Discussion in 'Pakistan' started by chase, Dec 31, 2012.
Muhammad Ali Jinnah would be whirling in his grave.
It will be a disaster for India.
Coming from where i think it is coming from ,
Good stuff .
The five indo-pakistani wars would be avoided, and today India would not have needs to keep a mighty army.
Hmm...trailer looks good but unrealistic. Reality though would be quite different today if India were not divided in 1947. India would be a Muslim majority nation with the combined populations of Pakistan, Bangladesh and India and the anchors would be using Urdu rather than shuddha Hindi words such as dhanyayavad etc. It is good in a way that people who wanted to have a religious state moved out leaving the rest of India alone to progress. Perhaps even the name Bharat itself would not hv been used to describe India as shown in the trailer.
Kya Dilli Kya Lahore
The movie is about a cross-fire that takes place in an isolated stretch of India-Pak border, where only two soldiers are left. The two soldiers belong to the opposing armies, however they share a connection. The Indian soldier is of Pakistani origin with a home in Lahore. The Pakistani soldier is of Indian origin with a home in Delhi. The movie unfolds dramatically with fire-shots and as the conversation between the two characters takes place, the emotions and confusions that resulted from partition are apparent. The movie talks about a serious theme, without being preachy.
First Look of the movie was unveiled at Wagah Border (Panjab) with a symbolic colourful flag lowering ceremony. The star cast held a candle light vigil on 14th August 2012. And, giant posters of the movie were set up where hundreds flocked to watch the ceremony. The first look has been very impressive and Gulzar's shayari from the movie has already touched people's hearts.
About the movie, Raaz says that "It is a very emotional film" for him and that "It is a very innocent story" "The film comes with the message that humanity is bigger than any religion or any country and that's what we have tried to convey through the film."
About involvement in the movie, Gulzar sahib says that "This subject (partition) is very close" to his heart and he has been "writing about it a lot." He further adds, "After seeing the film, I was surprised to know that many youngsters have been associated with the film and yet they have brought the essence of the whole film so well. Karan had brought the script to me and after they completed the film, he brought it to show it to me. The film was bang on. The film talks about peace yet is not preachy and there is no blood shed, it is a human drama and very relevant." 
You will witness more sectarian violence than one can imagine. All the Government servants will be doing fighting over the quotas for this or that. If they cannot live peacefully among their own fellows with similar religious believes than how can you even think of this possibility of India and Pakistan united ?
Before that can happen, Bharatvarsh has to be restored to the demographic state it was
before the Islamic invasion took place.
That would require a lot of sacrifice of wealth, time and innocent lives. The time for that is not ripe. The reasons for such an endeavour does not exist as of yet. Therefore all this talk of reunion is nothing more than someone's unilateral wet dream.
India would have been in terrible shape. All the religious bigots we're seeing today would have been here instead. There would have been mass communal riots on a daily basis. The problems we see in Pakiland today with Sunnis killing Shias and Ahmadiyas would have been replicated here. India would have been a filthy terrorist rogue state.
Thank goodness for partition.
I think the OP is more about if there was no partition. I have not seen the video of no time
Reuniting is not an option. This topic has been discussed here many times.
The Original Poster has no idea about Lebanon
Lebanon is always in a state of civil war ; tensions ; quarells and disputes
between Christians and Muslims
Now multiply that by a THOUSAND TIMES and you will get the picture of a " United India "
or Undivided India
Well i think then instead of democracy , we would still have rulers rulling different parts of indian+pakistan. like UAE but more poor then UAE
But there was once united India and there were no communal riots.
Communal riots started from Bengal and not from Sindh or Punjab or NWFP. UP and Bihar were in lead to generate communalism and riots. Punjab and Sindh riots were only the consequences of partition. And never forget the British role in it.
Communal riots are a legacy of partition.
As per Stephen Cohen the three India _ Pak wars were nothing but Communal riots at large.
People in India at large are happy and settled with the consequences of partition. It is better to defend India against Pakistan than prepare yourself to defend yourselves against Iran, Afghanistan, Middle East and Central Asia.
It is better to have one less BIMARU state rather than have one more burden like Kashmir.
Pakistan is not one - there is nothing oneness about Pakistan. Pakistan is composed of Fifty nationalities. Even their Islam is not one. So even Islam has failed to bind them as proved by 1971 separation of Bengalies.
There is no advantage India gets by taking Pakistan Inside. Imagine, when 20 per cent Muslim population rules the Politicians in India, what will happen if this population were to be 35 per cent? Imran Khan would be the Prime Minister of India rather than he clamouring to be one in Pakistan. Zia Ul Haq would be the dictator of India rather than of Pakistan.
India can get the access to CAR as also dominate Persian Gulf without Pakistan being part of it. Imagine ten Divisions of India Army would have been on Durand line and another ten Divisions in Balochistan fighting the tribals which Pakistan is forced to do today!
Ye Inhanu hi Mubaraq Hon Ji ..... Chalo sada pichha chutya .....
He would be crying in his grave as neither he god Hind nor Sindh.......
Mate your point has a serious flaw
There was " peace " on the ground because the rulers were British
And even BEFORE the British arrived and established themselves as rulers
the BOGEY of ISLAM in DANGER was used by several Muslim rulers ; thinkers and clerics
Please read this
INDIAN MUSLIMS -Under Siege? | South Asia Analysis Group
The political rise of non-Muslims like Maratha, Jat and Sikh powers and consequent danger to Islam of its political heritage was unbearable to Shah Wali Ullah. The slogan of 'Islam is in danger' - is profoundly embedded to his hate-non-Muslim ideology. The successive Muslim thinkers drew inspiration from his religio-political thought and carried forward his mission, which ultimately gave birth to the Islamic politics in India.
During the rule of Muslim kings and emperors there was " peace " because the rulers were
Once the Marathas Jats Rajputs and Sikhs began to break away the
bogey of Islam in Danger was raised
This happened when still several parts of undivided India had Muslim rulers
SO the question of what will HAPPEN when the BRITISH LEAVE was troubling the Muslim minds
after 1857 Mutiny
After 1857 The British began a systematic campaign of disempowering Muslims
How many of you KNOW that DELHI was having 52 % MUSLIM population before Partition
Delhi was a Muslim City
This EXPLAINS the desire of Zaid Hamid and his ilk to CONQUER DELHI and
plant the GREEN FLAG on the RED FORT
"Islam in Danger" is a politico religious motive for waging of Jihad by the ruler to save his kingdom or enlrge it. It necessary does not mean "Kill the Hindus". Communalism of hatred based on different religion is a different practice which is practiced by religious leaders and community leaders or individuals and politicians today.
"Save Islam" is something which Al Quida practices against enemies of Islam which primarily targets states and institutions rather than communities. "Save Islam" by killing the population was not followed by Muslim Rulars. That was followed as a slogan to defend their kingdom against the enemies who happened to be non Muslims.
Conversion as a duty of King and communal-ism are two different issues.
Delhi then was Chandani Chowk and Balli Maran or Jam Maszid ..... Not today's Delhi. And why Delhi only, all cities and towns had sizeable Muslim population as cities then comprised of officials, Army, traders, artisans, craftsmen and servants who mostly used to be Muslims.
Mate you got to be kidding me
" Islam in Danger " meant that Islamic rulers were loosing control of India
MUCH before the arrival of the Brits
And it also means that the Islamic Rulers were AWARE of the demographics of INDIA
that is Muslims were in a minority
AND YET WISHED TO RULE OVER INDIA AND HINDUS
Separate names with a comma.