Deepika shows up at JNU to support students protesting against govt - Page 49

https://twitter.com/vivekagnihotri/status/1214804597925122048?s=20

https://twitter.com/TimesNow/status/1215108259578699781?s=20

Originally posted by: rkisnothot

Jinnah only had one child, a daughter named Dina. She stayed in India and married a non-Muslim. Her heirs are the famous Wadias, the family behind Bombay Dyeing.

I gave Jinnah's name as an example. It could be Zafarullah's Khan's family (over Hashim Premji). Appreciate your nitpicking (core question being the same).

Before partition itself, Jinnah's daughter Dina had married a Parsi. Father daughter relationship was estranged, as he did not approve her marrying a non Muslim. (For Jinnah, himself marrying a Parsi girl was fine, as she converted to Islam). Dina could not claim Jinnah's properties in Pakistan, as she had violated Islamic rules. Her heirs are strangely claiming Jinnah house in India based on Hindu property law (stating Jinnah was a Khoja Shia, not Muslim).

None of this support, Muslims stayed in India out of love (Dina in her letter has congratulated her father for creating Pakistan).

Originally posted by: rkisnothot

You have no way to know who stayed for what reason. Their motivations do not matter because we have no way to know or judge that. If that mattered, half the people shouting nationalist slogans in India only do it because they have to live there because they have no other choice. A huge percentage would get out of dodge at the first chance if UK/Canada or American citizenship was available to them.

Trying to figure out what is in someone's heart is pointless and colored by our own biases.

If a person applies for US/UK visa, gets rejected, later tells that he stayed in India out of love, will we believe him? If he goes further and says, he should be admired for the fact that he "chose" to stay in India, we find it ridiculous.

(This is what Ponymo stated before. ".. It's not a myth that Muslims chose India. They did. They did not leave this country despite having the opportunity to do so. They could have moved to a country where they could have become a majority but they chose to stay in a country where they are a minority.." )

A man applying for visa, later staying in India, does not make him a lesser citizen than others. But if he expects a special treatment for his stay, people will bring up his past. At least, his act of applying for another country's citizenship did not harm others. But Muslims voting for two nations, affected millions.

This was one of the reasons Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and Patel clashed as Azad expected preferential treatment for the Muslims who stayed back in India.

Originally posted by: flipfl0p

If a person applies for US/UK visa, gets rejected, later tells that he stayed in India out of love, will we believe him? If he goes further and says, he should be admired for the fact that he "chose" to stay in India, we find it ridiculous.

The reasons do not matter. Nobody picks a country out of love. Either you are stuck in a place because you are born there and you don't know anything else or you deliberately become an immigrant and move to a foreign land for a better life.

Many Muslims stayed in India because it was their birthplace and it was most convenient to stay. Same reason most Hindus stayed in India. Others ventured to other countries because they saw better lives for themselves elsewhere.

Whoever stayed deserve the same rights and privileges and are not second-class citizens because one group considers themselves superior or more deserving of that land.

Nobody should be admired for anything, neither Hindus or Muslims or Christians. However, all deserve the same rights. They are not being given them as a favor. It belongs to them.

Originally posted by: rkisnothot

Many Muslims stayed in India because it was their birthplace and it was most convenient to stay.

Yet they also helped in carving Pakistan, a separate land for Muslims.

Originally posted by: rkisnothot

Whoever stayed deserve the same rights and privileges and are not second-class citizens because one group considers themselves superior or more deserving of that land.

Maulana Azad wanted the houses that Muslims vacated in India during partition to be reserved for Muslims. Patel considered it descriminatory. There were plenty of Hindu refugees from Pakistan too (whose house were taken over by Muslims migrated from India). Patel said, a secular government should not be discriminatory. Who was right?

Who were treated as second class citizens?

Originally posted by: rkisnothot

However, all deserve the same rights. They are not being given them as a favor. It belongs to them.

Then why a community is opposing Uniform Civil Code?

I don't understand why some people don't understand that this is a law now. You don't need to do all this zabardasti to prove majority. 😆

https://twitter.com/Hindutva__watch/status/1215250968578670593

Fees ke paise nahi but 🤣

https://twitter.com/rishibagree/status/1215282004553388032?s=19

Originally posted by: ZanduBaaM

Fees ke paise nahi but 🤣

https://twitter.com/rishibagree/status/1215282004553388032?s=19

gosh the people in the video, dont even look like, from under poverty line families

https://twitter.com/vivekagnihotri/status/1215456433740771328?s=20

https://twitter.com/ABVPVoice/status/1215321121119186947?s=20