Insensitive remarks about Hindus on Pakistani channel

[PARAS]

That is one man's OPINION, not an established fact. Even before the show starts a message reads that the views and opinions expressed in the show are the opinion of the host and the guests and do not represent channel policy.
That much for your great argument.
I think Arundhati Roy's version of the story will be quite the opposite to that of Mr. Sethi's. Will that too be accepted with the openness that you have shown for Mr. Sethi's assessment ?

so you mean whatever he says is all BS.i dont even think you watched even 2 videos.its just ignorance at its best.and not even him many other historians such as hassan nizar also speak the same.and they are pakistanis. what does arundhati roy has to do with this?

if you say Mr.Sethi is wrong,what is the proof that your version of history is right? even that is not an established fact.

 

[Icarus]

There are good and bad influences of every ruler , religion has nothing much to do with it , I never made any judgements on this topic , but the points about intolerance still stands --Feroz Shah Tughluk and Allauddin Khilji had their accomplishments in improving infrastructure , changing conventional economic systems etc . It would fill 200 pages if I were to list all the good points and bad points . However just by acknowledging all the pros, the cons don't simply disappear .



See the first book extract I quoted , Jizya rates were fixed at that 48,24,12 for the subcontinent (northern part) during the moghul dynasty. Figures vary for the Delhi Sultanate , the 5 different muslim dynasties at Delhi , the Bahamani Sultanate in the South , even upto the Mysore Kingdom of Hyder Ali ....in each circumstance the rates are different.

The first book I mentioned contains details for Jizya extraction in Saudi Arabia under Wahhabbi Culture . If you mention Muslim rulers , instead of "Muslim rulers in India" then all muslim rulers all over the world and their Jizya practices should be logically compared . All of them will certainly not have figures of 48,24,12.



Intolerance is Intolerance ...we cannot compare different practices from different regions (eg. the practices you mentioned are middle eastern practices ) and compare them to draw conclusions that some Muslim rulers were more tolerant than others . Question is were Hindus and other minorities treated fairly ---which they were not. How unfairly they were treated is a question best left to the ages .

PS: This debate can be taken even further if I were to compare the attitude of contemporary
Hindu/Sikh rulers ( Maharana Pratap , Shivaji Maharaj , The Vijaynagar Kingdom , the Nairs in Kerela , The Sikhs -Maharaja Ranjit Singh) towards their muslim subjects ...and contrast it with the Muslim rulers.

I hope you do know that muslims had to suffer a lot during Sikh rule, particularly under Ranjit Singh.

---------- Post added at 07:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:46 PM ----------

so you mean whatever he says is all BS.i dont even think you watched even 2 videos.its just ignorance at its best.and not even him many other historians such as hassan nizar also speak the same.and they are pakistanis. what does arundhati roy has to do with this?

if you say Mr.Sethi is wrong,what is the proof that your version of history is right?

Did you even bother reading my post ?
I said that it's his opinion and he is entitled to it.
And there is no "My Version" I just quoted an alternate opinion to show you how history is a matter of perception.

 

[Drawn_Sword_of_God]

This is the height of ignorance . No wonder Pakistan is in such a mess.

your post just took ignorance to a new level, well done!

 

[Urbanized Greyhound]

I hope you do know that muslims had to suffer a lot during Sikh rule, particularly under Ranjit Singh.

Secular Sikh Rule

The empire of the Sikhs was most exceptional in that it allowed men from religions other than their own to rise to commanding positions of authority. Besides the Singh (Sikh), the Khan (Muslim) and the Misr (Hindu Brahmin) feature as prominent administrators. The Christians formed a part of the militia of the Sikhs. In 1831, Ranjit Singh deputed his mission to Simla to confer with the British Governor General, Lord William Bentinck. Sardar Hari Singh Nalwa, Fakir Aziz-ud-din and Diwan Moti Ram ― a Sikh, a Muslim and a Hindu representative ― were nominated at its head.

This is from Wikipedia and some other independent sources can be supplemented about Hari Singh Nalwa ---with citations from his muslim contemporaries .

Do you have any sources to show otherwise ? If so, Please share them here....

 

[LEGENDARY WARRIOR]

No because that poor hindu chief justice was part of the settlement when govt. of pakistan and pakistani lawyers was fighting.

And the worst part was that Hindu was forced to get away from his religion.

That Hindu judge was forced to take oath in the name of Allah not in the name of Bhagwan or pakistani constitution.


So this example of urs is foolish.

Forced! What do you mean by forced?? Who was'nt taking oath on gunpoint.


For your info he did not have any problem in taking Allah's name. So you should not have problem with that. .

 

[Rafi]

I hope you do know that muslims had to suffer a lot during Sikh rule, particularly under Ranjit Singh.

---------- Post added at 07:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:46 PM ----------



Did you even bother reading my post ?
I said that it's his opinion and he is entitled to it.
And there is no "My Version" I just quoted an alternate opinion to show you how history is a matter of perception.

Yeah, the Sikh's, my Jatt clan - joined the British and fought on their side, in the Anglo-Sikh wars - we got a terrible revenge for all the oppression - we received. We got much treasure and prisoners, songs are song till this day about it.

 

[Icarus]

This is from Wikipedia and some other independent sources can be supplemented about Hari Singh Nalwa ---with citations from his muslim contemporaries .

Do you have any sources to show otherwise ? If so, Please share them here....

A number of books on the history of Punjab have detailed description on bans on Azan, forced conversion of a number of mosques into stables, expulsion from the right to own property, brning down of muslim barber shops, etc. Although all of these were not measures enforced by the Maharaja or his court. These did occur during the period of sikh rule and were widely reported.

 

[LEGENDARY WARRIOR]

This is from Wikipedia and some other independent sources can be supplemented about Hari Singh Nalwa ---with citations from his muslim contemporaries .

Do you have any sources to show otherwise ? If so, Please share them here....

You need proof for Sikh brutality. There are still people in Pakistan, who can tell you about the train that arrived in Pakistan in which all people were slaughtered because they were Muslims and wanted to live in Pakistan. . .

 

[Urbanized Greyhound]

You need proof for Sikh brutality. There are still people in Pakistan, who can tell you about the train that arrived in Pakistan in which all people were slaughtered because they were Muslims and wanted to live in Pakistan. . .

About Sikh rulers during the pre-British period , not what happened during Partition .There was religious bloodshed en masse during partition on both sides of the border.

 

[Icarus]

Yeah, the Sikh's, my Jatt clan - joined the British and fought on their side, in the Anglo-Sikh wars - we got a terrible revenge for all the oppression - we received. We got much treasure and prisoners, songs are song till this day about it.

I'm a Sethi, much of our clan is Sikh while the other significant half is Hindu. The "Sher-e-Punjab" who stopped Mehmud of Ghaznavi until he chose to forge a truce with us and move on to conqure the rest of India while avoiding the Khukhrain Kingdom. Ofcourse we were Hindus at that time, Kshatriyas.

 

[Vinod2070]

When these Hindu converts act funny and abuse the religion of their own ancestors, they should realize what would be the reaction of others towards what they were converted into.

Funny to see them talking of Gujarat after more than a decade. During the same time, many times more Shia, tribals. Sufis and Mohajirs have been killed and their mosques blown in Pakistan!

We have nothing to do with Pakistan or Pakistanis, especially the Afghan tribals. Its funny they still need to continue hating India to justify their existence.

 

[Icarus]

When these Hindu converts act funny and abuse the religion of their own ancestors, they should realize what would be the reaction of others towards what they were converted into.

Funny to see them talking of Gujarat after more than a decade. During the same time, many times more Shia, tribals. Sufis and Mohajirs have been killed and their mosques blown in Pakistan!

We have nothing to do with Pakistan or Pakistanis, especially the Afghan tribals. Its funny they still need to continue hating India to justify their existence.

The Gujrat Incident was a completely different class of tragedy. It was when normal, everyday citizens took to the the streets and killed off their neighbours under the excuse of protecting their community, both Hindus and Muslims, who killed innocents by the dozen and then went to their desk jobs.
Whereas the problems Pakistan has been facing are being created by professional terrorists. They have no desk jobs, for them there is no going back. They are not a part of our society.
Equating the two situations under discussion would be a breach of the discipline of Conflict Analysis and Resolution.

 

[Vinod2070]

The Gujrat Incident was a completely different class of tragedy. It was when normal, everyday citizens took to the the streets and killed off their neighbours under the excuse of protecting their community, both Hindus and Muslims, who killed innocents by the dozen and then went to their desk jobs.
Whereas the problems Pakistan has been facing are being created by professional terrorists. They have no desk jobs, for them there is no going back. They are not a part of our society.
Equating the two situations under discussion would be a breach of the discipline of Conflict Analysis and Resolution.

Lots od self serving assumptions here. Would rather avoid pointing out the obvious.

 

[RockyX]

The Gujrat Incident was a completely different class of tragedy. It was when normal, everyday citizens took to the the streets and killed off their neighbours under the excuse of protecting their community, both Hindus and Muslims, who killed innocents by the dozen and then went to their desk jobs.
Whereas the problems Pakistan has been facing are being created by professional terrorists. They have no desk jobs, for them there is no going back. They are not a part of our society.
Equating the two situations under discussion would be a breach of the discipline of Conflict Analysis and Resolution.

Forgot about Gujarat, It happened 10 years back. Once in many decades story. How long you will use word "Gujarat" "Gujarat""Gujarat" ? How many riots happened after that in which Muslims were killed? 0. Also, in Gujarat riot was start by Muslim in Godhra and after that many Hindus also died.

Whereas in Pakistan, It's happening everyday in some way or another.

 

[Vinod2070]

Forgot about Gujarat, It happened 10 years back. Once in many decades story. How long you will use word "Gujarat" "Gujarat""Gujarat" ? How many riots happened after that in which Muslims were killed? 0. Also, in Gujarat riot was start by Muslim in Godhra and after that many Hindus also died.

Whereas in Pakistan, It's happening everyday in some way or another.

But facts and reality had nothing to do with these folks. Has never been.