Why do Pakistanis hate Hindus when it was actually the Sikhs they massacred and got massacred by?

[Mugwop]

Considering the position that Punjab and Punjabis hold in Pakistan, I don't think they do not know who did the killing.

I of course understand the Khalistan angle, like most guys my generation who lived through it.

But I've seen surds here too have some affection.

Our Hindus for the most part are indifferent.

If anything, our hardcore sanghis hate our own Muslims more than they hate Pakistanis.

Which of course makes them even more odious, but that's a whole different thread ....

Cheers, Doc



Your hate did not start with Modi coming to power.

Be serious. There is a reason I posted this in the Seniors section.

Cheers, Doc



What inanities are you presenting here mam?

Rivalry?

Is this kabaddi we are discussing?

Cheers, Doc



Ergo the transference point I made earlier.

Cheers, Doc

No not kabaddi it's a weird sport. I was just trying to answer your questions doc.
The maharajas sikhs were hungry for power and whatever happened is in the past.
We don't hate hindus or hinduism the average person doesn't know much about karma and dharma. We hate nationalism in any form. If you see a Pakistani member making a derogatory comment about hinduism it's more likely a response to many many Islamaphobic posts by indians.

 

[scorpionx]

Considering the position that Punjab and Punjabis hold in Pakistan, I don't think they do not know who did the killing.

I of course understand the Khalistan angle, like most guys my generation who lived through it.

But I've seen surds here too have some affection.

Our Hindus for the most part are indifferent.

If anything, our hardcore sanghis hate our own Muslims more than they hate Pakistanis.

Which of course makes them even more odious, but that's a whole different thread ....

Cheers, Doc



Your hate did not start with Modi coming to power.

Be serious. There is a reason I posted this in the Seniors section.

Cheers, Doc



What inanities are you presenting here mam?

Rivalry?

Is this kabaddi we are discussing?

Cheers, Doc



Ergo the transference point I made earlier.

Cheers, Doc

No doc. I am not saying that Pakistanis did not or do not know about the '47 atrocities. What I am saying is, given the geo-strategic and economic challenges Pakistan had to face immediately after partition, and in their subsequent nation building process, to create a common national narrative they chose to forget traditional Sikh-Muslim rivalries and focused on a much larger threat.

 

[padamchen]

No not kabaddi it's a weird sport. I was just trying to answer your questions doc.
The maharajas sikhs were hungry for power and whatever happened is in the past.
We don't hate hindus or hinduism the average person doesn't know much about karma and dharma. We hate nationalism in any form. If you see a Pakistani member making a derogatory comment about hinduism it's more likely a response to many many Islamaphobic posts by indians.

My point mam was simply about the word you used.

Rivalry.

It's used in a much more benign competitive setting.

Not when you kill two million of each other.

Cheers, Doc

No doc. I am not saying that Pakistanis did not or do not know about the '47 atrocities. What I am saying is, given the geo-strategic and economic challenges Pakistan had to face immediately after partition, and in their subsequent nation building process, to create a common national narrative they chose to forget traditional Sikh-Muslim rivalries and focused on a much larger threat.

Good point.

The larger threat forcing (?) a joint minority kinship with tinges of a weird Stockholm syndrome?

Khalistan post 71 of course ....

Cheers, Doc

@Joe Shearer tagging you to this thread. At your leisure.

 

[scorpionx]

My point mam was simply about the word you used.

Rivalry.

It's used in a much more benign competitive setting.

Not when you kill two million of each other.

Cheers, Doc



Good point.

The larger threat forcing (?) a joint minority kinship with tinges of a weird Stockholm syndrome?

Khalistan post 71 of course ....

Cheers, Doc

@Joe Shearer tagging you to this thread. At your leisure.

Another point may be, the almost thousand years of living together, the racial, linguistic and cultural similarities, and centuries of experience in fighting together as belonging to the same martial stock (where as Hindus controlled mostly Industries and finances) which perhaps have encouraged a compatriot, brotherly feeling among Sikhs and Muslims (and both believing in Monotheistic spiritualism) which perhaps could not have been stirred enough by the months of atrocities. Congress being an all Indian national party, most of its prominent leaders came from parts of India whose culture, language, thought process were completely alien to the West Pakistanis and hence the mistrust and hatred against Hindus in general.

 

[ranjeet]

@padamchen
I believe Pakistanis associate the word Hindu with Brahmins and Baniyas. maybe because Brahmins didn't accepted people back in the fold of Hinduism once they converted due to various reasons and Baniyas because peasants irrespective of religions were exploited by them financially. Which kind of explains why Pakistanis feel more comfortable with sikhs especially jatts/rajputs as they feel an association with them through biradari not religion.

Edit
@padamchen
It also explains why Pakistanis find it hard to accept Chanakya/Kautiliya

 

[halupridol]

My point mam was simply about the word you used.

Rivalry.

It's used in a much more benign competitive setting.

Not when you kill two million of each other.

Cheers, Doc

million sikh,hindu,muslim,,,,whats the difference,,,majority of involved parties were north bhayyas.
they were all ok bootpolishing n bending over for every othr foreigner,,selling thr pride, thr lands,thr loyalty ,thr balls for meager gains.
N whn the moment came ,whn they were assured independence by thr masters they butchered thr bhayya neighbours,,martial ppl afterall.
Pakistan's national narrative of TNT needed a hindu majority India as antagonist.n thus hindu hate was planted ,,,creation of BD,kashmir issue,fundamentalism etc nurtured it n transformed it to its present form.
now who is at fault,,well both India n Pakistan
how do we get over it,,i dont know,,its like a 70 yr ongoing super stretched saas bahu serial,,which u must watch n endure

btw whats with this kind of thread,,why not make a thread on gorakhpur massacre,,30+ children died,,not much hue n cry though

 

[Kambojaric]

A general view in my opinion (I may be wrong but this is what I have heard often) is that Sikhs although more violent were/are led like puppets by their Hindu masters. The fact that Sikhs never resisted India even after the Indian army desecrated their holiest site only further reinforced this view.

 

[El Sidd]

It's not the Hindus.
It's India.

People have forgiven the massacre as necessary sacrifice.

Sadly Muslims of Pakistan never get understood.

 

[ranjeet]

A general view in my opinion (I may be wrong but this is what I have heard often) is that Sikhs although more violent were/are led like puppets by their Hindu masters. The fact that Sikhs never resisted India even after the Indian army desecrated their holiest site only further reinforced this view.

Sikhs who ruled United Punjab and then some were led like puppets? I am glad that you added the caveat "I may be wrong".

 

[padamchen]

It's not the Hindus.
It's India.

People have forgiven the massacre as necessary sacrifice.

Sadly Muslims of Pakistan never get understood.

I don't think so.

It's definitely only the Hindus.

Sure Pakistanis don't like Indians. That's a given.

But your love for Hindus and everything Hindu is seen here quite clearly.

Never heard anything close when you talk about Sikhs or Christians or any other communities of India.

Cheers, Doc

Sikhs who ruled United Punjab and then some were led like puppets? I am glad that you added the caveat "I may be wrong".

As I said, 300 years of violent rule cannot be put down to just the killings of partition which can be forgiven and forgotten.

Stockholm's ...

Cheers, Doc

 

[El Sidd]

I don't think so.

It's definitely only the Hindus.

Sure Pakistanis don't like Indians. That's a given.

But your love for Hindus and everything Hindu is seen here quite clearly.

Never heard anything close when you talk about Sikhs or Christians or any other communities of India.

Cheers, Doc

It really doesn't matter.

Its just a biased generalisation. Just because the nationalists in India are licking the bottom of the barrel for something to unite the fragile unity in Indian state fabric.

If you need to satisfy the illusion.

18 damn 57.

 

[PAKISTANFOREVER]

Please explain.

Hindus played Sikhs against Muslims?

How was Sikhism born?

What were Sikhs doing to Muslims for 400 years?

Hindus?

Cheers, Doc

Trust me. We hate sikhs much more than we hate Hindus. I hate them with a passion for what they did to my people in 1947. In fact I myself hate indians of all faiths (including indian Muslims) but have nothing against the Hindu Religion/Faith.

Problem is that the sikhs are no longer a worthy opponent as a community themselves. They are a worthless, irrelevant and meaningless entity on the world stage which no one really knows about or is really interested in. They are an inferior, unhygienic and pathetic race. The glories of 1984 finished them off for good.

Pakistan is a nation of 200 million. We have a powerful advanced military, our economy is being propelled thanks to CPEC, we are the world's 1st ever Muslim nuclear weapons state and each day Pakistan becomes more advanced and powweful. There are also 2 billion Muslims worldwide.

There are only 27 million sikhs globally. The sikh consciousness and power as a community was thankfully crushed forever in the glorious days of 1984. The sikhs tried their hardest to destroy the creation of Pakistan but ultimately failed. Had they won, Pakistan would not have existed.

sikhs have to latch on to White people and keep saying they hate Pakistan and Muslims because they have nothing else to offer the world or be relevant in any sort of way. If they don't hate Pakistan/Islam or Muslims they would have nothing to do or focus on. sikhs would cease to exist........
That's how pathetic they are...........

A general view in my opinion (I may be wrong but this is what I have heard often) is that Sikhs although more violent were/are led like puppets by their Hindu masters. The fact that Sikhs never resisted India even after the Indian army desecrated their holiest site only further reinforced this view.

The sikhs thoroughly deserved 1984

 

[scorpionx]

A general view in my opinion (I may be wrong but this is what I have heard often) is that Sikhs although more violent were/are led like puppets by their Hindu masters. The fact that Sikhs never resisted India even after the Indian army desecrated their holiest site only further reinforced this view.

That is not completely true. They did resist. In Ramgarh, Bihar the Sikhs killed their CO, seized trucks to drive to Punjab and retake the temple. 9th Sikh in Rajasthan mutinied. Their whole battalion was disbanded in '85. Another unit mutinied in Nagorta too. And remember they comprised almost 30% of Indian Army.But the point is, India handled it's minority issues comparatively better than other contemporary ethnically diverse countries, be it Pakistan or African countries. The creation of linguistic states and Nehru's reluctant agreement on caste reservation had acted as cross cutting of existing identity cleavages. So, more than a Master-Servant attitude (that in fact resulted in bifurcation of Pakistan) few conciliatory measures by Indian leadership in early 50's saved India's integrity.

 

[Pakistani E]

The establishment of Congress, which rejected Jinnah's (rh) fourteen points was predominantly Hindu. It was perhaps seen as the main reason for the violence that eventually ensued as they had seemingly refused to budge or compromise, so maybe they were blamed more than the Sikhs for being the people who had caused the bloodshed?

Don't get me wrong but I think you are reading far too much in to support for Khalistan as some sort of love for Sikhs, we know it was mostly the Sikhs who did the killings, there is no love here. But the violence is seen mostly as an aftermath of the decisions that led to the direct demand for Pakistan, particularly the rejection of the fourteen points of Jinnah (rh) by Nehru and other Hindu leaders (amongst others)? So most of the ire is drawn towards them and in point to Hindus, more so than the Sikhs perhaps?

I must clarify that this is just my opinion and I maybe wrong.

 

[PAKISTANFOREVER]

That is not completely true. They did resist. In Ramgarh, Bihar the Sikhs killed their CO, seized trucks to drive to Punjab and retake the temple. 9th Sikh in Rajasthan mutinied. Their whole battalion was disbanded in '85. Another unit mutinied in Nagorta too. And remember they comprised almost 30% of Indian Army.But the point is, India handled it's minority issues comparatively better than other contemporary ethnically diverse countries, be it Pakistan or African countries. The creation of linguistic states and Nehru's reluctant agreement on caste reservation had acted as cross cutting of existing identity cleavages. So, more than a Master-Servant attitude (that in fact resulted in bifurcation of Pakistan) few conciliatory measures by Indian leadership in early 50's saved India's integrity.

That is not completely true. They did resist. In Ramgarh, Bihar the Sikhs killed their CO, seized trucks to drive to Punjab and retake the temple. 9th Sikh in Rajasthan mutinied. Their whole battalion was disbanded in '85. Another unit mutinied in Nagorta too. And remember they comprised almost 30% of Indian Army.But the point is, India handled it's minority issues comparatively better than other contemporary ethnically diverse countries, be it Pakistan or African countries. The creation of linguistic states and Nehru's reluctant agreement on caste reservation had acted as cross cutting of existing identity cleavages. So, more than a Master-Servant attitude (that in fact resulted in bifurcation of Pakistan) few conciliatory measures by Indian leadership in early 50's saved India's integrity.

1984 ZINDABAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!..........................

The establishment of Congress, which rejected Jinnah's (rh) fourteen points was predominantly Hindu. It was perhaps seen as the main reason for the violence that eventually ensued as they had seemingly refused to budge or compromise, so maybe they were blamed more than the Sikhs for being the people who had caused the bloodshed?

Don't get me wrong but I think you are reading far too much in to support for Khalistan as some sort of love for Sikhs, we know it was mostly the Sikhs who did the killings, there is no love here. But the violence is seen mostly as an aftermath of the decisions that led to the direct demand for Pakistan, particularly the rejection of the fourteen points of Jinnah (rh) by Nehru and other Hindu leaders (amongst others)? So most of the ire is drawn towards them and in point to Hindus, more so than the Sikhs perhaps?

I must clarify that this is just my opinion and I maybe wrong.

The indian army sorting out the "sikh problem" in 1984 was sweet retribution for us Pakistanis. Long live Operation Bluestar
1984 ZINDABAD!