The curious case of Indian Punjabis

[Rusty]

Its true ---you do view everything through a religious prism , is it not ?

That's why its Islami Jamhuriya e Pakistan and Republic of India ( secular) . Minority rights or treatment is not an issue , what matters is what is constitutionally promised.

Besides the point was about an Indian Punjabi's distaste for his motherland.

I seem to recall you people advising the same to some Pushtoon posters who were critical of Pakistan . You lot , told them to get the hell outta your land and back to Afghanistan didn't you ?

So no surprises here, I guess.

We are an Islamic Republic, and an Islamic republic guarantees the rights of minorities. This is not a hard concept to grasp, the two are not mutually exclusive.
If your point was (and it was) that Muslims are less tolerant then I really have to take issue with that because Muslims are just as, if not more so tolerant than anyone else.
It is just the hatred of Islam that has lead you people to think we are some kind of monsters.

Also, we even named the city where Guru Nanak was born after him, and every year we allow pilgrims from India to come to that city and worship at their holy sites.

pretty tolerant for a people who are supposed to be monsters, isn't it?

 

[kawaraj]

Besides the point was about an Indian Punjabi's distaste for his motherland.
So no surprises here, I guess.

It's not distaste at all. Identity issue is just simple revealed when he relieved from your false patriate brainwash and hatred brewing, Taking their own brothers as enemy.

But any way once anyone choose to be naturalized into canada or US, they could surely be detached in any of the loyalty. They can choose which nation to cling.

 

[Roybot]

Red mosque had forcefully taken hostages .. n terrorists armed with weapons...and no riots followed where govt or the average people start rioting rapping,massacring people in dozens of thousands unlike golden temple which is also sikhisms holiest site..

As someone mentioned already, the riots followed after the assassination of Indira Gandhi. Khalistani terrorists were holed up in the Golden Temple, with lot of arms and ammunition. There was no other way. They had dugs tunnels inside the temple.

A large cache of weapons, ammunition and explosives were recovered from the Golden Temple complex including 47 machine guns, 47 self loading rifles, 247 .303 rifles, 66 muzzle loading guns, 11 mix type of rifles, 26 mix type of sten guns, 9 combines, 74 revolvers or pistols, 1 rocket launcher, 561 hand grenades, 33 smoke grenades, 2 medium machine guns. More recoveries are continuing.

Operation Blue Star 1984 Golden Temple Attack Sikhs

Sorry if I offend you by saying this, but a holy site is a holy site, there is no holiest and less holy for me. And either case Golden Temple is still the holiest site for the Sikhs. Nothing has changed.

Isn't the Grand Mosque of Mecca the Holiest site for Muslims. When it was taken over by terrorists in 1979 didn't the military go in and smoke those terrorists out? Did it dent the holiness and importance of the Grand Mosque? Don't think so.

 

[Urbanized Greyhound]

We are an Islamic Republic, and an Islamic republic guarantees the rights of minorities. This is not a hard concept to grasp, the two are not mutually exclusive.
If your point was (and it was) that Muslims are less tolerant then I really have to take issue with that because Muslims are just as, if not more so tolerant than anyone else.
It is just the hatred of Islam that has lead you people to think we are some kind of monsters.

Also, we even named the city where Guru Nanak was born after him, and every year we allow pilgrims from India to come to that city and worship at their holy sites.

pretty tolerant for a people who are supposed to be monsters, isn't it?

The bold part is something highly controversial --there are loads of evidences both for and against this. The history of the subcontinent itself is filled with conflicting evidences. With rulers ranging from benevolent Akbar to bigots like Aurangzeb.

However , my point was

Since its an Islamic republic , on paper at least it means or at least gives an impression that Muslims would have greater prominence than any other minority. And if the growth of minorities in your society --on a social , cultural and economic basis is anything to go by --it certainly seems so.

The Sikhs found it unacceptable at partition that Punjab should be included in the Muslim bloc , for the fear that "it would imperil Sikh culture " --as per Baldev Singh's words ( representative of Sikhs at Mountbatton's round Table ).

Their fears were credible then and considering the situation in Pakistan today , with hardly any Sikh in a significant position in mainstream Pakistani establishments ( I am talking of Sikh senior ministers , Sikh army Chiefs , Sikh --heads of Intelligence etc --Yes they are hardworking and integrate well into any society they are a part of --so their absence in Pakistan is an anomaly of the highest order), it seems the choice of Sikhs to go with India is perfectly justified.

Also let me relieve you of this false notion that we "Hate Islam" --We are avowedly secular --i.e we just don't give much importance to religion and use it as a benchmark to distinguish . What we really hate is fundamentalism , extremism --and that goes for in the Hindu religion , Islam or even Christianity .

Indian society has in the last 50 years evolved to a progressive, moderate and tolerant one which allows a person to thrive regardless of his religious or ethnic affiliations . That's all .

 

[Inqhilab]

Thanks for accepting the truth... he discriminated against muslims..desecrated our holy places... and Kashmir was ruled by muslim kings before his 30+ year rule.. the only sikh rule in the history of the sub continent!

And in 84 the indian govt did what.....? do i even have to say it?

He was the first Truly secular leader in the world.if you have any doubt Ranjit Singh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaif he had discriminated against muslims then instead of growth in muslim population ,there would have been no muslim in pre partition punjab

I think Ravaan is right... punjabi sikhs share same culture etc with Pak punjabis... and punjab should have been united n given to Pakistan... where the same people wouldnt have been divided... i see Pak punjabis n sikh punjabis as fast frnds outside their respective countries.... more than a indian punjabi hangin out with some mumbai wala or some chump frm bihar! thts true.

we have no interest in joining with a failed state like pakistan and before saying something about bhari and marathi you should know they are our brothers because in my country everybody is indian first then bhari marathi or kashmiri.

 

[raavan]

let me clear a few points here

1. i do not consider it a disgrace to be living in the same country as tamils, marathas etc rather it is a honor. what great histories these guys have. so stop assuming things.I am as eagerly awaiting sachin to score 100 th century tomorrow as any other indian

2. the whole point of opening this thread was to highlight the irony of the situation that I call tamils , bengalis etc my countrymen when we nothing in common , are geographically so apart etc and at the same time people who are a stone s throw from me , have so much in common with me ,i am suppossed to consider my enemies.

 

[Urbanized Greyhound]

It's not distaste at all. Identity issue is just simple revealed when he relieved from your false patriate brainwash and hatred brewing, Taking their own brothers as enemy.

But any way once anyone choose to be naturalized into canada or US, they could surely be detached in any of the loyalty. They can choose which nation to cling.

If you had gone through the entire thread as I did ( took me 30 mins but worth it) ...you should have realized that is exactly why some Indians are infuriated with the OP.

When he mentioned about Assamese and Tamilians, he made it sound as if it was because of Assamese and Tamilians that East Punjabis were forced to make West Punjabis as their enemy ..whereas the truth is exactly the opposite.

Assamese , Tamilians were forced to make West Punjabis , and also Sindhis , Baluchis and Pakhtoons as their eternal enemy because of how Sikhs ( East Punjabis ) and Bengalis suffered at the time of Partition.

They didn't complain for all these years and now some Sikh with a short memory and a overtly tender spot in his heart comes and wails before everyone how they were all brothers with Pakistan and how "evil" Indian Govt has kept the two brothers apart

I would call it the Joke of the century ..except being a Bengali , I'm simply disgusted at the unnecessarily whining.

A Joke in a very poor taste I would say .

 

[raavan]

If you had gone through the entire thread as I did ( took me 30 mins but worth it) ...you should have realized that is exactly why some Indians are infuriated with the OP.

When he mentioned about Assamese and Tamilians, he made it sound as if it was because of Assamese and Tamilians that East Punjabis were forced to make West Punjabis as their enemy ..whereas the truth is exactly the opposite.

Assamese , Tamilians were forced to make West Punjabis , and also Sindhis , Baluchis and Pakhtoons as their eternal enemy because of how Sikhs ( East Punjabis ) and Bengalis suffered at the time of Partition.

They didn't complain for all these years and now some Sikh with a short memory and a overtly tender spot in his heart comes and wails before everyone how they were all brothers with Pakistan and how "evil" Indian Govt has kept the two brothers apart

I would call it the Joke of the century ..except being a Bengali , I'm simply disgusted at the unnecessarily whining.

A Joke in a very poor taste I would say .

Then stop being hypocrites and cosider ur fellow hindus as enemies as well as they murdered thousands of sikhs in 1984 as well. Do you see how pathetic ur arguments are

 

[Rusty]

The bold part is something highly controversial --there are loads of evidences both for and against this. The history of the subcontinent itself is filled with conflicting evidences. With rulers ranging from benevolent Akbar to bigots like Aurangzeb.

How was Aurangzeb a bigot?
He actually included more Hindus into his government then Akbar. He was also the first ruler in a almost a 1000 years to unite all of India.
I feel the only reason Hindus like Akbar was because for all intents an purposes he had given up Islam. Which just shows Hindu bias against Islam.

However , my point was

Since its an Islamic republic , on paper at least it means or at least gives an impression that Muslims would have greater prominence than any other minority. And if the growth of minorities in your society --on a social , cultural and economic basis is anything to go by --it certainly seems so.

And it is here that you are categorically wrong! No group has greater prominence. Everyone is equal under the law, a minority can go just as far as a Muslim. The only limitation is that a non Muslim cannot be the prime minister, but they can be in parliament.
I think this is fair considering that in America even if you are a citizen, but you were born outside the USA you cannot become president.

The Sikhs found it unacceptable at partition that Punjab should be included in the Muslim bloc , for the fear that "it would imperil Sikh culture " --as per Baldev Singh's words ( representative of Sikhs at Mountbatton's round Table ).

Their fears were credible then and considering the situation in Pakistan today , with hardly any Sikh in a significant position in mainstream Pakistani establishments ( I am talking of Sikh senior ministers , Sikh army Chiefs , Sikh --heads of Intelligence etc --Yes they are hardworking and integrate well into any society they are a part of --so their absence in Pakistan is an anomaly of the highest order), it seems the choice of Sikhs to go with India is perfectly justified.

Is it really? what percent of the population are Sikhs? 1%? 5%?
this is rather ridiculous to say that you expect a tiny percent of the population to hold high office

Lets compare to India, with its 15% Muslim population
how many Muslim PMs do you have? how many Muslim generals, how many Muslims billionaires?

This is the 3rd time I am saying this but its still true
the points you are bringing up have more to do with anti Islam and anti Pakistan bias in your secular India, than any reality on the ground.

Also let me relieve you of this false notion that we "Hate Islam" --We are avowedly secular --i.e we just don't give much importance to religion and use it as a benchmark to distinguish . What we really hate is fundamentalism , extremism --and that goes for in the Hindu religion , Islam or even Christianity .

Indian society has in the last 50 years evolved to a progressive, moderate and tolerant one which allows a person to thrive regardless of his religious or ethnic affiliations . That's all .

While I salute you for being so inclusive I will have to say that India is facing extreme problems with home grown fundamentalist and extremists. So to me it is really strange to get a lecture form some who doesn't have his own house in order.

It's like being told I live in a dirty room by someone who also lives in a very dirty room.

 

[AvidSpice]

let me clear a few points here

1. i do not consider it a disgrace to be living in the same country as tamils, marathas etc rather it is a honor. what great histories these guys have. so stop assuming things.I am as eagerly awaiting sachin to score 100 th century tomorrow as any other indian

2. the whole point of opening this thread was to highlight the irony of the situation that I call tamils , bengalis etc my countrymen when we nothing in common , are geographically so apart etc and at the same time people who are a stone s throw from me , have so much in common with me ,i am suppossed to consider my enemies.

So, what do you intend to do?

 

[raavan]

How was Aurangzeb a bigot?
He actually included more Hindus into his government then Akbar. He was also the first ruler in a almost a 1000 years to unite all of India.
I feel the only reason Hindus like Akbar was because for all intents an purposes he had given up Islam. Which just shows Hindu bias against Islam.



And it is here that you are categorically wrong! No group has greater prominence. Everyone is equal under the law, a minority can go just as far as a Muslim. The only limitation is that a non Muslim cannot be the prime minister, but they can be in parliament.
I think this is fair considering that in America even if you are a citizen, but you were born outside the USA you cannot become president.



Is it really? what percent of the population are Sikhs? 1%? 5%?
this is rather ridiculous to say that you expect a tiny percent of the population to hold high office

Lets compare to India, with its 15% Muslim population
how many Muslim PMs do you have? how many Muslim generals, how many Muslims billionaires?

This is the 3rd time I am saying this but its still true
the points you are bringing up have more to do with anti Islam and anti Pakistan bias in your secular India, than any reality on the ground.

i am just stating it as a fact nothing else. The guy who is suppossed to be the commander of 3 forces, the president.... Abdul kalam

Billoinaire/Really rich---- lets start with azim premji

 

[Urbanized Greyhound]

Then stop being hypocrites and cosider ur fellow hindus as enemies as well as they murdered thousands of sikhs in 1984 as well. Do you see how pathetic ur arguments are

Your arguments lack reason. Jarnail Singh Bindrewala was covertly supported by the ISI and also by the CIA . India -U.S relations were low back them . He started an armed revolt against the Indian state , and his sessionist activities made him an enemy-of-all Indians including Sikhs . When Gandhi ordered the Crack down both in Punjab and on the Golden Temple --that was done in national interest and there were many members of the Armed forces and Civil administration who were Sikhs themselves.

The trouble mongers were nothing but Fundamentalists and Extremists sponsored by foreign powers --and this is well documented by Kanwar Preet Singh Gill in his book

"Knights of Falsehood".

Now after Gandhi was assassinated , political workers were given a licence by the Congress senior members like Tyler , Sajjan Kumar etc to teach a political lesson.

Now contrasting the behavior of the party with a Hindutva agenda--the BJP and its affiliate the RSS put all their efforts into Protecting the Lives of Sikhs during the riots. So what does this prove again ?

Sikhs as a religious group are very much accepted by Hindus.

Hypocrisy is when you compare inter-ethnic riots to working against national interest with external , foreign forces like ISI.

Your loyalty should be to the country, not to Hindus , Muslims , Sikhs or any particular group.

 

[Veeru]

guys just look for the threads started by "raavan" u will start having doubt over his false flag.

 

[raavan]

guys just look for the threads started by "raavan" u will start having doubt over his false flag.

Self criticism is not a very bad thing u know

 

[jetti]

let me clear a few points here

1. i do not consider it a disgrace to be living in the same country as tamils, marathas etc rather it is a honor. what great histories these guys have. so stop assuming things.I am as eagerly awaiting sachin to score 100 th century tomorrow as any other indian

2. the whole point of opening this thread was to highlight the irony of the situation that I call tamils , bengalis etc my countrymen when we nothing in common , are geographically so apart etc and at the same time people who are a stone s throw from me , have so much in common with me ,i am suppossed to consider my enemies.

monkeys and humans have 99% common DNA. But the 1% makes a huge difference. Similarly the "DNA" of te muslim mind and Hindus mind is so different that you and them are not the same. That's the premise of Pakistan's founding. Another way to look exactly what you say is . Its ironic that your countrymen with who have nothing in common stand behind you, fight for you, are happy at what makes you happy and angry or sad about the same things and who have thrown in their lot and vested their interest in yours and are geographically so far apart can form a nation , but those who are just like you and live a stones throw away hate you and lose no opportunity at causing harm to our country just because you are of a different religion should be given preference by you and not see them as enemy