| 02:28pm, 5th Apr 2008 |
The British Raj was a good thing for muslims |
Fojee_Rajpuri
[Profile - Diary]
Msg no: 37416
|
Can't disagree with you that it was good for Muslims in that part of the world.
70% of Punjab was just given to Pakistan even though the minority Sikhs owned the majority of Punjabi lands.
Though, try telling that to those killed during Partition... |
|
|
| 03:38pm, 5th Apr 2008 |
The British Raj was a good thing for muslims |
labh_janjua
[Profile - Diary]
Msg no: 37418
|
agreed.
and the sikhs got fucked over the most.
|
|
|
| 05:40pm, 5th Apr 2008 |
The British Raj was a good thing for muslims |
Nakh_Teh_Makhi
[Profile - Diary]
Msg no: 37419
|
'...even though the minority Sikhs owned the majority of Punjabi lands.'
Where did you gain this information from? |
|
|
| 12:46am, 6th Apr 2008 |
The British Raj was a good thing for muslims |
Smooth_stallion
[Profile - Diary]
Msg no: 37420
|
Hmm... is this Bobby digital a historian of Indian subcontinent or something? always comes up with controversial comments.. i dont care tbh... both countries are a dump without forign investment today. Most countries over the globe would struggle socially and economically without somesort of international/outside influence... |
|
|
| 11:02am, 6th Apr 2008 |
The British Raj was a good thing for muslims |
plagarism
[Profile - Diary]
Msg no: 37422
|
you know what, muslims in india - a minority will complain they are treated badly but most of them are happy.
rewind to pre partition times, it was exactly the same situation.
Only upper class people like jinnah (did he really understand the needs of the common indian muslim?) who had their own agendas pushed for this pakistan.
i mean look at india now, muslims still have the same benefits as their brothers in pakistan - some may argue more e.g. hajj subsidy.
was it really neccessary? are indians such bastard rulers to muslims? i dont think so. bobby stop dwelling over such matters and help sort out the utter mess pakistan is in TODAY. |
|
|
| 02:45pm, 6th Apr 2008 |
The British Raj was a good thing for muslims |
bobby_digital
[Profile - Diary]
Msg no: 37425
|
@plagarism
That does not prove anything. The muslim population in india happens to be the most persecuted and despised minority.
But you are obviously living in some dream world where reality has no meaning. Read this very carefully
http://www.thestar.com/comment/columnists/article/180176
India's Muslims deemed to be in dire straits
Haroon Siddiqui sums up a federal report that has global implications
Feb 11, 2007 04:30 AM
Haroon Siddiqui
NEW DELHI--The president of India is a Muslim. The leading tennis star, Sania Mirza, is a Muslim woman. Three members of the national cricket XI are Muslim. So are the biggest stars of the ubiquitous Bollywood movies, as also India's two leading and world-renowned painters, M. F. Husain and Tyeb Mehta.
Yet, in the many paradoxes that characterize India, the 150-million Muslim minority in this nation of 1.3 billion is in crisis, due to entrenched official and social discrimination, according to a federal commission.
The Prime Minister's High-Level Committee, as it was called, was headed by Rajindar Sachar, retired chief justice of the Delhi High Court.
His unflinching report, released two months ago, is under intense national debate. It has international relevance as well:
Many of the prejudices it cites have an eerie echo of the West's post-9/11 Islamophobia.
The fate of the world's second-largest group of Muslims, after Indonesia's 180 million, does matter. For example, Indian Muslim moderation has been held up by both India and the U.S. as proof that a secular democracy is a good antidote to terrorism. That argument gets eroded if such a polity fails the community, as Sachar declares.
Historically Muslims have been a minority in the subcontinent, albeit a ruling one for several centuries. But when British India was divided in 1947, Muslims formed a majority in Pakistan. When Pakistan itself got carved up in 1971, Muslims formed a majority in Bangladesh as well. But they are a minority in India where, at times, they have been accused of dual loyalty to Pakistan and targeted in periodic pogroms.
Sachar says Muslims "carry a double burden of being 'anti-national' and being 'appeased' at the same time. They must prove on a daily basis that they're not 'anti-nation' and `terrorists.' It is not recognized that the alleged 'appeasement' has not resulted in the desired level of socio-economic development" for them.
During sectarian violence, his seven-member commission says, Muslims are victimized many times over:
By the Hindu communalists who attack them.
By police who side with the criminals and are "heavy-handed" with Muslims, raiding their homes "at the slightest pretext."
By media, which "overplay the involvement of Muslims in violent activities and underplay the involvement of others."
By governments that fail to "bring to book the perpetrators of communal violence" and fail to compensate Muslim victims.
Muslims – "fearing for their safety and security" and fleeing "social boycott in certain parts of the country," where they cannot buy or rent property – are abandoning areas "they have lived in for centuries," and moving to Muslim areas.
"Distress sales" of properties in the areas they are fleeing from fetch them a low price, while they pay inflated prices in the "secure" areas they move to.
Worse, Muslim neighbourhoods have become "easy targets for neglect by municipal and government authorities. Water, sanitation, electricity, schools, public health facilities, banking, ration shops, roads and transportation facilities are all in short supply in these areas."
Muslims, clustered in urban areas, are poorer than others.
"Their conditions on the whole are only slightly better than those of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes" – those on the lowest rungs of the Hindu caste system and traditionally the most discriminated against.
Only 27 per cent of urban Muslims are engaged in regular work vs. 49 per cent for upper caste Hindus and 40 per cent for the scheduled castes, Sachar says.
In the coveted public sector, Muslims have the lowest share, 24 per cent vs. 39 per cent for the lower castes. In federal police, the share of Muslims is just 6 per cent vs. 42 per cent for upper caste Hindus and 23 per cent for the lower castes. In defence-related jobs, Muslims have only 4 per cent of the jobs.
Muslims are, of necessity, disproportionately self-employed, as casual labour or street vendors – that, too, without fixed locations. Yet they do not have proportionate access to credit, in part because their areas are ill-served by banks.
As disheartening as all this is, it is worth noting in the context of Indian democracy that Sachar is a Hindu, and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who is promising a series of remedial measures, is a Sikh.
|
|
|
| 02:50pm, 6th Apr 2008 |
The British Raj was a good thing for muslims |
bobby_digital
[Profile - Diary]
Msg no: 37426
|
http://www.bostonreview.net/BR29.3/nussbaum.html
Body of the Nation
Why women were mutilated in Gujarat
Martha C. Nussbaum
I. What Happened
8 On February 27, 2002, the Sabarmati express train arrived in the station of Godhra, in the western Indian state of Gujarat, packed with Hindu pilgrims who were returning from Ayodhya. Ayodhya, as the alleged birthplace of the god Rama, has been a focal point of Hindu anti-Muslim feeling for several decades. In 1992, Hindu zealots destroyed the 16th-century Babri mosque there, claiming that it covered the remains of a Hindu temple. The pilgrimage, like many others in recent times, aimed at forcibly constructing a temple over the disputed site, and the mood of the returning passengers, stymied by the government and the courts, was angry. When the train stopped at the station, passengers got into arguments with Muslim vendors and passengers. At least one Muslim vendor was beaten up when he refused to say “Jai Sri Ram” (“Hail Ram”), and a young Muslim girl narrowly escaped forcible abduction. As the train left the station, stones were thrown at it, apparently by Muslims.
Fifteen minutes later, one car of the train erupted in flames. Fifty-eight men, women, and children died in the fire. Most of the dead were Hindus. Attempts to determine what really happened by reconstructing the event have shown only that a large amount of a flammable substance must have been thrown from inside the train. Because the area adjacent to the tracks was an area of Muslim dwellings, and because a Muslim mob had gathered in the vicinity to protest the incident on the train platform, blame was immediately put on Muslims. (Later, a number of public figures argued that the blaze was set by Hindu nationalists attempting to provoke a rampage.)
In the days that followed, wave upon wave of violence swept through the state. The attackers were Hindus, many of them highly politicized, shouting Hindu-right slogans, such as “Hail Ram” (a religious invocation wrenched from its original devotional and peaceful meaning) and “Hail Hanuman” (a monkey god traditionally celebrated for loyalty, but portrayed by the Hindu right as highly aggressive), along with “Kill!,” “Destroy!,” “Slaughter!” There is copious evidence that the violence was planned before the precipitating event. The victims were almost all Muslims, with an occasional Christian or Parsi thrown in. There was no connection between the identity of the victims and the identity of alleged perpetrators: attacks took place, for the most part, far from the original site. In fact, many families of the original dead implored the mobs to stop. Nonetheless, more than 2,000 Muslims were killed in a few days, many by being burned alive in or near their homes. No one was spared: young children were burned along with their families.
Particularly striking were the mass rapes and mutilations of women. The typical tactic was first to rape or gang-rape the woman, then to torture her, and then to set her on fire and kill her. Although the fact that most of the dead were incinerated makes a precise sex count of the bodies impossible, one mass grave that was discovered contained more than half female bodies. Many victims of rape and torture are also among the survivors who have testified. The historian Tanika Sarkar, who played a leading role in investigating the events and interviewing witnesses, has argued in an important article that the evident preoccupation with destroying women’s sexual organs reveals “a dark sexual obsession about allegedly ultra-virile Muslim male bodies and overfertile Muslim female ones, that inspire[s] and sustain[s] the figures of paranoia and revenge.”1 This sexual obsession is evident in the hate literature circulated during the carnage, of which the following “poem” is a typical example:
Narendra Modi [Chief Minister of Gujarat] you have fucked the mother of [Muslims]
The volcano which was inactive for years has erupted
It has burnt the arse of [Muslims] and made them dance nude
We have untied the penises which were tied till now
Without castor oil in the arse we have made them cry. . .
Wake up Hindus, there are still [Muslims] alive around you
Learn from Panvad village where their mother was fucked
She was fucked standing while she kept shouting
She enjoyed the uncircumcised penis
With a Hindu government the Hindus have the power to annihilate [Muslims]
Kick them in the arse to drive them out of not only villages and cities but also the country.
[The word rendered “Muslims” (“miyas”) is a word meaning “mister” that is standardly used to refer to Muslims.]
As Sarkar says, the incitement to violence is suffused with anxiety about male sexuality, and the treatment of women that resulted seems to enact a fantasy of sexual sadism far darker than mere revenge. In an affidavit submitted to the Commission of Enquiry in June 2002, the leading feminist legal activist Flavia Agnes testified that although sexual crime is a common part of communal violence, the “scale and extent of atrocities perpetrated upon innocent Muslim women during the recent violence, far exceeds any reported sexual crime during any previous riots in the country in the post-independence period.”2
|
|
|
| 05:44pm, 6th Apr 2008 |
The British Raj was a good thing for muslims |
POLITICALY_INCORRECT
[Profile - Diary]
Msg no: 37427
|
If Indian Muslims dont like the way Hindus run India, they can fuck off to Pakistan. |
|
|
| 05:58pm, 6th Apr 2008 |
The British Raj was a good thing for muslims |
plagarism
[Profile - Diary]
Msg no: 37428
|
^^thing is PI, its not even about that. The thing is only a minority of indian muslims are mistreated and a minority are anti india. The majority of indian muslims probably dont think twice about stuff like that.
Any fool can copy and paste articles, hell bobby digital i could find articles about how pakistanis have mistreated its minorities in the past if you want me to.
That first article of yours serves absolute purpose in this , its full of holes e.g. and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who is promising a series of remedial measures, is a Sikh.
Whats what gotta do with anything. |
|
|
| 06:12pm, 6th Apr 2008 |
The British Raj was a good thing for muslims |
GulabJamun
[Profile - Diary]
Msg no: 37429
|
...what about how kaffirs are treated in Muslim countries?
|
|
|
| 06:22pm, 6th Apr 2008 |
The British Raj was a good thing for muslims |
rikshawalla
[Profile - Diary]
Msg no: 37430
|
nice fishing by bobbydigital/saf/halal butcher - got a decent catch as well. |
|
|
| 06:40pm, 6th Apr 2008 |
The British Raj was a good thing for muslims |
rikshawalla
[Profile - Diary]
Msg no: 37431
|
GulabJamun, kaffirs being mistreated in Pakistan or elsewhere doesn't really excuse the way Muslims are treated in India.
That said playing the victim all the time won't help anyones cause.
The truth is,in modern India if you're poor you'll will get pissed upon by the authorities regardless of whether you're muslim, hindu or a scientologist.
|
|
|
| 07:28am, 7th Apr 2008 |
The British Raj was a good thing for muslims |
pumpernikel
[Profile - Diary]
Msg no: 37433
|
I totally agree with plagarism..
On a recent trip to India, we decided to go to Bombay as I had never been and it was an easier route to Goa.
Anyhow , I found Bombay to have many more Muslims than Delhi, where is were I always go cos my family are largely based there.
Over our 5 days we had many taxi drivers .
I know this is a mild and perhaps mediorcre reflection of how the wider muslims feel in india. I spoke to most these drivers in an open way as we tend to spend a fair amt of the day with them. One of them clearly said that he loved india from the bottom of his heart. I asked him how he felt about pakistan and he replied " huh, pakistan, india jassa que bee dunia mai koi be juga naihee" there is no place like India in this entire world. He spoke of complete love and considered Pakistan to be his own enemy. I was actually quite taken aback by this. I could expand on this conversation but I fear that it would instigate a ruckus.
It was the time of the cricket world cup and all these drivers were very anxious for India to come up at top. |
|
|
| 09:11am, 7th Apr 2008 |
The British Raj was a good thing for muslims |
bathing_ape
[Profile - Diary]
Msg no: 37435
|
I do know many Indian muslims who are fiercely proud of being Indian and actually have contempt for Pakistan, like most other Muslims. |
|
|
| 11:34am, 7th Apr 2008 |
The British Raj was a good thing for muslims |
Dal_me_kuch_kala_hai
[Profile - Diary]
Msg no: 37438
|
I'm sure the 2 million slaughtered east pakistanis would disagree with you bobby. |
|
|
| 12:02pm, 7th Apr 2008 |
The British Raj was a good thing for muslims |
Shitface_McCunty
[Profile - Diary]
Msg no: 37440
|
"'...even though the minority Sikhs owned the majority of Punjabi lands.'
Where did you gain this information from?"
The bloke who said thus is correct.
It doesn't take alot of research to find out these facts yourself, but according to official statistics from that time Sikhs and Hindus together owned well over 80% of the properties of Lahore.
As for farmland....in the Lyallpur and Montgomery districts alone (faisalbad and sahiwal)...the jat sikhs alone owned well over 85% of the land. It was a similar story in other districts.
After partition, these lands and properties were given freely to muslim refugees from Indian Punjab.
By contrast, the muslim refugees from Indian punjab were poor and property-less....so the sikhs and hindus that had to move to Indian Punjab had nothing to inherit....because the muslim refugees that left had nothing to leave behind. |
|
|
| 01:48pm, 7th Apr 2008 |
The British Raj was a good thing for muslims |
k4sh
[Profile - Diary]
Msg no: 37441
|
Well then maybe these landowners should have stayed and fought for their property like many other sikhs and hindus did instead of just dumping their daughters down the nearest well and then legging it to their beloved hindustan.
Look how well the minority community in Sindh is doing now. |
|
|
| 02:31pm, 7th Apr 2008 |
The British Raj was a good thing for muslims |
pumpernikel
[Profile - Diary]
Msg no: 37442
|
I think it was a good call by the majority of landowners to move… my great granddad's family owned a very lavish koti in punjab that they lost in the partition.
50 odd years after they recently went to see it and they were very sad to witness that after more than half a century, nothing whatsoever had been done to that koti, it stood as they had left but now in a dilapidated state. Mush like how Pakistan stands now as a country … being labelled the most dangerous country in the world recently by the Economist.
Where India called the golden bird is now uncovering its wings for the world to witness. Jai Hindustan, Raj Karai Ga! |
|
|
| 03:18pm, 7th Apr 2008 |
The British Raj was a good thing for muslims |
think_tank
[Profile - Diary]
Msg no: 37443
|
Let history be written by self-appointed historians like Bobby-d, and one would fall foul of all facts that India has endured during invasions of century after century.
Just like the Wheelers theory of marauding savages of the Harrapan period or the theory of the Aryan invasion to justify imperialism.
BTW the British Raj ruled India cos the Hindus let them to rid the country of Moghul rule. Get your facts right.... It was Hindus that needed the British used them and then got rid of them..
I ain't going to go into all the history of this on here cos, the historians here are like Wheeler, who interepret events to suit themselves not interested in facts and figures. |
|
|
| 02:35pm, 16th Apr 2008 |
The British Raj was a good thing for muslims |
volvic
[Profile - Diary]
Msg no: 37507
|
. |
|
|
| 10:41pm, 18th Apr 2008 |
The British Raj was a good thing for muslims |
Fojee_Rajpuri
[Profile - Diary]
Msg no: 37523
|
Look how well the minority community in Sindh is doing now.
LOL
Yeah and look at how well the rest of the country's doing... |
|
|
| 05:04pm, 19th Apr 2008 |
|
Nakh_Teh_Makhi
[Profile - Diary]
Msg no: 37536
|
"It doesn't take alot of research to find out these facts yourself, but according to official statistics from that time Sikhs and Hindus together owned well over 80% of the properties of Lahore.
As for farmland....in the Lyallpur and Montgomery districts alone (faisalbad and sahiwal)...the jat sikhs alone owned well over 85% of the land. It was a similar story in other districts.
After partition, these lands and properties were given freely to muslim refugees from Indian Punjab.
By contrast, the muslim refugees from Indian punjab were poor and property-less....so the sikhs and hindus that had to move to Indian Punjab had nothing to inherit....because the muslim refugees that left had nothing to leave behind."
I never said whether it was right or wrong, I'm just wondering where I can find these official statistics.
And as for the rest of what your saying sounds like heebie jeebies to me
 |
|
|
| 07:41pm, 19th Apr 2008 |
|
Shitface_McCunty
[Profile - Diary]
Msg no: 37537
|
^"And as for the rest of what your saying sounds like heebie jeebies to me "
 No surprises there then.
Lets take a step by step look at the fortunes of the two communities, and then take a guess at which one you might be....nakh teh makhi.
1) Punjab is united. Lahore, its biggest city is 80% muslim and yet the sikhs and hindus own over 80% of the properties in Lahore. In the rest of Punjab its a similar story......sikhs and hindus are progressive and hard working and end up owning most of the land.
2) Punjab is divided. The hard working entrapeuners (sikhs and hindus) have to leave and give all their hard earned properties to muslims, go to Indian Punjab and start all over again. The muslims on the other hand, as Punjabs poorest community have nothing to leave behind but inherit for nothing the properties of the sikhs and hindus.
3) The sikhs and hindus go on and start from scratch in Indian Punjab and within a decade make it by far the richest state in India.
4) The muslims inherit the infrastructure left behind by the sikhs and hindus in Pakistan Punjab and yet still manage to screw it up and turn it into south Asia's failed nation.
5) Indian Punjabis emigrate en masse to Britain. Pakistani Punjabis emigrate to Britain en masse.
The Indians go on to be Britains most successfull community ; highest home ownership....lowest reliance on social security...lowest crime rate etc etc). The Pakistanis however??? Oh Dear.
Lets just end it here. This is getting embarassing.
lets just say our experiences here have mirrored exaactly the experience of our fathers back in Punjab. |
|
|
| 08:46pm, 19th Apr 2008 |
|
Nakh_Teh_Makhi
[Profile - Diary]
Msg no: 37539
|
Lmao @ your ignorance and obvious despise for Pakistanis, those deviants ey.
All I asked for was where can I find these official statistics from, which was in regard to the initial comment: 'minority Sikhs owned the majority of Punjabi lands.' thats all squire, no need to get all huffy puffy about it.
I like this perverted interpretation you have of your false findings.
|
|
|
| 09:09pm, 19th Apr 2008 |
|
Fojee_Rajpuri
[Profile - Diary]
Msg no: 37541
|
I like this perverted interpretation you have of your false findings
Actually... with regards to Shitface's comments about Sikhs being the most likely to own their own homes- that came from the 2001 National Census.
And as for his comments about reliance on Social Security- he's wrong.
Amongst South Asians, the percentage of Indians that claim Income Support stands at 40% (hardly anything to shout about in my opinion) but set against the proportion of Pakistani households doing so- which stands at 80%- the figures bear out that Pakistani households are twice as likely as their Indian counterparts to claim this form of state benefit. |
|
|
| 10:10pm, 19th Apr 2008 |
|
Nakh_Teh_Makhi
[Profile - Diary]
Msg no: 37542
|
When I said interpretation I said it in regards to 'lets just say our experiences here have mirrored exaactly the experience of our fathers back in Punjab.' and 'Indian Punjabis emigrate en masse to Britain. Pakistani Punjabis emigrate to Britain en masse...blah blah blah...crime rate '
Personally I don't see how homeownership and social security is related to pre-partition. Is it his way of declaring Indian superiority over the Pakistanis?.
I believe you should both read up on dyslexia, you might get a free laptop out of it when/if you reach uni 
I didn't bother pointing out the errors in your readings because I didn't want to sound pathetic but looks like I'm going to have to resort to such measures.
Fojee referred to Sikhs (only) in regards to owning majority of Punjabi lands which Shitface confirmed whilst throwing in Hindu counterparts into the equation.
I'm one to say whether that is true or not because I have no idea, I was merely asking your source for this information.
Fojee, if you read what he wrote he is referring to Pakistani Punjabis and Indian Punjabis,before you provide me with statistics even though he somehow merges that into Pakistani and Indians. The Pakistani Punjabis are a minority out of the Pakistani population in the U.K in comparison to their Kashmiri/Mirpuri brethrens.
All I'm asking for is a source for the following comments:
In the Lyallpur and Montgomery districts alone, the Jatt sikhs owned well over 85% of the land.
Sikhs and Hindus together owned well over 80% of the properties of Lahore.
The Muslims on the other hand, as Punjabs poorest community have nothing to leave behind but inherit for nothing the properties of the sikhs and hindus.
and this last one...
'...even though the minority Sikhs owned the majority of Punjabi lands.'
Cheers big ears.
 |
|
|
| 10:54pm, 19th Apr 2008 |
|
nwa
[Profile - Diary]
Msg no: 37543
|
There are several reasons why they did that
However, changes in social structure and communal organisation began to take place after the British established modern education institutions and a capitalist economy. Muslim aversion to British rule prevailed even in the Punjab. In fact during the 19th century Wahhabis had gained influence in the Punjab as a result of the jihad movement launched by Syed Ahmed Shahid Brelvi. Moreover, modern banking and investment procedures introduced by the British were unacceptable to the Muslims. Due to such factors Hindus and Sikhs left Muslims behind in educational and economic terms.
The stratum that gained most from the opportunities created by the colonial order was the Hindu trading castes of Khatris and Aroras and Sikhs of the same stock. Hindus and Sikhs were the first to take to modern education and establish modern businesses and enterprises. From the beginning of the 20th century urban Hindus and Sikhs established a firm hold over the modern economy. Hindu-Sikh partnerships and joint business ventures were noteworthy but Muslims were almost invariably excluded.
By:Ishtiaq Ahmed
http://www.apnaorg.com/articles/ishtiaq4/ |
|
|
| 12:43pm, 20th Apr 2008 |
|
Fojee_Rajpuri
[Profile - Diary]
Msg no: 37549
|
I like a spot of verbal fisticuffs on a Sunday afternoon.
En garde...
Personally I don't see how homeownership and social security is related to pre-partition
If someone's already stated that they believe the experiences of Indian and Pakistani immigrants into Britain reflects the reality of their situations pre-Partition, then I agree it's a roundabout way of providing any sense of comparison with regards to the socio-economic status of the two groups, but the best way I can think of comparing experiences of the two groups is to take findings that act as common economic indicators that we do have available- such as the rate of home ownership, reliance upon Social Security etc. etc.- to evaluate the similarities evident between the experiences of both groups both pre-Partition and after their immigration to another country.
I believe you should both read up on dyslexia, you might get a free laptop out of it when/if you reach uni
Now, now, dyslexia is a serious condition that afflicts upon those unfortunate enough to be blighted with it, a real detriment to their lives.
I don't appreciate your mocking references.
And as for University- do you feel great about yourself that you have a degree?
I'm really happy for you but the fact is that with or without one I'll no doubt turn out- and probably are hitherto- more successful than you.
Next...
I didn't bother pointing out the errors in your readings because I didn't want to sound pathetic but looks like I'm going to have to resort to such measures
OK, fine.
Pakistani Punjabis emigrate to Britain en masse
That should be immigrate.
Is it his way of declaring Indian superiority over the Pakistanis?.
You don't finish a sentence with two punctual marks.
Punjabis,before
Should have been a space between the comma mark and before.
and this last one...
The and should begin with a capital A.
Fojee, if you read what he wrote he is referring to Pakistani Punjabis and Indian Punjabis,before you provide me with statistics even though he somehow merges that into Pakistani and Indians. The Pakistani Punjabis are a minority out of the Pakistani population in the U.K in comparison to their Kashmiri/Mirpuri brethrens.
You ask for statistics and I gave you them.
Now you want to break those down between the state from where these people came from.
Shall I dig around and break it down to a village level?
How about man to man? |
|
|
| 05:41pm, 20th Apr 2008 |
|
Nakh_Teh_Makhi
[Profile - Diary]
Msg no: 37555
|
Lol funny lad, I'm not trying to get one over anyone here. I don't understand why your backing his irrelevant points, he it because he backed yours with his 'well over 143%' statistics.
I'm not asking you to break down the statistics, I'm asking you to recognise the stupidity of his comments.
Narrow it down to the village level? is that question aimed at me or him? I didn't break it down to states, neither did he, hes took it one step furthur - hes not even speaking about the Pakistani Punjabis or Indian Punjabis, hes comparing the Mohajir's of Pakistan and India and the progression of those that moved to the U.K. Hes bonkers.
The majority of Pakistanis in the U.K were not effected by partition, neither are they Punjabi. Hes crazy, I tell ya. |
|
|
| 09:16pm, 20th Apr 2008 |
|
Fojee_Rajpuri
[Profile - Diary]
Msg no: 37557
|
Lol funny lad, I'm not trying to get one over anyone here.
Course you ain't, son!
*Ahem*...
I believe you should both read up on dyslexia, you might get a free laptop out of it when/if you reach uni
Hes bonkers... Hes crazy, I tell ya.
![]() http://ganjataz.com/general-bollocks/images/by-GT/forum-shitz/pot-kettle-black.jpg
That's Nakh_Teh_Makhi done with.
NEXT! |
|
|
| 09:39pm, 20th Apr 2008 |
|
Nakh_Teh_Makhi
[Profile - Diary]
Msg no: 37560
|
Genuine concern my comarade.
Comments made by both of you demonstrate you both have a superiority complex. |
|
|
| 09:51pm, 20th Apr 2008 |
|
Fojee_Rajpuri
[Profile - Diary]
Msg no: 37561
|
I do.
I never denied it.
I'm better than you.
I'll wave my willy again if I have to.
And talking of superiority complexes...
I believe you should both read up on dyslexia, you might get a free laptop out of it when/if you reach uni
WAHEY!
That's 3 times I've used one of your own quotes to nullify your arguments.
Take 2:
![]() http://www.kimrichter.com/Blog/uploaded_images/Pot-calling-the-kettle-black-734818.jpg |
|
|
| 08:56am, 21st Apr 2008 |
|
bathing_ape
[Profile - Diary]
Msg no: 37579
|
I think we should all be grateful for the excellent railways and the roads.
Also Cricket.
And afternoon tea.
What what, top hole, I say Witherspoon go out and bag us a fuzzy wuzzy the punkahwala's run awf. |
|
|
| 08:04pm, 23rd Apr 2008 |
|
Nakh_Teh_Makhi
[Profile - Diary]
Msg no: 37620
|
Fojee, I'm sorry I was being a prat whatever the situation back in 1947 doesn't reflect now, pre partition sikhs muslims and hindus lived as brethrens as we do now in the U.K anyone who can't see past race or creed is blind and ignorant especially those who celebrate the demise of others. |
|
|
| 09:43pm, 24th Apr 2008 |
|
Fojee_Rajpuri
[Profile - Diary]
Msg no: 37632
|
Just stop posting. |
|
|
| 11:34pm, 25th Apr 2008 |
|
think_tank
[Profile - Diary]
Msg no: 37642
|
"Comments made by both of you demonstrate you both have a superiority complex."
There is no such thing as "superiority complex", its inferiority complex that perplex people to act big. |
|
|
| 05:46am, 26th Apr 2008 |
|
Ellusive
[Profile - Diary]
Msg no: 37643
|
I see the twat fest called current affairs is alive and kicking.. ( :
play on!!!  |
|
|
| 08:12pm, 5th May 2008 |
|
Nakh_Teh_Makhi
[Profile - Diary]
Msg no: 37666
|
'...even though the minority Sikhs owned the majority of Punjabi lands.'
Is this comment true or false, where can I find information for this. |
|
|
| 10:11pm, 6th May 2008 |
|
kaalia_81
[Profile - Diary]
Msg no: 37677
|
british arrival was great, peoples arses were kicked into gear across the board.
dont be so selfish and claim maximum benefit for a particular religious group! did wonders for all in general and gave some of us the avenue to get the hell outta there! |
|
|
| 08:17pm, 10th May 2008 |
|
mits
[Profile - Diary]
Msg no: 37711
|
i've noticed that bobby starts a thread on an anti india / on islam religion and f's off leaving everyone else to argue.
just don't encourage him....he's always going to remain a miserable ignorant racist who will see all "kafirs" as enemies.
just be thankful people like him are a minority and most people in this world get along fine regardless of religion, race and other differences.
|
|
|
