Ethnic cleansing and genocidal massacres 65 years ago by Ishtiaq Ahmed

[Sam.]

Most likely. For good or worse, Hindus generally do not take the initiative in killing people en masse. Of course, they are capable, no doubt, of doing crimes as well. But the position of power that the Muezzins hold among the Muslim community is hard to match among the Hindus. The Sikhs are a different story. There were many Hindu households who used to give their eldest child to the Khalsa to serve as a Sikh for the reason.
Not trying to offend anyone, just stating the empirical evidence.

Lohe ko loha kat ta hai. Then Sikhism was born,rest are semantics.

 

[SQ8]

Most likely. For good or worse, Hindus generally do not take the initiative in killing people en masse. Of course, they are capable, no doubt, of doing crimes as well. But the position of power that the Muezzins hold among the Muslim community is hard to match among the Hindus. The Sikhs are a different story. There were many Hindu households who used to give their eldest child to the Khalsa to serve as a Sikh for the reason.
Not trying to offend anyone, just stating the empirical evidence.

Based on what history?

 

[Kabira]

Most likely. For good or worse, Hindus generally do not take the initiative in killing people en masse. Of course, they are capable, no doubt, of doing crimes as well. But the position of power that the Muezzins hold among the Muslim community is hard to match among the Hindus. The Sikhs are a different story. There were many Hindu households who used to give their eldest child to the Khalsa to serve as a Sikh for the reason.
Not trying to offend anyone, just stating the empirical evidence.

Why you always talk from perpective of feminite kashmiri brahmins? Hindus generally do not initiative in killing people en masse, really? Muslim Gujarat 2001, Sikh genocide 1984 says otherwise.

 

[Tergon18]

Analysis of partition. Just by the way.

Here is a pre-1947 map of British Colonial India, showing Muslim majority and Hindu majority regions:

With provinces represented:

Further, the focus being on Punjab, here is a map of Muslim-Hindu-Sikh percentages, in the Punjabi speaking areas of the British province of Punjab, minus the Hindi or Haryanvi areas that were to be made Himachal and Haryana:

In the Punjabi-speaking areas, Muslims formed 62% of the population.

A tehsil-by-tehsil analysis of the Muslim/Hindu/Sikh populations in Punjab:

Numbers of Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs and Christians in individual divisions of Jullundur and Lahore:

Lahore Division

Jullundur Division

Nine Muslim majority tehsils (Dasuya, Nakodar, Jullundur, Ferozepur, Zira, Ajnala, Gurdaspur, Batala, Amritsar and the state of Kapurthala) that were contiguous to Pakistan were given to India, on the pretext of "other factors".

Not a single non Muslim majority tehsil was given to Pakistan

A large part of Muslim majority Kasur tehsil was awarded to India on the flimsy ground of protecting Amritsar city:

Due to the above mentioned reasons, state of Kapurthala, with clear Muslim majority and surrounded by Muslim majority tehsils, fell into India.


A detailed and in-depth statistical analysis of the partition of Punjab:

http://pakgeotagging.blogspot.com/2014/10/partition-of-punjab-in-1947.html?m=1