tonyhp32

Modi must be glad that no Sikh or Muslim can become a part of his bodyguard.

The funny thing is that on social media you have all these Hindu fanatics criticising the Sikhs and accusing them of betraying the Modi wave! It seems that Hindus can votes of mass murderers like Rajeev Gandhi and Modi and call it a national wave but the Sikhs aren't allowed to vote against their enemies like Jaitley. The biggest loudmouth protests are from the Hindu lalas of Amritstar who can't handle the fact that the Sikhs did not want to vote for a Lala from Dehli as their representative. It seems that the Sikh voters have shown that they are more intelligent than the Hindus who voted for Vinod Khanna and made his victorious in Gurdaspur. This will the last time they will see him until the next Lok Sabha elections!

Just had underline my previous point that the AAP victory was mainly down to Sikh votes, I just had a look at the votes received by H S Phoolka. As you can see the Sikh dominated rural areas of Jagraon, Dakha and Gill and the urban areas of Ludhiana west which includes the Sikh villages which have come within the city limits in the last few years have voted for Phoolka and the Hindu urban areas voted for Bittu and Ayali. It gives a lie to Sher's contention that AAP's performance was due to both the Hindu and Sikh votes. In Jagraon Phoolka got 54% of the votes cast in what was a four way contest. The Sikh Panthic vote which wanted to punish Badal and the BJP found a home with the AAP especially as the AAP candidates had a background in fighting for Panthic causes. This should be something that SAD (Amritsar) and Dal Khalsa and other Panthic organisations should be looking at. As for Phoolka in Jagraon what is amazing is that apart for a whirlwind road show a week before the elections there was virtually no electioneering apart from a car going around the villages asking for votes. One hardly saw any Phoolka posters especially in the villages north of Jagraon. Bains actually had more posters in the Jagroan villages than either of the others and yet he got the least amount of votes! Seems like that idi.ot must have wasted crores of rupees on this election In the last few days Ayali had been telephoning all the Sarpanches telling them to make sure that he won the vote in their villages. Most people would tell the Sarpanch what he wanted to hear than they would vote for Ayali but among themselves they would tell the truth that they would vote for 'jharoo' (AAP) I did hear that in some villages to the south west of Jagroan, Ayali and Kler (the Jagraon Akali MLA) were thrown out when they went to ask for votes. They had reportedly offered some lakh to the village panchayat to vote for them and an NRI had said that he would give Ayali and Kler the same amount just to pi$$ off from the village!

This forum has been infected by Hindus and Hindus pretending to be Sikhs in the last few months. Don't mistake the views of Hindus pretending to be Sikhs like Jathedar Sahib and Amarjeet Hindustani as the views of real Sikhs. Hindus like Sher are just Hindu Punjabi hate mongers whose people because of their hatred of the Sikhs are now minorities in all the states created out of East Punjab and are hated in all these states. You can always tell whether you are debating with a Sikh in that no Sikh will attack you if you come to the forum, only the Hindus and Hindus pretending to be Sikhs will start off by calling Pakistan as Porkistan and abusing you as their pro-India and pro-Hindu Punjabi talking points cannot withstand scrutiny.

So what is the BJP dumba$$? a secular party? Anandpur Sahib is a Sikh dominated seat although it contains Hindu dominated areas of Nawanshahr and Anandpur Sahib it also contains the Sikh dominated tehsils of Rupar, Mohali, Chamkaur Sahib and Kharar. Balachaur, and Garhshankar are equally split. Did Kejriwal give out ladoos in 1984? You can't compare a typical cowardly lala like Jaitley with Kejriwal.

Keep dreaming. Remember those BSF soldiers tortured by the Bangladeshis. Vajpayee did nothing but register a strong protest. The Bangladeshis mutilated the BSF troops. If Vajpayee couldn't stand up to some puny Bangladeshis how could he stand up to the Pakistanis.

One good outcome was that AAP won 4 seats and came a close second in another. Their total vote was only a mere 2 % less than SAD. Bhagwant Mann has the making of a future CM of Punjab provided they now consolidate their gains and start to represent the interests of Punjab in Delhi something that the SAD never did. After the SAD converted itself from being a Panthic party to being a Punjabi party there has been a need for another party to take the mantle of the Panthic party. SAD (Amritsar) failed to do this and so given that the AAP gained the maximum votes from Sikhs in the rural areas of Malwa and that AAP in Punjab is already seen as a Sikh centric party having had candidates with a Panthic background stand in the elections such as Harinder Singh Khalsa who won and Harvinder Singh Phoolka who came a close second. Shergill the lawyer for the Sikh farmers of Kutch got over 3 lakh votes in these elections. This shows that the Panthic vote went to the AAP. Another good outcome was that the Lala Jaitley who had given out ladoos to celebrate Bluestar got a humiliating defeat from Amarinder Singh who was just a few months ago seen as a spent force. It looks like the Sikhs voted to stop the anti-Sikh lala from winning the seat.

That was written in jest. Modi is just a paper tiger just as Vajpayee was in 1999 when he released terrorists to save some Indian aeroplane passengers. The Pakistanis will continue their proxy war and Modi will rattle his sabre but in the end he will be shown as a coward just like all the other BJP lalas.

Had Pakistan attacked India in 1984 no Sikh would have supported the Indian army in Punjab. You can think all you like that Sikhs would have supported India but I know what the situation was at them time. Had Zia attacked India the Sikhs in the army would have revolted just as some units had already done. Pakistan lost a change to take revenge for Bangladesh in 1984.

The arseh*le will likely start a war with Pakistan which the cowardly Hindustani army can never win. Let's hope the Pakistanis nuke Gujarat before it's too late.

Haryanvi Jats are not Punjabis. They are ethnically the same as Sikh and Muslim Jats but they speak Hindi so they cannot be classed as Punjabi Hindus. In fact they would consider being called Punjabi Hindus as an insult as in their areas the Punjabi Hindu is typically a Lala shopkeeper. There are Punjabi Jats in Haryana, the most recent being the Sikh Jats from Sheikhupura settled in Karnal. The oldest Punjabi Jat setters are the Jat Sikhs of Sirsa and Fatehabad who settled the lands after the Bhatti Muslims lost their independence to Patiala state in the 1780s.

You have to understand that both Sikhs and Hindus were well aware of what it means to live in an Islamic state. For you it seems that giving non-Muslims 2nd class status is fine but Sikhs and Hindus were not prepared to live as 2nd class citizens. You can argue that Jinnah had given assurances but what has Pakistan become in the last 60 years, is it the state that Jinnah envisioned? Be honest, the life of a dhimmi is not the life that any self respecting non-Muslim would want to live. As for the guarantees of the Hindus, the Sikhs had to chose between the devil and the deep blue sea. Their real objective of Khalistan was not taken seriously by the British mainly because it was not presented in the correct manner. Instead of a Sikh state being created out of the British districts it should have presented as an enlargement of Patiala and the other Sikh states. In the offer that Jinnah made there was no provision for the Sikh state seceding from Pakistan. In the end the Sikhs rightly believed that the offer was just made in order that the Punjab would not be divided. The politics of unpartitioned Punjab would have been messy and it is very likely that there would have been a bloodbath much larger that 1947 when the Muslim leadership would have reverted back to form and started to treat the Sikhs and Hindus as dhimmis. Either that or the Muslim masses would have revolted if the status quo prior to 1947 had been maintained because they had been sold the Pakistan scheme as the takeover of the Sikhs lands and the businesses of the Hindus. It was not a burning hatred of Muslims. Master Tara Singh and the other Sikh leaders were realists. They knew that Muslim rule meant that the non-Muslims would have 2nd class status. Your failure to understand the very real fears that non-Muslims have lead you to put this down to hatred of Muslims. Evan Jenkins did not dismiss the Unionist govt. It was in the face of Muslim league agitation against the govt and the statement by the British govt to pass the rule to responsible hands that made Sir Khizr Tiwana give his resignation. The ML did not have the the required majority to stake a claim to form a government in Punjab (75 seats out of 175), They made tall claims about being supported by the Christian and an Anglo-Indian MLA but never proved this by showing the Punjab governor anything in writing from them to show their support. Had they shown majority support there was nothing stopping them forming the govt of Punjab. There was a Sikh plan just as there was a Muslim plan. The Sikh plan was to ensure the creation of a Sikh state but as this did not happen the next plan was that once partition boundaries had been announced then to evict the Muslims from East Punjab and hence ensure the creation of a Sikh majority area in East Punjab. The Muslim plan was to take over the lands and properties of the non-Muslims. Prior to the announcement of the partition boundary, over 500,000 Hindus and Sikhs had already moved from the Muslim majority districts to non-Muslims majority districts. There had been no such movement of Muslims in the opposite direction. According to Ishiaq Ahmed in his book this may have been one of the reasons why there was more Muslim deaths than non-Muslims deaths in 1947. So your comment about people not moving from West Punjab until August 1947 is not correct. The blueprint for the exchange of populations was already in place, it just needed the Sikhs to act to force the Muslims to move out of East Punjab. You are right, Gandhi, Jinnah and Nehru all share the blame for giving the minorities caught in the wrong side of the partition line advice to stay put. It goes to the credit of the Sikh leadership that they had already accepted that an exchange of populations was already underway that they did not advise the Sikhs in West Punjab to stay put there.

Interesting rant and one that reveals the mentality of many Pakistani Punjabis. But the Sikhs were only 5 Million compared to 16 Million Punjabi Muslims. So if the the Sikhs were only as 'brave' as the rest of the Punjabis then they should only have won 1 VC rather than 4. You might then say that there were more Sikhs than Punjabi Muslims in the British army but even there the ratio was 1 Sikh for every 2 Punjabi Muslims, so even by that ratio the Sikhs should only have won 2 VC and yet won 4! It's not the battles that matter but the result of the war. Pakistan hasn't won one war that it has fought in. Quite a record. The Sikh leaders knew that Jinnah could not guarantee anything. His claim that after his death his word would have been law shows how deluded he was of the nature of the state he was creating. The Sikhs would have been just like the Hindus and Christians are in Pakistan at the moment. Any minority in a Muslim majority state can never live with any dignity or even hope to be equal citizens in that state. I agree that the Sikh leaders made a mistake by joining the Congress and Nehru. Sikhs should have fought for Khalistan, they already had 8% of Punjab which was the Sikh states of Patiala and others and they should fought for to get the districts of Amritsar, Ludhiana, Jullundur, Gurdaspur and Lahore into that state. This would have ensured no 1984 although 9/11 would have happened anyway. The Sikhs and Hindus were against Pakistan for the reasons that no non-Muslims live with any dignity in a Muslim state. Master Tara Singh was uniting the two communities for the oncoming onslaught. Everything he was doing was entirely democratic. This included demonstrations against the claim of the Muslim League to form the Punjab government. He did give the slogan of 'Pakistan Murdabad' just as the Muslim League had been holding similar demonstrations against the Unionist led government in Punjab for the previous few months. These Muslim demonstration included the murder by a Muslim mob of a Sikh policeman. The oft-repeated story of his attacking the Muslim league flag with a sword is a myth created by the Muslim league to justify the genocide that they committed on the Hindus and Sikhs in the villages of Rawalpindi. Your claim that the violence was not as large or widespread as the Sikh media states. This is not the case, according to the govt 2000 people were murdered, countless raped and injured. This is about the same as those killed in Gujarat in 2002. Do you think that that violence was also exaggerated as well? You also do not seem to know the full facts. The initial attacks were on the Sikhs of Rawalpindi, who because they were well armed the gave the Muslims a drubbing so like all cowards they then switched to inciting the villagers around the town to attack the minority Sikhs in the villages. I agree. Sikhs have been victim to the myths of Maharaja Ranjit Singh's secularism which have been created on the Pakistani side by the descendants of the Faqeer brothers and on the Indian side by socialist historians. Maharaja Ranjit Singh was a pragmatist, he used the Punjabi Muslims and gave them just enough rights to ensure there was no rebellion. Not that he had any fears of a rebellion because the Punjabi Muslims had been emasculated in the first few decades of the 19th century so even though the Azan and cow slaughter was banned, the Muslims in his kingdom never rebelled. The reaction in East Punjab came after the Sikhs had been at the receiving end of a genocide in the villages of Rawalpindi and the survivors had migrated to East Punjab and their stories of the atrocities of the Muslims were be told and retold for months in East Punjab. If you want to blame anyone for the way the Muslims of East Punjab were killed then you should blame the Muslim league for orchestrating the massacres in the villages of Rawalpindi. It is surprising that a Muslim now complains about the violence his people were subjected to when the violence was the direct result of the violence has own people committed against the Sikhs. So do think the Sikhs should have kept a score and only killed the same number of Muslims as the number of Sikhs killed by Muslims! The only mistake made by the Sikhs in 1947 is that they kept their patience and only resorted to mass violence after the announcement of the partition boundaries. The Muslim League leaders after the March 1947 violence in Rawalpindi started to spread the belief that the Sikhs had lost their martial prowess, that the Muslims had put the Sikhs in their place and hence they had no need to make any overtures to the Sikhs to keep the Punjab united. Jinnah never made a statement against the violence and it was from then on that the Sikhs did not entertain any agreement with the ML. If the Sikhs had retaliated in March 1947 then both the Congress and the ML would have taken their threat to derail the partition should they not get Nankana Sahib and the Canal Colonies in East Punjab more seriously. An armed population is a good thing but the armed Pakistanis are not the same as the armed Israelis who undergo many months of military training and can take orders from authority. The armed Pakistanis have no such training and any of them can be brainwashed by a Mullah to kill shias/ahmedis/barelwis take your pick. Pakistan is on the way to becoming a failed state like Somalia.

What's stopping you using Kaur in your name now?

The fascist Hindus like to think that the BJP is some kind of belligerent nationalist party but when push comes to shove the yellow bellies of the Hindus are always revealed. Remember this the last time the BJP was in power. Even the Bangladeshis kicked the Hindustanis butt! http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/barbaric-killing-of-bsf-jawans-puts-india-bangladesh-relations-under-severe-strain/1/233646.html

You are posting as if he had already won. Don't be too hasty. The AAP will upset the Gujju's applecart.

Dumbass you made the comment about Sikhs not being gatekeepers of East Punjab. My response was about the situation at the time. The Hindu Punjabis being cowards is seen throughout the book. The author does try to lump the resistance against the Muslims as being Sikh and Hindu but when it comes to specific incidents the cowardice of the Hindus is very clear. The Hindus in Lahore although they were 28% of Lahore weren't very tough when in came to the battle for Lahore and Amritsar in March 1947. The Sikhs who were 5% did most of the fighting. The same happened in Amritsar where the Hindus were 29% and the Sikhs only 15%. In Amritsar the lack of Hindu mettle can been seen from the casualty figures which were 64 Muslim, 31 Sikh and 4 Hindu deaths and 1 Christian. It was not a case of wiping out Muslims, it was a case of driving them out just as they drove the Sikhs out of West Punjab so that these Sikhs could be settled in East Punjab.

I wouldn't expect an ignorant Hindu to know about Jathera. Desparate guerillas who won control of large areas of Punjab and took Rakhi from the Ganga valley and Haryana. So tell me Sher ha ha what have your cowardly people achieved in the last 300 years? The heroes who made sure that the Mughal empire was not revived are heroes in our eyes. Simranjeet Singh Mann is fighting for freedom. Read what Zafarnama says of the Gurus control of the Brars. The rest of your post is the usual Hindu claptrap. You can't make up for the cowardice of your Hindu ancestors by acting like a 'sher' here! Hindu+Sher what a joke!

Read what happened in 1947. Without Sikh resistance to Pakistan, the Hindu Punjabi would have been wiped out. In the book Punjab partitioned bloodied and cleansed by Ishtiaq Ahmed. The Muslim interviewee states that in his village of Gujjarwal in Ludhiana which was a Muslim village in 1947 with a large number of Arian households, the Hindus and Sikhs were a small minority in the village. The story he gives that in 1947 prior to partition it was usual for Pathan gangs to be wander around the Punjab. Whenever one of these gangs came to the village, the Hindus would panic and rush to the Muslim headman of the village and say that they didnt want any trouble! The interviewee then states that 'the Sikhs were different, they were tough' and then narrates what happened in 1947 when the Muslims of the village were virtually wiped out by the Sikh jathas.

1, The Jats were never a part of the caste system or a part of the 'hindu' religion. Their national religion was Jathera - the worship of ancestors. 2. Only an ignorant HIndu would make this statement. The Jats were the backbone of the Misls. 3.I have given you the names of the Jat generals, again only an ignorant Hindu idiots would refer to them as havildars. 4. The Punjabi HIndu has treachery in his DNA. From Gangu Brahmin down to Lala Jagat Narain 5. Another Hindu wet dream. Treachery and cowardice go hand in hand for the Punjabi Hindu. 6. A Jat ruled area 10 times the size of present Punjab, where the population of his tribe would be less that 6% of the total population. Show me where a Hindu Punjabi has managed to do this. 7. The Arab empire after 750AD was marred by dissensions and it was only after the Turks became Muslim that they restarted the conquests. The Hindus now use this interlude to build up a false image of their ancestors so-called resistance to the Muslim invasions. The Arabs were a spent force before the Turks became Muslim,

Again a dumb Hindu will always be a dumb Hindu. You claim that just because a Jat did not rule even the whole of the present Sikh Punjab it means that the Jat achievements can be negated. Even though a Jat maharaja ruled an area 10 times the size of the present Punjab. You attempt to make make Maharaja Ranjit Singh as a sansi instead of a Jat shows how ignorant you are. Look at the condition of Sansis today in these enlightened times when they can just about get two square meals a day and yet a Sansi family 200 years ago created the biggest empire in Sikh history! You are a class A idiot. You claim that Hindu resistance ensured that the Arabs could only conquer Sindh until Ghaznis invasions. Maybe you should look at the what other areas the Arabs conquered between 750AD and 1000AD. Apart from a few Italian islands it was very little. as they were rife with dissensions and it was only because of fresh blood in this case Turkish that ensured that the conquest stage of Islam recommenced after a period of 300 years. The Turks invaded India with Mahmud of Ghazni and in the west they started the conquest of Anatolia from the Byzantines. Diwan Mulraj was like the other great 'hero' of Hindu fascists like you, Bahadur Shah Zafar forced by circumstances and the zeal of others to revolt. His role in the killing of the British officers was as an accessory after the fact and he had no role in the attack that led to their deaths. His revolt was not see as a revolt against the British but against the regency of Maharajah Dalip Singh. It was only later that it assumed the role of an attempt to drive the British out of Punjab and the main action was on the banks of the Chenab and in Peshawar by armies commanded by those you call traitors that gave the British the toughest battles they had in India. Multan after that became a sideshow.

You are again displaying your ignorance. Read any book on Maharaja Ranjit Singh and you will read about these generals. As for the 'treachery' of Sher Singh, it's quite ironic coming for a member of the most treacherous community in Punjab! The revolt by Mulraj was a revolt against the authority of Maharaja Dalip Singh and hence the Sikh sardars were durty bound to assist the British. It was only when the British motives became suspect that Sher Singh and his father Chattar Singh revolted.

As for Jat Sikh generals, Sham Singh Attariwala of the battle of Sabroan , Chattar Singh and Sher Singh Attariwala (2nd Anglo-Sikh war), Lehina Singh Majitha (governor of Kangra), Dhanna Singh Malwai, Fateh Singh Kalianwala (conqueror of the Chatha Jats) You really are thick, so a Jat ruler never ruled the whole of Punjab yet they ruled 75% of Punjab, 50% of Himachal, whole of Jammu and Kashmir and whole of NWFP.

The Arabs were not interested in conquest of India as they needed time to consolidate their gains. The only reason why there is such a big gap between the Arabs taking persia and then a Muslim conquest of Delhi is due to the Arab need to consolidate and control the regions they had conquered. In that time the Arabs were overtaken by the Turks and it was the Turks who invaded India in the 11th Century. Stop your Hindu dreams of having stopped the Muslims for 500 years. When the Muslims eventually made an attack, their conquest of India was one of the easiest conquests they made. The Muslims never feared the Hindus as they feared the Franks and the Chinese. In fact it was these two peoples that stopped the Muslim spree of conquest in its tracks.

If you live in a state that you hate and you hate the people and the language and religion of the majority of that state then you lose the right to live in that state. The Sikhs pushed out the Muslims from Sikh areas of East Punjab in 1947 and they should have done the same to the Hindus at that time.