NB: HINDUSTAN NOT ONLY HAS ITALIANS, MUSLIMS, "BHAYYAS", "BUNYAS", "CHUTYAS", BANDITS AND THE LIKES OF "BOFORS CHOR", BUT ALSO PROUD AND WARRIOR COMMUNITIES LIKE THE TAMILS, THE GURKHAS, THE RAJPUTS, THE MARATHAS, THE DOGRAS, THE JATS, THE PROUD HINDUS AND THE COMMITTED SIKHS.
"The Times", London, July 26, 2002, wrote this in its Supplement on page 5, under the heading, "Superior Women Throughout The Ages":
(Quote) Sultana Razia of Delhi (1236-1240). Only woman to sit on the throne in Delhi: an Indian Muslim who tried to reduce discrimination against Hindus. (Unquote).
Please see the implications of the words "woman", "Indian Muslim" and "to reduce discrimination against the Hindus".
That was 800 years ago. Will a historian in 2802 AD write,
Abdul Kalam of Delhi (2002-2002): A eunuch, an Indian Muslim, assumed the office of Supreme Commander since Liberation from the Britisih, to defend Hindustan from the Italian predators, and to reduce discrimination against the Hindus."
Isn't it time to tell the IGNORANT Hindu nation that Bandit Nehru's Independence was, in fact and reality, PARTITIOIN, and each and every Muslim man, woman and eunuch, is PERSONA NON GRATA, to be expelled to Pakistan, under the terms of the "Act of Unconditional Surrender of India, 1947" (by which Rawalpindi, Lahore, Multan, Sylhet and Chittagong went to Islam), in order to enable a glorious and shining Bharatvarsha to emerge, as well as to take the spit away from the Rajput's turban and put DIGNITY in it, instead?
Before we touch the feet of another Mohammedan, however deceptively secular, let us see Lahore in SECULAR India first.
Wouldn't that be the proof that the Hindu nation has a spine, and some guts?
And what about the dignity of the native Hindu WOMEN throughout Hindustan? Who do *they* relate to in "Rashtrapati Bhawan" and "Bollywood"?