how many of you support shashi taroor

[batman2]

u urself agree there was mass migration and then turn around and ask what is difference between 1947 and 1951. 

[uttermost]

1 minute ago, batman2 said:

rather than calling each other loser/winner ..............this statement is for every1 to see and judge.......

lol. okay.

either your point was 1947 - 1951 was several decades, when Hindus were systematically butchered..

or that 1947-51 was a short time, when Hindus were horribly butchered.

when the truth is that Hindus migrated to India, and ofcourse some of them got killed during partition. So did muslims who tried to cross to the other side.

[uttermost]

1 minute ago, batman2 said:

u urself agree there was mass migration and then turn around and ask what is difference between 1947 and 1951. 

dude, there was partition, and obviously there was mass migration. what's your point?

 

[uttermost]

chillara yedhavalu, arguing for chillara points. lol.

[batman2]

3 minutes ago, uttermost said:

lol. okay.

either your point was 1947 - 1951 was several decades, when Hindus were systematically butchered..

or that 1947-51 was a short time, when Hindus were horribly butchered.

when the truth is that Hindus migrated to India, and ofcourse some of them got killed during partition. So did muslims who tried to cross to the other side.

go by present day india/pak and 3 parameters.....

1)population before partition

2)population after partition'

3)population now

you will get the difference between hindus and ur half dcik half brothers born in harems of invaders

[uttermost]

1 minute ago, batman2 said:

go by present day india/pak and 3 parameters.....

1)population before partition

2)population after partition'

3)population now

you will get the difference between hindus and ur half dcik half brothers born in harems of invaders

[uttermost]

anyway, Sanghis today learned that Hindu population in Pakistan was 1% in 1951.

that's a start. good luck. I'm done talking to logically challenged dumbfcuks.

[batman2]

take history of india

1) number of hindu kings who ascended the throne by killing their father/brother

2) number of muslim kings ascending throne by killing their father/brother

you will get the difference between the culture of the land of hindus and the culture of a cult born in the deserts of S.audi Ara,bia founded by a marauding p.edophile warrior who claimed he know god

[uttermost]

Just now, batman2 said:

take history of india

1) number of hindu kings who ascended the throne by killing their father/brother

2) number of muslim kings ascending throne by killing their father/brother

you will get the difference between the culture of the land of hindus and the culture of a cult born in the deserts of S.audi Ara,bia founded by a marauding p.edophile warrior who claimed he know god

[uttermost]

such hatred for muslims. lol.

 

[uttermost]

can't even have a decent conversation.

[batman2]

Just now, uttermost said:

anyway, Sanghis today learned that Hindu population in Pakistan was 1% in 1951.

that's a start. good luck. I'm done talking to logically challenged dumbfcuks.

so JNU batch today understood that Indian muslims were less than 10 percent in 1947 and not 30% and mass migration of hindus and muslims weren't the same........I consider as one of my major achievements.......I will continue to opens eyes of the dumbfcks

[uttermost]

The moron conveniently forgot that he claimed muslim population as 10%, in India, and Hindus in pakistan as 14% haha..

something to do with 47-51 I guess.. something happened at that time.

what could it be

oh muslim pop was not 30% in India then, because 47-51 one should check specific dates to get to the specific population percentage it seems, because it'll show us something fundamental to understand about hindus and muslims. haha..

fcuking asshole liar, you lied about knowing what you post here. just STFU and get lost.

[batman2]

5 minutes ago, uttermost said:

such hatred for muslims. lol.

 

hatred or not is subjective.........well there is something called stating blind facts without any fear of not being looked at as nice liberal pig

[uttermost]

13 minutes ago, batman2 said:

so JNU batch today understood that Indian muslims were less than 10 percent in 1947 and not 30% and mass migration of hindus and muslims weren't the same........I consider as one of my major achievements.......I will continue to opens eyes of the dumbfcks

haha.. such a slimy bastard.

so muslims in pak/bangla stayed back and Hindus in pak/bang had to move to India.

so what does it prove?

like I said brother, you claimed that pak was 14% Hindu, when pak was not even born.. so I had to claim that India was 30% muslim which is true in 1947, when pak wasn't born. lol.