Edl Holding Demo At Downing Street This Bank Holiday; Is Bhullar Sahibs Vigil Still There?

[proactive]

Brother, Hindus claimed their rewards from the mughals as much as the Muslims. Do you hate them with the same venom too ?

Brother, exactly 2 and a half times as many Muslims were murdered in Punjab 1947 as Sikhs. To put it simply, we'd have to go through another exact copy of the 1947 massacres and then half another one just to reach the same level of dead as the Punjabi Muslims. Were they not human too ?

Don't you see brother, there are no winners when it comes to irrational hate. If you can find a reason for hate then you have to realise that the ones you hate can just as easily find even more reasons to hate you. Hate is a losers game.

No one is denying the role of individual Hindus in the atrocities of the 18th century. Some Hindus like Lakhpat Rai persecuted the Sikhs because they wanted personal revenge as well as in order to retain their position in the Muslim government. For Muslims it was a different matter. Just the proclamation of Jihad was enough to get thousands into the countryside to commit atrocities against the Sikhs,

Trying to portray Muslims as the victims of 1947 shows just where your sympathies lie. Let me educate you on the Islamic mentality and a short history lesson. Muslims were the first aggressors and used violence as a political tool to achieve Pakistan. They attacked, murdered, raped, burnt and forcibly converted thousands of Sikhs and Hindus in the Rawalpindi area in March 1947. Their aim was to use the violence to silence the Sikh opposition to Pakistan. They waited for a backlash in East Punjab as they were well aware that Sikhs would not take the violence lying down. When no backlash came they were elated because they thought that years of economic success had made the Sikhs soft. They thought their aim to make the Sikh accept Pakistan would now be mush easier. This was the reason that they never seriously tried to make overtures to the Sikh leadership. Neither Jinnah not any other of the Muslim leaders expressed any express for what happened in the massacres.

Prior to the Rawalpindi massacres, there had only ever been riots in the urban area in which mostly the same amount of Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs would be killed. The Rawalpindi massacres were the first attempt to wipe out the non-Muslims from the area that was slated to become Pakistan. The Sikhs were the ones that were particularly targeted because the Muslims believed that if they could use violence to close down the Sikh opposition then the Hindus would automatically accept Pakistan and the whole of Punjab would become a part of Pakistan. The Sikhs in the Rawalpindi area were caught unawares, from living a peaceful life, they were suddenly attacked and their lives and livelihoods wiped out. Whole villages were destroyed. At least when the Muslims were attacked in East Punjab after partition, they were aware that attacks were taking place and could prepare to defend themselves. But the Sikhs in March 1947 didn't have that luxury.

When it comes to the fatalities suffered by the different communities it is generally assumed that the Muslims suffered the most. This is just an assumption and not scientific research has been done to back this up. UK Singh has shown that in as a percentage the Sikhs lost the most lives. If Sikhs suffered less deaths it was not because of some let up in the Anti-Sikh violence, it was because they Sikh leadership being aware that Pakistan would involve an exchange of populations and thus were able to make ready of that eventuality. Sikhs refugees were evacuated in an orderly way and their refugee caravans were the most organised. They had outriders to check out the route, armed guards for defence and ample supply of food. This was not the case with the Muslim refugee caravans. Even with this level of orderly evacuation, the Sikhs still suffered over 200,000 deaths which for a small community of 5 million was a disaster. Half of the Sikhs had become refugees and had to be settled on less land than they had left behind in West Punjab.

The Muslims were the winners in the partition. From being tenants of the Sikhs they suddenly became the owners of the Sikh lands. From being small time businessmen they suddenly had their pick of all the large Hindu businesses in West Punjab.

[LegalSingh]

Trying to portray Muslims as the victims of 1947 shows just where your sympathies lie. Let me educate you on the Islamic mentality and a short history lesson. Muslims were the first aggressors and used violence as a political tool to achieve Pakistan.

Nowhere did I try and portray Muslims as the sole victims. What I tried to show you, but obviously failed, is how hate works both ways, i.e if you think you have a good reason for hate the other side can just as easily find a reason just as irrational to hate you and I. For example, the many hundreds of thousands of Muslims that lost their lives in doaba and malwa were innocents with nothing to do with what happened in Rawalpindi. Another example is how the pashtu / dari word for cruel-rule by a power is 'Sikha-Shahi'.....i.e the word for cruel rule is sikh rule. They (the other side) see the 100 years that we ruled over them as a period of extreme cruelty where muslims were persecuted and their places of worship defiled. Of course we don't see it that way but if some muslims wanted to behave irrationaly they could see that as justification for blind hatred towards you and me.

Like I said before there are no winners in the hate game.......only losers.

[Jonny101]

Nowhere did I try and portray Muslims as the sole victims. What I tried to show you, but obviously failed, is how hate works both ways, i.e if you think you have a good reason for hate the other side can just as easily find a reason just as irrational to hate you and I. For example, the many hundreds of thousands of Muslims that lost their lives in doaba and malwa were innocents with nothing to do with what happened in Rawalpindi. Another example is how the pashtu / dari word for cruel-rule by a power is 'Sikha-Shahi'.....i.e the word for cruel rule is sikh rule. They (the other side) see the 100 years that we ruled over them as a period of extreme cruelty where muslims were persecuted and their places of worship defiled. Of course we don't see it that way but if some muslims wanted to behave irrationaly they could see that as justification for blind hatred towards you and me.

Like I said before there are no winners in the hate game.......only losers.

See that's just pure BS type thinking on the part of some Pakistanis. Note I said some not all because any Pakistani who has read his land's history knows that Sikh rule was a good and just rule. If Pathans of the nw frontier say this, it might make sense because there was a period when the european general avitabile was made governor of Peshawar and he dealt with the Pathans ruthlessly but Sikh governors were always good men. Sikhs never defiled their mosques nor did they forcibly convert them to Sikhi, I don't know why some Pakistanis say this lie that Sikhs defiled their mosques, but you will never find any contemporary sources verifying this claim. It was one of those anti Sikh myths their grand fathers came up with during partition to incite Muslims against the Sikhs