"All muslims are not terrorist but all terrorists are muslims"- A Myth

It is a myth that "all muslims are not terrorist, but all terrorists are muslims". If this is right then just look at some of the terrorist incident happened in India and try to find out who was behind these incidents.

आतंकवाद - दोषी कौन?1- मालेगाँव का बम विस्फोट किन लोगो का षड्यंत्र था?

2- अजमेर दरगाह का बम विस्फोट किन लोगो का षड्यंत्र था?

3- मक्का मस्जिद का बम विस्फोट किन लोगो का षड्यंत्र था?

4- समझौता एक्सप्रेस का बम विस्फोट किन लोगो का षड्यंत्र था?

5- नांदेड में संघ कार्यकर्ता राजकोंडवार के घर में बम बनाते हुए विस्फोट, जिसमें दो बजरंग दल के कार्यकर्ता मारे गए थे और पुलिस ने वहा से नकली दाड़ी और शेरवानी , कुरता , पायजामा भी बरामद किया था?

6- गोरखपुर का सिलसिलेवार बम विस्फोट किन लोगो का षड्यंत्र था?

7- मुंबई ट्रेन बम विस्फोट किन लोगो का षड्यंत्र था?

8- घाटकोपर में बेस्ट की बस में हुए बम विस्फोट किन लोगो का षड्यंत्र था?

9- वाराणसी बम विस्फोट किन लोगो का षड्यंत्र था?

10- कानपुर बम विस्फोट किन लोगो का षड्यंत्र थाविश्लेषण?

You may be surprised but all these terrorist plot were executed by hindu terrorists and are as follows- 

1- मालेगाँव का बम विस्फोटलेफ़्टिनेंट कर्नल श्रीकांत, साध्वी प्रज्ञा सिंह ठाकुर,

2- अजमेर दरगाह का बम विस्फोटस्वामी असीमानंद , इंद्रेश कुमार (आरएसएस के वरिष्ठ नेता), देवेंद्र गुप्ता, साध्वी प्रज्ञा सिंह, सुनील जोशी, संदीप डांगे, रामचंद्र कलसांगरा उर्फ रामजी, शिवम धाक़ड, लोकेश शर्मा, समंदर , योगी आदित्यनाथ

3- मक्का मस्जिद का बम विस्फोटस्वामी असीमानंद एन्ड कंपनी

4- समझौता एक्सप्रेस का बम विस्फोटस्वामी असीमानंद एन्ड कंपनी

5- नांदेड बम विस्फोटसंघ कार्यकर्ता राजकोंडवार

6- गोरखपुर का सिलसिलेवार बम विस्फोटपुलिस ने कलकत्ता के एक आफ़ताब आलम अन्सारी है, को गिरिफतार किया था बाद मे कोर्ट से बा ईज्जत रिहा हुये

7- मुंबई ट्रेन बम विस्फोट किन लोगो का षड्यंत्र थाआज तक सच सामने नही आया

8- घाटकोपर में बेस्ट की बस में हुए बम विस्फोटआज तक सच सामने नही आया

9- वाराणसी बम विस्फोट किन लोगो का षड्यंत्र थाआज तक सच सामने नही आया

10- कानपुर बम विस्फोटबजरंग दल कार्यकर्ता , भूपेन्द्र सिंह छावड़ा और राजीव मिश्रा

Now we need to think, Is their any difference between Taliban, muslim extrimist and hindu extrimist? Answer is none. Every extrimist group thinks that it is doing great service to its religion or country but reality is otherwise. These religious leaders brainwash people in such a manner that even killing someone seems right for them. Hindus are told by their leaders that temples are being destroyed and hindus are being murdered so kill muslims, similarly muslims are being told by their leaders that hindus are destroying their religion and mosques, so if you want to save your religion kill hindus. Both the extremist group take pride and boast about killing the people from other religion. My friends take it from me, whoever says killing is justifiable and is a matter of pride under some conditions (i.e. if done for saving religion etc) is taking you to a wrong path. The day you start thinking about killing someone without any guilt, just accept this you have been brainwashed and need proper guidance. To justify killing people argue that if your relatives etc are murdered/raped infront of you then also will you not kill the culprit? So a person may kill the wrongdoer in self defence as the last option(if unable to stop him otherwise) but will still have a feeling of guilt rather than pride which differentiates the act from killing the other people for pride or revenge.    

Partition of India-Pakistan. Who is right and Who is not?

First of all I am not an expert or have any degree in law/justice to decide who did the right thing and who did not. But answer to who is right and who is not in context of India-Pakistan lies in the history. A great author once said concept of justice is complex and based on the predetermined objective. So if we assume our objective is to meet the basic rules set by British govt.(or Lord Mountbatten), that is

1) Partition will be done on the basis of percentage of population of Muslims & Hindus in the state. Muslim dominated regions will go to Pakistan and hindu dominated regions will go to India.

2) All the princely states governed by local rulers will decide for themselves, to which country they want to align itself to irrespective of the majority of the population.

So before taking case of Kashmir, lets examine these rules being followed or not.

Case 1: Junagadh

Nawab Mohammad Mahabat Khanji III of Junagadh, a princely state located on the south-western end of India chose to accede to Pakistan. India asserted that Junagadh was not contiguous to Pakistan and refused to accept the Nawab's choice of accession to Pakistan. Nawab argued that Junagadh could access Pakistan by sea. India cut off supplies of fuel and coal to Junagadh, severed air and postal links, sent troops to the frontier, and occupied the principalities of Mangrol and Babariawad that had acceded to India. Pakistan agreed to discuss a plebiscite, subject to the withdrawal of Indian troops, a condition India rejected and occupied rest of Junagadh by 9 Nov 1947. The Nawab and his family fled to Pakistan and appealed United Nations, where case is still pending.

Case 2: Hyderabad

The Hyderabad State had a majority Hindu population; the Nizam wanted to accede to Pakistan or if that was not possible remain independent. However such a decision was unacceptable to India, so in 1948 Indian Armed Forces engaged those of the State of Hyderabad and ended the rule of Nizam, annexing the state into the Indian Union.

Case 3: Jammu & Kashmir

The Princely state of Kashmir and Jammu had a majority Muslim population; Muslims were 80 percent of the whole state. The Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir acceded to India at the outbreak of violence.

So we can conclude, both the basic rules were not followed anywhere leave alone Jammu & Kashmir. Also many areas with slight muslim majority near India-Pakistan border were ceded to India as alleged to have influenced the Radcliffe Line in India's favour by Sir Cyril Radcliffe(who prepared report on the India-Pakistan partition). There were some cases in east Pakistan(now Bangladesh) which ceded districts with slight hindu majority.  So looking at cases in hand as a whole Pakistan was at lose. Although legally speaking Pakistan have no right over Jammu & Kashmir but similarly India have no right over Hyderabad, Junagadh and other princely states ceded forcibly. Point is both the countries didn’t stick to rules as the process of partition was rushed through. Now it is a catch 22 situation where two kids are fighting since one did wrong so the other should also be allowed to do it or not?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_India