Recent Posts



Saturday, 28 February 2009
A Tale of Two Partitions: India 1947 and Palestine 1948

by Norman Berdichevsky (March 2009)

A few academics and editorial writers claiming to be scholars and quite a few liberal pundits/observers, have argued that some blame for the recent atrocious acts of terror in Mumbai should be put on India’s Hindus by stressing that the terrorist group of “disaffected Muslims” carrying out the outrage of random murder of civilians was “probably funded from outside India." They believe as Fareed Zakaria stated in Newsweek, that Indian Hindus “had it coming” because "One of the untold stories of India is that the Muslim population has not shared in the boom the country has enjoyed over the last 10 years. There is still a lot of institutional discrimination, and many remain persecuted." 
Posted on 02/28/2009 5:15 PM by NER
25 Oct 2014
A Holifield
Excellent...and needs to be shouted from the rooftops.

15 Jul 2014
Send an emailrenu
This is not accurate at all. Muslims are not one homogenous group at all and certainly not at the time of partition. You have included that freedom fighters against the British were both Muslim and Hindu. Scores of Muslims did not agree with the inception of Pakistan, that's why you still have millions living in India and NOT Pakistan. There were no elections to vote in the inception of Pakistan, so you stating 'muslims wanted a muslim state' ie Pakistan is wholly inaccurate. The British didn't care what state India was left in. Britain was in the midst of the 2nd world war. It couldn't have cared less about's empire was crumbling around it's ears. You sound like a zionist. Jews like muslims, christians, hindus are not homogenous groups that can be clumped together. At least state your a Zionist as this article is certainly biased and is very generalised and not very well researched from a humanistic point of view.

27 Oct 2009
Send an emailzaman

i dont think it is telling right history of partition .why muslims demand for other country from congress why .because they was not getting their rights .and you said hindus was killed by muslims but what about the muslims .was muslims not killed by hindus havent you remember that .its not your mistake a muslim is not human for you because you are antiislamic person.well read complete history then write article dont spread false propaganda

16 Mar 2009

 The Author

---The main contention of the sub-continent muslim is that since India was under Muslim rule & the British had snatched India from them , then they should have rightly handed over it back to the Muslims, so they still feel that the English betrayed them & it's their right to re-establish muslim rule in India.

In the quran there's this mentioning of :Ghazwatul Hind-

The Prophet of War said, "Two groups of my Ummah Allah has protected from the hellfire: a group that will conquer India and a group that will be with 'Eessa bin Maryam - " (Ahmad, an-Nisa'i, and at-Tabarani.)

---This is their main motivation factor,


16 Mar 2009
Send an emailDr.S.Srinivasan

A well written article, with no factual inacruracies.  That elections in Kashmir were rigged by Indian politicians is not glossed over shows that the author has no affiliations towards India.

His logic about the intolerance of any  Muslim regime unassailable.

We hope the apologists for Muslims' behaviour in India realise their folly and reform themselves.