Pakistan and Sikhs ....

[Auzer]

Wow i gotta hand it to u Auzer. U got cajones to push such lies that u are cleverly promoting on here. It's entertaining read them in a weird way. LoL but what's even funnier is that when i posted quotes from the Holy Quran u report me to mods in order to get my posts blocked.

That shows u lost the whole argument right there. If you are so scared to debate undefendable parts of the Holy Quran then that means u already admitted defeat.

]

hahaha..buddy , lets make a separate thread....pick ONE topic ..like "Aisha's marriage" or "Violence in Qur'an" etc ....then set the rules...and I'll debate you! But you popping up in every section and posting copy-paste Christian missionary lies won't help the cause.

Last time ...some one said something about women in Islam..I replied and proved to them that how Islam actually gives MORE rights to women then ALL major (Abharamic) world faiths...but I was banned due to "promoting" Islam or something....So thats why I don't even respond to you....

If you are really interested...let make a separate thread and choose 1 topic at time and debate...

I'll be glad to educate you....

[Singh559]

Regarding the quote from SikhQuotes, I doubt that quote as well and don't think it's real either. As for losing, a loss is a loss, no matter what the reasons are. After that it's just perspective, technicalities and how far someone wants to push the other. At one point both sides weigh the pros and the cons.

All soldiers are brave, to say one is braver than the other is ridiculous. I actually had a discussion with a few proud Pakistanis and we had a discussion about the Mughals and I was quite vocal about how distaste for the Mughals presenting the Sikh perspective and even a Muslim perspective (Sufi and other saint persecution, how they kidnapped/raped non-Muslims and Dulla Bhatti the Rajput Muslim who used to lead a revolution against Akbar. They generally agreed that Jahangir and Aurangzeb weren't good leaders, or they simply didn't want to offend me, which was fine as well. I wouldn't have minded their opinion though.

An interesting thing to note is that Babur was a very vicious conqueror. During his conquests in India he captured thousands of Indians and Guru Nanak Dev Ji was one of them. Babur had heard of a Peer who was among the prisoners and asked him to appear before him, he wanted the blessing of this Peer that people spoke of so his rule may stay till the end of time.

Guru Nanak Dev Ji said if you want to rule here to the end of time then you must have a humane rule where no one is hurt and everyone's basic human rights/needs are met. Upon these bachans Babur was convinced this person wasn't your average person, he spoke the truth and reassured that his rule would be blessed by God/Allah/Ram/Waheguru if he did not hurt anyone. Babur released the prisons and even if you look at 3rd person sources you can see that his rule was peaceful all the way up to Jahangir.

The translated Persian sources of the Mughal archives show that Jahangir had resented the fact that the previous rulers before him had "softened up to the Hindoos" and he believed he had to uphold the ideals of Islam and begin to punish these Kafirs, especially (as Jahangir referred to) as the Hindu (Sikh) Guroos. It angered him even more that (I don't remember exactly so don't quote me on this, but it was either his son or nephew) had become a follower of the Guru. He also expressed how the Sikh Guru's power and influence was growing and it hints that it bothered him and he had felt threatened by this.

To cut a long story short, these were the main reasons he had summoned Guru Arjan Dev Ji and he asked his name to be put inside the Guru Granth Sahib to ensure his rule over India. Guru Angad Dev Ji said, even my name cannot be put into this Granth, then how can yours Aurangzeb ji? Aurangzeb's verdict was to do what he said or for him to embrace the tu-h-thi ta-vee (hot plate) with sand poured on top.

Guru Arjan Dev Ji knew that this was going to happen eventually and was more than happy to get on the thaahthee tavee for they were one with Waheguru and their Shabad and teachings were in the Adi Granth. Jahangir may have thought he killed Guru Arjan Dev Ji, but Guru Arjan Dev Ji did not die, the Bani of Guru Sahib Ji is with us today and Guru Sahib knew that.

What oral tradition of the Sikhs maintain is that Guru Nanak Dev Ji passed down shastar vidiya (the knowledge of weapons) via Baba Budha Ji all the way to Guru Arjan Dev Ji and Guru Hargobnd Sahib Ji. He knew a day would come where the once vicious, now pacified rule would most likely revert back to oppressing the masses and when this happens, an army exactly like the Khalsa would be needed to protect everyone (including Muslims) from tyranny.

Proof to support that Guru Nanak Dev Ji knew shastar vidiya is that Guru Nanak Dev Ji kept shastar on him as well, including a kirpan and other weapons during his travels.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

As for the Sikh Empire, Hari Singh Nalwa was the only General in history to capture and conquer Afghanistan and did so honorable and respecting the men, woman and children there. The justification the Sikhs had for securing the Khyber pass was all the Mughal invasions occurred from that area and to safeguard the kingdom, the Khyber pass must be protected.

The Sikh Empire did fall and it was no other than the fault of a few Sikhs and the trust of the Dogras in short, but if we learn from history, we can build the future to be stronger than what occurred during the Sikh Empire.

~~~~~~~~~~~

The British goal was to divide India and Pakistan and sow seeds of hate so in the future no such a power like the Sikh empire would ever be created again. If Sikhs, Muslims and Hindus unified that region would have been an economic powerhouse today.

Gore are very interesting people. Desis get very boiled up and say things like "Khard-ja teri (insert individual) di....." and proceed to beating the individual up with their fists or weapon, but a gora may take it, but they will slap you when you don't expect it in such a way that you won't be able to ever get on your feet again. The slap the Britishers did in on Pakistan and India is such that they ensured that no real economic competitor ever arise from that region for the next 100 years.

~~~~~~~~~~

As for whether Pakistani army raped Bangladeshi woman. Yes they did, but accepting this fact doesn't effect my view on Pakistan as India has done worse.

If the history of India comes out, it will be branded as one of the worst (and naturally the best) history in the world because through great chikkar (mud) arises the lotus flowers. Genocide of communities, aryan invaders and brutal systems of caste system that dehumanized millions of people.

It would be all okay if this were talked about in past tense only, but the Indian army and state continues to condone activities that involve rape and genocide.

When Shaheed Subegh Singh was the general during the fight in Bangladesh, he made sure his entire units did not touch a Bangladeshi woman as the Pakistani armies did. He was a legend, he knew Bangladeshi and even tied a thothi and an average Bangladeshi couldn't tell him apart from being a Sikh/Indian or a Bangladeshi.

To cut another long story short, due to racism and the slow campaign to corner Sikhs into initiating a genocide of the Sikhs, Shaheed Subegh Singh ji left his position and joined Sant Jarnail Singh Khalsa Bhindranwale and the Khalsa.

After this you know what kind of useless low class generals India employs like Gill, vaidiya and the punjab police comissioner kps gill and many other criminals who part took in rape, slaughter and genocide of innocent individuals from their own country so the bigger wrong would be the Indians.

[proactive]

Guys let's not get into the India vs Pakistan debate. At the end of the day the creation of Pakistan was a disaster for Sikhs. We lost our best lands as well as our historic Gurdwaras. India has killed lakhs of Sikhs as well as infiltrated anti-Sikh forces into our institutions and political parties.

But let's not turn this into a Sikh Vs Muslim thread. That can be left for another thread should the opening poster see fit to create one. [MOD CUT]

Pakistan -Sikh relations start around the late 1930s when the Muslims started to demand Pakistan. So let's take it from there.

The whole Pakistan project was presented to the Muslim masses as the creation of a state when the Muslims would be ruling the roost. The Muslims although a bare majority were the worst off economically, educationally, socially and politically in Punjab. The Sikhs held the majority of land in the central districts, they also had along with the Hindus the best private schools. The Hindus being more urban based controlled the economy having the most commercial establishments followed by Sikhs and then followed far behind by Muslims. Pakistan to the common Muslims meant that the then state of affairs would be flipped. Muslims would be the ruling class and the Sikhs and Hindus would then become the downtrodden class. The lands of the Sikhs and the factories and shops of the Hindus would come into Muslim hands.

The Muslims in Punjab were the first to use violence to acheive their political objective of Pakistan during March 1947. The Muslim league party which was the largest party in the Punjab assembly was not asked to try and from a government and whether it could have got enough support from any of the other parties in the assembly is academic. The point is that a MAJORITY of the Punjab voters had not voted in favour of Pakistan. Being frustrated in their aims the Muslim League used its paramilitary force to kill thousands of Sikhs and Hindus around Rawalpindi. So this was the first event in Pakistan-Sikh relations. The use of violence against Sikhs in order to achieve a political objective.

When the Sikhs retaliated against the Muslim violence it was when they ahd lost all their best lands and half of their population were being turned into refugees. The aim of the Sikhs were to clear East Punjab of Muslims and thus create space for the refugee Sikhs from West Punjab. Had Gandhi and Nehru had their way they would have ensured that all Muslims stayed put in East Punjab and refugee Sikhs would have been resettled outside Punjab. This would probably have been preceeded by a political stunt of attempting to send back the refugees to Pakistan from where they had only saved themselves by the skin of the teeth.

It might be true what Auzer has stated that more Muslims were killed than Sikhs and Hindus in 1947. It wasn't for want of trying on the part of the Muslims. The recent book by Istiaq Ahmed about the partition violence concedes that the Muslims were the first to use violence to acheive their political objective. The reason he believes that more Muslims were killed than non-Musims was due to the fact that having suffered heavily in March 1947, the Sikhs were able to make preparations for the coming violence. In my view the Muslims having seen that there was no Sikh retaliation in March 1947, the Muslims believed that they had beaten the Sikhs into submission and having achieved that objective the Hindus of Punjab could easily be bullied into acquiesce to Pakistan. Having, in their view beaten the Sikhs, the Muslim League did not believe that they needed to make concessions to the Sikhs and hence the offer of a Sikh state within Pakistan was an afterthought and offered at a time when the Sikhs knew that Pakistan meant to the Muslim masses. Ironically had the Sikhs retaliated heavily against the Muslims in East Punjab in March 1947 rather than as they did in August there might have been likelihood of some sort of Muslim-Sikh agreement which would have possible.

2. After 1947 there was a lot of hostility towards Sikhs in Pakistan, more than the hostility to Hindus. After realising how they had badly they misjudged the Sikhs, the Muslim rulers of Pakistan ensured that the Sikhs were always presented as the enemies of the Pakistanis. The Government published two books, The Sikh Plan and The Sikh Plan in Action trying to blame the Sikhs for all the violence against the Muslims. They conveniently forgot that they had been the ones who had used violence to achieve Pakistan. The Pakistani representative also blamed the Sikhs at a speech at the UN. From what I have heard the Pakistani primary textbooks from the 1950s had a picture of a Sikh as a representation of the word Z for Zalim (tyrant).

3. On the point of the 1965 and 1971 wars. Both sides present 1965 as a victory for their side. Indira Gandhi armed and trained the Mukti Bahini so Pakistan had every right to arm and train Sikhs and Kashmiris in the 1980s. But the big difference is that whereas Indira Gandhi was sincere in creating Bangladesh, the Pakistani have never been sincere in helping the Sikhs create Khalistan. Their aim in to keep the Indian army bogged down in Punjab so that Kashmir can be 'liberated'. Most Kharkoos realised this double game of the Pakistanis. Benazir Bhutto helped Rajeev Gandhi with intelligence about the Khalistani groups in Punjab.

[Auzer]

^ Thank you for the post proactive ji.

This is the type of responses I was waiting for...but alas , Panther [MOD CUT - NO PERSONAL ATTACKS] used this 'Sikh forum' to take out his personal frustration with Islam and Prophet! I don't know why don't MODS put him on "moderation" and only approve his posts that are on topic...

Anyways , I won't challenge your claim that Muslim started the violence first. Lets be it.

But what are your of Pakistan NOW? Have you ever been to Pakistan? Been to Lahore? One thing I must ask from a sensible man like you....Why do Sikh general public blame Pakistanis for the atrocities that your Gurus face? Isn't it the time that Sikh leaders tell Sikhs that Pakistanis did NOT kill Sikh gurus....It were Mughals and outside invaders! ...What are your view about it?

[Sherdil]

^ Thank you for the post proactive ji.

Why do Sikh general public blame Pakistanis for the atrocities that your Gurus face? Isn't it the time that Sikh leaders tell Sikhs that Pakistanis did NOT kill Sikh gurus....It were Mughals and outside invaders! ...What are your view about it?

Cuz pakis are the descendants of the Muslim invaders of the subcontinent.

[Sherdil]

O yeah, and also you said that Islam was spread in Asia by sufis. Then when you are proven wrong, you backtrack and say that the invaders weren't you guys! You keep dancing around buddy! What kinda learned person are you?

[Mehtab Singh]

Auzer

Since I don't know you personally, and vice versa, I can claim to have read 20 books on Islam and Pakistan's history and you'd never know if I was lying or being truthful. So don't bother telling me how well-read you are. Like Sherdil said, why do you keep backing off and twisting words to suit yourself? Don't worry about me being sensitive. What you read was me being tolerant, so if I was sensitive, then.....lol, yeah . As for 1965, maybe "Khemkaran" will ring a bell. Wikipedia isn't my only source of knowledge, nor is it 100% trustworthy.

Look dude, we understand you are a Pakistani and a Muslim. I don't know about others, but I've grown up with your lot and have tons of friends from your background, so I know you people well (thats 1 claim I can make, and need no book for that). Your (i.e. your fellow folks) passion for Pakistan and Islam is deep-rooted, and thats awesome. Problem is when you (your folks) start dissing others. I've heard Muslims say "We ruled India for 1000 years, Spain for 800 years". Sorry sir, it was the Arab Muslims who did, not you.

Once again, this is a Sikh forum, so please don't use it as a platform to preach Islam. If you need to ask something about Sikhi, go right ahead. If not, then its upto you what you want to do on here. We can exchange ideas/knowledge/info but remember this board will not be used as a medium to get converts (you don't seem like one of those but just wanted to get that straight).

[chatanga]

.

Anyways , I won't challenge your claim that Muslim started the violence first. Lets be it.

Bro, just the history of Panjab from unbiased sources, like the English, and you will see that the Sikhs were viciously attacked, as part of a planned manouvre, by the Muslim League, in Rawalpindi Division, not just Rawalpindi district, but Rawalpindi Division, and you can see what Lady Mountbatten had to write about it, as she personally witnessed the aftermath by plane.

Every Pakistani i have met,have claimed that "you Sikhs killed a lot of Muslims in partition..." and they ludicrously claim, that no SIkh was killed by any Muslim.

.

But what are your of Pakistan NOW? Have you ever been to Pakistan? Been to Lahore?

Brother, the loss of western panjab is a dagger in our hearts, because we do not have the freedom to visit the Holy Land, where our Guru Ji, Guru Nanak was born. This pain is still felt by Sikhs today, and we remember this loss every day. Every Single day. Whatdo you want us to think of Pakistan? There is only one answer from us.

.One thing I must ask from a sensible man like you....Why do Sikh general public blame Pakistanis for the atrocities that your Gurus face? Isn't it the time that Sikh leaders tell Sikhs that Pakistanis did NOT kill Sikh gurus....It were Mughals and outside invaders! ...What are your view about it?

I dont know any Sikh that blames Pakistanis for the atrocities on the Gurus per se. I have met pakistanis who claim that Aurangzeb was a pious, spiritual man, who would never harm anyone.

We hold the Moghals to account for this, but the support for the moghals by their co-religionists ( Pakistanis) doesnt endear them to us either.

[TheFancyBanana]

the creation of pakistan/india was bad for all of us punjabis punjab was torn apart. millions of our punjabi people displaced, killed, losing family friends, land, homes. i have family that was displaced from pakistan. my pakistani friend's village is near my pind in punjab. however, maybe you should see what a number of your people did to sikhs http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/The_Battle_for_Amritsar,_1947 read that. the muslims wanted to take amritsar from us, thinking that if they did sikhs would be destroyed and not be a problem.muslims went rioting first. muslims tried to attack the darbar sahib, outnumbering the sikhs, but the sikhs repelled them under jathedar udham singh nagoke. they attacked sikhs first. they descrated gurdware, gurdwara baoli sahib l ahore was burnt down, the baoli lost, at gurdwara dera sahib sikhs were shot down by the police which were muslims. have you heard of sikhs doing this to muslims? however, pakistan is ok with sikhs now i guess. they've named a district after nankana sahib, building a university under the name of guru nanak dev ji, and slowly sikhs are emerging in pakistan. but the fact that a man made line, made out of fear and hatred seperates many sikhs from their spiritual birth place (nankana sahib) and many other historic sikh places is sad for many of us. the fact that a border cause so much hate between people is sad.

[Auzer]

Cuz pakis are the descendants of the Muslim invaders of the subcontinent.

Uhh what? lol... Over-whelming majority of Pakistanis are native people of this land of Indus....How many "Central Asians" would you find in Pakistan? How come Pakistanis become "decendents" of Central-Asian TURK invaders? wow!

O yeah, and also you said that Islam was spread in Asia by sufis. Then when you are proven wrong, you backtrack and say that the invaders weren't you guys! You keep dancing around buddy! What kinda learned person are you?

Proven wrong? What? lol... And I didn't say Asia..I said Islam was spread in SOUTH-ASIA mainly because of Sufi Saints... No one is denying the sword part....but the over-whelming majority of Muslims are here due to "Sufis" and not "sword" ... So I haven't backtracked on anything....