View Full Version : Sikhs and India
Prophet_K-C
02-02-2007, 17:46
Ever since India gained independence, majority of Sikhs have been treated badly and misrepresented. The Indian government and Sikhs do have a colourful history, for example the Indian government refusing to accept Sikhism as a separate faith….or Khalistan, which was meant to be the Sikhs homeland was promised to the Sikhs by the Indian government but they broke their promise…perhaps most importantly- Operation Bluestar, when the indian government decided to send the military into the Harmandir Sahib to capture some so-called terrorists, but they killed innocent Sikh women and kids…and the Delhi riots which were organised by government, allowing people to kill any Sikh they saw in retaliation to Indra Gandhis assassination, even the police joined in and started shooting Sikhs for the simple fact that they were Sikh.
Even after all that are you as Sikhs still able to say proudly that you’re an Indian?
i dont call myself Indian
am Sikh or British Born Asian
Amritsar is a religious place ( place of sanctuary) yet the Indian Governemt still fired upon it... more than once
Operation Bluestar is a gud example
theres a few shaheeds in Sikhism... 1 i talk alot bout is Uddam Singh
i feel he was right 2 avenge the death of hundreds by killin the General in charge of that attack
sum say he is a martyr... *shrugs*
is a miracle Manmohan Singh became president
loads said he wudnt cos hes sikh
Indra Gandhi was shot by her Sikh bpodyguards cos they didnt agree with the attack she ordered..... funny thing is she said she luved sikhs and her favourite bodyguard (a sikh) was the 1 2 kill her
I agree the Indian government has made alot of mistakes in the treatment of Sikhs in the past but the new reality is that this is all changing, now India has a Sikh Prime Minister in Manmohan Singh. I am still proud to call myself an Indian Sikh.
do u consider urself australian 2??????????
Yep, I consider my Self a Australian Indian, India is my birth country but Australia has given me alot too and I can't deny that.
Interesting topic and post KC! We need more topics like this in the other forum sections! Im not too familiar with the past history about India.. but im liking the discussion and im sure i can learn a few things from you guys.
India consists of Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs aswell as christians... but which has the majority? Im guessing Sikhs.. thats what ive always thought.., now about the conflicts that you have mentioned KC, its quite interesting to hear. Even when Sikhs were killed by their own goverment and police, was the goverment president a hindu or a sikh that time?
Also India being what it is today, from what i hear from the news and from family back home... theres more religious conflict more than anything else..
Do you think India will be kinda unstable and disheveled if a christian priminister was elected or even a muslim priminister?
What are your views?
at the time of the attacks
ppl in charge were hindus
am gonna b honest a christain will neva b prime minister there... its like america- will they eva have a black president???
Forgived.
03-02-2007, 01:28
Aint the majority of India Hindus?
As long as there is different religions in India conflict will exist, it is a maturing country and it will get to a stage where it will accept the different religions. I think the current president of India is muslim. Yeh there are always cultural differences in between individuals and communities no matter what country. It is just hieghtened in India I believe.
yep hindus r the majority
]']Yep, I consider my Self a Australian Indian, India is my birth country but Australia has given me alot too and I can't deny that.
ofcourse the countries our fathers and ancestors have migrated to have given us a lot, has given their kids "which is us" a future, whether were in the UK, US or even Australia.
First world countries have given us a chance..., and i think we shouldnt put our skills and wealth to waste, as im sure we know our home countries, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh are poor countries generally.. and we should try and take back some good to our country of origin, dont you think?
& the country we grew up in is also ours i say! Its given us the life, the chance.. and we shall respect it wherever we are, whether it be the UK, US or aussie! Think about it.. ask yourself this question... what are the chances of you being who you are right now if you were back home? i think the chances are very slim dont you think? i think so...
Forgived.
03-02-2007, 01:31
The politicians fuel the religious issues and it makes matters worse. And the public get all touchy and start causing riots. Its all politics.
I agree with you Kayz. We are the fortunate few who have this oppurtunity. There are many people in India who wish to migrate overseas for this oppurtunity to build a future. I definately agree with u on giving back.
at the time of the attacks
ppl in charge were hindus
am gonna b honest a christain will neva b prime minister there... its like america- will they eva have a black president???
ha its funny that you say that! its actually interesting thats why i asked... hmmm but i think there will be some point down the line after centuries i think when people accept each other.. (if they do) like AVZ said.. who knows there might be a christian priminister!
& black US priminister.. i think thats possible.. as right now condoliza thrice or whatever her name is, is the poodle and chum of G Bush... ive heard rumors shes fit to be the president for the US... but i think shes the ugliest politician ive ever seen... im sure alot of people will agree.... if i was put on an island and i had to choose then id go for Oona King anyday than rice!
aint hilary clinton runnin?
Yeh she is, I hope she gets it!
india is where our roots r from we shud b proud of where we came from even if the goverment are bein total diks xxxxxx
Prophet_K-C
24-03-2007, 14:09
Heres is what happened for those who want to know...Its one of the most contraversial events in indian history but the least reported because India didnt allow western media to report it...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4kEnzhsXIw
The video failed bruv.
There is one thing that we all know: Power corrupts people.
The term "Predjudiced", in the following block of text Ican also mean, agrressive, and those who murdered.
The indian government was predjudiced against sikhs wen they were in power. (As well as Muslims)..
The Mughal dynasty was predjudiced against hindus and sikhs wen they were in power..
Dont forget that wen the sikhs were in power in Punjab for a time, so I hear, they were also predjudiced against hindus and muslims.
The pakistani government in their "Exploitation" of Bangladesh..
So we see from these examples that none of the three main religions' leaders are right or wrong, and all of them are neither innocent because they all killed others at the end of the day wen they had the chance. Its bitter history but thats the way it goes.
india is where our roots r from we shud b proud of where we came from even if the goverment are bein total diks xxxxxx
I agree with this totally; you cant base the fact that your ashamed to call yourself indian because of what the government did to your people. It a matter of proud to be indian because of the heritage, the culture, the dance, the food, the people that live there, the geographical area etc. It is THIS that make you proud of your roots.
lineyman
24-03-2007, 14:30
I personally think Sikhs should have their own Khalistan, Bengalis have their own land Pakistanis also have their own land Sikhs likewise need something to call their own
Prophet_K-C
24-03-2007, 14:33
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4kEnzhsXIw
Thats the link...
Zero, your right but Sikhs were never in power in Punjab...Punjab was pre-dominantly Muslim and Sikhs and Muslims lived peacefully in punjab for hundreds of years as well as Hindus. It was when the partition happened and the assassination of Indira Gandhi that people started to get systematically brainwashed by fanatics and started turning on eachother...
Im not sure about the exact location of khalistan: Was it a chunk taken out of pakistan and india?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4kEnzhsXIw
Thats the link...
Zero, your right but Sikhs were never in power in Punjab...Punjab was pre-dominantly Muslim and Sikhs and Muslims lived peacefully in punjab for hundreds of years as well as Hindus. It was when the partition happened and the assassination of Indira Gandhi that people started to get systematically brainwashed by fanatics and started turning on eachother...
Ayt, thanks, Ill watch it after Ive munched.
Sikha were not in power? I mean not democratically. They had a time when they formed together a force didnt they? And when they did that, they started being no less gulity of murder than the other governments. Not on the same scale of course, but they still did it?
Also a point to liney's post: Pakistan was formed by Ali Jinnah to be a Muslim state. In the end thats wat they got but they were divided. West and east. And because of this more bloodshed occured. Now, the question that is yet to be answered is that if Khalistan was to be formed, there would be simillar bloodshed, and I dont think that the Pakistani and Indian governments would allow it for their own gains.
dallo_da_man_wiv_da_
24-03-2007, 14:48
most conflict in the world today is underpinned by difference of religious opinions and beliefs. However, despite that, i'm of the firm belief that integration is still the way to go, regardless of the country and the political/religious squables occurring at the time. Sikhs, muslims, hindus and christians can live together in India. After all, we, living in this country, are proof of that? For the most part we all rub along together just fine and there is a small minority that seek to cause trouble. Politicians will always thrive on conflict, for if we lived in a utopian society there would really be little need for a government in the format that we see it today. Most politicians are self serving and seek to further their own ends and the ends of their "own people". That's human nature.
Power needs to be restored to the people.
most conflict in the world today is underpinned by difference of religious opinions and beliefs. However, despite that, i'm of the firm belief that integration is still the way to go, regardless of the country and the political/religious squables occurring at the time. Sikhs, muslims, hindus and christians can live together in India. After all, we, living in this country, are proof of that? For the most part we all rub along together just fine and there is a small minority that seek to cause trouble. Politicians will always thrive on conflict, for if we lived in a utopian society there would really be little need for a government in the format that we see it today. Most politicians are self serving and seek to further their own ends and the ends of their "own people". That's human nature.
Power needs to be restored to the people.
Good post, i feel living together is best as well but when theres no other option than i guess people need there own land. That being said i still think jinnah should have done the partition thing more slowly as thousands were killed in the process. Sorry for going off topic.
dallo_da_man_wiv_da_
24-03-2007, 15:12
good point guji. partitioning land is always a safer option. however governments find it hard to come to any such agreement historically. the middle east being a prime example e.g disputes over the gaza strip. Land is a precious commodity no one is willing to let go lightly.
Anyone notice that land disputes are predominantly centred around asia and the middle east? Another obvious example is kashmir. What do you guys reckon this signifies? That religions such as Islam and Sikhism, Hinduism and Judaism evoke more "passion" from their people and motivate them to be more political and vocal in such matters, and refuse to budge in such issues?
I dunno
Some of this post is off topic, you have been warned.
most conflict in the world today is underpinned by difference of religious opinions and beliefs. However, despite that, i'm of the firm belief that integration is still the way to go, regardless of the country and the political/religious squables occurring at the time. Sikhs, muslims, hindus and christians can live together in India. After all, we, living in this country, are proof of that? For the most part we all rub along together just fine and there is a small minority that seek to cause trouble. Politicians will always thrive on conflict, for if we lived in a utopian society there would really be little need for a government in the format that we see it today. Most politicians are self serving and seek to further their own ends and the ends of their "own people". That's human nature.
Power needs to be restored to the people.
I dont think this is a valid point you know, on the outside this country is very integrated, mixed, and free, but on the inside, ethnic minorities will never be totally free, racism and inequality are deep down inside the people's hearts. I might sound extreme, but that surely is the way it goes.
Yes of course, but what happens if it isnt just a small minority that seeks to divide the people? It has happened as well. Then where do the people stand then?
Ah yes, a utopian society. This leads back on to the question, who were the first people to get into power? Lets think of a royal family for example. Who put them into power? And how did the people ALLOW them to rule over them with an iron fist. And how did they suddenly feel like singing songs for them in praise? Imagine if A president suddenly said that he was going to rule without noone saying nuthing, i.e. a dictatorship? Nowdays people wouldnt stand for it, but Pakistans an exception for sum reason, and this is wat the indian government were doing before the partition. So these politicians mustve been clever to get into the positions they have now. Youre 28, you should rember the time in the 70's and 80's that the idea of socialism was strong as people so it an alternative to the iron rulings of leaders, but it was literally squashed out by "democrats" for the sake of the "people" and all in the name of "democracy". Human nature is to become the best at wat they can possibly acheive. This is for the majority, but theres also those people that think that the best they can do is to rule others and be in power. SO in that theory, a utopian country can never play its part in modern society.
Power returning to the people? I highly doubt that this would werk because he fact that human nature always strives for something better and bigger than wat they already have. Also, there is the matter of educating people enough to work together, and to deal with each other and the two criteria is that either people dont want to know, which they are arrogant or that they know how to but they dont apply it, which is ignorant.
Good post, i feel living together is best as well but when theres no other option than i guess people need there own land. That being said i still think jinnah should have done the partition thing more slowly as thousands were killed in the process. Sorry for going off topic.
I disagree, time was the essence for Jinnah as the muslims were being treated so badly by the authority that he needed to create a border so that all the muslims would be under their own appropriate rule and no more casualties would be made by the indian government either slyly or in public.
good point guji. partitioning land is always a safer option. however governments find it hard to come to any such agreement historically. the middle east being a prime example e.g disputes over the gaza strip. Land is a precious commodity no one is willing to let go lightly.
Anyone notice that land disputes are predominantly centred around asia and the middle east? Another obvious example is kashmir. What do you guys reckon this signifies? That religions such as Islam and Sikhism, Hinduism and Judaism evoke more "passion" from their people and motivate them to be more political and vocal in such matters, and refuse to budge in such issues?
I dunno
Yes of course! You probably want to know why? The lands are full of precious commodities in their own right, Africa: Diamonds, Gold. Middle East: Oil. Its the people who are clever, i.e. the rulers, leaders etc. who decide wether to mould people into thinking that taking their land for its value is right.
Very good point. The thing is that its all on wat the mentality of the people and wat their religion teaches. Its what burns in their hearts that make them not stand down to any oppressor. So they must be powerful religions?
But dont forget, that christianity also had their time with their crusades.
Prophet_K-C
24-03-2007, 16:01
Zero, I don’t know what your talking about when you say Sikhs formed a gang in Punjab…tell me more about it…
I disagree, time was the essence for Jinnah as the muslims were being treated so badly by the authority that he needed to create a border so that all the muslims would be under their own appropriate rule and no more casualties would be made by the indian government either slyly or in public.
I don’t agree with that, Muslims Sikhs and Hindus lived peacefully before partition. Jinnah only wanted partition because he wasn’t able to gain power in India because he was facing a lot of competition consisting of men who had more popularity and power than he did, it was impossible for him to gain power whilst facing such fierce competition so he instigated that whole Pakistan movement. India had the highest muslim populations in the world, and the majority of the muslims living in India were against the idea of partition, even Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan and Maulana Azad were against partition. Jinnah was a politician, he wanted power…I don’t think he really cared about Muslims, because if he did…he would’ve listened to the majority who were against partition. Jinnah only wanted power…he was a clever man, and when the opportunity came he seized it.
Prophet_K-C
24-03-2007, 16:07
Also a point to liney's post: Pakistan was formed by Ali Jinnah to be a Muslim state. In the end thats wat they got but they were divided. West and east. And because of this more bloodshed occured. Now, the question that is yet to be answered is that if Khalistan was to be formed, there would be simillar bloodshed, and I dont think that the Pakistani and Indian governments would allow it for their own gains.
If Khalistan was formed, they’d develop close ties with Pakistan and Pakistan will use Khalistan as an ally against India…Khalistan will probably be more than happy to go against India after years of oppression they had to endure because of them. Plus, Pakistan was the country supplying Saint Bhindranwale all his weapons …
Zero, I don’t know what your talking about when you say Sikhs formed a gang in Punjab…tell me more about it…
I mean, wasnt there a time, when the sikhs had their own dynasty in Punjab? I mean, Maharajah Ranjit Singh and Dalip Singh?
I don’t agree with that, Muslims Sikhs and Hindus lived peacefully before partition. Jinnah only wanted partition because he wasn’t able to gain power in India because he was facing a lot of competition consisting of men who had more popularity and power than he did, it was impossible for him to gain power whilst facing such fierce competition so he instigated that whole Pakistan movement. India had the highest muslim populations in the world, and the majority of the muslims living in India were against the idea of partition, even Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan and Maulana Azad were against partition. Jinnah was a politician, he wanted power…I don’t think he really cared about Muslims, because if he did…he would’ve listened to the majority who were against partition. Jinnah only wanted power…he was a clever man, and when the opportunity came he seized it.
Hmm, okay point taken but I have to say that Muslims never lived in peace to an extent, simply because they needed islamic law, thats why the partition had to come about. Indeed Jinnah was a clever man of seizing the chance, but you also have to remember that Jinnah wanted to have an Islamic state where the so called other laws of india went against. ANd the reason why people opposed teh partition was that they were not that religious in a sense. And they didnt wat to have islamic rule. Of course jinnah was a politician, but you have to say, that guy went thru a lot to see wat he believed, and wat I believe to be the best for muslims. Nowadays, its a different matter for pakistan though. It kinda has gone very corrupt. And alos jinnah never wanted to rule all of india, the seperate state was wat he had in mind.
If Khalistan was formed, they’d develop close ties with Pakistan and Pakistan will use Khalistan as an ally against India…Khalistan will probably be more than happy to go against India after years of oppression they had to endure because of them. Plus, Pakistan was the country supplying Saint Bhindranwale all his weapons …
Well I think you may be right, could be because the sikhs are the people of the Punjab, and naturally they might come to some sort of terms with the sikhs. But I dont see that happening now, becase pakistans government is 110% corrupt.
Loads of durty politics, some even turn on its own kind for bit of wealth . like the former king of saudi killed by his nephew.
anyways people who stand and fight against those trying to protect their families and homes, for how can they be called gangs and terrorist,
Goverments are sly and cunning.
Loads of durty politics, some even turn on its own kind for bit of wealth . like the former king of saudi killed by his nephew.
anyways people who stand and fight against those trying to protect their families and homes, for how can they be called gangs and terrorist,
Goverments are sly and cunning.
One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.
dallo_da_man_wiv_da_
24-03-2007, 22:08
Some of this post is off topic, you have been warned.
SO in that theory, a utopian country can never play its part in modern society.
Power returning to the people? I highly doubt that this would werk because he fact that human nature always strives for something better and bigger than wat they already have. Also, there is the matter of educating people enough to work together, and to deal with each other and the two criteria is that either people dont want to know, which they are arrogant or that they know how to but they dont apply it, which is ignorant.
Communism and socialism aren't really dead. All you have to do is look at the situation arising at the moment in latin american countries. There's a socialist revolution in Venezuela and they're going against American policy. It was a government democratically voted in. It's the will of the people. Whether or not you regard socialism or communism as a step toward utopian values is another argument i guess lol. Marxism would definitely point at that.
Bloodless coup! It's happened many times in eatern bloc countries. If the people are dissatisfied they move with their feet. We're just a bunch of moaners in this country. If the people were motivated in England and actually took action against their governments, the power would literally be rturned to the people. As I said thee are many example, modern examples of this happening throughout the world, without the major use of arms or violence.
I totally respect your arguments by the way.
In response to Prophet KC's question of when did the sikhs have their little gang:
I have just confrimed this.
When the mughal empire ended, there was a period of time when maharajah ranjit singh ruled the WHOLE of punjab, he was sikh and he was also murdering like the mughals and the indian goverment. SO it goes to show that wherever there is power, and who gets to it first, they have the upper hand, obviously. So neither of the three main religions's leaders in those times were innocent.
HussainU
26-03-2007, 12:56
all the riots dat happen few years ago wid Hindus and muslims...
was all government again.
they spark it of then the people take over..
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.