What's new

From Brampton to Bangladesh, anti-Hindu hate is all too real

Subramanian

BANNED
Oct 13, 2010
1,080
0
418
I highly recommend you re read your history.
Not bollywood history, but real history.

The Sikh Kingdom was one of the last independent kingdoms to be conquered by the British. And the British did it with HINDU troops. So Sikhs were not happy about that. So when some of the Hindus (and Muslims) rebelled in the 1853 rebellion, the British used Sikh troops to bring them in order. The reason they used Sikh troops was because the Sikhs wanted to settle the score with the Hindus.

You can romanticize it all you want but the fact is that in most of Indian history there was never any real unity. Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs were all fighting with each other. that's why the Brits had such an easy time conquering us.

Thats not true,

The differences of Opinion between Hindus and Sikhs and the differences between Muslims vis a vis are too different in nature.Not one and the same.
 

kingkobra

SENIOR MEMBER
Jun 15, 2010
2,781
0
2,346
Country
India
Location
India
I highly recommend you re read your history.
Not bollywood history, but real history.

The Sikh Kingdom was one of the last independent kingdoms to be conquered by the British. And the British did it with HINDU troops. So Sikhs were not happy about that. So when some of the Hindus (and Muslims) rebelled in the 1853 rebellion, the British used Sikh troops to bring them in order. The reason they used Sikh troops was because the Sikhs wanted to settle the score with the Hindus.

You can romanticize it all you want but the fact is that in most of Indian history there was never any real unity. Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs were all fighting with each other. that's why the Brits had such an easy time conquering us.

You should study more about Guru Tegh Bahadurji....learn why he is called as "Hind Di Chadar" and why we Hindus go to Sikh shrines....
 

EjazR

SENIOR MEMBER
May 3, 2009
5,148
1
6,076
Ah well Jonathan Kay has now graduated from Muslim bashing to Sikh bashing now. Just read his earlier articles to know what I mean. If TOI is Toilet material, then Kay is not even worth that!

Yes there is anti-Hindu sentiment, but then, anti-Muslim sentiment is much much more real in the west and pressing than anti-Hindu sentiment. People actually get killed for being Muslim or even for "appearing to look" like muslims.

But will Jonathan Kay write about that, I don't expect him too.

Sorry but I can't stand hypocrites like him
 

Luffy 500

SENIOR MEMBER
Jan 2, 2012
5,562
2
7,420
"In neighboring Muslim-majority Bangladesh, Jamaat-e-Islami militants recently have been attacking Hindu temples"

Jammati "militants" :lol: does genius writer know the meaning of militants. If jammat is militant than
Congress and BJP are Nazi fanatics. A fart off propaganda article by an Indian that too on national
post, one of the most renowned Zionist outlet. Rather than taking this seriously this should become a troll thread.:bounce::chilli::victory:
 

EjazR

SENIOR MEMBER
May 3, 2009
5,148
1
6,076
Rusty is correct partially. People should really read history impartially instead of falling for propaganda.

But I would not categorise it as Sikh troops under British, but rather Punjabi and Pathan troops which included Sikhs and Muslims.

Initially the Company troops were recruited from Bengal, UP/Bihar provinces and comprised of Brahmins and Muslims from these regions. Together then brought a number of Indian kingdoms under British rule. This included both kingdoms rules by Muslims, Hindus and obviously Sikhs.

In the rebellion of 1857 aka the First war of Independence, It was the Muslim, Brahmin and Rajputs that rose against the British empire, built alliance with the remaining Indian kingdoms like the Marathas and the remnant of the Mughal empire where the Mughal ruler was declared the ceremonial ruler of India. However, it was the Punjabi and Pathan troops consisting mainly of Sikhs and Muslims that suppressed the rebellion. Thomas Lowe, who was present in India during that period. He wrote, of course with a great disdain, “The infanticide Rajput, the bigoted Brahmin, the fanatic Musalman, had joined together in the cause... had revolted together,” and exclaimed “To live in India, was like standing on the verge of a volcanic crater, the sides of which were fast crumbling away from our feet, while the boiling lava was ready to erupt and consume.”

This is why the theory of martial races was fabricated post 1857 by the British to increase recruitment from Punjab and NWFP and it became the sword arm and UP and Bengal recruitment was reduced. Pre-1857, it was the Bengali Brahmins and Muslims that dominated the British Indian army. The Indian Kingdoms and rulers like Maharaja of Kashmir, Nizam of Hyderbad and the Sikh princes aided the British and were rewarded later for their loyalty.

Another important fact to note is that in the War council of Bahadur Shah Zafar, has military commanders from the south as well as British who fought on the Indian side, alongwith Hindus and Sikhs who held important positions. Interestingly, there were Muslim spies in his cabinet who gave crucial military information to the British during the rebellion leading to the fall of Delhi.
http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-history-strategy/34583-fall-delhi-1857-a.html

In any case, the important thing to note from history is don't fall for this cheap tactic of westerners creating distrust and hatred among different communities in India. The Rajona issue is a "ghar ka mamla". Indians will sort it out and no need for gratuitous references from people like Jonathan Kay.
 

Rusty

ELITE MEMBER
Jun 19, 2011
8,632
3
13,750
Country
Canada
Location
Pakistan
Utter BS..Sikhs sided with British bcs some people involved in 1853 openly declared that it done for the restoration of the Mogul Empire. This sent shivers down the spine of Sikhs who suffered the most at the hands of the Moguls and was not ready to do it again. According to many historians, this declaration, was one of the stupidest things that disintegrated the rebellion.

I realize that you have to say such silly things to protect you deep held hatred for Muslims.
But historically speaking you are wrong.
By 1857 the Mughals were emperors by name only.
They were not a threat to anyone.
The Sikhs on the other hand, still had the fresh memory of their Hindu brothers kicking their @$$es in the name of the British.
Read scholarly journals on this, the British themselves have said that they used the Sikhs because the Sikhs were pissed at the Hindus.


Oh and on a somewhat related topic.
For all you Indian e-warriors here who hate Muslims and Mughals.
Who did your forefathers turn to when they rebelled against the British?
The Mughals of course, and their message to Bahdur Shaw was "You are our sovereign, kick out these British and take back India"
Just some delicious Irony that the vast majority of you people would rather pretend didn't happen. :whistle:
 

Nalwa

FULL MEMBER
Nov 23, 2010
826
0
891
I realize that you have to say such silly things to protect you deep held hatred for Muslims.
But historically speaking you are wrong.
By 1857 the Mughals were emperors by name only.
They were not a threat to anyone.
The Sikhs on the other hand, still had the fresh memory of their Hindu brothers kicking their @$$es in the name of the British.
Read scholarly journals on this, the British themselves have said that they used the Sikhs because the Sikhs were pissed at the Hindus.


Oh and on a somewhat related topic.
For all you Indian e-warriors here who hate Muslims and Mughals.
Who did your forefathers turn to when they rebelled against the British?
The Mughals of course, and their message to Bahdur Shaw was "You are our sovereign, kick out these British and take back India"
Just some delicious Irony that the vast majority of you people would rather pretend didn't happen. :whistle:

And what scholarly journals do your refer to? Did they not tell you that Hindus too lived with Sikhs in the united Punjab empire? So did the Punjabi Sikhs also kill their own neighbors to take revenge for their losses against the British?

Perhaps you'd like to go back and check the composition of the Company's fighting forces in those days. The Europeans numbered more than the Natives in the British regiments in the Anglo-Sikh wars. So its incomprehensible for Sikhs to have hatred for Hindus in general.

What some allude to though is that there was a regional divide. The Punjabi soldiers (mainly Sikhs and Muslims) saw the predominantly native soldiers employed from eastern states like Awadh, Bengal etc as weak and lacking in courage. Indeed, during the Anglo-Sikh battles the native regiments were used less as the 'spear thrust' but rather in a holding pattern. Hence they were usually at the fag end of the attack while the main thrust was carried out by the better trained and experienced European troops. This must have left an impression on the opposing Punjabis and Pathans.
 

Karachiite

BANNED
May 1, 2010
3,044
-2
5,077
Country
Pakistan
Location
Canada
Well currently in Brampton its not really anti Hindu sentiments but sentiments against the Indian govt for hanging that Sikh guy. Brampton is predominantly Sikh and many have expressed their outrage. A lot of Sikhs are protesting against the hanging and many in Brampton have stuck orange flags on their houses and cars. Many people in Brampton are still sour about the 1984 events and many simply refer to them selves as Punjabi rather than Indian.

As for the Hindu hate in the countries the author mentioned, I can easily change the countries names and then label that those countries are anti Christian, Atheist, Muslim etc.
 

Mattrixx

BANNED
Mar 18, 2012
1,733
0
1,568
Country
Bangladesh
Location
Bangladesh
Cant say about others but we r not anti hindus.We always keep good relation with hindus.Which is rare in india but what today a trend is that lots of hate towards india.& u surely know the causes(so many...........................)

If india is operated by hindus u can call us anti hindu or anything:coffee:
 

scholseys

SENIOR MEMBER
Dec 28, 2011
6,428
-13
4,826
Country
Bangladesh
Location
Canada
:lol:i live in Mississauga and its very close to Brampton, I have never met a sikh that calls himself Indian. They all refer themselves as punjabi. I took classes at UofT mississauga and lot of punjabi folks there, they are more proud to be punjabi than Indians. My very close friend is a punjabi and he is so pro khalistani:lol:
 

bajwajatt19844

FULL MEMBER

New Recruit

Feb 25, 2012
41
0
19
there is no anti hindu feeling in punjab....hindus and sikhs are living in peace......in recent election in punjab akali dal sikh political party give ticket to 11 hindus candidates and 10 came out as winner on sikh dominated seat...true sikh dont hate any religion......anti hindu feelings largely exit amongst some section of Khatri sikh and jat sikh of doaba......jat of malwa,majha and and migrated jat from west punjab are very much pro india ...khalistan is a died issue in punjab.... pro-khalistan political parties get 0.97% vote share in punjab ..lol...jat sikh who controll the sikh politices dont support the ides of khalisthan....
 

anonymus

BANNED
Sep 22, 2011
3,872
-6
5,083
Country
India
Location
India
I highly recommend you re read your history.
Not bollywood history, but real history.

The Sikh Kingdom was one of the last independent kingdoms to be conquered by the British. And the British did it with HINDU troops. So Sikhs were not happy about that. So when some of the Hindus (and Muslims) rebelled in the 1853 rebellion, the British used Sikh troops to bring them in order. The reason they used Sikh troops was because the Sikhs wanted to settle the score with the Hindus.

You can romanticize it all you want but the fact is that in most of Indian history there was never any real unity. Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs were all fighting with each other. that's why the Brits had such an easy time conquering us.

It is recommended you re read your history.
Not madrassa history, but real history.

Firstly,it was 1857 not 1853,

secondly in those times people did not fought for flag or country but for "Namak" or say whosoever pays more.They were paid mercenerys.

Thirdly, Britishers used British troops not "Hindu troops".If America invades Pakistan with army drafted solely from American muslims,would pakistanis blame america and fight back or commit mass suicide since invaders are muslims.A clear case of identity confusion. SaVVY.

fourthly but priorly secondly,Britishers used troops drafted from all religions.The most important role played in seige of Lucknow was by gurkha battalion.So were hindus wanted to avenge some percived greviance they had against themselves.

Fifth, A lot of muslim rulers sided and aided british.That's how nawab of hyedrabad and junagarh were existing in 1947.

sixth,A lot of muslims fought for british,Syed ahemad khan who planted ideological sapling of pakistan is prime example.


I realize that you have to say such silly things to protect you deep held hatred for Muslims.
But historically speaking you are wrong.
By 1857 the Mughals were emperors by name only.
They were not a threat to anyone.
The Sikhs on the other hand, still had the fresh memory of their Hindu brothers kicking their @$$es in the name of the British.
Read scholarly journals on this, the British themselves have said that they used the Sikhs because the Sikhs were pissed at the Hindus.


Oh and on a somewhat related topic.
For all you Indian e-warriors here who hate Muslims and Mughals.
Who did your forefathers turn to when they rebelled against the British?
The Mughals of course, and their message to Bahdur Shaw was "You are our sovereign, kick out these British and take back India"
Just some delicious Irony that the vast majority of you people would rather pretend didn't happen.
:whistle:

The people who participated were as far away from patriotic bunch as it could get.It was a motley crew of a

A Peshwa who has been denied a pension

A princess whose son has not been accepted as heir of the throne

A queen who mismanaged her riasat so badly that even Dalhousie was aghast at state of affairs

Zamindars whose estates have been confiscated

Religious fanatics who hated britishers

A mughal who was made emperor at gunpoint

A pissed off band of soldiers who had varied grievances against britain.


They were not fighting for country or people but for getting their former privileges restored.A despotic ruler was a best symbolic choice for them.Had i been there in 1857,i would have fought for british even if i had a knowledge of the loot and plunder that would follow.

Victory for rebels would have meant over 500 countries instead of 3 and perpetual condemnation to live in a religious theocracy whether hindu or muslim.

Apart from rani laxmibai,all other leaders were simply Pu$$Y.they fled at first sign of fightback

Zafar was a surrender monkey

Begum hazrat mahal and Nana sahib fled to nepal

Said zamindars sided with britishers at first opportunity(After they were promised their estates to be restored).

A side note:Until 20th century muslims were treated as a different cast of hindus rather than a completely different religion.
 

xTra

SENIOR MEMBER
Feb 4, 2011
2,215
-2
2,786
Country
India
Location
India
:lol:i live in Mississauga and its very close to Brampton, I have never met a sikh that calls himself Indian. They all refer themselves as punjabi. I took classes at UofT mississauga and lot of punjabi folks there, they are more proud to be punjabi than Indians. My very close friend is a punjabi and he is so pro khalistani:lol:

Why it is that all the Pakistani and Bangladeshi have close friend who are Pro Khalistani.
 

Rusty

ELITE MEMBER
Jun 19, 2011
8,632
3
13,750
Country
Canada
Location
Pakistan
It is recommended you re read your history.
Not madrassa history, but real history.

Firstly,it was 1857 not 1853,

secondly in those times people did not fought for flag or country but for "Namak" or say whosoever pays more.They were paid mercenerys.

Thirdly, Britishers used British troops not "Hindu troops".If America invades Pakistan with army drafted solely from American muslims,would pakistanis blame america and fight back or commit mass suicide since invaders are muslims.A clear case of identity confusion. SaVVY.

fourthly but priorly secondly,Britishers used troops drafted from all religions.The most important role played in seige of Lucknow was by gurkha battalion.So were hindus wanted to avenge some percived greviance they had against themselves.

Fifth, A lot of muslim rulers sided and aided british.That's how nawab of hyedrabad and junagarh were existing in 1947.

sixth,A lot of muslims fought for british,Syed ahemad khan who planted ideological sapling of pakistan is prime example.




The people who participated were as far away from patriotic bunch as it could get.It was a motley crew of a

A Peshwa who has been denied a pension

A princess whose son has not been accepted as heir of the throne

A queen who mismanaged her riasat so badly that even Dalhousie was aghast at state of affairs

Zamindars whose estates have been confiscated

Religious fanatics who hated britishers

A mughal who was made emperor at gunpoint

A pissed off band of soldiers who had varied grievances against britain.


They were not fighting for country or people but for getting their former privileges restored.A despotic ruler was a best symbolic choice for them.Had i been there in 1857,i would have fought for british even if i had a knowledge of the loot and plunder that would follow.

Victory for rebels would have meant over 500 countries instead of 3 and perpetual condemnation to live in a religious theocracy whether hindu or muslim.

Apart from rani laxmibai,all other leaders were simply Pu$$Y.they fled at first sign of fightback

Zafar was a surrender monkey

Begum hazrat mahal and Nana sahib fled to nepal

Said zamindars sided with britishers at first opportunity(After they were promised their estates to be restored).

A side note:Until 20th century muslims were treated as a different cast of hindus rather than a completely different religion.



My my, the e-warrior is strong within this one.
Madrassa history?
What in the world is that?
Kindly explain.
But before you explain that, tell me why you are stalking me.
Clearly you are (attempting to) stalk me, otherwise how else can you make such a personal allegation?

But it seems, like most things ;) , you failed at even this simple task.

And yes, it was 1857, I made a mistake on the number. I could go back an edit it but now I don't want to deny you this simple victory :)

Okay so lets get down to business.

1. Yes there was no nationalism back then, but people still held grudges for losing.
2. you can spin it all you want, but in the eyes of the Sikhs, they were betrayed by their Hindu bothers. And 1857 was payback time.
3. And a lot of Hindu rulers sided with British as well. What's your point?

And finally.
Once again, you can put all the spin you want on it.
It doesn't change the fact that the freedom fighters of 1857 were majority Hindu and Muslim who wanted the Mughals to kick out the British.
Of course since the Muslims are the good guys in this case, you will use your special "Indian logic" to twist this into making the British the good guys and the Muslims as the evil corrupter of those poor Hindu soldiers.:cry:
 

scrumpy

FULL MEMBER
Oct 31, 2009
1,068
0
987
Country
India
Location
United Kingdom
One question to the guys who support Rajoana. What about the 17 people other than Beant Singh. Should we simply call them collateral damage and ignore them? I guess their lives weren't as important as Beant Singh's death.

Rajona was a terrorist.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom