Isreal attacks -The changing face of the world

[californiasardar1]

6 hours ago, ChardikalaUK said:

As mentioned muslims only understand savagery done back to them. That's why we were so successful back in 1947 despite being in much smaller numbers. We outsavaged them. 

Just remember what the Taliban did to Afghan Sikhs. 

"Successful"?

I don't think that is the right word to describe a sad episode in which:

- A large proportion Sikhs were displaced

- Sikhs went from a wealthy substantial minority who were major players in a massive province to a less wealthy barely-majority in a tiny, truncated state

- The Sikh community ended up completely separated from many important historical sites and Gurdwaras

 

I also don't think "outsavaging" Muslims is something to be celebrated. Forcing people to leave when your people on the other side the border have been forced to leave is one thing. It can be justified in some sense as an exchange of population/property that was forced on us and was the only viable option. Coldly murdering people who were ALREADY leaving to Pakistan, killing children, raping women, etc. That is extremely shameful, plain and simple.

[ChardikalaUK]

12 hours ago, californiasardar1 said:

"Successful"?

I don't think that is the right word to describe a sad episode in which:

- A large proportion Sikhs were displaced

- Sikhs went from a wealthy substantial minority who were major players in a massive province to a less wealthy barely-majority in a tiny, truncated state

- The Sikh community ended up completely separated from many important historical sites and Gurdwaras

 

I also don't think "outsavaging" Muslims is something to be celebrated. Forcing people to leave when your people on the other side the border have been forced to leave is one thing. It can be justified in some sense as an exchange of population/property that was forced on us and was the only viable option. Coldly murdering people who were ALREADY leaving to Pakistan, killing children, raping women, etc. That is extremely shameful, plain and simple.

What was the alternative? Live side by side with muslims who are the majority in the state? The chief minister of Punjab would always be a Muslim and so would the head of police. Do you want to hear the Muslim call to prayer 5 times a day? Do you want their men perving on your female relatives?

It's one thing living next to Muslims in the British Raj era where everyone was against the British rule. After the era of kings and emperors demographics count and the muslims heavily outnumbered us in Punjab and with their breeding habits the gap would be even more today. Not to mention post 9/11 Pakistanis have gotten even more fundamental with bombs going off left right and centre in their cities, do you want that happening in Amritsar and Ludhiana? 

The Hindus still regret letting the muslims stay behind in large numbers and their numbers are forever growing. We at least nipped the problem in the bud.

The muslims started the violence with the Rawalpindi massacre on us and we just did the same back to them with extra. Compare that with the Bengali Hindus who got massacred in Noakali and never did a similar attack back, that's why their West Bengali state is 27% muslim today and why Hindus in Bangladesh have gone from around 22% in 1970 to a paltry 8% today.

So I don't condone any of the violence but if you don't retaliate when something bad is done to you or your community you just present yourself as being weak and that is what muslims take advantage of. They are a community that likes to test the waters, they push and push and see if there is any reaction from the other community, if not they show even more bravado. That's what happened when the Rohingyas were preying on Buddhist Burmese women and also when the muslims burnt the train in Gujarat, the Buddhists and Hindus then went berserk on them. 

 

[ChardikalaUK]

These guys have an inherent violent nature to them. They've been slaughtering each other throughout the middle east, just look at this Yemen war and in other places like Syria and Iraq. 

But because this time it is an outsider fighting them they are crying tears of genocide etc.

[Ranjeet01]

Just a pointer for everyone here.

The majority of the Jewish population is Mizrahi.

That is they come from the middle east countries rather than Europe which is the Ashkenazi. 

They make up the bulk of the ultra right wing and have the middle east/arab mindset so they understand the muslim mentality. 

[californiasardar1]

2 hours ago, ChardikalaUK said:

What was the alternative? Live side by side with muslims who are the majority in the state? The chief minister of Punjab would always be a Muslim and so would the head of police. Do you want to hear the Muslim call to prayer 5 times a day? Do you want their men perving on your female relatives?

It's one thing living next to Muslims in the British Raj era where everyone was against the British rule. After the era of kings and emperors demographics count and the muslims heavily outnumbered us in Punjab and with their breeding habits the gap would be even more today. Not to mention post 9/11 Pakistanis have gotten even more fundamental with bombs going off left right and centre in their cities, do you want that happening in Amritsar and Ludhiana? 

The Hindus still regret letting the muslims stay behind in large numbers and their numbers are forever growing. We at least nipped the problem in the bud.

The muslims started the violence with the Rawalpindi massacre on us and we just did the same back to them with extra. Compare that with the Bengali Hindus who got massacred in Noakali and never did a similar attack back, that's why their West Bengali state is 27% muslim today and why Hindus in Bangladesh have gone from around 22% in 1970 to a paltry 8% today.

So I don't condone any of the violence but if you don't retaliate when something bad is done to you or your community you just present yourself as being weak and that is what muslims take advantage of. They are a community that likes to test the waters, they push and push and see if there is any reaction from the other community, if not they show even more bravado. That's what happened when the Rohingyas were preying on Buddhist Burmese women and also when the muslims burnt the train in Gujarat, the Buddhists and Hindus then went berserk on them. 

 

 

The alternative would not have been to stay in Pakistan. The alternative would have been to have skillful, thoughtful, capable leaders who cold have preserved a larger chunk of Punjab to stay in India. The Sikhs did not have statesmen of the same caliber as Jinnah and Nehru.

I already recognized that the Muslims in East Punjab had to be driven out somehow. There was no need to massacre Muslims who were ALREADY trying to leave, there was no need to kill children, and there was no need to rape women. It is extremely shameful that Sikhs committed such crimes.

[ChardikalaUK]

1 hour ago, californiasardar1 said:

 

The alternative would not have been to stay in Pakistan. The alternative would have been to have skillful, thoughtful, capable leaders who cold have preserved a larger chunk of Punjab to stay in India. The Sikhs did not have statesmen of the same caliber as Jinnah and Nehru.

I already recognized that the Muslims in East Punjab had to be driven out somehow. There was no need to massacre Muslims who were ALREADY trying to leave, there was no need to kill children, and there was no need to rape women. It is extremely shameful that Sikhs committed such crimes.

As I said, demographics matter, in fact we got the Gurdaspur district which was Muslim majority. I don't think Pakistanis got any Sikh/Hindu majority area. Just because we ruled a lot of greater Punjab for 50 years doesn't mean the whole of it belongs to us. Using that logic the muslims could say they should still be ruling over most of India. 

Punjab does not equal Sikhi. 

Regarding the violence, the muslims were doing the same to us, it was <banned word filter activated> for tat and it was the muslims who started it in Rawalpindi and they also got up to similar shenanigans on the other side of India in Calcutta. 

[californiasardar1]

2 hours ago, ChardikalaUK said:

As I said, demographics matter, in fact we got the Gurdaspur district which was Muslim majority. I don't think Pakistanis got any Sikh/Hindu majority area. Just because we ruled a lot of greater Punjab for 50 years doesn't mean the whole of it belongs to us. Using that logic the muslims could say they should still be ruling over most of India. 

Punjab does not equal Sikhi. 

Regarding the violence, the muslims were doing the same to us, it was <banned word filter activated> for tat and it was the muslims who started it in Rawalpindi and they also got up to similar shenanigans on the other side of India in Calcutta. 

 

A skilled statesman would have been able to make a case for more of Punjab going to India based on factors aside from population.

Anyone who follows principles of Sikhi would understand that committing violent acts against innocent, defenseless people is shameful. What is the purpose of slaughtering Muslims who are ON A TRAIN HEADED TOWARDS PAKISTAN? They were already leaving.

[ChardikalaUK]

23 minutes ago, californiasardar1 said:

 

A skilled statesman would have been able to make a case for more of Punjab going to India based on factors aside from population.

Anyone who follows principles of Sikhi would understand that committing violent acts against innocent, defenseless people is shameful. What is the purpose of slaughtering Muslims who are ON A TRAIN HEADED TOWARDS PAKISTAN? They were already leaving.

Maybe the people who committed such acts saw members of their family killed by muslims or heard of them. It is human nature. You have to remember the muslims also did the same to us. There were also more of them in East Punjab compared to the number of Sikhs in West Punjab so it was a case of a larger group. Of people being in the wrong place in the wrong time. 

Most of the businesses and economy in Lahore was run by Hindus but that was not enough as it was about 65% Muslim. As you mentioned before on this thread Sikhs have little influence anywhere. Our population is miniscule in South Asia and the world, we're also not clever like the Jews. We should be thankful that we have a state that has a Sikh majority so at least we get to have a Chief Minister. 

[californiasardar1]

10 minutes ago, ChardikalaUK said:

Maybe the people who committed such acts saw members of their family killed by muslims or heard of them. It is human nature. You have to remember the muslims also did the same to us. There were also more of them in East Punjab compared to the number of Sikhs in West Punjab so it was a case of a larger group. Of people being in the wrong place in the wrong time. 

Most of the businesses and economy in Lahore was run by Hindus but that was not enough as it was about 65% Muslim. As you mentioned before on this thread Sikhs have little influence anywhere. Our population is miniscule in South Asia and the world, we're also not clever like the Jews. We should be thankful that we have a state that has a Sikh majority so at least we get to have a Chief Minister. 

 

Having family members killed by a certain group of people does not justify killing innocent people who belong to that same group. It may be human nature to seek revenge against innocent people, but anyone who is truly interested in following the path of Sikhi needs to be above that.

In many parts of West Punjab, Sikhs owned a majority of the agricultural land. Sikhs also could point to historic sites and Gurdwaras in West Punjab. Sikhs have little influence now, but they had built up a lot of goodwill with the British in the decades leading up to 1947. Sikhs were in a much stronger position then. If Sikhs had capable leaders who could take advantage of that goodwill and make the case for special consideration for Sikhs (beyond demographics), as was given to Jews, Sikhs could have gotten more.

[Ranjeet01]

When survival is at stake, all the virtue signalling goes out of the window.

At that moment of time, living by higher values gets you slaughtered. For dharma to prevail adharmic things have to be done.

Do what needs to be done, ensure your survival and then you can self reflect in all the bad things you had to do, and feel shame. 

If you want to ensure that you want to live by higher values, you need to put the mechanisms in place like not having adharmi people and ideologies to take precedence in your society.