Jump to content

More mayhem in Pakistan! Vaheguru kirpa kar!


Mehtab Singh
 Share

Recommended Posts

At least 6 killed in Pak train bomb attack: http://publication.samachar.com/pub_articl...amp;nextIndex=2

Islamabad: At least six people, including a woman and three children, were killed on Friday when a bomb planted on a railway track exploded derailing a passenger train in central Pakistan.

Two bogies of the train derailed following the blast which took place near Bahawalpur in Punjab province, Geo TV reported. It said six people were killed and several injured in the blast.

Some of the injured, said to be in critical condition, were rushed to Victoris Hospital in Bahawalpur while rescue teams have also been sent to the accident site, the report said.

Citing police, it said the explosives were planted under the railway lines which damaged two bogies. Several people were still trapped in the bogies while the train services had been suspended on the track after the blast.

Three suicide bombers blow themselves up in Karachi: http://publication.samachar.com/pub_articl...amp;nextIndex=3

Three suicide bombers suspected of planning an attack on a "high-profile" target in Pakistan's southern port city blew themselves up after police surrounded the house they were hiding in.

The suicide bombers linked to an outlawed militant outfit with close links to al-Qaeda, detonated themselves as security forces tried to flush them out from a building in the shanty Baldia town on the city outskirts, police said.

The raid on the militant outfit came as Pakistan Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani reached the metropolis on an official visit.

There was no immediate suggestion that the men were targeting Gilani, whose motorcade was recently attacked near the capital.

Police also recovered the body of a prominent city transporter Shaukat Afridi, who was a supplier of fuel and goods to the US and NATO forces in Afghanistan.

The Pashtun transporter was reported to have been kidnapped on May 8 from the posh locality of Clifton and was being held for ransom.

Police made a huge haul of 10 kg of explosives, two suicide jackets, seven pistols and nine hand grenades from the Karachi house which was badly damaged by the explosion.

Police were tipped off about the presence of the Lashkar-e-Jhangvi militant by a leader of the outfit who had been nabbed earlier.

Initially, the militants resisted the police siege and lobbed at least five grenades at the police, but caused no casualties.

"The militants blew themselves up after their ammunition was exhausted," police said.

They said four bodies were recovered from the debris of the house, which was destroyed in the blast.

Karachi, Pakistan's commercial capital is considered a militant hub and has witnessed large scale political and religious violence and the raid in the city signalled that Pakistani armed forces were spreading their dragnet to encompass southern part of the country as well.

Lashkar-e-Jhangvi is one of the most feared militant outfit and is often associated with sectarian attacks and suicide bombings on mosques. Its fighters were trained in camps in Afghanistan and have joined terror attacks sanctioned by Al Qaeda.

Bodies of the slain militants were recognisable and police said that they were wanted over the killings of several local leaders and clerics from the minority Shiite sect.

"We have saved Karachi from death and destruction. We know who they were and what was their target in Karachi, but we cannot disclose it immediately," police said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, so the innocent population deserves what it gets - what a moron ideology.

Sikhs of course were innocent - and didn't completely wipe out Muslims from any part of Punjab. Dream on. Blood shed was caused in equal measure - on both sides,if we take this stupid attitude - we may as well also say that Sikhs deserve everything they got 1984 onwards.

Grow up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Instead of just ranting why don't you try and understand the situation that you are trying to comment on.

Is exterminating and ethnically cleansing an entire population from your midst solely because they are of a different religion and they own all the best lands and the industrial complexes the same as doing the same to another group so that you can provide space from those fleeing the first ethnic cleansing? Is there any difference between the ones who started the massacres and the ones who responded as a means of self preservation? Going by your logic the Sikhs are guilty because they should have just stayed non-violent and today we would have around 20-25 % Muslim population in our Punjab. Of course these Muslims would have been model citizens just as their co-religionists in Thailand, Phillipines, Chechnya and the like.

No one said that innocent people deserves what they gets, but historically if you don't see anything morally wrong in killing and driving out others then the likelihood is that it will get ingrained in your culture, if it was not there already. If you don't have many non-Muslims to kill then you look for differences in other Muslims so that you can get an outlet for your murderous traits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is sad to see (relatively) innocent ones die when it is usually unscathed sly individuals in the background instigating gullible mob-like hotheads to do this dirty work.

Regarding the ethnic cleansing issue : If we look at the percentage of population belonging to various religions in each country, it stands out that nearly every muslim majority country is like 99% or 100% muslim. Why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tony jee I agree with you. From my mother’s side, they had a lot of land in Pakistan before partition in the city of Lyalpur. They were very well off. But they were forced to leave like millions of Sikhs. Lyalpuri Sikhs were the last of west Punjab Sikhs to leave Pakistan. When they arrived in Amritsar, that city along with many east Punjab cities still had large Muslim populations and they also formed a majority in Jalandhar Doab.

The Sikhs did not want partition nor did they start the violence, but once the Muslim league started it, the Sikhs finished it. If Sikhs did not fight back against Muslims, today due to high Muslim birth rates, it's very likely that they would have formed the majority in Punjab. We would have basically ended up being a minority just as Hindus were in the Kashmir valley(and we all know what ended up happening to them!).

The only reason why during the olden days Sikhs ended up being masters of Punjab despite being a small minority of less than 8% of the entire Punjab population is because back then there were no laws against owning a gun. With India's current illogical strict gun laws, it's very likely that if Muslims had formed a majority the defenceless(without guns) Sikhs would have ended up exactly like the Kashmiri Pandits. I'm a big supporter of Sikhs having and owning fire arms. We all know that a Sikh in India cannot depend on the police for justice or protection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"and today we would have around 20-25 % Muslim population in our Punjab. Of course these Muslims would have been model citizens just as their co-religionists in Thailand, Phillipines, Chechnya and the like."

Well, I can't really debate with a blatent Islamophobe - who justifies murder of innocents in retaliation - maybe you should familiarise yourself with 10th Masters rules and conduct in war. No is saying what 'some' Muslims did was right - it was outright evil - but the extermination of innocents in retaliation on India side was no less evil.

Old zimidaar friends of mine have told me some monstrous stories which they were in turn told by their grandfathers - who for some reason were proud of their role in the massacres. These people gathered every tom,dick and harry from the village (and neighbouring ones) and systemattically killed all Muslim families in their province and took their property - killing women and children is not Gurmat. They used to be rpoud of their nicknames i.e. das, vee, thhee, chali etc - denoting the headcount - what a great competition they had. But according to our Nazi friend Tony and his supporters - because ALL muslims are terrorists and prolific reproducers, then it must be justified.

My opinion has not been made based on fairytale ideology - but 1st hand accounts from the murdering B******s themselves. It makes me sick to the teeth to be associated with these monsters, even worse than them are you - who being brought up in a democratic state - preach racial/religious hatred. Your different from your Shia brother Bahadur Ali.

Evil is inherant in all man - religion has nothing to do with it - this was proven in this most sad part of Hindustans history.

God have mercy on your souls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to add and balance the horrid tone of this thread - I have also met and heard from people on both sides who were rescued by their neighbours - including long distance members of my family.

I also know of real Sikhs who homed Muslim families and had a face off against the rest of the pind who wanted to slaughter them. These are the people I am proud of - not the genocidal maniacs who's actions you people justify.

To have courage, dignity and compassion is to be Sikh - not to kill unarmed innocent Muslims and then make out that the genocide was in fact a war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

brother Shaheediyan, I don't really think the current generation is proud of what happened in 47, but 45%(almost half!) of Sikh population lived in what is now Pakistan. They lived there for centuries. They didn't know anything about east Punjab. They were the most prosperious of Sikh communties especially the ones that lived in the canal colonies of Lyalpur and Sargodha. But when they were forced to leave and live in refugee camps in fear because many of them were slaughtered and women folk kidnapped, it's very hard to follow the Khalsa ideal. 20th century Sikhs were not exactly like the Sikhs of the 1700s who did not retaliate against Muslims. They were human after all.

Sikhs do not start conflicts with anyone. But when Sikhs are slaughtered, Sikh women raped, thousands of women from Pothohar region jumped into wells to save themselves from rape, many were even killed by their own brothers and fathers. When people from east Punjab heard of these atrocities happening to their brothers in west Punjab at the hands of Muslims, Sikhs were no longer able to control their anger. Enough was enough for them. I’m proud of the fact that my father’s and mother’s side of the family did not participate in killing Muslims. But I certainly do not condemn the people who did considering the circumstances they were at the time. It’s very easy for us to judge them today living in our confortable air conditioned homes in the 21st century, but back then the situaltion was of do or die for the Sikhs. They did not have the option of debating morality and ethics like we the privileged people of the 21 century do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's funny how easy we forget dharam yudh rules laid out clearly by sri guru gobind singh ji which we come across via various sakhiya of guru maharaj ji and his sikhs.

Only bhramgyani's/samdristi/atamgyani can only be asli soorma/shaheed of khalsa panth. Those people who have killed innocent people in their hunger of blood for blood can never be equated with shaheediya of puratan marjeevaie bhramgyani soorma's because they were driven by personal revenge.

Few examples of killing with compassion, destroying enemy with no personal animosity and also sam dristi towards them from sikh history:

- It's been usually said, sri guru gobind singh ji maharaj carried arrow made out of gold so that if mughal army member get killed by that golden arrow, his/her family are able to survive also finished their loved ones final rites by selling that golden arrow. Here we are trying to justify killing of innocent's.

- Bhai Kahniya ji fed water and apply medicine to the injured army of enemy by seeing this level of sam dristi lot of mughal became sikhs.

- Baba Bir singh ji nauragabad when got attacked by small number of dograi , instead of annihalting the small number of dogra by their large army. He ordered his army to make langar instead thinking of dograi came from far away to attack us, they must be hungry. They fed langar to them, afterwards got blown by thopas, cannon guns. Baba Bir Singh Ji maharaj naurangabad kachera with big hole from thop golla is still available for people who need some reality check.

Now those people who like to argue times were different then and now its more guerilla war fare are fooling themselves and try to justify killing of innocent. Sad things is for such people, such sakhiya above looks only good in the books when it comes to try to implement them, they cannot because they are all driven by anger. Thats why guru ji created a concept of sant first then sipahi, only person who have sam dristi can be soorma of khalsa panth and is allowed in the realm of shaheed singhs blessed by Guru Sahib himself.

Please check out the discussion - ~Time to Re-evaluate concept of shaheediya in the panth"

http://www.sikhawareness.com/sikhawareness...opic.php?t=9245

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mithar Ji,

You are completely missing the point. Sikhs in 1700’s were not passive – they fought the actual enemy – not killed, raped and maimed innocent members of the enemies faith group who were isolated in the Indian Punjab. Muslim bibiyan were called Buddiye out of respect and treated with respect (as per Muslim records and not the trash some stupid members of this forum and BA have been propagating).

The murder and rape of Muslim women is not something that is taught to us Sikhs – but go to Pakistan and you will hear the same stories of Sikh atrocities that we hear of Muslim atrocities. I have not even had to that, I have been told of 1st hand accounts from Sikhs themselves – who say their Baba was proud of the opportunity to reduce the Muslim populace and exterminated them like rats – this was not war – it was genocide of an unarmed faith group. On both sides you forget the murders were carried out against unarmed residents isolated in the wrong country.

And the situation was not do or die – doing does not involve killing all Muslims (inc women and children) to ethnically cleanse your pind and surrounding pinds and then claim their land – they worked just as hard, and had inherited it over hundreds of years also. Doing does not involve raping Muslim girls just because you heard the same was being done by some evil people on the opposite side.

If the penny hasn’t dropped yet, then I am wasting my time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"- Baba Bir singh ji nauragabad when got attacked by small number of dograi , instead of annihalting the small number of dogra by their large army. He ordered his army to make langar instead thinking of dograi came from far away to attack us, they must be hungry. They fed langar to them, afterwards got blown by thopas, cannon guns. Baba Bir Singh Ji maharaj naurangabad kachera with big hole from thop golla is still available for people who need some reality check. "

Actually, the only reason baba ji didn't fight back was b/c they were sikhs, and he would not raise arms against sikhs.

The most fault of partition lies with the British more than any other group. They were suppposed to police the partition and migrations. They did not b/c they knew it would result in slaughter and create enmity, helping to keep the subcontinent weak. Every place the British have left from they used the same tactic of dividing the enemy (all non-whites) to weaken them. In Africa, they created countries in such a way as to make sure that a sizable minority of a tribe lived in a country with the majority of another tribe. Combine this with resource scarcity and human nature and youhave a tinderbox. In the middle east they set up royal families to rule and represent their own interests.

-http://www.sikhsangat.com/index.php?showtopic=39975&hl=

Link to comment
Share on other sites

shaheediyan, i hear what you are saying, and you are right about dharam yudh. however revenge will make a person do crazy things. at that time the muslimshad been killing sikhs for well over 2 years in west panjab. even in 45/46 there were villages which sikhs would refuse to enter to sell goods/milk etc for fear of death. the killings of muslims only came about after the radcliffe line was awarded in august 47. sikhs simply saw it as payback,however horrible that seems.

my uncle who came from montgomery recalled the massacre of rawalpindi in march 47, and said " we were extremley angry after hearing what the muslims had done and wanted to take revenge..."

also i was told by the elder brother of Sant-Sipahi Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale, that their father Baba Joginder Singh had actually helped the evacutaion and safe passaage to a camp for the muslims wishing to go to pakistan.

i dont agree with what the sikhs did, but i can fully understand why they didwhat theydid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With all due respect, you can fully understand what you like - the only thing that matters is understanding Guru's mat - and killing innocents, women and children isn't it. These people were not Sikhs of Guru - they were Demons - Demons are not horned, hoofed, tailed men - they are those that have let the panj chor replace blood in their veins.

These people were a blot on our previous glorious ithihaas - even when the vadaa ghallughara happened - Sikhs acted with dignity - taking the fight to the soldiers - not ravaging innocent Muslims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sikhs acted with dignity - taking the fight to the soldiers - not ravaging innocent Muslims.

But what do you do when IT IS the civilians that are doing the killing of the Sikhs as was the case in 1947? It's a well known fact that with the exception of the Baloch regiment, the Muslims soldiers did not participate in the killing of Sikhs. That is also due to because the British were smart enough to disarm the Muslim Punjabi soldiers right before partition.

This war was between civilians. Not only were the people who died were civilians but the people who did the killing were also civilians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Civilians commiting the murders were on their side of the border, and were unrelated to the civilians of the same faith getting killed on the wrong side of the border - it's really simnple to understand - it wasn't a war - it was a genocide on both sides of the border.

Any amount of politcal blame (which is correct in the bigger picture) does not take away the unpleasant truth regarding what happened on the ground level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually riots in Amritsar were started by the Muslims. Before the partition like was drawn, the Muslim league was confident that Amritsar would be included in Pakistan, and I don't blaim them considering the fact that almost half of the population of Amritsar was Muslim. The Hindus and Sikhs combine were just slightly larger.

Amritsar was a battlefield. The Hindus and Sikhs were virtual hostages as they were cought unaware by the organised Muslim gangs trained and supplied by the Muslim league. But the Sikhs and Hindus managed to band togather and eventually beat the Muslims in Amritsar. The Sikh-Hindu victory at Amritsar during 1947 is probably the most inspiring story during the partition.

Same thing happened in Jalandhar Doab which was virtually Muslim land. Everyone was sure that this would go to Pakistan. As happened in Amritsar, the Muslims of Jalandhar Doab began violence, stabing Hindus/Sikhs here and there. But before things would get even more violent for the Non-Muslims as happened in Amritsar, the partition line was drawn, and violence ended up tilting against the Muslims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shaheediyan,

Islamophobe.. Nazi.. do you have any more insults for me? It's funny how most of the people who try to occupy the so-called moral high ground are the ones who trade the most insults!

As Mithar veerji said, it wasn't purely a case of Muslims attacking in West Punjab and Sikhs attacking in East Punjab, the Muslims were aggressors even in areas of East Punjab. There are no cases of Sikhs actually attacking Muslim villages in West Punjab even though in many areas of West Punjab such as Nili bar, Lyallpur and Gujranwala the Sikhs had local majorities and could have easily created an East Punjab type situation for the Muslims in these areas as well. The Sikh reaction was a consequence of Muslim attacks in both West and East Punjab. In Amritsar the Muslims attacked the Sikh and Hindu areas of the city as well as waylaying Sikh villagers visiting the city. It's easy to understand why at partition this district was one of the worst affected by the violence when the Sikhs took revenge for the Muslim violence. In Ludhiana district the 'bet' area along the river Satluj was inhabited mostly by Muslims and here too Muslims from these villages attacked Sikhs going through this area. These Muslims when they were evacuated were attacked by Jathas along the GT road on the way to Ferozpur. In Haryana area, the Meo Muslims had attacked Hindu Jat villages around Delhi.

Another factor that needs to be considered is that after the way the Muslims had massacred the Sikhs and Hindus around Rawalpindi, the Muslim leadership was ecstatic that the the Muslims had been able to kill Sikhs without any reaction from the Sikhs. The Muslim League propaganda was that the Sikhs had grown weak in the last 50 years due to the prosperity they had enjoyed in the Canal colonies. The Sikhs were being presented as a walk over and this is clear from the intelligence reports from the British. This is what made the Muslim League think that they could take through violence the whole of the Punjab rather than having to accept a partition through diplomacy. The Rawalpindi massacres were a continuation of the policy of 'direct action' that the Muslim League had started in Calcutta in 1946. The Sikh leadership were not just able to evacuate in an orderly manner most of of the Sikhs of West Punjab but were able through retaliatory violence clear areas of East Punjab so that these Sikh refugees were able to resettle. The Muslims were so taken aback by the Sikh violence that the Pakistan government even put out propaganda after Partition that the Sikhs had a plan which had been agreed by all Sikh leaders. For some time after Partition, the Muslims in the border areas of West Punjab feared that any minute the Sikh Jathas would invade Pakistan to take back the lands that the Sikhs had lost.

It's easy to sit behind a computer and criticise the way the Sikhs reacted to the events unfolding in front of their eyes. It's much more difficult to read up and educate yourself about what the options were and how the Sikhs were faced with a do or die situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

going back to the topic, i can also remember reading about jinnah saying that " we are not pacifists. we will take pakistan thru violence if necessary. " and it came to that. the british would have left a united india if they thought the 2 main communites would stay peaceful, but the muslims wanted to show that they were at war with the hindus.

so this mentality has just passed onto/expressed itself in another generation about violence being a legitimate tool.

the maulvis encouraging suicide bombers on civilians are the offspring of jinnah's mentality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"the country was founded on bloodshed lets not forget that."

Brother read some history - you will find it impossible to find a country that hasn't been - particularly the more popular non-Indian haunts i.e. US, CA, UK, New Zealand, Australia etc.

"Going by your logic the Sikhs are guilty because they should have just stayed non-violent and today we would have around 20-25 % Muslim population in our Punjab. Of course these Muslims would have been model citizens just as their co-religionists in Thailand, Phillipines, Chechnya and the like."

If you don't have many non-Muslims to kill then you look for differences in other Muslims so that you can get an outlet for your murderous traits."

Looking at your blatent stereotyping of Muslims alongside your issue with a possible large Muslim population in Punjab, not to mention that 90% of your contribution on this forum is anti-Islam/Muslim - you tell me if what I state is insult or fact?

I am not denying the ignition and politcal agenda of some Muslim groups who incited violence - but they had retaliatory counterparts in our state - who also incited unhindered murder and rape of all Muslim men, women and children, and I know a proud grandson of one these evil monsters. I take it you have taken time to read the Pakistan version alongside your Indian/British versions of events? Or listened to the sad stories of innocent Muslim victims?

Next you will be telling me that Palestinian suicide bombers have every right to blow up innocent Jewish families as a right to self preservation - oh sorry, my wrong, they are Muslim!

There are 2 issues here -

1 - rightful retaliation against mobs

2 - massacre and rape of innocent Muslims and theft of their property (being an incentive in most cases)

You continuously refuse to seperate the 2 issues, and focus on the 1st to save face. Your choice - I wish you happiness in your self delusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...