I always thought the 'Untouchables' were the poorest people in India. Do they still have 'Untouchables in India, or have they done away with the caste system?
At least the Untouchables are kept poor. The muslims are just not industrial enough as a group, to raise out of poverty unless they become an Imam, with a license to steal. Would it help to make Imams out of all muslims? At least they would be employed. I admit though that the wages are low...Allah is such a cheapskate. Thats why it's ok to lie, cheat and steal, if you are an Imam, Mullah, Ayatollah or a Mufti. A muslim cleric has to support himself somehow. I dont think that giving these clerics more resourses will help. They will just ride in more Limos, drink more pepsi's and buy finer threads. In otherwords they will luxuriate on Indias nickle.
With whats left over (after beer and pizza) they will give to terrorists...

Posted by: duh_swami at December 10, 2006 7:11 PM

“We will have to devise innovative plans to ensure that minorities, particularly the Muslim minority, are empowered to share equitably in the fruits of development. They must have the first claim on resources,” Singh said.

Are the Dhimmi Awards still open for late entrants?

Posted by: germaninamerica at December 10, 2006 7:15 PM

The poverty rate in India for muslims and hindus is about 20%
The 'untouchable' poverty rate is 40%

Muslims have less infant mortality than hindus and longer life expectancy than hindus

'Untouchable' children now have a higher literacy rate than muslims, especially female literacy
The muslims send their kids to madrasas and keep their women barefoot and illiterate so that they can outbreed the hindus

Muslims however are over-represented in jails by a factor orf 3

Posted by: Shyamsunder at December 10, 2006 7:20 PM

What kind of idiot is running India? This guy is worse than an appeaser-he's a traitor. Maybe he should propose unification with Pakistan so that way there will be even more Muslims to hand out resources to. All infidel leaders must be suffering from a fatal epidemic of Islamophilia.

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at December 10, 2006 8:41 PM

GIA

I had proposed his name in that thread for banning anti-Muslim blogs in the wake of 7/11.

He is a Sikh. If the Sikh Gurus hadn't been cremated, they'd be doing somersaults in their grave. Maybe someone should give him a shave.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at December 10, 2006 9:06 PM

Muslims only stopped there Jihad when the British came to India at that point they had to stop but a lot of Muslims in India considerate unfinished business. They have swiped hindu temples and turned them into mosques one of the most beautiful hindu sites the taj mahal and claimed it as their own, so there's no way that Muslims given their history in India should get any breaks

Posted by: islamakapigeaters at December 10, 2006 9:53 PM

I saw a show on EWTN a few weeks ago about a Catholic priest who has lived among the poor Muslims in Bangladesh for many years. He helps them with basic needs, and especially identifies and helps with medical issues. There was a case of a woman whose husband had left her and she had two sons. The older son was married and lived in another village and the younger son went to work cleaning out buses. One day a bus ran over his foot and he got some medical attention but it wasn't enough. The mother was desperate. She had lost her home when her husband left and was totally beholden to her brother. Her younger son brought in some income until the accident. The Catholic priest was trying to help her but she was not allowed to make any decisions at all because she is a woman. She needed to get her older son's permission to get help for the younger son. It was unbelievable. This woman was completely reliant on her male family members for housing, income and even basic decision making. Islam, the religion of subjugation. She kept saying that god would help her, meaning allah. Of course, God did help her, the real God, through the Catholic priest. Why is it that you never hear of Muslims helping other Muslims? Do they have real charities or are they just fronts to raise terrorist/jihad funds? I really don't know the answer.

Posted by: CarpeDiem at December 10, 2006 10:05 PM

Attn Islamikapigeater
The british actually stopped the hindu-sikh reconquista
The british captured Delhi by defeating the hindu marathas in 1803
The british captured pakistan by defeating the sikhs in 1849

Manmohan Singh is actually a puppet for the catholic Sonia Gandhi
The current UPA regime has 270 seats out of 535
of which 60 seats are held by the pro-chinese communists who are also pro-muslim for a vote bank
Sonia is also greedy for muslim votes

Manmohan Singh was born in Pakistan and was ethnic cleansed in 1947
This wretch should not have been given refuge in India

Posted by: Shyamsunder at December 10, 2006 10:54 PM

Shyamsunder

However there are no redcoats now and muslims are still getting their way....are they not.

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at December 10, 2006 11:31 PM

greatcomet

Those who abet muslims getting their way are
commies, and greedy hindu vote bankers

The wave of the future is Narendra Modi, BJP chief minister of Gujurat
Muslims are well behaved in Gujurat

Posted by: Shyamsunder at December 10, 2006 11:34 PM

To hell with this Indian PM.

Posted by: EliasAlucard at December 11, 2006 3:33 AM

EliasAlucard:

"To hell with this Indian PM".

Amen to that! And I would add, to hell with the whole lot of Godforsaken dhimmis of India.

Read the following guidelines issued by Israeli Foreign Ministry for its nationals travelling to India:

http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=78001

It is imperative every Westerner (non muslims of course) including starry eyed Indians born and brought up in the West read it. To sum it up pithily, muslims ALONE are the *untouchables and above law*.

Posted by: Crows&Cows at December 11, 2006 3:46 AM

Shyamsunder:

"Muslims are well behaved in Gujarat"

" well behaved muslims" in the midst of infidels is oxymoronic. Eternal vigilance is the price we have to pay.

Posted by: Crows&Cows at December 11, 2006 3:53 AM

CarpeDiem ,

The problem with both hindu and christian do gooders is the same- sheer, most often wantonly self deceptive ignorance about islam.

During tsunami, most of these Hindu inimicals were accommodated in Hindu Temples, fed and taken care of. Many were not only provided with stoves and utensils to cook and eat non vegetarian food in Temple premises but were also not taken to task for defaecating there. All in the name of "humane compassion" and indian styled "sickularism" :-(( If hindus had had any bit of sense ought to have requested saudis and ulemas whatever to "take care" of their muslim bretheren. Typical gandhian double standards.

R.W. Emerson succinctly summed up the truth on reading the Upanishads :

"God does not save souls in bundles".

Infidels overeagerly rushing in with "aid and healing touches" is akin to taking painkillers for cancer.

Posted by: Crows&Cows at December 11, 2006 4:14 AM

Infidel Pride,

mohd afzal is awaiting royal escape from justice whereas Sikh Sidhu has been sentenced.

ISI is planning to hijack a plane,originating from India, particularly bound for America/Europe, to bangladesh to negotiate the terrorist's release.
I thought why bother about hijacking at all? They just have to order and it would be done with a lot of concessions and compensations.

A nation that shamelessly trumpets "cricket is our religion and gandhigiri our mantra" is DEAD and PUTREFYING.

Posted by: Crows&Cows at December 11, 2006 4:23 AM

What a traitor another Ghandi this guy is.

singh is a sikh, he should know better what islam is capable of. I meet more and more sikhs who are pro muslim even though historically they are not. It is sad to see this.

Posted by: pissedoffcanadian at December 11, 2006 8:18 AM

Shyamsunder

While it's true that the Marathas had stopped the Moghuls, all of India wasn't under the Marathas: there were still Muslim governed provinces that were break-aways from the Moghul empire. Bengal, for one, was under the Nawabs, and Robert Clive liberated it from Islamic rule: the Marathas didn't. Also, what ended Islamic supremacy in India was Warren Hastings abolishing Farsi as the lingua franca of the country. Once that happened, and Farsi fell out of favor, things evened out for Hindus. Once English took over, Mohammedans were left way behind, despite the efforts of Syed Ahmad Khan, while Hindus learnt English, and took active part in the life of the country.

There was enough treachery amongst Hindu dhimmi lapdogs after the death of Aurangzeb to make one puke. The Raja of Jaipur, for one, continued in his loyalties to the Moghul throne; thankfully, the Marathas laid waste to his kingdom. And on the Maratha side, Peshwa Baji Rao I wanted to conquer and annex Moghul territories, but was prevented from doing so by the ever so diplomatic Shahu (the Condi Rice of his day), who was the one man who saw to it that the Moghul empire wasn't ended. By the time Shahu died, it was too late for the Marathas to do much about it.

So while the role of the Rajputs (of Marwar and Mewar), Sikhs, Marathas and Jats were important in ending the Moghul empire, let's not ignore the British contributions in terminating the Nawabs of Bengal, Oudh and Carnatic, destroying Tipu Sultan and limiting the powers of the Nizam to Hyderabad. There is nothing to suggest that had the Brits never come, the Marathas would have occupied Murshidabad or that the Jats would have overrun Lucknow.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at December 11, 2006 12:37 PM

pissedoffcanadian

Those Khalistani Sikhs should read (or re-read) the Guru Granth Sahib thoroughly, and ask themselves what they think of the persecution of Gurus Arjan Dev, Har Govind, Tegh Bahadur and Govind Singh, as well as the gruesome murders of Bhai Mati Dass, Zorawar Singh and Fateh Singh (sons of Guru Govind Singh), and countless others. If they still see themselves as having common cause with Muslims (regardless of what they think of Hindus), they should re-do their turbans and beards, recite the Shehada and get it over.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at December 11, 2006 12:42 PM

Crows&Cows

I wonder whether President Kalam would bother reducing his sentence, given his normal non-Islamic tendencies.

Given that Jaswant Singh escorted the Jihadis to Kandahar, I'm somewhat surprised that nobody in the Indian government has escorted Md Afzal to LaWhore.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at December 11, 2006 12:44 PM

Infidel Pride,

Abdul kalam only appears to be the so called non islamic liberal. Categorical and unambiguous non denial of pardon has not come from him. He has mastered the art of conveniently donning the garb of the 'intellectual scientist' when it suits him.

I like your "LaWhore" btw;) Any muslim can dream of devouring his cake and having two of them too only in India ; lawhore may not be all that safe.

Posting below one comment of a Amit (ibnlive.com) that I find sensible:

" Solution for all this debate. Supply Afzal with grenades/ rifles etc. Allow him to attack the parliament with all the congress netas inside. then kill him off. Afzal gets his goal, does good to india in the long run"

Posted by: Crows&Cows at December 11, 2006 1:18 PM

The whole idea of Muslims getting prioty in allocating resources in India is the ultimate dhimmitude, given how Muslims devastated the Hindu populations through the centuries. It would be like Israel giving ex-Nazis preferential treatment. Beyond ridiculous.

Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

Posted by: Proud Infidel at December 11, 2006 1:32 PM

This problem can be solved very easily. There are simply too few Moslems in India. The Indian Government must do everything in its power to increase the Moslem population until Islam becomes the majority religion. The moslems will then allocate resources in a way that is acceptable, and the problem will virtually solve itself. Q.E.D., P.D.Q. etc.

Posted by: MP at December 11, 2006 2:27 PM

Infidel Pride,

once again you show your hatred of Sikhs. What does M. Singh's being a Sikh have to do with anything? Does the fact that Jaswant Singh, Vajpayee, and other BJP luminaries are HINDUS impact on their being responsible for setting terrorists free (see the Kathmandu Indian airlines hijack)? What does the fact that Nehru, Indira Gandhi and her sons being HINDUS have to do with them turning muslims into a vote bank for the congress party and creating separate civil family (Sharia) courts, etc...?

This has to do with the elitist thinking in the Congress party and BJP regardless of religious affiliation and vote bank politics. The BJP wants to court muslim votes the same as the congress has always been courting them. The BJP has started a minority wing for wooing muslims to try and break congress' hold on the muslim vote (if there is such a thing).

Pissed off Canadian,

unfortunately you must be communicating with left wing Sikhs in Canada, so turned because of the left wing public school and university system in Canada. This particular affliction affects all Canadians including HINDUS. You'll note in fact that one VIKAS CHAND, ostensibly a Hindu, converted to Islam and decided to become an alleged terrorist by coincidence. No such example of a Sikh in Canada doing the same.

My main point in case you missed it, is that regardless of the Indian PM's religious affiliation, his attitude is an indictment of the Indian Elite's thinking, NOT of Sikhs.

Posted by: Jalandhar at December 11, 2006 3:01 PM

Jalandhar

I suggest you re-read what I wrote above, or ask me if you have any doubts, before casting inane aspersions about me. When did I ever say anything negative about Sikhs, either here, or on this website ever? I challenge you to produce it, if you can.

Your final point was exactly the point I was making - that Manmohan Singh was betraying his Sikh heritage by kowtowing to Muslims (something his office has subsequently denied, given how it's blown up in their faces). My condemnation was purely of Manmohan Singh: anybody who reads into that any hatred of Sikhs is reading what he imagines, and imagining what he reads.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at December 11, 2006 4:40 PM

Jalandhar I think you are right as to why I meet sikhs in canada who are pro islam is that they are brainwashed by left wing thinking. One guy I work with is pro islam as he is very anti american when I asked him about kashnmir and pointed out that muslims were at the heart of the problem in kashmir he was ignorant of the fact and claimed that kashmiris had their own religion.

Posted by: pissedoffcanadian at December 11, 2006 6:44 PM

Sorry. Typo correction:

"Categorical and unambiguous DENIAL of pardon".

Posted by: Crows&Cows at December 11, 2006 11:11 PM

Infidel Pride,

Regarding Jalandhar's hasty reply to your comment. This is one big problem I always encounter while thrashing out any issue with a fellow Indian. Lack of receptivity , extremely touchy intolerance, the tendency to harbour sneaking ill feelings (till the day of death) towards the truth speaking...

Many Indians, just refuse to accept facts and very craftily obfuscate them by parochial, ethnic, economic (like yunus's *poverty*)and of course itisallWest's fault arguments.

Posted by: Crows&Cows at December 11, 2006 11:27 PM

pissedoffcanadian,

You are right in a way about leftist indoctrination. However, if a person genuinely cares to know, the truth is available at the click of a mouse today.

How come America woke up after 9/11? How come Israel is ever prepared?

Lackadaisical Indians (hindus) who have tasted islam are just not bothered ENOUGH. Like Nariz, the ill informed nincompoop about Jesus Christ, many hindus also preen mouthing ahimsa, with their half baked knowledge about their own religion.

Posted by: Crows&Cows at December 11, 2006 11:39 PM

Crows&Cows

Thanks. Re-reading the above, I think Jalandhar may have been responding to my response to PissedoffCanadian. But even there, my comments (about Sikhs reciting the Shehada) were restricted to pro-Islamic Sikhs; it didn't even cover all pro-Khalistani Sikhs (in fact, I have nothing against any pro-Khalistani Hindu hating Sikhs who happens to be anti-Islamic; being liked is pretty low on my priorities). Anybody who has followed my writings here over the last year knows that I'm just as hostile, if not more, towards Hindu dhimmis, as I am towards dhimmis of all other religions and nationalities.

In fact, I happen to have a high opinion of Beant and Satwant Singh, and was horrified in 1984 by the Delhi riots, and the brownwashing of that dark week by successive Indian governments. How I could possibly be anti-Sikh is beyond me.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at December 12, 2006 12:03 AM

Infidel Pride,

I am also an admirer of Beant and Satwant Singh.

Indians are their own worst enemies-ill informed,hidebound by prejudices but pompously garrulous who would never walk the talk.

When KPS.Gill's well deserved eminence evoked certain people's jealousy, he was promptly maligned in that notorious alleged 'back slapping' case. At that time, a non pc Tamil columnist defended Gill saying " Page3 women who routinely attend late night cocktail parties ought to be familiar with the goingson and hence ought not to protest too much...". Now, that spurred many womenfolk to cry foul and pillory the columnist labelling him a "womanhater":)

This is precisely the way surface grazers of India approach any issue.

When I presented certain facts about a hindu charlatan 'godman', arjun sevak retorted asking me to "go back to Sri Lanka" ;) He forgot I am very much a citizen of India.

Posted by: Crows&Cows at December 12, 2006 2:26 AM

Jalandhar and Infidel Pride,

Read the following about how Sikhs were treated by nehru onwards, 1984 pogrom etc:

http://www.indiacause.com/columns/OL_061116.htm

A panoply of orchestrated fraud

Posted by: Crows&Cows at December 12, 2006 6:32 AM

germaninamerica,duh_swami ,Shyamsunder,ISLAMSFORLOSERS,Infidel Pride ,islamakapigeaters,CarpeDiem,greatcometof1577,EliasAlucard ,Crows&Cows,pissedoffcanadian, Proud Infidel,MP ,Jalandhar.

If any of you are in the UK or have UK contacts please contact me.

Regards

apostate_islam@hotmail.com

Posted by: apostate_islam at December 12, 2006 8:39 AM

Infidel Pride,

Didn't you write, "He is a Sikh. If the Sikh Gurus hadn't been cremated, they'd be doing somersaults in their grave. Maybe someone should give him a shave." ??

That is what I'm referring to. Why is it that when a Sikh does/says something controversial, one of the first things Indians talk about is "how that guy is a Sikh". What does his being a Sikh have to do with anything?

You say,"give him a shave." I find that to be an insult against his religion. If a Hindu says/does something controversial, is one of the first things out of your mouth, "that guy's a Hindu." Do you call for the Hindu to be "circumcised", or for to "have his thread cut off?" (referring to the thread Brahmins wear as a sign of upper caste status). I have found that when it comes to Sikhs, Indians, especially Hindus, seem to feel that they need to mention the guy's religion almost right away.

Does anyone say Sikh cricketer Yuvraj Singh, or Sikh cricketer Harbhajan Singh when talking about the Indian cricket team? No. Why is that?

My point above wasn't that as a Sikh, Manmohan Singh should know better. My point was that what he said is a product of 1. Indian Elitist (leftie) thinking and 2. vote bank politics.

His religion doesn't matter and calling for him to be given a "shave" is a ridiculous/ stupid/ anti-Sikh inspired thing to say. He could just as easily have been a Hindu saying what he did and I'm sure, having interacted with enough Indians to make the assumption, that you, Infidel Pride, would not call for some anti-Hindu violence to be enacted on the individual (ie: scrape his forehead clean, cut his thread(s), circumcise him, feed him beef balls/ prairie oysters, or some other anti-Hindu slander)

Posted by: Jalandhar at December 12, 2006 10:58 AM

Note: above when I say Hindu's need to mention the Sikh's religion right away, I'm referring to when it involves some controversy. Not when its something positive as in the case of the cricketers (unless they do something stupid, in which case it becomes the ""Sikh cricketer" did something stupid".

Posted by: Jalandhar at December 12, 2006 11:00 AM

Sorry about this, I need to use the preview. Correction: above note should read Hindus not Hindu's

Posted by: Jalandhar at December 12, 2006 11:06 AM

Jalandhar,

You have misunderstood IPride. What he means is Manmohan's conduct, his pusillanimity, are so UNBECOMING of a Sikh.

Again it is too sweeping a statement that hindus have a negative opinion about Sikhs.Sikhs, are the most tolerant with an excellent sense of humour.Who else among Indian communities are truly capable of laughing at themselves or taking all those "Sardarji jokes" in their stride?

Btw, the Sacred Thread worn by a Brahmin is CERtainly not to proclaim any special status of his.Once initiated, he HAS to chant (silently) the Holy Manthram, everyday, following all the rules like bathing etc.And the benefits accrue to the entire world including fourlegged animals,birds,flora,waterbodies..There is no exclusivism.

The renegade brahmins have been upbraided by our own Pontiff and many Priests. A lot of indian leftists consist of them.

Posted by: Crows&Cows at December 12, 2006 11:37 AM

apostate my mate! remember me and our lil' conspiracy last year? when we went about putting Jihadwatch leaflets on South West Trains?

Anyways i dont hang out here these days, given the amount of pro-BNP that goes on here in the comments section. You can find me at Sunny Hundal's website.

Posted by: Vikrant_Camberleykar at December 12, 2006 11:44 AM

Jalandhar

Crows&Cows summed me up right - like I mentioned above, Manmohan Singh's comments are a disgrace to his faith, which evolved on the basis of resistance to Islamic supremacy. I wasn't saying that this is how Sikhs normally act. And my recommendation to give him a shave arose out of that - so that he doesn't get mistaken for a Sikh going forward.

I disagree with you - as a Sikh, he should know better, whether he's an elite Harvard MBA or not. And if he was a Hindu, I'd actually be more hostile, and would recommend that he be circumcized (actually castrated), and if it was a Brahmin making such a statement, I'd call for using that thread to hang him (if it can take his weight). Note that I'm one of the biggest Gandhi/Nehru haters on this site, and consider the former a blight on Hindus.

I can see that you have a visceral animousity towards Hindus in general, and Brahmins in particular. As long as you are anti-Islamic (if you are), I won't come in your way.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at December 12, 2006 12:30 PM

Crows&Cows

Who's our own Pontiff?

Posted by: Infidel Pride at December 12, 2006 12:33 PM

Infidel Pride,

Thank You!

Kanchi Paramacharya.(Our Pontiff means He belongs to all of us)

In His Discourses compiled as 'Voice of God'(translated into many languages including English) He presents the total unvarnished and non chauvinistic Truths about Sanathana Dharmam loosely described as Hinduism.

He has admonished many renegade brahmins for the rot that set in.It was thus I came to know,it was not really the British but the various powerhungry, vested interests etc etc that were behind tinkering with our education, syllabus,Temple management and so forth. To know the truth about the history and many allied matters those 7 volumes are a must read.

Vikrant,
What is BNP?

Posted by: Crows&Cows at December 12, 2006 12:48 PM

Does PM Singh have a track record for this sort of mindless dhimmitude? If so, then why wasn't he in the running for the International Dhimmi of the Year award?

I mean, OK, while he could never hope to match Dhimmi Carter for sheer stupidity - Dhimmi's description of Ayatollah Khomeini as a "fellow man of faith" should alone earn him a Lifetime (lack of) Achievement Award - at least he'd have given all the anti-dhimmis from the sub-continent somebody local to vote for.

Posted by: Matamoros at December 12, 2006 6:19 PM

Manmohan Singh is a puppet of Sonia Gandhi who is a dhimmi for the sake of the muslim vote bank

Posted by: Shyamsunder at December 12, 2006 10:11 PM

Jalandhar,
All this talk about sikh dhimmis points to the hindu dissapointment with their own fellow co religionists for failing to face up to these muslims. perhaps sikhs should know better, they were in the forefront of fighting muslims because the hindus were too cowardly to defend them selves. but is was not supposed to be this way.
Ram Ram Krishna Krishna, these two gods are always on ther lips of hindus. they are worshipped in temples and in every home. their exploits are celebrated. yet the example they set for hindus to follow is tottaly ignored in favor of the buddhist nonviolance. what did Ram and krishna do? Ram had a wife who was kidnapped by an evil guy from lanka. so what did he do? why he raised an army to fight this guy, he sent his men to burn down lanka for the sake of his wife and kill the evil guy.
How about Krishna? this god was a master slayer of evil being from childhood. he even had people fighting and killing for him for his sake.
what did these two had in common was they both fought evil and they never gave in to evil nor did they sat down to negotiate with evil.
So what do our current gutless hindu and sikh wonders do? they appease evil they let thousands of sitas and laxmans be kidnapped raped and killed yet they do nothing but try for another round of talk with the evil beings (muslims).
If ram and Krishna were buried they would be rolling in their graves. and wondering what happened to hinduisim?

Posted by: desidude at December 12, 2006 11:46 PM

desidude,

The following would interest you:

http://hawkeyeindia.wordpress.com/2006/01/10/krishna-please-come-down-and-help-me/

(The Blog of a Liberal Mugged by Reality)

It starts thus and is definitely worth a read.

"Hindus, the overwhelming majority of us at least (I would say around 99%), have done a marvellous job of misinterpreting and misunderstanding in every conceivable way almost every scripture which we have inherited from our great Hindu forefathers".

Posted by: Crows&Cows at December 13, 2006 1:32 AM

Infidel Pride,

I don't have a visceral hatred for Hindus. I am against the policies of the Indian government (including, desertification of Punjab, "stepmotherly" treatment of Punjab) and fascist Hindus who seek to manipulate, convert, or otherwise oppress Sikhs in India (including publishing claims that Sikhs are Hindus and disparaging literature about the character of the Sikhs/ Gurus). Organizations like the RSS (which are Brahmin dominated) are well known for such things. I am for JUSTICE and EQUALITY and Religious Freedom, none of which Punjab as a state (riparian rights, industrial development, etc..), or Sikhs as individuals(1984 genocide victims, separate civil laws (why do Sikhs get clubbed as Hindus in Indian laws - see Hindu Marriage Law?) receive. Also, in what legitimate democracy does the PM interfere in the religious affairs of its minorities with the goal of destroying/ dividing them?(see Indira Gandhi and son). Also, Khalistan is about freedom and not about being anti-Hindu.

Furthermore, I support Robert Spencer and others for shedding light on the actual belief systems of fascist Muslims. Sikhs love freedom and have demonstrated this throughout their history. However, to expect every Sikh, just by virtue of their religion, to withstand left wing propaganda and other brainwashing is foolish/ ignorant. Making comments, like "give him a shave", are anti-Sikh and don't speak directly to the individual involved, in this case Manmohan Singh.

I would say again, having dealt with many Indians, that somehow the word "Sikh" always gets tied to someone when they do something controversial, but never/ rarely if it involves something positive (ie: why don't Indians cite Yuvraj Singh (cricketer), Jagjit Singh (ghazal singer), Sukhwinder Singh(bollywood playback singer) etc... as Sikhs when they write about them?)

As a note, I do appreciate posts by ShyamSunder, Crows&Cows, and others who seem to understand the above points.

Posted by: Jalandhar at December 13, 2006 10:45 AM

I don't have a visceral hatred for Hindus. I am against the policies of the Indian government (including, desertification of Punjab, "stepmotherly" treatment of Punjab)

Jalandhar you are simply regurgitating Khalistani propoganda. Gronudwater tables in whole of North Western India are declining. As for "step motherly" treatment... every freaking regional nationalist in India alleges that! From Marathis to Gujjus, get over your victim complex boys! Whats more last heard, Punjab is 40% Hindu. Surely you cant claim Indian state is victimising the Sikhs!

Organizations like the RSS (which are Brahmin dominated)

Given the Brahminophobia prevalent amongst Khalistanis, it is not surprising of you to say this. RSS infact protected Sikhs (esp. in Maharashtra) during 1984.

I am for JUSTICE and EQUALITY and Religious Freedom, none of which Punjab as a state (riparian rights, industrial development, etc..), or Sikhs as individuals(1984 genocide victims, separate civil laws (why do Sikhs get clubbed as Hindus in Indian laws - see Hindu Marriage Law?) receive.

yeah yeah... word genocide gets used soo easily. The blood lays on Congress's hands rather than Indian state. There have been precednts like Congress sponsored 1948 anti-Brahmin "riots" in Maharashtra after Gandhi's murder. Over a 1000 Maharashtrian Brahmins were buthchered in a period of 5 days, a gruesome incident that Indian state refuses to acknowledge let alone investigate.

As for the marriage laws. IMHO the constitution doesnt imply that Sikh's are Hindus. Sikh marriages are registered under Hindu laws just becoz Sikh customs and Hindu customs are similar.

Also, Khalistan is about freedom and not about being anti-Hindu.

Try telling that to those Punjabi Hindus massacred by "Sant" Bhindrewale's henchmen.

Lastly i dont think any Hindu considers Sikhism to be a part of Hinduism. Though i never get it why Khalistani Sikhs get soo frothing mad when deep philosophical and social connections between Hinduism and Sikhism are mentioned.

Posted by: Vikrant_Camberleykar at December 13, 2006 11:33 AM

Vikrant and others, somehow, the Sikhs living overseas UK and Canada especially have got the 'touchy feely I am a victim' gene. It happens when you are 'embedded' for long with muslims. Also, these a-holes when talking about Khalistan will talk about Indian Punjab only, never a word about Pukistani Punjab and the plight of Sikhs living over there or in Afghanistan. Shows how much Jalandhar (A Canadian, BTW) and his ilk loves JUSTICE AND EQUALITY AND rel. freedom for Sikhs.

Anybody who sympathizes with Khalistani's is firstly Paki own3d and is not worth debating. My 2 paise.

Posted by: desi_singh at December 13, 2006 12:31 PM

Jalandhar

Given that the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the Khalistan movement is off topic for this website, I'll avoid going there into much detail. While in the 80's I was like every other Indian in opposing the Khalistan movement, I think that in a perfect Islam free world, if a majority of Sikhs wanted to secede, that wish should be respected, just as it was in the case of other people who had no precedent of an independent existance, like Ukraine, Slovakia, Slovenia, Croatia, et al. However, if a Khalistan did come into existance given todays borders, it would be forced to be at the tender mercies of either India or Pakistan, and would be totally unviable. (I also might have respected this movement more if they had made claims to Lahore (capital of Ranjit Singh), Nankana Sahib, Peshawar, et al. As Desi Singh points out, no mention of that, nor the plight of Sikhs in Afghanistan, where they were forced to wear yellow, much like the yellow stars of David that Jews were forced to wear in the third Reich) I however suspect that Desi Singh is more representative of mainstream Sikh opinion than you are. Manmohan Singh aside, even the Akalis are a part of the NDA alliance, and had no problems aligning with the BJP, whom you have a dim view of.

As for the other points about discrimination against Punjab and Sikhs, Vikrant pretty much has it right. Beyond the Congress, there never have been anti-Sikh sentiments from Hindus, even in the months preceding Operation Bluestar.

However, to expect every Sikh, just by virtue of their religion, to withstand left wing propaganda and other brainwashing is foolish/ ignorant. Making comments, like "give him a shave", are anti-Sikh and don't speak directly to the individual involved, in this case Manmohan Singh.

Your first point above is well taken. However, the second point completely misses it: it's anti-Manmohan Singh, not anti-Sikh. There have been strong criticisms of the Dalai Lama for his imbecilic comments on Muslims. Were those comments attacks on Mahayana Buddhism?

I would say again, having dealt with many Indians, that somehow the word "Sikh" always gets tied to someone when they do something controversial, but never/ rarely if it involves something positive (ie: why don't Indians cite Yuvraj Singh (cricketer), Jagjit Singh (ghazal singer), Sukhwinder Singh(bollywood playback singer) etc... as Sikhs when they write about them?)

Lets take Yuvraj or Harbhajan Singh as examples. If Yuvraj scores a duck in a match, there is nothing either Sikh or un-Sikh about it: he may have had an off day, or gone through a rough patch. Conversely, if he scores a century, or Harbhajan takes 7 wickets, they aren't enhancing the glory or prestige of the Panth. (It would be different if they were involved in match fixing, which would be treasonous).

When someone does something immoral, it's worth pointing out how he's letting down the Panth. Of course, like you say, he may be a leftist moonbat, and it's not legitimate to call him a Sikh. I'd agree with you if that were the point you were making.

As a note, I do appreciate posts by ShyamSunder, Crows&Cows, and others who seem to understand the above points.
Posted by: Jalandhar

Crows&Cows pretty much got what I meant. My views aren't different - I'm a great admirer not only of the Sikh Gurus and their followers, but also of those Sikhs who came after them - Banda Bahadur, Ranjit Singh, Hari Singh Nalwa... I'm not aware of Sikh hating Hindus, but even if there are, you do mischaracterize me by lumping me with them.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at December 13, 2006 1:14 PM

Desi_Singh et al.,

it just goes to show the level of debate people like Desi like to engage in when they write things such as, "these a-holes when talking about Khalistan will talk about Indian Punjab only". Yes, a-holes, what a profound term. Did you find that in your dictionary?

IF you bother to read my posts above, I mention several times that the main point I was making was related to Manmohan Singh's words being a product of his Left wing elitist roots and vote bank politics.

For some reason mentioning Khalistan seems to set the anti-Khalistan folks into a tizzy. I made a one line remark, tangential to the post in response to Infidel Pride basically exhorting all Sikhs who support an independent Khalistan into converting to Islam, and all you can focus on is providing an anti-Khalistan rant which disparages Sikhs in Canada and the UK.

Do YOU understand the population demographics in Canada? Sikhs have been here since the 1800s, whereas Muslims only began arriving here in any large way in the late 1980s and 90s. If you grew up in most cities or towns in Canada you wouldn't have seen virtually any Muslims before then except for perhaps Ismailis in one or two areas. Sikhs are not aligned with Muslims or anyone else for that matter in Canada. We don't need to be. We are active in all facets of Canadian society.

If the 1984 attacks aren't an indictment of the Indian state, then surely the lack of justice afterwards certainly is an indictment in complicity. The fact that Brahmins were murdered in Maharashtra after Gandhi's assassination without redress basically points to the fact there is no justice in India. So where is the freedom? India exchanges one set of Masters for another? Indians are therefore still Gulam, is that what you are positing?

What explanation is there really of how the Indian state ISN'T culpable as a result of its action/ or inaction with regards to the events in 1984 and lack of justice afterwards. All political parties have held the levers of power since, so they all had a chance to address this point. (consider that all levers of power in Delhi/ India failed to protect the Sikhs - PM's office, Central Gov't, Local Gov't, Police, Hospitals, etc..). Some individual Hindus, and Muslims at the time provided sanctuary to Sikhs. There wasn't any organized support however.

Posted by: Jalandhar at December 13, 2006 1:59 PM

Jalandhar,

I am afraid, you have made up your mind not to try to reread, reconsider and understand IPride.

This out of the context clinging on to "shave" is clouding your judgement.IPride also echoes the same views. In fact,he communicates far better than I do.

It all comes down to our petty ego hassles isn't it?

Don't club normal people like us with the government of India.

Posted by: Crows&Cows at December 13, 2006 11:59 PM

desi_singh,Vikrant,IPride,Jalandhar,

You are right about the "touchy,feely,I am a victim gene".It is very craftily exploited by lots of Indians as and when required.

Recently, too much of ruckus was created and Australians (Ponting) made to apologize and apologize for nothing but their exuberance.

In contrast,"In April 2006, Mr Pawar and Mr Lalit Modi, BCCI vice-president, were pushed around by surly policemen at a stadium in Abu Dhabi during an India-Pakistan match. The diplomatic breach was dismissed as a "minor misunderstanding" by the very BCCI officials. Nobody wanted to upset the cosy arrangement of "off-shore" cricket in petrodollar rich Gulf states or disturb notions of "Asian solidarity", spurious of course, but useful in international cricket politics".

If you live in India and bother to take a closer look your 'love' for a lot of Indians would evaporate.

Posted by: Crows&Cows at December 14, 2006 12:14 AM

Jalandhar

*****HYPERBOLE ALERT*******

Sikhs have been here since the 1800s and Komagata Maru incident also happened in Canada, isn't it? Or the Air India Kanishka bombing case? Shows how much you care about justice and bunkum.

There was a method to the madness in which various western countries esp. UK allowed kashmiri muslims and sikhs to immigrate. There was nobody stopping them preaching hatred in mosques etc against India and collect money to do jihad and other anti-Indian activities until it turned around and bit the massa in the ass(7/7). Now, suddenly these 'freedom fighters' cretins have become terrorists.

Posted by: desi_singh at December 14, 2006 1:03 PM

Before this thread goes into Archives, I have to report something very heartrending that happened during the pogrom of Sikhs in India. I sent it to a jingoistic hindu blogger luxuriating in America. I sent it as he had very cleverly projected himself as a sympathizer of Sikhs for "Jallianwalabagh massacre". He did not publish mine. Only sycophantic comments.

It was reported in the leftist,communist dhimmi Times of India (rechristened Toilet Paper of India, lamentably belatedly by certain hindus who are just incapable of FEELING and EMPATHISING) not out of any FEELING for Sikhs. It came in a column that dealt with the Mumbai filmstars lifestyles.

An orphaned young Sikh Boy (7 or 8 yrs old) whose parents were brutally massacred somehow fled to Mumbai as naively, guilelessly he believed the filmstars were all well, what they project themselves as, on celluloid.

He was so parched with thirst and hunger he "fell at the feet of Dharmendra and Mithun Chakraborty and many more asking only for 10paise or a loaf of bread. They flatly refused calling him a "traitor (sic) of India". There was no further followup at all about that Boy. No readers enquiring, no outrage or shock on the part of ANY of the staff working in that newspaper. No dogs barked, no lions roared...

I wonder if any Sikh really is aware of this fact. If any underworld Don or ANYONE does ANYTHING to the filthiest gutterscumslimes of India, remember
"Never Cry Wolf" !

Certain yogapeddling "swamijis" hobnob with and give healing plus beauty tips to hemamalinisesssss and big *ssssssss. As they are touted as the culture ambassadors of india:(( Why? Just because they dance classical Bharathanatyam in addition to versatile posterior gyrations and pelvic thrusts.......

Need I say more???

Posted by: Crows&Cows at December 16, 2006 6:45 AM