"The fifteen police officers have not been able to disperse the mob, even afer firing several rounds...."

A few grenade launchers should do the trick.

Posted by: S Perry at June 18, 2008 6:52 AM

It's the Hindus who have been under siege from the Muslims, yet the former get charged with with "Incitement and Instigation for Rioting" and "Disruption of Communal Harmony".

When you read things like this, it's hard NOT to come to the conclusion that the world is going mad.

Posted by: S Perry at June 18, 2008 7:13 AM

Will give the Hindu no. one Dhimmi awards, or at least their police and govt' officials. if you ever hear this on the news, they will blame both sides to
this story. its never the truth.

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at June 18, 2008 7:21 AM

Note that apart from a short article in the regional newspaper Pioneer, this attack was completely ignored by the national Indian media. If the victims would have been Muslims, it would have been frontpage news all over the world, with Amnesty International reports on it and with many professors writing books about it.

For some phone numbers to West Bengal police stations that can be contacted to protest against this attack see this thread:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/021424.php#comments

Some pictures about the attack can be seen here:
http://hindusamhati.blogspot.com/2008/06/muslim-mob-attack-on-hindu-samhati-camp_16.html

Posted by: dee at June 18, 2008 7:23 AM

They are looking to expand Bangladesh.

Move into an area for economics, force the others out, take over..repeat....

Posted by: Borg at June 18, 2008 7:25 AM

Of course only Hindus were arrested! If they hadn't made their pilgrimage the Muslims in the area wouldn't have been so incensed! The sight of others practicing a different faith in full view of Muslims was an act of profound disrespect that had to be answered. The Muslims were "insulted" and so were forced to respond. The Muslims wouldn't have had to act in self-defense if the Hindus hadn't made them do it!

/sarc off

Posted by: PMK at June 18, 2008 9:02 AM

Several rounds, huh?

Seems like 7000 rounds would have been a more appropriate number... just for starters.

Posted by: undaunted at June 18, 2008 9:56 AM

These dumb, stupid, dirt bags. These are things we will continue to see by these savages and barbarians called Mohammedans. They do not know anything else but violence and attacks that is why all the UMMAH have no other contribution to humanity. Unlike many other cultures which have given humanity arts, science, music, dance, yoga, martial arts etc; the criminals and barbarians Mohammedans have given humanity murder, rape, violence, attacking the weak teaching kids hatred and intolerance of others. This is sick and the MSM and world leaders continue to appease the Muslims. We might just see a huge protest and mobs by the non Muslims if this continues and overthrow some of the stupid leadership in India.

Posted by: savsiv at June 18, 2008 10:02 AM

The MSM over here is sitting on the story. No major newspaper has written about this. Most newspaper editors have received phone calls from the Ministry of Interior that reporting this incident might lead to "a law and order situation" (readers might start asking how a major pilgrimage can be attacked by a mob of 7000 with little or no intervention by the authorities). If any reporter from the TOI is reading this, don't you think Sir/Madam, that it is your duty to report the facts and let the readers reach their own conclusions ? Can't you just report the facts with no opinion(s) of your own ? Even though it is plain to all who are reading this that the attackers were illegal bangladeshis who have no right to be in India to begin with. Can't you see what is going to happen in just the next 5 years when the illegals reach the 40 million mark ?

Posted by: arjun.sevak at June 18, 2008 10:11 AM

Well, I see that the ULTRA-VIOLENT MAHOMETAN THUG CULTISTS are....... ooooops! Uh, I mean, the adherents of the Religion of Peace are at it again. And it is always someone else's fault.

arjun.sevak wrote:

"Can't you see what is going to happen in just the next 5 years when the illegals reach the 40 million mark?"

Yes. I can see what is going to happen.

Posted by: One_of_the_last_few_Patriots_left at June 18, 2008 10:39 AM

Hi,

well, it is true that there doesn't seem to be any coverage on this event, but a little research on the subject led me to the home site of the Hindu Janajagruti Samiti website which makes it clear that this organization is part of the Sangh Parivar, a extreme right wing Hindu group that incites hatred and violence against Muslims all over India, is connected to the riots in Gujarat where 3000 Muslims were killed by Hindu mobs (with backing of the local BJP goverment). Now given that there is only one news source and no further background information I would call for caution just taken this short sound bite as it is. The Sangh Parivar and it's associates are no innocents, they take numerous approaches to incite violence and discredit every other religion except there style of Hinduism, they have been known to attack Christians as well, both Indian and Missionaries.

Posted by: djal at June 18, 2008 11:46 AM

djal and arjun.sevak - Thanks for the additional information. IF the story is true as reported, the police and the military have let down the people of the world's largest democracy big time. If the Government is unwilling or unable to protect individuals, those individuals will surely defend themselves.

Posted by: MP at June 18, 2008 12:07 PM

Taking the news from an website which is clearly affiliated with the attacked training camp as facts as the facts seems not right. The Hindu Samithi is clearly related to the Hindu Vishwa Parishad (World Hindu organization) which the United States Department of State in its annual human rights reports for 1999 named Vishva Hindu Parishad along with BJP, Shiv Sena, Bajrang Dal and RSS in incidents where they were said to have instigated violence against Christians and Christian institutions .
Indian politics are complex and this complexity has to be taken into account. The Ideology behind Vishwa Hindu Parishad, RSS, Bajrang Dal and it's affiliated groups is called Hindutva (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindutva). Another article worth reading would be (from the second latest edition from Frontline):
http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl2512/stories/20080620251201300.htm

Posted by: djal at June 18, 2008 12:25 PM

djal

Nice Taqiyyah and Da'wa work.

I think the readers on Jihad Watch are enough informed to see trough your wrong presentation of "anti-Muslim" Hindus and the Gujarat riots.

As to the alleged Hindu violence against Christians, Koenraad Elst and others have shown that there is not more violence against Christians than against Hindus, and that a lot of the Hindu violence claims are made up.

- From Koenraad Elst: "Similarly, a series of bomb blasts against Christian churches in South India was automatically blamed on the Hindu nationalists. In that version, the story made headlines around the world: Hindu bomb terror against Christians. Hindu organizations alleged that it was a Pakistani operation, a blame-shifting exercise which only earned them ridicule and contempt. Yet, when two of the terrorists blew themselves up by mistake, their getaway car led the police to their network, and the whole gang was arrested. It turned out to be a Muslim group, a section of the Deendar Anjuman , with headquarters in Pakistan. But this was not reported on the front-pages in India nor made the topic of flaming editorials; and in the international media, it was not reported at all. In the worldwide perception of Hindu nationalism, the false association with raping nuns and bombing churches has stuck."

"The death toll of Hindus eliminated by Christian separatists dwarfs that of the much-publicized Hindu violence against Christians, which has killed only a handful since 1947, including in the supposed "wave" of anti-Christian riots in 1998-99. The killing of Australian missionary Graham Staines and his two sons by Orissa tribals who were angry at the divisive effect of conversions on their society, was front-page news in the whole world and remains a constant point of reference in the dominant discourse on communalism. By contrast, when shortly after that, four RSS workers were kidnapped by Christian separatists in the North-East and their mutilated bodies were subsequently found, it was hardly reported in the Indian press and not at all in the international media."

Posted by: dee at June 18, 2008 12:53 PM

There again,

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Persecution/

That's a heap of tu quoque.

Note: onenewsnow is run by the American Family Association, which is no friend of Islam.

Posted by: skevin at June 18, 2008 12:55 PM

djal

Even you should know that everywhere in South Asia where the Muslims are the majority, the Christians have it really hard, whereas in the parts of India without a Muslim majority they have it better than in most non-Western countries.

-Another excerpt about this from Koenraad Elst: "To offset this failure, critics of the BJP tried to make the most of a supposed wave of minor incidents between Hindu tribals and Christians in 1998-2000. There were only a handful of mortal victims, far fewer than the dozens of Christians killed in Pakistan after September 11, 2001, but with the media as amplifiers, an impression of terrible oppression of a poor hapless minority was created. Unfortunately (or rather, fortunately), the key allegations made initially under the international spotlights turned out to be untrue. Yes, an Australian missionary and his two sons died in an arson incident, but neither the governmental inquiry nor the judicial investigation could confirm the eager secularist indictment of the Bajrang Dal. Yes, four nuns in Jhabua were raped, but no Hindu activists were involved: it was an inter-tribal and inter-Christian affair. Yes, a Christian teenage girl and her little brother were assaulted, but the man turned out to be a Christian himself. Indeed, this turned out to be a pattern: all inter-Christian incidents in this period, including those between the older and quieter churches (Syrian, Catholic, Anglican) and the intruding American fundamentalist sects, were suddenly blamed on the evil hand of the Hindus.

This game of blaming the Hindus for the suffering of Christians was so successful that it inspired a third party to try its own hand at it. A series of bomb attacks against churches in South India did take place, wounding some worshipers. It was duly blamed on the Hindutva forces, but the perpetrators turned out to be a Pak-based Muslim organization, the Deendar Anjuman. Please note the chain of guilt here: the Islamic terrorists are of course responsible for their own acts, but they would not have committed these but for the encouragement given to them by the secularists. After all, the latter had proven that any unpleasant incident can successfully be blamed on the Hindus, and that the blame could not be washed off by any amount of official refutation, which would remain under-reported while the original allegation would go on being repeated. This way, the secularists have blood on their hands, viz. the blood of the Christian victims of these Islamic bomb attacks.

In each of these cases, the original allegations against Hindus were splashed across the front pages in India and also reported in the world press, whereas the true story, once it came out, was reported on an inside page in India and not at all abroad. Even then, Christian spokesman John Dayal repeated the discredited allegations before the US Commission on International Religious Freedom, and they keep on reappearing in secularist sources. I am not aware of a single secularist who publicly withdrew the allegations and offered apologies for his slander to the maligned Hindus. Nor of one who has drawn attention to Christian violence against Hindus in the same period, such as the abduction of four RSS activists by Christian separatists in Tripura (the four dead bodies were found two years later) or the ethnic cleansing of the Hindu Riang tribe from Christian-majority Mizoram. Even so, the propaganda line of Hindu violence against Christians is no longer pursued with the same vigour, partly because its proponents seem to be embarrassed by their crying wolf a few times too often, and partly because it remains a relatively small affair even if all the allegations had been true."
http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/articles/Religious.html

Posted by: dee at June 18, 2008 1:08 PM

Frontline (quoted by Djal) is a Marxist pro-Muslim and anti-Hindu newspaper.

skevin

"onenewsnow is run by the American Family Association, which is no friend of Islam"

-but apparently also no friend of Hinduism, otherwise their reports would be more balanced.

Maybe you should take a good look at Christian separatism and their organisations like NLFT (National Liberation Front of Tripura) in North-East India which have killed many more Hindus than the other way around - maybe then you would come to a more balanced view.

But even in North-East India, where the Christians are exceptionally militant, IMO the Muslims are a much greater threat to peace than the Christians.

And of course, Muslims are the greatest threat to any religious group in India - be it Christian or Hindu.

Posted by: dee at June 18, 2008 1:28 PM

Frontline is published by the newspaper group "The Hindu", so to call it Anti-Hindu seems odd. Hindu Extremists are real in India, the are backed by the BJP, as seens it the Gujarat riots. The people behind the news psoted in the original posting are into inciting hatred amongst Hindus and non-Hindus, so I am not surprised they were charged with "Incitement and Instigation for Rioting" and "Disruption of Communal Harmony." I brought up the Christian issue to show that the Sangh Parivar is not solely focused on Muslims but as well as Parsis, Christians and Dalits. As a Hindi-speaker and by seeing the influence of this groups in India I can see the influence these groups try to influence. I'm surprised nobody mentioned the Babri-Mosque incidents where a Hindu Mob destroyed a 600 year old Mosque because they claimed that Ram was born there 6000 years ago. This is many ways started a lot of the modern Hindu-Muslim aggression.

Posted by: djal at June 18, 2008 1:51 PM

djal's taqiya does not wash. Events in Gujarat unfolded as public rage when the "peaceful" Islamists set fire to a train in Godhara, roasting 60 Hindus alive, women and children included. The govt figures, stated in parliament, out the subsequent death toll at about 800 out of which one third were Hindus killed by Muslims and by police firings. The figure of 2000 is a media concoction, now inflated to 3000 by djal.

Posted by: IndianTiger at June 18, 2008 1:59 PM

Dee, the Hindu fascists are real and have an agenda to bring non-Hindus into the Hindu pantheon. There is a concerted efforted by them to try and paint Sikh warriors, Gurus, and religious texts as Hindu. For example, they have setup front groups that sound like legitimate Sikh organizations and spread falsehoods about Sikh history such as adding hindu surnames to Sikh Martyrs. That's just one example. The threat to religious minorities such as Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, etc... is real and can't be brushed aside so lightly.

The killing of civilians by any group is unwarranted. Whether it is in the NE or elsewhere.

It isn't surprising however, to see that the native, ethnic population in the NE is reacting to the muslim bangladeshi expansion which is being supported by Hindu politicians at the centre who only see them as a vote bank to exploit while lining their own pockets when they win elections and ministerships. So if the local population has a backlash against India which it sees as being unconcerned about their frontline war and displacement in their native places and ancestral homelands, you shouldn't be surprised.

If India were to split up into separate countries, you would see a concerted effort for national survival overcome the increasing pressure from illegal aliens from bangladesh and from internal islamic expansionism. This solution however is anathema from Indian nationalists despite the likelihood that it is probably the only way to overcome the political agenda of parties at the centre interested only in the personal gain of its leadership.

This is just an example of the cynical way in which the elites in India enrich themselves personally while forsaking their fellow citizens, something that I pointed out they did for 1000 years under Islamic rule.

Posted by: Jalandhar at June 18, 2008 2:27 PM

Jalandhar

Do you really believe Sikhism is a Muslim sect? Or that it is exactly half-half Islam-Hindu, that at least half of it is Muslim?

Read the original texts of Sikshism, read a couple of serious scholars on Sikh history, and you'll see that there is much less Islam in Sikhism then is commonly believed, and preached by some Sikh separatists, and that, not unlike Buddhism, it is different from Hinduism, but that its similarities with Hinduism, for example the frequent mention of Hindu gods in the Sikh texts, cannot be denied.

Posted by: dee at June 18, 2008 2:40 PM

Jalandhar

I see very little of evidence of Hindus anywhere conspiring against Buddhists and Sikhs, but I see a lot of such rumours propagated by Muslims or Pseudosecularists. Divide et impera.

Posted by: dee at June 18, 2008 2:46 PM

Dee, your comments don't make any sense to me in light of my post. Sikhism has nothing to do with Islam or Hinduism. Sikhism isn't part anything. It is a divinely inspired religion.

It has about as much to do with Islam or Hinduism as Buddhism does.

Sikhs believes in a SINGLE God and NO avatars, devis or devtas. Sikh religious instruction denounces idol worship, caste system, a priestly class and inequality between humans.

You don't understand Sikhism if you believe otherwise.

I'd rather not have to go further into this, as this is not the correct forum for such a conversation.

Suffice to say you didn't address any points I made in my post. This tangential diversion doesn't serve any purpose.

Posted by: Jalandhar at June 18, 2008 5:54 PM

Jalandhar

While I don't know Sikhism in depth, I have still read enough to see that Sikhism, like Buddhism or Jainism, has strong similarities with Hinduism.

Read some of the authors that you find in the following page under the section "Sikhism":
http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/books/wiah/bib.htm

Read not only the books listed there, but other books by these authors as well. They should help to understand this issue better.

But I agree that this is not the correct forum for such a conversation.

Posted by: dee at June 18, 2008 6:27 PM

The fact is that India was invaded by Muslims and there was no justification for that invasion except for the barbarian, robbers and rapists that they are, the Islamic marauders wanted and riches of other cultures because they cannot create their own. Their lust for the 72 virgins in their porn heaven of Islam has clouded and deluded them into crazed human beings. They go to other countries because their pathetic poverty stricken countries are a cesspool of crime death and misery. Where they go they bring that same crazy screwed mentally and poverty. Islam has failed miserably. However it has succeeded in bringing death and misery. Looking at the UMMAH they are a pathetic and sorry story of humans. Constant warfare, high levels of poverty and chaos. Violence, rape and hatred pervades Islam and deceit is the name of the game. So all this misinformation and lies is part of the war is deceit. Try and deflect and cause dissension in the ranks of the infidel, however we have become aware of this tactics used by the dirt bags of Islam and their scum child molester Mohammed. Do not be fooled by this ploy.

Posted by: savsiv at June 18, 2008 6:58 PM

Seconding dee on 'rumours propagated by Muslims'.

If one reads Bat Yeor and Bostom and other historians of jihad and dhimmitude, one quickly discovers that not only does Islam confuse its targets by its own duplicity, its 'feign peace while preparing for war' tactic, its habit of playing 'goodcop/ badcop', 'moderates' and 'extremists', Hamas-Fatah; it also specialises in 'splitting the camp' of its opponents.

In India there are Christians, Hindus (further divided into different castes), Sikhs, Buddhists, and smaller groups such as the Parsees and Jains, all of whom have their differences with one another. Then there are the secularists, marxists etc.

What a wonderful array of opportunities for Muslims to employ their time-honoured tactic of 'splitting the camp'.

They hate ALL the non-Muslims. They intend to kill, to convert, or to subjugate as dhimmis, ALL of them. But in the meantime they will try to play off the various kaffir groups against each other by every possible means, up to and including, I am sure, such tactics as telling lies to Christians about Hindus and telling lies to Hindus about Christians, telling lies to Sikhs about Hindus and telling lies to Hindus about Sikhs, spreading malicious rumours, and faking 'incidents' (or, worse, suckering one group into actually attacking another). They divide each group of kafir from the other, and then pick them off one by one.

I remember reading that someone familiar with Muslim tactics had noticed, on Christian internet forums, Muslims posing as Christians to tell tales against Israel and the Jews; and on Jewish forums, Muslims posing as Jews to tell tales against Christians. Want to bet they're doing the same sort of thing among the different groups in India?

The 'splitting' of Israel from Europe and from the diaspora Jews, and then the 'splitting' of Europe from America, has been one of the great enterprises of the jihadi deceivers, over the past forty years or so.

I would bet my bottom dollar they are playing the same game in India.

I would also bet 100% they are doing their best to exacerbate and stir up the cultural and historic rifts between Latino Americans and Anglo Americans, North and South America (they are certainly playing upon the tensions between Afro and Anglo in North America, and I'd BET they're trying to work out how to use the rivalries between Canada and the USA).

Non-Muslims in India, as everywhere, should grimly bear in mind, at all times, that Mohammed taught his followers that lying was fine to advance the cause of Islam, and that "War is deception".

I would say to Christians in India: DO NOT be suckered by Muslims into allying with the 'monotheist' Muslims against the 'idolatrous' Hindus. Islam hates YOU as well as the Hindu. It is in your interest, rather, to form alliance with the Hindus and with every other non-Muslim group in India, to resolutely resist the Jihad in all its forms.

That means that when one non-muslim group is seemingly injured by, or insulted by, another, in a context where both groups are facing Jihad, they must err on the side of caution and forbearance, they must try for 'wait and see'... lest they attack the other group for something that a Muslim provocateur has in fact engineered.

Seconding dee on 'rumours propagated by Muslims'.

If one reads Bat Yeor and Bostom and other historians of jihad and dhimmitude, one quickly discovers that not only does Islam confuse its targets by its own duplicity, its 'feign peace while preparing for war' tactic, its habit of playing 'goodcop/ badcop', 'moderates' and 'extremists', Hamas-Fatah; it also specialises in 'splitting the camp' of its opponents.

In India there are Christians, Hindus (further divided into different castes), Sikhs, Buddhists, and smaller groups such as the Parsees and Jains, all of whom have their differences with one another. Then there are the secularists, marxists etc.

What a wonderful array of opportunities for Muslims to employ their time-honoured tactic of 'splitting the camp'.

They hate ALL the non-Muslims. They intend to kill, to convert, or to subjugate as dhimmis, ALL of them. But in the meantime they will try to play off the various kaffir groups against each other by every possible means, up to and including, I am sure, such tactics as telling lies to Christians about Hindus and telling lies to Hindus about Christians, telling lies to Sikhs about Hindus and telling lies to Hindus about Sikhs, spreading malicious rumours, and faking 'incidents' (or, worse, suckering one group into actually attacking another). They divide each group of kafir from the other, and then pick them off one by one.

I remember reading that someone familiar with Muslim tactics had noticed, on Christian internet forums, Muslims posing as Christians to tell tales against Israel and the Jews; and on Jewish forums, Muslims posing as Jews to tell tales against Christians. Want to bet they're doing the same sort of thing among the different groups in India?

The 'splitting' of Israel from Europe and from the diaspora Jews, and then the 'splitting' of Europe from America, has been one of the great enterprises of the jihadi deceivers, over the past forty years or so.

I would bet my bottom dollar they are playing the same game in India.

I would also bet 100% they are doing their best to exacerbate and stir up the cultural and historic rifts between Latino Americans and Anglo Americans, North and South America (they are certainly playing upon the tensions between Afro and Anglo in North America, and I'd BET they're trying to work out how to use the rivalries between Canada and the USA).

Non-Muslims in India, as everywhere, should grimly bear in mind, at all times, that Mohammed taught his followers that lying was fine to advance the cause of Islam, and that "War is deception".

I would say to Christians in India: DO NOT be suckered by Muslims into allying with the 'monotheist' Muslims against the 'idolatrous' Hindus. Islam hates YOU as well as the Hindu. It is in your interest, rather, to form alliance with the Hindus and with every other non-Muslim group in India, to resolutely resist the Jihad in all its forms.

That means that when one non-muslim group is seemingly injured by, or insulted by, another, in a context where both groups are facing Jihad, they must err on the side of caution and forbearance, they must try for 'wait and see'... lest they attack the other group for something that a Muslim provocateur has in fact engineered.

Martin Luther in his treatise 'On War Against the Turk' saw two things very clearly: that there was in Islam what he called "a lying spirit", and that alongside that "lying spirit" there was a "murdering spirit".

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at June 18, 2008 7:25 PM

My apologies for the repetition within my above posting. I hit the wrong buttons.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at June 18, 2008 7:30 PM

"If India were to split up into separate countries, you would see a concerted effort for national survival overcome the increasing pressure from illegal aliens ..."

Posted by: Jalandhar

like when Pakistan was split off from India?.

Posted by: pulsar182 at June 18, 2008 7:41 PM

No Pulsar182, not like when Pakistan was created. More like if Gujarat, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Punjab, Andhra Pradesh, Goa, etc... were to form their own countries based on their own ethno-national linguistic identities.

Posted by: Jalandhar at June 18, 2008 9:40 PM

djal

dee pretty much summarized things well, but one thing worth pointing out - just because groups are blacklisted by the State Department means squat in terms of whether they are legitimate. After all, this is the same government agency that drove the international recognition of Kosovo's seccession from Serbia, and pressurizes Israel to unconditionally talk to Hamas. Their ultimate mission is to get the US liked among people throughout the world who are Leftist enough to care (typically, Right wing people throughout the world are less worried about how their co-idealogs are doing in other countries), and typically, that means backing the PC opinion in all those countries.

Also, most people here support the demolition of the Babri Masjid, regardless of whether Shri Rama existed or not. If Mohammedans can have al Aqsa on the basis of Mohammed's dream, we can have every square mm of Ayodhya [which we don't - there are Jain and Sikh shrines (Swetamber Mandir and Gurudwara Brahmakund) in the city, and no Hindutva group has ever complained] since all Hindus (I'm not including Hindu-born Athiests and Agnostics here) believe that Shri Rama existed.

skevin

The American Family Association is a group of Christian fanatics: one of their recent antics included a demonstration in the Senate against a 'Hindu chaplain'. Yeah, they are anti-Islamic, but not in the sense many of us here are. Many of us here are happy to ally with other people of other faiths against Mohammedans, whereas their world view is the Christianization of all non-Christendom. Or else how are any of the stories you cited relevant to the 'American Family'? Don't they have enough things to worry about, like Gay Marriage, Abortion, Multiculturalism, et al?

Jalandhar

How would the scenario you outlined make Hindus and Sikhs safer? On what basis would you split up India - language? Religion? And while some states, like Gujarat, Rajasthan, MP and Maharashtra may indeed vote to become Hindu countries, Communists in Left Bengal would be free to merge the state into Bangladesh (since most Bengalis have been successfully brainwashed into the notion that the partition of Bengal was the handiwork of outside elements, and flaunt their ties with Bangladesh much more openly than former West Punjabis and Sindhis do with Fuckistan. A carved up India would make it easy for Fuckistan to invade a non-nuclear Gujarat the next time a 'communal riot' is on.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at June 18, 2008 9:48 PM

The article

http://hindusamhati.blogspot.com/2008/06/muslim-mob-attack-on-hindu-samhati-camp_16.html

mentions that the Hindu Samhati group was returning from some holy ablutions and started chanting slogans that "offended the religious sentiments" of the Muslim drivers, and things escalated.

One thing Muslims all over the globe seem to share: those exquisitely delicate religious sensibilities.

Posted by: A_Nonny_Mouse at June 19, 2008 1:24 AM

Now I get it. Jalandhar is a bloody khalistani. Only khalistanis try to make out that Sikhism is "divinely inspired" and was not a branch, a martial one, of Hinduism. They also ignore the origins of Sikhism, which DID NOT begin with Guru Nanak, but rather the 10th and the last, Guru Gobind Singh. Guru Nanak and the 8 Gurus after him tried peace with islam, the result being all were tortured to death by muslims. Guru Gobind Singh understood the true menace of islam and it was He who pulled Hindus from every caste, not just the Kshatriyas (Warriors). It was Guru Gobind Singh who ordered his first followers to always carry the Kirpan (dagger), and it was he who ordered them to look like muslims so that they could mingle with the invaders and kill them when they had the opportunity. Guru Gobind Singh also took a leaf out islam, he said that I am the last Guru, and after me, there shall be just the Grantha (Guru Granth Sahib, the holy book of Sikhs) and no human shall be Guru ever again. He dispensed with all Indian traditions which could interfere with the lives of warriors, including, but not limited to, the rites of a traditional Hindu marriage (Sikh weddings hardly take up any time, as compared to Hindu marriages, in which the rites take up several days). He did all these things because He (Guru Gobind Singh) understood that desperate times call for desperate measures, and 300 years back things were really bad, most of the Kshatriyas were wiped out in Central India (The Rajputs of Rajasthan were there but were too few to launch campaigns against the jihadis who were controlling large parts of North India. They defended their own area, and that is about all. It were the Sikhs in the North and the Marathas in the West who actually cleaned up the jihadis. The Sikhs limited themselves to Punjab, but the Marathas cleaned up a very large area, from Pune to Gwalior, (Indian readers might want to read about the two generals of Peshwa, Holkar and Mahadji Scindia ; Holkar made Indore his base, where as Mahadji cleaned out the territory from Ujjain till Gwalior. After retaking Gwalior, Mahadji sent message to Peshwa, and received orders to "hold cleansed territory", because the next jihadi base was Agra, only 130 kilometres from Gwalior. And so the Maratha empire stretched from Maharashtra till Madhya Pradesh. The Marathas did not clean any further areas of jihadis, but they did their duty towards their motherland, quite unlike the Rajputs and the Sikhs who limited themselves to the boundries of their state. I do not blame the Rajputs for not doing what the Marathas did, since so few of them were left that all they could do was defend their own territory. The Sikh campaigns, though limited to Punjab and Sindh, were extremely effective and Punjab has one of the lowest muslim population in India. The khalistani Jalandhar himself posted on another thread that the muslims seem to be scared of Sikhs, though he was not sure why. It is because the Guru also ordered that no jihadis be taken prisoners, the Code of the Kshatriyas be damned (The Kshatriyas fought with a code, man to man, armed to armed, no killing of unarmed enemies, no torture, etc.) Guru Gobind Singh understood that the jihadis do not appreciate noble gestures, and he ordered his followers to execute all jihadis and to take no prisoners. That, my dear khalistani Jalandhar, is why the mullahs are terrified of Sikhs.

It was puzzling to me how any Indian can advocate further partitions of the Motherland. Well, now I know. Only bloody khalistanis who lie about the origins Sikhism would talk about not just one, but complete partitions of India, like it was 300 years back, with some areas being controlled by muslims and some by non-muslims.

Posted by: arjun.sevak at June 19, 2008 2:40 AM

Now I get it. Jalandhar is a bloody khalistani. Only khalistanis try to make out that Sikhism is "divinely inspired" and was not a branch, a martial one, of Hinduism. They also ignore the origins of Sikhism, which DID NOT begin with Guru Nanak, but rather the 10th and the last, Guru Gobind Singh. Guru Nanak and the 8 Gurus after him tried peace with islam, the result being all were tortured to death by muslims. Guru Gobind Singh understood the true menace of islam and it was He who pulled Hindus from every caste, not just the Kshatriyas (Warriors). It was Guru Gobind Singh who ordered his first followers to always carry the Kirpan (dagger), and it was he who ordered them to look like muslims so that they could mingle with the invaders and kill them when they had the opportunity. Guru Gobind Singh also took a leaf out islam, he said that I am the last Guru, and after me, there shall be just the Grantha (Guru Granth Sahib, the holy book of Sikhs) and no human shall be Guru ever again. He dispensed with all Indian traditions which could interfere with the lives of warriors, including, but not limited to, the rites of a traditional Hindu marriage (Sikh weddings hardly take up any time, as compared to Hindu marriages, in which the rites take up several days). He did all these things because He (Guru Gobind Singh) understood that desperate times call for desperate measures, and 300 years back things were really bad, most of the Kshatriyas were wiped out in Central India (The Rajputs of Rajasthan were there but were too few to launch campaigns against the jihadis who were controlling large parts of North India. They defended their own area, and that is about all. It were the Sikhs in the North and the Marathas in the West who actually cleaned up the jihadis. The Sikhs limited themselves to Punjab, but the Marathas cleaned up a very large area, from Pune to Gwalior, (Indian readers might want to read about the two generals of Peshwa, Holkar and Mahadji Scindia ; Holkar made Indore his base, where as Mahadji cleaned out the territory from Ujjain till Gwalior. After retaking Gwalior, Mahadji sent message to Peshwa, and received orders to "hold cleansed territory", because the next jihadi base was Agra, only 130 kilometres from Gwalior. And so the Maratha empire stretched from Maharashtra till Madhya Pradesh. The Marathas did not clean any further areas of jihadis, but they did their duty towards their motherland, quite unlike the Rajputs and the Sikhs who limited themselves to the boundries of their state. I do not blame the Rajputs for not doing what the Marathas did, since so few of them were left that all they could do was defend their own territory. The Sikh campaigns, though limited to Punjab and Sindh, were extremely effective and Punjab has one of the lowest muslim population in India. The khalistani Jalandhar himself posted on another thread that the muslims seem to be scared of Sikhs, though he was not sure why. It is because the Guru also ordered that no jihadis be taken prisoners, the Code of the Kshatriyas be damned (The Kshatriyas fought with a code, man to man, armed to armed, no killing of unarmed enemies, no torture, etc.) Guru Gobind Singh understood that the jihadis do not appreciate noble gestures, and he ordered his followers to execute all jihadis and to take no prisoners. That, my dear khalistani Jalandhar, is why the mullahs are terrified of Sikhs.

It was puzzling to me how any Indian can advocate further partitions of the Motherland. Well, now I know. Only bloody khalistanis who lie about the origins Sikhism would talk about not just one, but complete partitions of India, like it was 300 years back, with some areas being controlled by muslims and some by non-muslims.

Posted by: arjun.sevak at June 19, 2008 2:40 AM

They also ignore the origins of Sikhism, which DID NOT begin with Guru Nanak, but rather the 10th and the last, Guru Gobind Singh. Guru Nanak and the 8 Gurus after him tried peace with islam, the result being all were tortured to death by muslims.

Arjun

At risk of going OT for this site, I agree w/ Jalandhar here as far as his description of his religion goes. Guru Nanak himself claimed that he was neither Hindu nor Muslim, and that should be accepted at face value. Also, only 2 Gurus - Arjan Dev and Tegh Bahadur - were executed, while Guru Har Govind was imprisoned. And Guru Har Govind was the first to make an army out of the Sikhs, even though he didn't codify the 5 Ks, et al.

Also, if any people claim that they are not ___, why not just accept it at face value? For instance, someone could worship Krishna, Saraswati, Ganesh, and any number of deities, but if they claim to be non-Hindu, why not just accept it as that? Besides, Sikhism is monotheistic, while Hinduism absolutely isn't. Once a religion has deleted Hindu Gods and Goddesses from its to-worship list, it's perfectly legitimate to claim that it's a new and separate religion. Otherwise, Hindus can claim that since Buddha was the 9th avatar of Vishnu, Buddhism is a part of Hinduism much the way Vaishnav or Shaivite is. [The tendency of some to claim that Hinduism is monotheistic is baffling, and seems to be an endorsement of the idea that monotheism is better than polytheism - something that Hindus ought not to accept at face value.]

But I do disagree with Jalandhar that India should divide itself into several countries. While some of them may indeed opt to become Hindu countries, they would be more vulnerable to not just Fuckistan, but Bangladesh as well. Had there been no Pakistan or Bangladesh around, it might have been worth considering on merit.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at June 19, 2008 4:11 AM

"At risk of going OT for this site, I agree w/ Jalandhar here as far as his description of his religion goes. Guru Nanak himself claimed that he was neither Hindu nor Muslim, and that should be accepted at face value"

Of course he said that he is neither Hindu nor Muslim, he was trying to broker peace between the two, or rather, he was trying to win over the bloodthirsty mohammadans. If we go through history we come across several individuals who tried this approach, who tried to worship both the Hindu and the muslim way, and ended up creating a religion, or path, of their own. Sai Baba was such an individual. There were also some poets who tried this, some of them being sufi, while some were Hindus. I am not saying that Sikhism is Hinduism, all I want to point out is, that the Sikhs ended up as protectors of Hindus and the Indian culture, and that they were drawn from Hindus. In Punjab, it was a tradition to donate a son to Sikhism, these people were traditional Hindus who assumed the role of warriors.

"[The tendency of some to claim that Hinduism is monotheistic is baffling, and seems to be an endorsement of the idea that monotheism is better than polytheism - something that Hindus ought not to accept at face value.]"

No Infidel Pride, this tendency is not baffling, because Hinduism is less of a religion and more of a philosophy. There are plenty of Hindus who do not worship the deities that you mention above, and yet call themselves Hindu. And there are yet another type of Hindus who avoid idolatory and won't visit temples as mainstream Hindus do but they do subscribe to certain basic Hindu values. People who say that Hinduism is monotheistic also are the ones who believe that He is one, a thousand roads (paths) lead only to Him. This is the core philosophy of Hinduism, and that is why most Hindus, including myself, have no problems with visiting Buddhist temples or Christian churches. It is when somebody starts telling me about the "Exclusivity" of their way (path) is when I quit visiting their places. Has not happened yet, and I enjoy one hell of lot of festivals, including Christmas, Buddha Purnima and Navroz.

Posted by: arjun.sevak at June 19, 2008 4:49 AM

Thank you Arjun for your posts. You said "...that is why most Hindus, including myself, have no problems with visiting Buddhist temples or Christian churches." I share this sentiment, and always make it a point to visit the churches, temples, synagogues, mosques in whatever place my travels may take me. Regardless of the squabbles about the particularities of expression of religious sentiments, merely contemplating the forces that have moved men to construct such magnificent edifices of worship has always left me speechless.

Posted by: Eastview at June 19, 2008 6:07 AM

There are plenty of Hindus who do not worship the deities that you mention above, and yet call themselves Hindu. And there are yet another type of Hindus who avoid idolatory and won't visit temples as mainstream Hindus do but they do subscribe to certain basic Hindu values. People who say that Hinduism is monotheistic also are the ones who believe that He is one, a thousand roads (paths) lead only to Him.

You are making the same common mistake of conflating a religion itself with the practice of its adherents. Just as the fact that Catholics use contraceptives says nothing about whether or not the Catholic church itself bans the practice (it does), and just as the existance of Muslims who don't endorse Jihad says nothing about whether Islam itself advocates Jihad (ditto), the fact that there are Hindus who believe that several paths lead to one God says nothing about whether Hinduism itself is monotheistic.

The simple test here is whether Hinduism itself recognizes multiple Gods. Is Vishnu a God, according to the Vedas, the Puranas, the epics? Yep! Is Ganesh a God using the same sources? Yep! Likewise, is Saraswati a Godess? Yep! Are these texts sacred texts in Hinduism? Yep! The fact that there are Hindus who may worship only one, or even none of them, says nothing about their divine status, or lack of it (E.g. I don't worship Brahma, but that doesn't make him a non-God). Once the religion itself accepts multiple deities, it's no longer monotheistic, by definition.

It's a plain and simple fact. Rather than define the religion as something it's not just because of the practices of several members, why not just accept that while there may be monotheistic Hindus, Hinduism itself is not monotheistic? Just add as an addendum that there's nothing wrong with it.

As for celebrating other people's religious festivals, there is a difference between sharing the festivities, and actually embracing the religion in question. For instance, I've celebrated several Christmases, and my kid has participated in Easter egg hunts - yet, no disrespect to Christians, but for me, Christ is not divine (if he was, I'd be Christian). Yeah, I do recognize that it's a legitimate belief among Christians, but just because I respect someone elses religion doesn't mean that I believe in it myself.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at June 19, 2008 1:54 PM

Infidel Pride, here is my response to your points.

"How would the scenario you outlined make Hindus and Sikhs safer?"

A. The people who have a strong ethno-national (or religious in the case of Sikhs) culture would certainly defend it against illegal aliens. I can't see people freed from the dictates of politicians and security forces under the control of a central gov't, such as the one India's had since 47', succumbing to or allowing foreigners such as bangladeshis or a 5th column to raise their head. Even in the Punjab today the muslims that do live there (largely Malerkotla) do not press any issue with the Punjabis.

Tamils, Marathis, etc.. who have a rich history would also act for self-preservation.

" On what basis would you split up India - language? Religion?"

A. On ethno-cultural and geographical basis. Language would be one major factor. Shared historical basis another.

" And while some states, like Gujarat, Rajasthan, MP and Maharashtra may indeed vote to become Hindu countries, Communists in Left Bengal would be free to merge the state into Bangladesh... and flaunt their ties with Bangladesh much more openly than former West Punjabis and Sindhis do with Fuckistan. A carved up India would make it easy for Fuckistan to invade a non-nuclear Gujarat the next time a 'communal riot' is on."

A. If some people like west Bengalis want to merge with or allow Bangladeshis into their territory then that would be their decision and likely to their detriment. At least those with a preservation instinct or the strength to stand up for themselves will be able to do so.

In today's India the central gov't turns a blind eye and actively appeases Islam and illegals from Bangladesh, which hurts everyone in India.

There's no way that Pakistan could touch Gujurat. 1. because Gujurat would likely be smart enough to sign defence treaties with its neighbours. 2. Muslims themselves in an independent Gujurat would not want to spark an issue with ethnic Gujuratis knowing that no central gov't will come riding to their rescue. 3. what would prevent Gujurat from developing nuclear weapons? India has them now and the countries formed from it would have a claim to the technology. If UP, for example, was given the technology there's nothing stopping them from sharing it.

Posted by: Jalandhar at June 19, 2008 9:15 PM

Infidel Pride, here is my response to your points.

"How would the scenario you outlined make Hindus and Sikhs safer?"

A. The people who have a strong ethno-national (or religious in the case of Sikhs) culture would certainly defend it against illegal aliens. I can't see people freed from the dictates of politicians and security forces under the control of a central gov't, such as the one India's had since 47', succumbing to or allowing foreigners such as bangladeshis or a 5th column to raise their head. Even in the Punjab today the muslims that do live there (largely Malerkotla) do not press any issue with the Punjabis.

Tamils, Marathis, etc.. who have a rich history would also act for self-preservation.

" On what basis would you split up India - language? Religion?"

A. On ethno-cultural and geographical basis. Language would be one major factor. Shared historical basis another.

" And while some states, like Gujarat, Rajasthan, MP and Maharashtra may indeed vote to become Hindu countries, Communists in Left Bengal would be free to merge the state into Bangladesh... and flaunt their ties with Bangladesh much more openly than former West Punjabis and Sindhis do with Fuckistan. A carved up India would make it easy for Fuckistan to invade a non-nuclear Gujarat the next time a 'communal riot' is on."

A. If some people like west Bengalis want to merge with or allow Bangladeshis into their territory then that would be their decision and likely to their detriment. At least those with a preservation instinct or the strength to stand up for themselves will be able to do so.

In today's India the central gov't turns a blind eye and actively appeases Islam and illegals from Bangladesh, which hurts everyone in India.

There's no way that Pakistan could touch Gujurat. 1. because Gujurat would likely be smart enough to sign defence treaties with its neighbours. 2. Muslims themselves in an independent Gujurat would not want to spark an issue with ethnic Gujuratis knowing that no central gov't will come riding to their rescue. 3. what would prevent Gujurat from developing nuclear weapons? India has them now and the countries formed from it would have a claim to the technology. If UP, for example, was given the technology there's nothing stopping them from sharing it.

Posted by: Jalandhar at June 19, 2008 9:16 PM

Infidel Pride, here is my response to your points.

"How would the scenario you outlined make Hindus and Sikhs safer?"

A. The people who have a strong ethno-national (or religious in the case of Sikhs) culture would certainly defend it against illegal aliens. I can't see people freed from the dictates of politicians and security forces under the control of a central gov't, such as the one India's had since 47', succumbing to or allowing foreigners such as bangladeshis or a 5th column to raise their head. Even in the Punjab today the muslims that do live there (largely Malerkotla) do not press any issue with the Punjabis.

Tamils, Marathis, etc.. who have a rich history would also act for self-preservation.

" On what basis would you split up India - language? Religion?"

A. On ethno-cultural and geographical basis. Language would be one major factor. Shared historical basis another.

" And while some states, like Gujarat, Rajasthan, MP and Maharashtra may indeed vote to become Hindu countries, Communists in Left Bengal would be free to merge the state into Bangladesh... and flaunt their ties with Bangladesh much more openly than former West Punjabis and Sindhis do with Fuckistan. A carved up India would make it easy for Fuckistan to invade a non-nuclear Gujarat the next time a 'communal riot' is on."

A. If some people like west Bengalis want to merge with or allow Bangladeshis into their territory then that would be their decision and likely to their detriment. At least those with a preservation instinct or the strength to stand up for themselves will be able to do so.

In today's India the central gov't turns a blind eye and actively appeases Islam and illegals from Bangladesh, which hurts everyone in India.

There's no way that Pakistan could touch Gujurat. 1. because Gujurat would likely be smart enough to sign defence treaties with its neighbours. 2. Muslims themselves in an independent Gujurat would not want to spark an issue with ethnic Gujuratis knowing that no central gov't will come riding to their rescue. 3. what would prevent Gujurat from developing nuclear weapons? India has them now and the countries formed from it would have a claim to the technology. If UP, for example, was given the technology there's nothing stopping them from sharing it.

Posted by: Jalandhar at June 19, 2008 9:17 PM

sorry for the multiple posts, not sure exactly how that happened...

Posted by: Jalandhar at June 19, 2008 9:23 PM

Arjun,

I didn't want to get into this here. However, where to begin? your response to my earlier post makes absolutely no sense. You make points that are clearly false and misrepresent Sikhs and their history in its entirety.

You need to do some reading because you seem to have been brainwashed by the forces of Hindutva or their sympathizers with regards to the Sikhs.

'bloody Khalistanis' are the kind of people who Hindus in the Punjab itself would go to for help when their daughters were threatened with death by her in-laws for not bringing dowry in the 80's. 'bloody Khalistanis' are the kinds of people who in the past would ride out at midnight to retrieve Hindu girls kidnapped by marauders and raiding parties from Afghanistan. FYI, I have nothing against Hindus, but it seems you have something against Sikhs who profess their religion, calling them 'bloody Khalistanis' when you don't even know them.

Sikhs by the way were self-drawn from Hindus and Muslims both. Many many muslims converted to Sikhism. Others (those who believed in the Sufi tradition and regarded the Sikh Gurus as their own Pirs) fought alongside the Sikhs against the Mughals, such as Pir Buddhu Shah, who was martyred along with his sons and son-in-law and 700 followers.

That isn't to say, however, that Sikhs are unaware of their own history. We remember the genocides against us by Muslim forces on no less than two occasions. I don't have to mention the battles fought and resultant bravery of the Khalsa against such people which is legendary and inspiring.

In future, please refrain from disparaging or misrepresenting Sikhs or their religion. I don't disparage Hinduism. Pointing out issues and making criticism of elites or segments of Indian society ISN'T an indictment of Hinduism.

I want a constructive dialogue regarding potential solutions to the issues faced by people living in India and elsewhere, NOT vitriol. Regards.

Posted by: Jalandhar at June 19, 2008 9:47 PM

Jalandhar

Good points about how each state would handle it, but some of your states on Pakistan's border, particularly Punjab and Gujarat would be really vulnerable. Also, w/o India, the Pakis could overrun not only Kashmir, but also Jammu and Ladakh as well.

As far as the nukes go, just as Russia succeeded the Soviet Union as the sole owner of their nukes, chances are likely that the Hindi states, assuming they form one country, would inherit all the nukes - the US and the West isn't going to just brush off 25 new countries with nukes, and would want it to be under one central authority. I therefore doubt that any of the successor countries can defeat Pakistan on its own, while Bangladesh could conquer the entire north east.

In today's India the central gov't turns a blind eye and actively appeases Islam and illegals from Bangladesh, which hurts everyone in India.

Well, when you had the NDA government - BJP, regional parties like Telegu Desam, AIA/DMK, Trinamul, Akali Dal, National Conference, et al, guess which part of this alliance pushed the appeasement of Islam? Had it been just a BJP/Shiv Sena alliance with a 67% majority, Article 370 would be off the Indian constitution, Islamic civil codes would be histoire, even the Ayodhya temple would be built. It was the presence of regional allies that held back the BJP, and not just the (Kashmiri Islamic) National Conference. Even the Akali Dal had a restraining influence here, which would not be the case if the Panth was more anti-Islamic than the Sangh Parivar, as you seem to suggest.

However, you are right in one way. If you had separate countries, the ones that were run by the BJP could officially become Hindu and crack down on all pro-Islamic activities, while in states where it's not a problem (Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Orissa), while there won't be a BJP, there won't be major Mohammedan threats either, except maybe Hyderabad). You wouldn't have anti-Hindu parties like the DMK around to prevent the Ram Janmabhoomi site from going to the Ram bhakts.

This would be in contrast to the current united India, given that at most times, no party is simultaneously popular in all states, it would be impossible for them to come to power on their own.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at June 19, 2008 10:18 PM

"I didn't want to get into this here. However, where to begin? your response to my earlier post makes absolutely no sense. You make points that are clearly false and misrepresent Sikhs and their history in its entirety."

Even I don't want to go OT, but your stupid posting about partitioning the Motherland have forced me to. My response to your earliest post makes no sense eh ? What points are false buster ? Is it a lie that Ek Omkar is one of the basics of Sikhism ? What is the origin of Ek Omkar ? What is the colour that is regarded sacred by Sikhs ? Where did they get it ? Is it a lie that the Sikhs were created to counter jihadis and to defend Hindus ? Is it a lie that the Sikhs restored temples ? Is it a lie that their campaigns were limited to Punjab and Sindh ? Is it a lie that the Guru never dreamed of having a khalistan ?

"You need to do some reading because you seem to have been brainwashed by the forces of Hindutva or their sympathizers with regards to the Sikhs."

I was born in an Indian family but had a secular upbringing. Whatever conclusions I arrived at were after reading history. What makes you think that I am not from Punjab ? What makes you think that I don't have Sikh friends and family ?

"'bloody Khalistanis' are the kind of people who Hindus in the Punjab itself would go to for help when their daughters were threatened with death by her in-laws for not bringing dowry in the 80's. 'bloody Khalistanis' are the kinds of people who in the past would ride out at midnight to retrieve Hindu girls kidnapped by marauders and raiding parties from Afghanistan. FYI, I have nothing against Hindus, but it seems you have something against Sikhs who profess their religion, calling them 'bloody Khalistanis' when you don't even know them."

You are drawing a line between people of Punjab and the Sikhs. You don't seem to think that Non-Sikhs should be allowed to live in Punjab. You are a 'bloody khalistani'. And I know you.

"Sikhs by the way were self-drawn from Hindus and Muslims both. Many many muslims converted to Sikhism. Others (those who believed in the Sufi tradition and regarded the Sikh Gurus as their own Pirs) fought alongside the Sikhs against the Mughals, such as Pir Buddhu Shah, who was martyred along with his sons and son-in-law and 700 followers."

Yes, some muslims became Sikhs, but SOME. Don't try and make out that Sikhism descended from Islam and some 'divine intervention'. The majority were drawn from Hindus and their express task was to defend the Hindus even as they broke every code of the Kshatriyas.(This was necessary, I know). The early Sikhs used the sufi traditions to their advantage, to lure fresh muslim converts into being a part of the solution, instead of a part of the problem.

"That isn't to say, however, that Sikhs are unaware of their own history. We remember the genocides against us by Muslim forces on no less than two occasions. I don't have to mention the battles fought and resultant bravery of the Khalsa against such people which is legendary and inspiring"

You seem to be quite unaware of your own history. And you don't have to mention anything about the bravery of the Khalsa, not that chicken of your kind would appreciate bravery if it bit you. (I use the word "Chicken" because it fits you best. The Guru would never have dreamed of a single partition, and you are the first person that I have seen who advocates not just one, but multiple partitions of his Motherland, something that generations of Sikhs fought to prevent. They were too few to make a difference outside Punjab and Sindh, but in these two places they did a fine job.)

"In future, please refrain from disparaging or misrepresenting Sikhs or their religion. I don't disparage Hinduism.

I have not misrepresented Sikhism. And I have not disparaged Sikhism. YOU have.

"Pointing out issues and making criticism of elites or segments of Indian society ISN'T an indictment of Hinduism."

How the hell have you arrived at the conclusion that I am a Hindu ? Can't I be a Sahajdhari ? And FYKI, you are not "pointing out issues", you are talking about the complete disintegration of India, my Motherland, and the throwing out of all non-Sikh population from Punjab. You think this is a solution ? Are you crazy or just making out as one ?

"I want a constructive dialogue regarding potential solutions to the issues faced by people living in India and elsewhere, NOT vitriol. Regards."

Like I said, are you crazy or making out as one ? "Constructive dialogue", "Potential solutions" indeed. And stuff those regards up where the sun don't shine. I don't take regards from a terrorist, especially one so stupid who believes that Sikhism descended from islam and the solution to jihad in India is complete disintegration.

Goodbye fruitcake.

Posted by: arjun.sevak at June 20, 2008 3:22 AM

Infidel Pride,

thanks for your comments. If India were to break up into separate countries, there would be a lot of pressure (even more than there is now) for Baluchistan, Sindh and NWFP to break away from Pakistan. People in those regions already resent Punjabi Muslim domination. In Sindh, they hate all the zamindars from Punjab buying land there. The Baluchis have no access to any of the resources or economic benefit of the resources Pakistan takes from there to use in Punjab, which is why there has been a separatist movement there for decades.

People in those regions have a lot of nationalist sentiment for their own ethno-national causes. Each has advocated for separation at one point or another.

If one state in India did inherit Indian nukes, the other states could start their own programs using their own human resources. I would venture that much know-how would be passed around. The west and the US can't do anything about different states acquiring the knowledge. That is the one thing that subcontinental people have to their advantage.

Bangladesh could try to take out the N.E. but I doubt that the people in Assam, Mizoram, etc... would succumb. The newly formed countries would in all likelihood anticipate such a scenario and have alliances with each other for collective security.

You'll note that I don't advocate for any sort of partition or population transfer. Unlike the forced partition of Bengal and Punjab, no one state would be split up forcibly. If anything two or more states might unite in a loose Nafta like federation (N.E) for economic and/ or physical security.

Most states I believe would want to maintain a secular ethos based on ethnic not religious unity which is where Islam breaks down. Islam doesn't allow for ethnic nationalism, unless it is Arab nationalism (see the Berbers, Kurds, etc...). People who united on an ethnic basis would resist any Islamic encroachment, in particular the tendency in India for Muslims to only want to speak Urdu despite being from different regions. In Gujarat Muslims have started to speak Gujarati in areas where there aren't many Muslims, whereas before they would just speak Urdu.

Posted by: Jalandhar at June 20, 2008 11:51 AM

Splitting up India is a very bad mistake and would not be rational just as what happened when they divided India into India and Pakistan. Looks like the whole world is getting a bitter taste of the Jihadi and western Muslims coming to Pakistan and getting trained and going back to the west to attack. This will set a precedent that will cause great ruin. Already in the west you have no go zones where majority of the population is Muslims are you going to divide that area up into another country based on language culture etc. There have been civil wars in many countries because each on wanted a separate area. I think the splitting up of a country is deluded thinking and rather foolish. It will not happen, because of the fact that many do not wish it to happen. On the contrary there are more movements to create bigger nations or blocs as it were for the reason of economy, one monetary unit etc. I think it is a foolish and stupid notion to divide a nation which is counter productive to the cause of weakening the camp of Islam. The fact is that 7000 Muslims thugs harmed innocent Hindus who were on a yoga and meditation retreat.

Posted by: savsiv at June 20, 2008 3:51 PM