as a guest of honour and made a thinly veiled attack on Pakistan-backed terrorism. Pakistan’s foreign minister boycotted the meeting over the invitation to India though, Islamabad sent a delegation.

Al Nahyan said matters should be looked at from a “positive angle”. Referring to the issue of an enhanced relationship between India and OIC, he said: “I know we are not there yet for obvious reasons but what I can say (is) that having India as a guest of honour was a historic moment for the OIC.

“It was a historic moment for India definitely and the language that you are referring to (on Kashmir) has been in our previous statements. The most important...change in the OIC today towards India is having India as a guest of honour and having such a positive, strong, dedicated speech that we heard yesterday from India.”

Referring to the resolutions on Kashmir, external affairs ministry spokesperson Raveesh Kumar said, “Our stand is consistent and well known. We reaffirm that Jammu and Kashmir is an integral part of India and is a matter strictly internal to India.”

Kumar said India appreciates the “historic gesture” of being invited to the meeting on the 50th anniversary of OIC’s first meet.
People familiar with developments said OIC resolutions are not negotiated and include issues suggested by all members. The Abu Dhabi Declaration, a negotiated document, had no mention of India or Kashmir.

A statement from Pakistan’s Foreign Office said the OIC resolutions stated Kashmir was the “core dispute” with India. They also expressed “grave concern” over “Indian violation of Pakistani airspace, affirmed Pakistan’s right to self-defence”. They also called for restraint and de-escalation.
www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/united-arab-emirates-se...
report post quote code quick quote reply
+1 -0
back to top

Jump to page: