Wapsi (The Returning)

How to buy DVD of `WAAPSI`` in India?

From Richard Grenier`s famous essay in Commentary the American Jewish Committee Magazine...

http://eserver.org/history/ghandi-nobody-knows.txt

Skeptics might also not be surprised to learn that as independence approached, Gandhi`s inner voice began to change its tune. It has been reported that Gandhi ``half-welcomed`` the civil war that broke out in the last days. Even a fratricidal ``bloodbath`` (Gandhi`s word) would be preferable to the British.

And suddenly Gandhi began endorsing violence left, right, and center. During the fearsome rioting in Calcutta he gave his approval to men ``using violence in a moral cause.``


There is other stuff in this article that makes even more disturbing reading...

Re: # 295

Still sticking to your old line of argument i.e. lies

Good for you.

#290 by MaheshG2

[Is that all you have to say about the murder of an innocent man?]

Man, the guy is a total fake. As long as you don`t contest his arguments, he will go on and on forever. The moment you produce some evidence like I did with his hero, the man resorts to blabbering incoherently.

#288 by Yasser

[I`ve already answered this question as well in the post above. Please refer to it...]

Where? Or are you speaking thru your hat?

Re: # 286
Just a small correction.Patiala was never a muslim majority state.The only muslim majority area in east Punjab was a small nawabi state of Maler Kotla.Though Maler Kotla was surrounded from all sides by hindu/sikh majority areas but there was not a single attack on it and there was no migration from that town.The reason was the protest registered by the erstwhile nawab of Maler Kotla,Sher Khan, against the killing of younger sons of Guru Gobind Singh Ji by the nawab of Sirhind in early part of seventeenth century.
Maler Kotla still is a muslim majority town.
I dont mean to say that there were no killings in other parts of Punjab.Fanatics on both sides were competing with each other at that time,like who sends most dead bodies in the trains to the other side.

Re: # 286
Just a small correction.Patiala was never a muslim majority state.The only muslim majority area in east Punjab was a small nawabi state of Maler Kotla.Though Maler Kotla was surrounded from all sides by hindu/sikh majority areas but there was not a single attack on it and there was no migration from that town.The reason was the protest registered by the erstwhile nawab of Maler Kotla,Sher Khan, against the killing of younger sons of Guru Gobind Singh Ji by the nawab of Sirhind in early part of seventeenth century.
Maler Kotla still is a muslim majority town.
I dont mean to say that there were no killings in other parts of Punjab.Fanatics on both sides were competing with each other at that time,like who sends most dead bodies in the trains to the other side.

Re: # 290

No sir... but I`ll have my say where it matters, and not to prove my ``humanity`` to total strangers ...

Manto #287,

Is that all you have to say about the murder of an innocent man?

if you are shocked by the fact that only 1 million out of 6 million remained in W. Punjab and Sindh, why aren`t you shocked by the fact that almost no Muslims remain in E. Punjab out of a population of much more than 6 million. Jullundur, Amritsar, Patiala, Ludhiana, Ferozepore, Pathankot, Gurdaspur, Ambala, and Panipat all had significant Muslim populations. That is what happened in 47 in Punjab - ethnic cleansing on both sides.

Sure, I am shocked.

I will even admit that more Muslims moved to Pakistan than did Hindus and Sikhs to India.

But the fact remains that after the population exchange minorities became an insignifcant part of the population in Pakistan. That is the main point.

As far as your contention that Gujarat type riots would take place in Pakistan if only the victims were present, you are dead wrong. The jihadis, mullahs, and fanatics, as despicable as they are, do not care about killing the minorities` men, women, and children. In fact, they may be more interested in establishing an ``Islamic State`` that ``saves`` these infidels from hell, by trying to convert them. Most of all they are more interested in eliminating those ``liberal`` Muslims who stand in their way of imposing an ``Islamic`` state. Individual fanatics may blow themselves up and kill some non-Muslims, but they have been targeting other Muslims in Pakistan mainly.

Kardesh, I am afraid you have totally lost it here.

You are talking as if Mullahs and Jehadis do not kill infidels. Jehadis have been killing infidels in droves from time immemorial.

And how are they going to convert the minorities if they refuse to be converted? How else are they going to accomplish it without violence? Why would minorities convert if they are not afraid for their lives and livelihood?

Unlike the Hinduva-inspired RSS/BJP/VHP/SP/BD/JS fanatics, the jihadists are not out for revenge for perceived atrocities from the 8th and 10th through 19th centuries. They are not trying to rape Hindu and Sikh women so that they can be happy that the sins of Ghaznavi, Ghori, and Babur have been repaid. Come on, MaheshG2, see the difference. Jihadists believe in violence for ``independence`` from infidels, including Muslim liberals and imposition of ``Islamic`` rule and are even willing to commit suicide to accomplish these goals. Hindutva fanatics want to extract revenge for past humiliations and are willing to commit violence only if their own lives are not in danger. This was the case in Gujarat, Bombay and most other riots where the RSS types were ``victorious.``

Jihadis resort to violence to get their way (one does not need RSS type reasons to kill people). They just don`t have Hindu/Sikh victims to target in Pakistan. Hence, they make their way to Kashmir and do it there or simply target liberal Muslims.

Kardesh, it`s comical to see you assert that Jehadis and mullahs will blow themselves up and eliminate liberal muslims who stand in their way but will not blow up minorities who stand in their way.

You have to admit you sound completely ridiculous here.

Re: # 283

``If that is the case, why don`t you cut and paste the reply?``

I`ve already answered this question as well in the post above. Please refer to it...

Re: # 284

What humanity... displaying pleasure on the murder of an innocent man...

Re: # 285

MahesG2,
I think your numbers make sense. Yes, 5 million or more Hindus and Sikhs left West Punjab to go to East Punjab - especially in 1947-48. I have been trying to tell you that. Yes, you can call it ethnic cleansing. But it is also a fact that many more millions, possibly 8 to 10 million Muslims came to Pakistan from East Punjab, Delhi, UP, Rajasthan, and Gujarat.
After 1947-48, there were hardly any Muslims left in East Punjab. Patiala, I have been told was a Muslim majority princely state, where many of the inhabitants were systematically killed by the maharaja`s forces. I heard similar situation happened in kapurthala. Amritsar district, also having a huge, if not a majority Muslim population, was totally cleansed. So ethnic cleansing occurred in both halves of Punjab. The point is that after this 47 madness, no Gujarat type riots took place in West Pakistan to this day.
If you are shocked by the fact that only 1 million out of 6 million remained in W. Punjab and Sindh, why aren`t you shocked by the fact that almost no Muslims remain in E. Punjab out of a population of much more than 6 million. Jullundur, Amritsar, Patiala, Ludhiana, Ferozepore, Pathankot, Gurdaspur, Ambala, and Panipat all had significant Muslim populations. That is what happened in 47 in Punjab - ethnic cleansing on both sides.

As far as your contention that Gujarat type riots would take place in Pakistan if only the victims were present, you are dead wrong. The jihadis, mullahs, and fanatics, as despicable as they are, do not care about killing the minorities` men, women, and children. In fact, they may be more interested in establishing an ``Islamic State`` that ``saves`` these infidels from hell, by trying to convert them. Most of all they are more interested in eliminating those ``liberal`` Muslims who stand in their way of imposing an ``Islamic`` state. Individual fanatics may blow themselves up and kill some non-Muslims, but they have been targeting other Muslims in Pakistan mainly.

Unlike the Hinduva-inspired RSS/BJP/VHP/SP/BD/JS fanatics, the jihadists are not out for revenge for perceived atrocities from the 8th and 10th through 19th centuries. They are not trying to rape Hindu and Sikh women so that they can be happy that the sins of Ghaznavi, Ghori, and Babur have been repaid. Come on, MaheshG2, see the difference. Jihadists believe in violence for ``independence`` from infidels, including Muslim liberals and imposition of ``Islamic`` rule and are even willing to commit suicide to accomplish these goals. Hindutva fanatics want to extract revenge for past humiliations and are willing to commit violence only if their own lives are not in danger. This was the case in Gujarat, Bombay and most other riots where the RSS types were ``victorious.``

Don`t forget the the influx of Muslims from Punjab, Delhi, UP, Gujarat, Rajasthan, and Bombay was huge in the period from 1947 through 1950 - when the doors to Pakistan were closed. To say that over 5-6 million people came to West Pakistan and approximately 5 million left West Pakistan would not be an exaggeration. Hopefully, someone with more exact and accurate numbers can enlighten us. Yes, I understand from reading books that approximately 1-2 million people perished (nice word for slaughtered) during partition - primarily in Punjab, some in Delhi, and many in Bihar and Bengal.

So, if millions of Hindus and Sikhs left and millions of Muslims arrived, is it any wonder that a population that may have been in double digit percentages has shrunk to low single digits? I think the math will support this - because this is the truth. I am not aware of mass conversions or slaughter taking place after 1948.

The article I posted from Dawn took the influx and outflux both into account. If you can check out that article for the exact numbers. My contention is that even taking both into account the minority population came down by more than a whopping 80% (6 million before partition, 1 million after).

If you want to do the actual math, I can help you.

Pakistan population before partition 32 million (1941). Number of minorities in Pakistan 6.4 million (20% of 32 million).

Pakistan population after partition 39 million (1951). Number of minorities in Pakistan 1.3 million (3.2% of 39 million).

Therefore, 5.1 million people out of 6.4 million were either driven out, massacred or converted. Let`s say they were not even driven out they simply left.

5.1 million is 80% of 6.4 million. Therefore, minority population came down by 80%. That by any definition of the term is ETHNIC CLEANSING!!!!

Pakistan, as a government, did not wipe out its minorities, neither did the GOI. Most Hindus and Sikhs left Pakistan, especially Punjab, due to the danger to their lives in 47 and the fact that they did not want to live in an Islamic state. The deliberate desire of Sikh leaders to reconvene a solid majority in East Punjab, along with the mass killings of Muslims in East Punjab, especially Patiala, Amritsar, and Kapurthala, helped to facilitate this huge migration.

You seem to be hung up on semantics. Will you find it more acceptable if I said Pakistan got rid of its minorities. Even if no mass slaughter or conversion took place after 1948, there was a population exchange over a period of 4 years. Both you and HP seem to be hung up no massacres after 1948. Let me grant you that because that is not even my main point.

The point is whatever happened, even if you guys just want to admit to just population transfer, no massacres, no conversions, you CAN NOT get away from the fact that there was complete ethnic cleansing in West Pakistan (80% of minority population being thrown out is no joke!!).

To claim no gujarats took place in Pakistan after 1947-51 is simply ridiculous.

Maybe if Bin Laden, or Mullah Omar were the CMs of Punjab and Sindh, we could still have such a horrible thing happen in Pakistan - but I think that Pakistanis are not inclined to killing men, women, and children en masse. Most Indians are also not inclined to engage in mass slaughter. You need an organizations, e.g. Siv Sena/RSS/BJP/JS/SP/BD type activists, propaganda, slogans, newspapers that support that type of ideology, a state infrastructure, and a weak central government, willing to let that happen.

Oh, come on. Kardesh, Pakistan has Bin Laden and Mullah Omar`s as CMs all over the place. There is an Islamic minority in Pakistan that will easily kill men, rape women and they have the state sanction. The only thing lacking is the presence of potential victims.

Are you really telling me that if there was a significant minority presence like in India there would be no riots like Gujarat in Pakistan? Especially, considering the following facts:

1) There is a huge Jehadi culture in Pakistan.
2) Children are officially taught in schools that Hindus are the bad guys.
3) Hindus/Christians/Sikhs have been relegated to second class status in Pakistan when Pakistan officially became an Islamic republic.
4) Even without a significant presence of Hindus/Sikhs Pakistanis still end up killing each other.

HP, can you also answer this post?

#282 by Yasser

[Furthermore your lame comebacks, personal abuse and insults have made it abundantly clear that you have no argument and are motivated by the run of the mill bigotry that is indicative of the culture you are the product of.]

Paki culture is superior? Yeah sure. Here is an example of Paki ``culture``.

Man `declared infidel` killed by mob

Excerpts:

``The sources quoted witnesses as saying that Ashiq had begged for his life and while trying to escape he managed to climb a tree. But the mob chased him and someone shot him. Ashiq`s family refused to accept his body saying he was an infidel.``

``The local cleric had issued an edict declaring Ashiq an infidel and announced death as punishment, the SP said.``

One of these days, they are going to get you too, because not only are you an Ahmadi, you put Pakistan ahead of the Kalima. So watch out bud!

#282 by Mantolives

[I have answered your question in detail several times on several boards including the Stuka Board.]

If that is the case, why don`t you cut and paste the reply?

[If you feel you won the argument then like I have been saying over the last 5 weeks ... be happy and secure in your knowledge.]

Is that another way of admitting that you have been caught with your pants down?

[I have maintained my dignity and honor in face of your abuse.]

The funniest statement on Chowk in a while. You called me liar, blind, bigot, and then claim to have maintained dignity and honor? If you are dignified, I`m happy being not.

Another post goes waste without an answer. But its okay. I was never expecting an answer. It was fun getting you riled up though.

Re: # 281

Dear Sir,

I have answered your question in detail several times on several boards including the Stuka Board. However it seems to me that your tactic is to bring up the question again to waste my time. Therefore I will not speak on the issue here. Even answering you it seems is to encourage ignorance.

If you feel you won the argument then like I have been saying over the last 5 weeks ... be happy and secure in your knowledge. I obviously don`t agree with your assessment, and point to several boards, including the Stuka board where you`ve exited in shameful manner.

Furthermore your lame comebacks, personal abuse and insults have made it abundantly clear that you have no argument and are motivated by the run of the mill bigotry that is indicative of the culture you are the product of. I have maintained my dignity and honor in face of your abuse.

-YLH

#255 by Yasser

[Your abuses, insults and immature ``comebacks`` like ``failed lawyer`` and ``Yasser``.....]

The fact that you have groped for an answer to my question over more than a hundred posts is a telling testament to your incompetence, which is why the ``failed lawyer`` comment, and please note that I stand by it. It`s by no means an insult, just an observation. If a qualified lawyer cannot argue his case with a ``call center employee``, I shudder to imagine the consequences when you face off against another lawyer.

In the end, trivia aside, the issue boils down to this. You didn`t have an answer to my question. Period. If you had it, you wouldn`t direct me to stuka`s board, you would just cut and paste the reply here, just as you did with the counter-questions of yours. It is less effort compared to arguing over the truth over so many posts as you did. Got it kid?

[.....will not deter me from speaking the truth and exposing your bigotry.]

If you speak the truth as you proudly claim, you wouldn`t be scurrying for cover when asked for an answer. As for bigotry, you showed it yourself by jumping up and down like a monkey with its tail on fire over the article on Gandhi`s racism.

MaheshG2, #271, {``Kardesh, okay even if I grant you that the transfer of population in 1948 was the main reason for minority population reduction then that itself had a huge impact!!!! Minority population being reduced from 20% to 3% is no joke.

Don`t forget the the influx of Muslims from Punjab, Delhi, UP, Gujarat, Rajasthan, and Bombay was huge in the period from 1947 through 1950 - when the doors to Pakistan were closed. To say that over 5-6 million people came to West Pakistan and approximately 5 million left West Pakistan would not be an exaggeration. Hopefully, someone with more exact and accurate numbers can enlighten us. Yes, I understand from reading books that approximately 1-2 million people perished (nice word for slaughtered) during partition - primarily in Punjab, some in Delhi, and many in Bihar and Bengal.

So, if millions of Hindus and Sikhs left and millions of Muslims arrived, is it any wonder that a population that may have been in double digit percentages has shrunk to low single digits? I think the math will support this - because this is the truth. I am not aware of mass conversions or slaughter taking place after 1948.


{``Please employ logic. For Gujarats to happen you need some minority presence.
It`s like somebody boasting that he never shouts at his kids after getting rid of all his kids some 50 years ago.
How can Pakistanis claim that they treat their minorities better than Indians do when they

1) wiped them all out when they had a chance
2) relegated all minorities to second class status. ``}

Pakistan, as a government, did not wipe out its minorities, neither did the GOI. Most Hindus and Sikhs left Pakistan, especially Punjab, due to the danger to their lives in 47 and the fact that they did not want to live in an Islamic state. The deliberate desire of Sikh leaders to reconvene a solid majority in East Punjab, along with the mass killings of Muslims in East Punjab, especially Patiala, Amritsar, and Kapurthala, helped to facilitate this huge migration.

Now, for a Gujarat to take place, you need cowardly people, who are only willing to rape, kill, burn, and loot when there is no danger for their own safety. That safety is further enhanced by state sponsorship and a police and infrastructure, ready and willing, to provide that support. That is what happened in Gujarat. That is what happened in Bombay. I blame the Modis and Thackerays for making such slaughters possible. Maybe if Bin Laden, or Mullah Omar were the CMs of Punjab and Sindh, we could still have such a horrible thing happen in Pakistan - but I think that Pakistanis are not inclined to killing men, women, and children en masse. Most Indians are also not inclined to engage in mass slaughter. You need an organizations, e.g. Siv Sena/RSS/BJP/JS/SP/BD type activists, propaganda, slogans, newspapers that support that type of ideology, a state infrastructure, and a weak central government, willing to let that happen. That was the case in Nazi Germany, that is what happened in Gujarat, and that can happen in US, if the KKK, Aryan Nation, etc ever get into government.

Re: # 256

``Aurangzeb fit in quite well with his contemporaries. That, my friend, is my point.``

In that case it was in the fitness of your argument to compare him with Dara Shikhon than with Peter the Great!!!

The moment you do so you would realize what a sunni monster he had become.......

#269 anil
{``You have answered beautifully in #265. You should do what makes you proud, but then I am not a religious nut. Although I am very proud of my Kashmiri Brahmin heritage.``}

Thank you ani. Who knows you might be related to Allama Iqbal. :) He was also descended from Kashmiri Brahmins.

{``BTW Kardesh, did you misspell ``Most of us like women. :)``, or you really meant ``women``, and are getting married to ``a`` woman?``}

Yes, I did mean ``women.`` Most Rajput men like (prefer) women. Yes, I am getting married to a girl - thank God. :) The joke was about using ``Khan`` as last names, since you may have objected to Muslim Rajputs holding on to their ``Hindu`` last names. :)

{``I also feel, Nelson Mandela did much better to close the book on Apartheid, thru the establishment of Truth and Reconcilation Commission. Gandhi and Jinnah failed and never gave a closure to Indian and Pakistani minds on the partition. South Asia has been paying dearly for this non-closure. When we think further in historical context, I find that such truth and reconcilation never happened in South Asia (though, I wonder why), and may explain persistent gap.``}

You are so right about this. For some reason, in both India and Pakistan, we don`t bring closure to any bad event. Massacres, horrible accidents, governmental blunders - they all seem to get swept under the rug. Yes, there are blue and red ribbon commissions, they come out with verbose reports that say nothing, and then the story gets faded. The victims are left to simmer and plan their own retribution. You stated it very well.

Re: # 276 kardesh {``As for the one way traffic, my female Rajput cousins in Jaipur are reversing the flow. I have two Hindu brothers-in-law - and no they did not convert. :)

Just to clarify, in our culture we refer to husbands of female cousins as behnois - brothers-in-law. :) I realize the English term is used exclusively for husbands of actual sisters. :)

Netizen #274, {``It was Akbars diplomacy. If you cant beat them, join them (close enough). Moghal empire would not have survived too long without Rajput support. Humayun lost whatever Babur got together. By supporting the Mughals Rajputana prospered and hence you have architectural splendours in Rajasthan.``}

I agree with you. Without Rajput support, the Mughals would have long lost their empire to additional Pathan uprisings. Give Akbar and his Rajput in-laws credit for sound strategic thinking for that period.

{``Anyway, I don`t think the Rajputs considered the Mughals that closely related unless they had their daughter married to them. From the Mughal prespective, I would not think they considered Rajput/Hindu heritage as a part of theirs. As far as I know no Mughal princess married a Rajput. It was a one way traffic.``}

By this time, Mughals were more Persian and Rajput in both complexion and language. There was substantial rajput influence in terms of dress, ceremony, and social customs - only in Indo/Pak do Muslim brides wear red instead of the traditional white of mideastern Muslim countries. As for the one way traffic, my female Rajput cousins in Jaipur are reversing the flow. I have two Hindu brothers-in-law - and no they did not convert. :)

Re: # 273
if most of them changed their religion to avoid persecution, the only they can come out
now is to renounce islam and convert back.
To find that out, we need a plebiscite under UN supervision to give free choice to
people to chose their religion. What I find appaling is while in pakistan there are no basic
rights to people like freedom to chose religion, vote, not to be raped in semi private
places with less than four witnesses, to marry whom you chose etc, they are worried
about rights of kashmiris who have more rights than an average citizen in India.
if i am a pakistani i would be seriously embarassed to show my face to the world.

Re: # 265

``Have you ever considered that Aurangzeb was a Rajput also? Jahangir was half Rajput and Shah Jahan was 3/4 Rajput. In Indian culture, relatives on your mother`s side are as equal as those on your father`s side - infact, we Chanda Mama and not Chanda Chacha. All Mughal rulers from Jahangir down to Bahadur Shah Zafar had very close Hindu, usually Hindu Rajput, relatives. Is it possible for you to understand, that many Rajputs looked to Mughal rulers as their own blood and kin? I think since ChittoD (when Akbar, who was not Rajput, conquered Rajputana) there was never a Rajput rebellion against Mughal rule. What does that tell you? It`s all in the family - the Rajput family.``

It was Akbars diplomacy. If you cant beat them, join them (close enough). Moghal empire would not have survived too long without Rajput support. Humayun lost whatever Babur got together. By supporting the Mughals Rajputana prospered and hence you have architectural splendours in Rajasthan. Initially Akbar allied with one Rajput state to take over another state. THere was a chapter I read in school about a frustated rajput whose ancestors were presented a sword by the emperor for his valor and courage in battle against a fellow Rajput. Anyway, I don`t think the Rajputs considered the Mughals that closely related unless they had their daughter married to them. From the Mughal prespective, I would not think they considered Rajput/Hindu heritage as a part of theirs. As far as I know no Mughal princess married a Rajput. It was a one way traffic. Similar to the Turk ,who took Slavic women as their wives but invaded their lands. As they say ``Majhburi ka naam Mahatma Gandhi``. Each Rajput state provided men for the army and the reserves. They were at the forefronts when Aurangi wanted to claim his ancestral land as well as against the Marathas.

HP, you claimed the following was bogus and you vanished after that.

For instance, at the time of partition, ``the Hindu-Muslim ratio of population [in Sindh] was roughly 30:70.`` According to one estimate, based on the 1951 census, only 140,000 Hindus were left, mostly in Sindh. In other words, Sindh`s Hindu population was reduced to only 1.9 per cent of the total. The same was the case in Punjab.

---

In 1941, the areas that were to become first West Pakistan and later, in 1971, today`s Pakistan had a population of 32.6 million people. Of these 6.3 million or nearly one-fifth of the total were non-Muslims.

In 1951, with an addition of two million people to the population as a result of migration in and out of the country, the country`s population reached 39 million. Of these, the non-Muslims constituted only a tiny proportion, 3.2 per cent. Partition and its aftermath had thoroughly cleansed Pakistan of almost all non-Muslim population.

20% of 32 million is 6.4 million.

3.2% of 39 million is 1.3 million. So 5 million were either driven out, converted or massacred in a matter of 4 years.

kardesh..i will have to open some fat books again..i dont recall anything distinct that a.zeb had rajput troops and others had pathan or turki. i know that raja jaisingh throwing his weight behind aurangzeb got him the gaddi. apparently jaisingh figured that other shahjadas were incompetant and threfore chose aurangzeb.

Kardesh,

But MaheshJi, that should be your concern. The ``transfer of populations`` in 47-48 was the main reason for the disappearance of minorities (Hindus and Sikhs in W. Punjab and Muslims in East Punjab). The reasons were many:

Sikhs wanted to consolidate Sikh presence in East Punjab. To make room for their brethren from West Punjab, they started to ethnically clean East Punjab (esp Patiala and Kapurtala and Amritsar). The wipeout in Delhi and Sindh was not complete but substantial.

To my knowledge, there has never been a Gujarat type incident in West Pakistan. Believe me, I would be advertising it if it happened. I hate ethnic cleansing and mass killing - no matter who the victim or the perpetrator - just trust me. Yes, in East Pak, the ``Bihari`` population and West Pak army did engage in rape, killing, and murder on an indiscrimate and barbaric manner. This, I am told, was in revenge for the March 71 killings by Awami League activisits when they killed large numbers of West Pakis, Biharis, and other non-Bengalis. There were stories of Urdu-Speaking girls kept in Universities as sex-slaves for the enjoyment of Bengali student activists. But this is all past history. So is Gujarat.

Kardesh, okay even if I grant you that the transfer of population in 1948 was the main reason for minority population reduction then that itself had a huge impact!!!! Minority population being reduced from 20% to 3% is no joke.

And that is the irony of it. The minority population is completely wiped out and then Pakistanis claim with a smug face that there have been no Gujarats in Pakistan. How can there be? Please employ logic. For Gujarats to happen you need some minority presence.

It`s like somebody boasting that he never shouts at his kids after getting rid of all his kids some 50 years ago.

That is my whole point.

How can Pakistanis claim that they treat their minorities better than Indians do when they

1) wiped them all out when they had a chance
2) relegated all minorities to second class status.

HP #264,

Glad you came back to this discussion.

You and I both agree that percentage of minorities in 1941 was 20% and in 1951 it was 3%. Most probably the minority population reduced in the years 1947-1951. Maybe, it was in 1948 that the entire minority population exited Pakistan. Either they were converted, massacred or driven out. That is besides the point.

The point is the minority population in Pakistan was reduced from 20% to 3%.

So, how in the world can you boast after such a drastic ethnic cleansing that there were no Gujarats in Pakistan? How can there be when in one shot all the minorities were wiped out?

Re: # 268

Kardesh:

You have answered beautifully in #265. You should do what makes you proud, but then I am not a religious nut. Although I am very proud of my Kashmiri Brahmin heritage.

BTW Kardesh, did you misspell ``Most of us like women. :)``, or you really meant ``women``, and are getting married to ``a`` woman?

You seem to have a good approach to issues and ideas you discuss. I, for one, like your approach.


Re: #265

I never believe that history should only be looked at contemporaneously. We have an advantage over the actors in the history, of not looking at it just Contemporaneously, which say Aurangzeb did not have. Why not use this advantage? Reading your posts, I feel, you do not examine historical events contenporaneously.

Also, there is no finality of human thought, hence framework of human knowledge constantly evolves, and human knowledge is expanding. We must derive benefit from this. For this reason, I have difficulty in accepting the finality of the message, prophet, messenger, guru, God, or bhagwan.

At this stage I have given up figuring out how the message (was) is delivered into human minds. Although I highly doubt winged-angels were involved, or someone can go around the Universe sitting on top of a mouse. Trying to find the source, is a leap of faith into past. Whether it came from Allah, or was deliberated in the Himalayas by Gurus, or Father-Son-Holy Ghost trilogy wiggled it out somehow. I have been always ready to respect others leaps of faith into the pasts, and recognize their need to be good for them.

For me, God being the best imagination of man, rather than man being the best creation of God, suits well. I find it convenient as it answers all my reasons for my leap of faith into past. Although I may have imagined something else and not God. It is closure and reconcilation that are important and I respect the need for it, in all of us, be they follow a religion or not.

I also feel, Nelson Mandela did much better to close the book on Apartheid, thru the establishment of Truth and Reconcilation Commission. Gandhi and Jinnah failed and never gave a closure to Indian and Pakistani minds on the partition. South Asia has been paying dearly for this non-closure. When we think further in historical context, I find that such truth and reconcilation never happened in South Asia (though, I wonder why), and may explain persistent gap.

Anil

Anil # 262, {``I am unable to understand this contradiction among Muslim Rajputs. On one hand they adore or at the very least accept the brutes and on the other hand they also hold on dear to Rajput roots to proudly show in their last names.``}

What would you have us do? Use Khan as our last names?
Most of us like women. :)

Re: # 266
Jang,
You may be right. I will have to read up on this. I have heard about the ``temporary`` grants to individuals renewable for their children on continued loyalty, etc. That would explain the constant turmoil among the Pathans and other Muslim nobility, while the Rajputs and other Hindu princes were more loyal to Mughal rule.

I have read that in the war of succession among the brothers, the majority of Aurganzeb`s troops were Rajputs and many were Hindus - even during his campaigns against Sivaji in the Deccan. The supporters of the other princes (Shah Shuja, Dara, Murad) were mostly Pathans and other Muslims. Is this true?

kardesh, apparently all landholding muslims of india almost surely were converted rajas during late-mughal (a.zeb) times. pre a.zeb, alliances were sought but no conversion was needed. it was policy of mughals (and other indian rulers) to employ turki mansabdars, but never deed them hereditary rights to a land. their sons may also gain employment as a mansabdar in the cavalry, but typically the padshah would confisticate the turk or afgan soldiers treasury and women upon his death. for hindu fiefs inheritance of land was the rule. so therefore, all smaller nawabs and muslim feudals (except big shots like the nizam etc) were hindus converted during a.zeb times.

#260 by Netizen
{What Peter did to the Russian empore Aurangi did exactly the opposite to the Moghal Empire. There is a wide difference in the personalities too. Peter wanted the russians to reform become more Westernised whereas Aurangi wanted to take the Empire back to the medieval times (conservatism).``}

Netizen,
You may very well be right. If we judge both Peter and Aurangzeb by what resulted long after their deaths, then what you say is definitely right. If we judge individual accomplishments, then one can say that Aurangzeb extended the Mughal Empire to its greatest extent. On a personal level, history records that he was, as an individual, very courageious (attaching a mad elephant as a teenager and saving lives of those present) and certainly commanded the respect and devotion of his troops. As a strategist, he probably was a big failure - imposition of jizya, obsession with Sivaji and Deccan, wars with Shias and Mahrattas, unnecessary violence and cruelty against Sikhs, too much of a Sunni fundo, letting religious zeal get in way of proper administration. On the plus side, he was able to thwart Portuguese expansion in India, delay British ascendency by several decades, show personal piety and lack of corruption as a ruler. Overall, judging by the results, Aurangzeb was not a successful badshah - although he ruled longer than any other Mughal.


#258 Netizen
{``Ever heard of Rana Pratap of Mewar, Prithviraj Chauhan of Ajmer? I never thought I would hear such a statement for a proud Rajput. I am disappointed :(``}

Yes, I have heard of both and they are well-known in Indian history for their deeds. If you go to my profile page, you can see that I admire Prithviraj Chauhan as a great hero and a role model. I am sorry to disappoint you, but that is not my intention. Let us study history and strive to learn the truth from it - not to whitewash ourselves as clean victims and others as descendants of monsters. Although I had no choice in my selection of ancestors, I am happy to be of Rajput descent - it`s part of my heritage.

Have you ever considered that Aurangzeb was a Rajput also? Jahangir was half Rajput and Shah Jahan was 3/4 Rajput. In Indian culture, relatives on your mother`s side are as equal as those on your father`s side - infact, we Chanda Mama and not Chanda Chacha. All Mughal rulers from Jahangir down to Bahadur Shah Zafar had very close Hindu, usually Hindu Rajput, relatives. Is it possible for you to understand, that many Rajputs looked to Mughal rulers as their own blood and kin? I think since ChittoD (when Akbar, who was not Rajput, conquered Rajputana) there was never a Rajput rebellion against Mughal rule. What does that tell you? It`s all in the family - the Rajput family.

#262 anil
{``And the contemporaries you have quoted are all men of power over people, and wealth, also victors in some sense. Or if someone admires brutalities of Pakistani Army in Bangladesh, Indian Army / Jihadis in Kashmir, the U.S. Army in Iraq?
...I am unable to understand this contradiction among Muslim Rajputs. On one hand they adore or at the very least accept the brutes and on the other hand they also hold on dear to Rajput roots to proudly show in their last names.``}

Anil,
I am inclined to agree with you. In absolute terms, it is not pleasant to admire people who engaged in warfare, looting, pillaging, murder, and adding to human suffering. That pretty much takes care of most of mankind`s leaders and notables. I never said that I admired Aurangzeb or Akbar. They are men of history, who accomplished or failed to accomplish important tasks in their lifetimes - all I said is that we need to compare them to their contemporaries, and not by our standards of today ``tainted by the likes of Mother Teresa, Mohandas Gandhi, and the recently-departed Pope.`` I am being sarcastic, but lately, thank God, we humans are coming around to condemning violence, ethnic cleansing, murder, rapes, and pillage. Muslim Rajputs are those who are descended from Rajputs but follow the Islamic faith. As such, they have at least a dual aspect to their existence - Muslim and Rajput. This is not very different from a Muslim Jat, a Muslim Pathan, or a Muslim Seljuk. My grandfather, my father, my brothers, and I have sustained several jokes, unkind comments, and general incovenience, even on Chowk, as a result of our Hindu last name. Well, it is the truth, and we are not going to change our names for the convenience of our antagonists - whoever they may be. But I agree with you in your comments about humanity, compassion, and admiration.

#257 jang
{``i have a huge respect for aurangzeb based on my reading of war of succession history as an able emperor ...Alamgir A`zeb however had a big incentive plan by which he would award large Mansabdari (knighthoods) based on conversions. It was common in India to steal knights from other courts by awarding larger mansabdari``}

Jang,
Thanks for sharing your viewpoint about Aurangzeb. I just try to understand him, as a ruler, as a person, in his time - just as I try to understand Prthviraj Chauhan, as a ruler, as a person, in his time some four hundered years perviously. I do not have either admiration or scorn for Mr. Zeb. On the issue of Mansabdari, I do know that my family had lands in UP and these were lost in 1857. I am told by elders and word of mouth that the conversion to Islam was based on devotion to Aurangzeb and as a sign of loyalty to him personally. But then again, these are all stories. I just am a consequence as are all of us.

#259 Netizen
{``Of all your talk of Aurangis courage and military achievements, his policies and strategies dealt a death knell to the once mighty Moghals.``}

I agree totally with you. I am not the one singing praises of Aurangzeb. These are stories, passed down over the generations, about his bravery and courage. I was just repeating them, as I probably will to my children. Judging by results, Aurangzeb was a failure -strategically speaking.

#261 MaheshG2
{`` The transfer of population between India and Pakistan took over 4 years (1947-1951). The massacres of population must have been limited to the years of 1947 and 1948. My contention is however that Pakistan (west pakistan at the time) essentially ensured that all of its provinces were rid of minority population (Hindus and Sikhs) in those 4 years. How this was accomplished is not my concern. ``}

But MaheshJi, that should be your concern. The ``transfer of populations`` in 47-48 was the main reason for the disappearance of minorities (Hindus and Sikhs in W. Punjab and Muslims in East Punjab). The reasons were many:

Sikhs wanted to consolidate Sikh presence in East Punjab. To make room for their brethren from West Punjab, they started to ethnically clean East Punjab (esp Patiala and Kapurtala and Amritsar). The wipeout in Delhi and Sindh was not complete but substantial.

To my knowledge, there has never been a Gujarat type incident in West Pakistan. Believe me, I would be advertising it if it happened. I hate ethnic cleansing and mass killing - no matter who the victim or the perpetrator - just trust me. Yes, in East Pak, the ``Bihari`` population and West Pak army did engage in rape, killing, and murder on an indiscrimate and barbaric manner. This, I am told, was in revenge for the March 71 killings by Awami League activisits when they killed large numbers of West Pakis, Biharis, and other non-Bengalis. There were stories of Urdu-Speaking girls kept in Universities as sex-slaves for the enjoyment of Bengali student activists. But this is all past history. So is Gujarat.

MaheshG2
“essentially ensured that all of its provinces were rid of minority population (Hindus and Sikhs) in those 4 years. How this was accomplished is not my concern.”

Well! Essentially this is the kind of skewed logic that makes me not to discuss this with you any further. You claim that five to six million people vanished and you just have no clue as how it was accomplished!
I don’t know how you came up with this brilliant piece of logic. 1947-51 was not like in ancient times. This world just a few years before 1947-51 witnessed a brutal war and large scale mass murders and pogroms. The whole thing is documented and there was no way the world would have just let it go if the same type of brutalities ware repeated in Pakistan or anywhere else.
Unless you prove how Pakistani accomplished/managed disappearances of millions of people with out a trace, all your posts are just bogus, non serious and you are just mouthing the ridiculous RSS propaganda line.

We know that people died and moved from both sides of the border in 1947 and 1948. After that, there is not a single record of any minority killing or mass murdering or deportation from Pakistan. You cannot provide any instance (because there is none) of Hindu Muslim riots in Pakistan after 1949 to till date despite 2.5 million Hindus population in Sindh. Even in 1947-48, there were no attacks on Hindu life and property in Sindh. Whatever took place was in Punjab and other parts of north India. What is common in India (Hindu-Muslim riots) is non existent in Pakistan. There is not a single Sindhi (Hindu or Muslim) who died in any religious riots after 1947. There was only one incident of Hindu Muslims riots in Sukker when Muslims from Rajhistan moved to that area. People from Sindh do not believe in killing their brothers and neighbors. Now please go away. I am not interested in discussing this any further unless you come up with proof.

Hi everybody,
just joined. I have watched the discussion so far. I was hoping there would be some healthy discussion, some curiosity etc etc about my film.
I did hope people in Pakistan may be interested in wanting copies to see for themselves how the film looks. Perhaps it is not at all so much only about the minorities.
Anyway, there`s going to be another screening of the film. If any of you are Mumbai log, please take time out to come and see.

WAPSI
7.30 PM SATURDAY, APRIL 23. THE PRESS CLUB CONFERENCE HALL. NEAR BMC BUILDING, VT STATION, MUMBAI
Ajay Raina

Re: # 256

Kardesh:

``......I think Aurangzeb fit in quite well with his contemporaries. That, my friend, is my point. `` With the above statement you have justified why you admire Aurangzeb, and can eulogize the brutality of people in power.

And the contemporaries you have quoted are all men of power over people, and wealth, also victors in some sense. I am sure Maharana Pratab also killed to survive while waging a guerilla war and living in jungles and feeding his family bread and water for survival. The story I studied in school, as I recall was that he indeed killed the animal who took away the bread that his daughter was eating.

How would it be different than your position of admire a brute, in the modern times, when a grandsons or great grandsons of Hitler`s sympathizers can now say that they admire Hitler. Or if someone admires brutalities of Pakistani Army in Bangladesh, Indian Army / Jihadis in Kashmir, the U.S. Army in Iraq?

Power over people and ensuing wealth often does this dirty trick for the most who are willing to accept a form of brutality and cruelity as being perpetrated for those who deserved it, by those who are correct and virtuous and therefore has the right. They know the history can be colored, and then it would be several ``stories`` / ``truth``.

Two wrongs never make it right. Taking example of others brutalities (kings and people you have quoted - Hindu, Muslim, Christian, sikhs or otherwise) to negate Aurangzeb`s brutality is one thing, but it is beyond realms of rationality to justify your admiration for one of these brutals, because other contemporaries did too.

Certainly, you must admire Prithvi Raj Chauhan to proudly carry Chauhan as your family name. Without a doubt you know how his life was ended. Unless there is a revised version of his killing that has been passed down to you through the folklore.

Would you not call the way his life was ended as inhuman brutality? Do you really believe that his true family members or descendents will admire anyone or the community who brutally ended Prithvi Raj Chauhan`s life.

I am unable to understand this contradiction among Muslim Rajputs. On one hand they adore or at the very least accept the brutes and on the other hand they also hold on dear to Rajput roots to proudly show in their last names.

To me brutality and cruelity are just what these names suggest. One person or community brutality or cruelity over the other cannot be superior and therefore justified / accepted, unless the person / community who justifies had benefitted and enjoyed the fruits of such brutality / cruelities.

Anil

Kardesh #237,

The transfer of population between India and Pakistan took over 4 years (1947-1951). The massacres of population must have been limited to the years of 1947 and 1948. My contention is however that Pakistan (west pakistan at the time) essentially ensured that all of its provinces were rid of minority population (Hindus and Sikhs) in those 4 years. How this was accomplished is not my concern.

Some Indian provinces also underwent a similar kind of ethinc cleansing. However, as a whole India retained the majority of its minority population whereas Pakistan did not. Same as is the case with Bangladesh. Even now the Hindu population in Bangladesh population has come down to 10% from around 30% in 1947. Whereas the Indian Muslim population has risen from around 15% in 1947 to around 18% now.

This clearly indicates the kind of ethnic cleansing Muslims in Pakistan and Bangladesh have performed on their minority populations.

On top of that, we have many Pakistanis like HP and Tahmed gloating that nothing like Gujarat ever took place in Pakistan. What right do they have to gloat? My whole contention has been that when you have effectively rid your country of minorities with what logic can you claim that you are better than India in the treatment of minorities. You went and declared your country to be Islamic and relegated non-muslims to a secondary status. And yet Pakistanis have the gall to gloat?

Now both HP and Tahmed are conveniently absent from this board. I am sure they will bring up Gujarat again to go on with their pretension.

Re: # 256


``Peter the Great was chopping heads in Russia``

I guess you are talking about the streltsy. But there is no comparison between the two. What Peter did to the Russian empore Aurangi did exactly the opposite to the Moghal Empire. There is a wide difference in the personalities too. Peter wanted the russians to reform become more Westernised whereas Aurangi wanted to take the Empire back to the medieval times (conservatism).

kardesh:

Of all your talk of Aurangis courage and military achievements, his policies and strategies dealt a death knell to the once mighty Moghals. He antagonised and alienated many people. Intoducing Jazia, inflaming the passions of the peaceful Sikhs, screwing up with the Marathas. He was so ineffectual that even after the death of Shivaji, he was not able to control the rag-tag army of the Marathas. He came all the way down to Deccan to subjugate them. In the end lies buried in their land. Thanks to Aurangi the Moghals decayed. Otherwise they could have stayed for a long time.

Re: # 256

`If my family is the one that converted and if we say that the reason for our conversion was the devotion and loyalty to Aurangzeb for his bravey and courage``

Ever heard of Rana Pratap of Mewar, Prithviraj Chauhan of Ajmer? I never thought I would hear such a statement for a proud Rajput. I am disappointed :(

kardesh, i have a huge respect for aurangzeb based on my reading of war of succession history as an able emperor (sp. as compared rundibaz shuja or charasi dara shikoh). there was something unique about mr Zeb as compared to his ancestors. he was keen on religious conversion. his ancestors were very happy to party with rajputs etc without demanding conversions, so much so that boys born to rajput princess did not have circumcision ceremony done on them. this is court documented stuff. Alamgir A`zeb however had a big incentive plan by which he would award large Mansabdari (knighthoods) based on conversions. It was common in India to steal knights from other courts by awarding larger mansabdari, but A`Zeb also insisted on conversion. There are several famous examples, one is of a Bundelkhandi Prince, and other of Chief of Staff of Shivaji who joined dilli sultanat and was converted along with his kabila and sent to peshawar and he felt cheatd. he later returned to his land and was re-converted back to hindu (a rare thing).

Ajeya #252, {``MAIN POINT „» The difference is QUALITATIVE, NOT QUANTITATIVE.
Killing your cousin IN A BATTLE is one thing, killing UNARMED PRISONERS (and many thousands of them) IS QUITE ANOTHER. Let alone enslaving (including sexual slavery) countless women and children. NOT THE MAIN POINT „»
People change their stories once they are converted. ALL HINDUS, especially those at the receiving end, WERE DEATHLY AFRAID OF THAT MONSTER ALSO KNOWN AS AURANGEZEB. ``}

Ajeya,
I am not evading the issue or sidestepping the main point. I agree that Muslims, throughout history, did their part to raise both the quantity and quality of slaughter, killing, torture, kidnapping, and enslavement. The cruelty of Muslim rulers and Muslims armies was most often demonstrated against fellow Muslims - Shia/Sunni, Sunni/Sunni, Arab/non-Arab, Punjabi/Bengali, Pathan/Mohajir, and so on.

But Muslims were not unique in their behavrior. There are others who equalled if not surpassed them in cruelty - Egyptians, Assyrians, Jews of the Old Testament, Romans, Persians, Crusaders, Mongols, Spanish Conquistadores, British, Sikhs, Nazi Germans, 1947 riots among Hindu, Muslim, Sikh Punjabis, Chinese Communists, Khmer Rouge, Americans (Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Vietnam, now Iraq). I am sure I missed several notorious killers. Enslavement of women, children POWs and slaughtering of captured soldiers was performed by many cruel conquerors - even in India. The untouchables of India did not attain their position through peaceful negotiations. There are many instances of mass slaughters in Indian history - 1947 Punjab, Bihar and 2002 Gujarat are merely the latest. In between there were Jubbulpore, Bombay, and Ahmedabad over and over again.

On Aurgangzeb, your comment that once converted people change their stories is quite presumptuous. If my family is the one that converted and if we say that the reason for our conversion was the devotion and loyalty to Aurangzeb for his bravey and courage, then who has the right to question our motives? I don`t think that Aurangzeb would have been cruel and forceful to his own ``bodyguards`` those sworn to defend him - that`s not wise.
Now, if Aurangzeb was cruel and a ``monster,`` I am sure that you can build a case, but please don`t force your viewpoint as OUR motives. Of course, he fought battles, killed his own brothers, imprisoned his own father, so there must be a strong case about his compassion. On the other hand, in the late 17th century and early 18th century, there were other rulers just as active. Charles lost his head in England. The sixty year war raged in Central Europe, the Turks were all over Eastern and Central Europe, Peter the Great was chopping heads in Russia, Nadir Shah was roaming in Persia and India, and the slave trade was booming. I think Aurangzeb fit in quite well with his contemporaries. That, my friend, is my point.

Ref: Harish Hyd`s post

Dear sir,

Please don`t flatter yourself. You ran away from the Stuka board with your tail between your legs and your grandiose claims of ``hanging people from a lamp post by their balls`` is laughable to say the least... if you could do so, you would have stayed on the stuka board.

Your abuses, insults and immature ``comebacks`` like ``failed lawyer`` and ``Yasser`` will not deter me from speaking the truth and exposing your bigotry.

#250 by rsridhar on April 20, 2005 8:59pm PT
re: Cayenne`s post


...........Give it up Sridhar.You traded and be content with your lot.Atleast i am in my own country.You could be thrown out of there at some point in time.If not now, another civil war, this time over colour/race can erupt in ten years time.That`s not too long a time.Just thirty years ago one couldn`t walk the streets of detroit for fear of being sniped at by the `Black Panthers`.You`re not born there.Naturalization or residence can be taken away as easily as it is given.You could be heading home sometime in the near future.You cannot guarantee that you will stay in the US forever.I wish you well, though.

#217 by Yasser

[I don`t understand why you want to bring it up on this board that has nothing to do with it.]

It is a pathetic, yet funny sight to see you dodge and weave your way out of trying to answer my question. Your posts are now so predictable. I can see you squirm uncomfortably in front of your computer screen and I`m beginning to feel so sorry for you, I feel like letting you off the hook. Belatedly and under pressure, you have realized that each one can have his own reading of history. So the next time you wildly pounce upon something, remember, there are people who can hang you on to the lamp post by your balls.

Re: kardesh #239

Kardesh,

I am getting the feeling that you are intentionally sidestepping the issue.

Here¡¦s the MAIN POINT, FOR THE LAST TIME:

MAIN POINT „» The difference is QUALITATIVE, NOT QUANTITATIVE.
Killing your cousin IN A BATTLE is one thing, killing UNARMED PRISONERS (and many thousands of them) IS QUITE ANOTHER. Let alone enslaving (including sexual slavery) countless women and children.

NOT THE MAIN POINT „»

[They fought against Muslim invasions and during the time of Aurangzeb, they converted to Islam. This was done as a sign of devotion to Aurangzeb, who is held in the greatest esteem for his bravery and love of Rajputs in my family.]

People change their stories once they are converted. ALL HINDUS, especially those at the receiving end, WERE DEATHLY AFRAID OF THAT MONSTER ALSO KNOWN AS AURANGEZEB.

I could cite VOLUMES of evidence of his monstrosities. He was a monster to put many monsters to shame. What they had was fear, not devotion.

IN ANY CASE, it seems to me that you will keep bobbing and weaving and evading the main issue. I now understand about Harimau. When I look at the archives, I see him trying to argue with you guys, but now I think he gave up. Now he just comes in with a couple of sarcastic punchlines and leaves.

I give up too. It¡¦s like fighting with the air. And I think I understand. Because if you start thinking rationally, uncomfortable questions might come up that you may not be willing to face. On this issue, as well as other, more basic ones. So for you, that is not an option.

Ciao.

re:#248 by MaheshG2
I am not sure if u were around when this guy who calls himself Prashant used to interact on chowk as Gujjubania. I had a long interaction with him on similar lines at that time.
The guy was very abusive then, as he is now.
Sridhar

re: Cayenne`s post
``You`re probably working 16 hours a day, given graveyard shifts, condescended and patronised by even reception staff, and paid one half of what your white counterpart gets.If you were a doctor in India, you would be having a better quality of life, paid better and opportunities for foreign travel abound in India now in all professional fields. ``
As Stuka said, you are an entertaining guy.
Sridhar

Re: # 239
kardesh
although you seem to be more knowledgable than the usual koran crowd here, you
seem to have some large gaps in your knowledge. One for example is the aryan
invasion theory. This theory is bogus and does not even a have shred of evidence, in
the enormous literature of the sub continent, that talks about everything under sun
excpet for an important invasion that supposedly took place. You can start here
to get updated on this important issue:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan_invasion

I enjoy your writing, keep it coming

Sridhar, so Harimau came up with the phrase ``code coolies``? Does it mean you have to use it?

For some reason you felt that I deserved to see the AIDS epidemic problem in India. I don`t get you. I am not singing praises of India and running down the US.

My objection has been to your utter lack of respect for other professions.

So, you didn`t call Manto`s family names. That is very good of you. I have not done that either. But unlike you I haven`t called gujju`s father names.

240 by stuka on April 20, 2005 10:19am PT
Cayenne Penis Breath:


............You should be lucky that ``Aha`` the PC police is prowling this site like a catholic priest doing the night rounds in an all boys boarding school.Or else, i will add many adjectives to your name too.As far as your hot air, saturday i was pulled over by a police man for running a red light.Police now have high speed bikes, so even as i tried to speed away , i was pulled over.I wasn`t hit, slapped or any of the things you said.He walked by my car window calmly told me that it was either the 350 rupee fine (he took out his ticket book while he was saying this), or a 100 rupees and it was my choice!!!.100 rupees it was.I was speeding by and all this was a blur.India is changing.The police are friendly and go through sensitivity training nowadays before they get their badges.And, they are nice to well dressed, good looking men in cars.

As far as my `vehemance` etc., absolutely none.The call center kids speak better `american` than the smelly lalas who board the plane from the US.RSridhar made a derogatory remark., `code coolies` that set me off.The world is changing and urban india is not unlike anywhere in the west.One can earn well, live well and enjoy all the comforts of modern existence right here in our own backyard.All this smug airs of superiority acquired by indians in the US is just all that and more.HOT AIR.If only you guys were honest , you would admit it and be normal, and you wouldn`t invite comments from others.

Re: # 245
Cayenne,
I wonder if my fiancee snores? That`s the problem with these marriages where you don`t get to live together for a few years. I better renew my commitment for DSL service.

#244 by kardesh on April 20, 2005 12:56pm PT
Re: # 243
So the Mrs snores like a truck and a truck driver? No wonder, you are escaping to the ``virtual office....


......I am impressed!!!.You should be a detective!!.She really snores man,more than a decade i have endured it.Good woman.So, i ignore.I have to respond to the pudgy punjabi gentleman (interact#240)before i sleep.He fantasizes about shoving `his boot halfway up my arse` as he so delicately puts it.I better put him out of his misery soon or he might suffer a heart attack, so i will bid adieu.

Re: # 243
Cayenne,
I am drooling at the quality of your life and how little it costs to have it. If the dance bars are reopened, will you then turn off the ``fashion TV?`` Rs 170 pp - I am impressed. So the Mrs snores like a truck and a truck driver? No wonder, you are escaping to the ``virtual office.`` Also, the snoring probably precludes your need to ``mute`` the porn. Good thinking.
Cayenne, the more I hear from you the more I look up to you. Forget this Indo/Pak rivalry nonsense and Lahori Dunking Donuts, I am starting to appreciate Mumbai and its Chandni Bars. I do hope they clean up Grant Road a bit - its kind of a turn off. Once feels that one is in Catman Do or Catman Don`t. :)

242 by kardesh on April 20, 2005 10:36am PT
Re: # 241. {``cayene rocks! kardesh unfortunately is turning ghisa-pita.``}

......The Mrs. snores like a TATA truck.It`s the truth.Petite woman, but snores like a truck driver when she sleeps.Maybe that`s why i stay up late in front of the screen!!!.Went to a bar , had ``draught`` beer, chilli chicken, fish cutlets and onion/chili peanuts.Two draught beers for me, whisky for my friends.We split the bill, 170 rupees per person, three of us.Why would anyone live anywhere else?.The bar had ``fashion tv`` on the tube, showing scantily clad women , some of them topless walking up and down ramps.Closest thing to porn for the janta.This channel comes with basic service, 100 rupees a month for 40 odd channels.Glimpses of life in Bharat.INDIA ROCKS.Now, if only that Sardar can get the Supreme Court to reopen the dance bars, life will be good.Trust a sardar to become the president of the Mumbai Dance Bars Association!!!.Chuckle.What would india be without them?.....Grant road??.Reminds you of the good old days , when you used to go a-cruising near Two-Tank???.....memories>>>

Re: # 241. {``cayene rocks! kardesh unfortunately is turning ghisa-pita.``}

I agree with you, my ``friend.`` How can anyone compete with Mumbai Chandni Bars, 24x7x365 electricity, incomparable ambidexterity, high-speed DSL, late night porn, and a snoring Mrs?

cayene rocks! kardesh unfortunately is turning ghisa-pita.

Cayenne Penis Breath:

When you picture me, you should think of a boot lodged half way up your arse. Its funny though, I picture you as a skinny ghati logging on to a dial up connection in Ghatkopar jerking off over some Jenny McCartney videos. LOL!!

Stuff may happen anywhere but it is in India that you, a citizen can be slapped around and beaten up by the STATE and not by a deranged individual. You may be too retarded to see the difference.

Waisey, what I am really surprised about is your vehemence aginst Indians in the US. You don`t see Indians in the US telling you to come here, right? So what`s up with your bitterness. Student visa get rejected? Or they would not take you as a waiter on Carnival Cruises and hence the heart burn ;)

Ajeya Bhai #204, {``You ARE my brother, much as you would want to deny it. We have the same basic genetic heritage.``}

I do not deny that you ARE my brother and yes I do share more than basic gene heritage - I am partially of Hindu descent and proud of it. I can`t change the facts of my ancestry and I think I had no choice in the matter anyway. :)

You raised several issues in your lengthy and interesting response:

Akbar`s cruelty at ChitoR - that is a fact. Akbar was known to be quite cruel even for his day. OTOH he married a Rajput princess, won over the loyalty of Rajputs and turned the Mughal Empire into a Mughal/Rajput alliance, without which it certainly would not have endured down to the 18th century.

Comparison of Hindu and Muslim rulers. - I think it is useless to argue who was more cruel. Hindu history before Islam is replete with YUDs of all types. The domination of the Aryans over the Dravidians was obviously not without violence. The victories of Ashok were notroious for mass slaughter - something that caused him to swear off violence and adopt Buddhism. Maybe it`s a matter of numbers and who was more cruel more recently. But then Mr. Modi should rank up there somewhere.

Mass murder of people in India - I think that 1947 proved that Hindus and Sikhs can be more adept at mass slaughter than even Muslims. Everyone agrees that Muslims were the more numerous victims in `47. Please read Freedom at Midnight by Collins-Lapierre about this topic in detail.

Events in Mahabharata - I was talking about the conversation between Arjun and Lord Krishna where the latter argues with Arjun about destroying all of his enemies (who were mostly his cousins).

Treatment of Dalits - More than a crime, this was an institution. There are gory details of punishment of Dalits for various transgression. Mr. Dalit, a chowkie interactor, has documented in great details many of these grievances.

Eradication of Buddhism - Please see Mr. Rsidhar`s recent post (#198) on this topic

Crimes of forefathers - My Indian forefathers were all Rajputs and Hindus before the late 1600s. They fought against Muslim invasions and during the time of Aurangzeb, they converted to Islam. This was done as a sign of devotion to Aurangzeb, who is held in the greatest esteem for his bravery and love of Rajputs in my family. I have heard many stories of utter devotion by Rajputs to this Emperor. I am told that my ancestors took part in the Deccan wars and the 1857 uprising.

Urdu language - Urdu is based on Hindustani grammar with heavy use of Persian and Arabic nouns, adjuectives, and adverbs. Both Persian and Hindustani are derived from Sanskrit. There is some light Turkish in Urdu for military nomenclature (the word Urdu is Turkish for ``army`` and may be the origin of the English word ``horde`` which is probably Mongol). This is a long way of saying that I mostly agree with you.

Pride in Hindu ancestors - You bet.

You are my brother - Likewise. By the way ``Kardesh`` means `brother`` in Turkish.

I wish you a great day. Thanks for the interaction.

Salim Ahmed Chauhan.

Re: # 226

lost your senility? Wouldn`t that be a good thing?

MaheshG2, #192, {``What happened to the ethnic cleansing discussion? It seems to have been hijacked by Jinnah direct action day discussion. I am waiting for HP to continue the discussion.
Kardesh, what do you think of my posts?``}

Mahesh Sahib,
Ethnic cleansing, as a result of the partition, in 1947 is a fact. West Punjab was cleansed of Hindus and Sikhs and East Punjab (Himachal, Punjab, Haryana, and princely states of Patiala and Kapurthala) were cleansed of Muslims. To a great extent, Delhi and Sindh were also somewhat cleansed of minorities. The reasons were manyfold. The majority people wanted to take over the property and wealth of the minority. The Sikhs wanted to unify their people in one place and to make for Sikhs in East Punjab, they created massacres all over to hasten the population exchange. The Muslims were bent upon creating their Land of the Pure. I think the real victims of 1947 were the Hindus of Punjab and Sindh, who really were not the violent ones in this horrible slaughter.

Many Indians have posted messages talking about the killing and forcible conversions of Hindus and Sikhs in post-partition Pakistan. Other than the violence in former East Pakistan against Hindu AND Muslim Bengalis by the Pak Army and against Mulsim ``Biharis`` by the Muslim Bengalis, I am not aware of any large-scale violence against Hindus and Sikhs (or even other minorities) that occurred in West Pakistan from 1948 to this day. Of course there are bombings against Shias (mostly) and some Christians. But that this is suicide bombing culture of today`s Islam all over the world.
Thanks,
Salim Ahmed Chauhan.

To STUKA , RSRIDHAR and all the other woolly headed individuals who think they actually belong in the US.PLEASE.Continue , till, as Toni Morrison said,the truck comes down the road to pick you up.This was her answer to a question about people of colour in America.STUKA, i got to meet you!!!.You are hilarious.I picture you as an oily , pudgy punjabi with a double chin and ear hair sprouting in all directions.I mean no offense.This is how i picture you.Who else will have such an attitude as you have?.

As far as the law and order situation goes, things are changing.If a judge lets these guys off, then who am i to question.Didn`t the accused in the Air India bombing go free??.How many unsolved cases of murder are pending in the US?.How about the guy caught last month who was a serial killer for 20 years.He was a deacon of the church!!!.How come with all the hi-tech equipment, they still coudn`t catch him!!.How about OJ Simpson?.How about corruption at Enron?.How about the corruption scandal in canada?.Stuff happens everywhere.

And, RSridhar, please get a grip.WAKE UP and smell the roses for what they are.You`re probably working 16 hours a day, given graveyard shifts, condescended and patronised by even reception staff, and paid one half of what your white counterpart gets.If you were a doctor in India, you would be having a better quality of life, paid better and opportunities for foreign travel abound in India now in all professional fields.

Well, we`ll send you guys to Port Blair when you get thrown out of North America.A month of hard labor and you`ll be glad to get to the indian mainland then.And, STUKA , would have become less pudgy and more coherent.

rsridhar #198, {``The truth is: while Buddhism existed in India, the fight for supremacy was intense. Buddhism was the only religion that truly threatened Hinduism (to be more accurate the ``Vedic religion) with extinction. By the time Islam came, Hinduism was well entrenched.
Sridhar``

Sridhar Sahib,
Thank you very much for providing this information. As I mentioned, to the Muslim marauders of the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries it would not have mattered whether their victims were Buddhist or Hindu. They were out for loot, pillage, plunder, and women and the details of religious origins were not important to most of them. I just wanted MaheshG2 and others to understand the historical chronology of Buddhism in India. As you correctly point out, Buddhism was long replaced by Hinduism in India by the time of the Muslim invasions. This fact, of course, does not dilute the cruelty and barbarism of Mahmood Ghaznavi and others.

re:#224 by MaheshG2
Mahesh Babu,
I did not invent the word Code Coolie.
It already exists, made popular by Harimau in Chowk (my apologies to him for dragging his name, but it is true!). I was one of those who said it ain`t fair but was voted down.
Sridhar

re:#228 by stuka
You forgot about what Salman Khan did to a poor worker sleeping on a pavement. In a drunkern daze, this actor drove over and killed a poor man. And got away with it because he proved in court he was actually not driving at all and his car was stolen! Some such thing.
In India, there is one rule for the poor, one for the rich.
Sridhar

Further reading on rights enjoyed by Indian citizens....The murderer (also involved in the Jessica Lal murder case) walks free. This is an example of Indian democracy and law and order in action.

Would you rather be a second class code coolie in the states or a full citizen like Nitish Katara, son of an IAS officer, to whom the state could offer no protection or justice.



Katara, an executive, was allegedly picked up from the wedding of a friend, Shivani Gaur, in Ghaziabad on February 16, 2002 by the accused. His burnt body was found on February 19 near Hapur crossing.

According to the police, Bharti stated that Katara had left with Vikas and Vishal from the wedding venue.

CHAIN OF EVENTS
February 16, 2002: Nitish Katara attends the wedding of classmate Shivani Gaur in Ghaziabad. Bharti also present with brother Vikas and cousin Vishal. Katara goes missing after wedding
February 19: Katara’s burnt body discovered near Hapur crossing. Vikas and Vishal arrested. Bharti leaves for the UK.

re:#226 by MaheshG2
No.
Just to show that AIDS is a real problem that threatens India`s economic development. I am sure most Indians on Chowk are not perhaps aware of this, mesmerised as they are by India`s IT miracle.
I have nothing against honest wage earners in India. That was your own assumption.
Sridhar

Sridhar:

But, as an indian to another, i am telling it like it is.Sorry, if i`m a little blunt!.Don`t fool yourself any longer mon ami.


Read this as...

But, as an indian (who got rejected for the third time for a tourist visa) to another(who has a green card) , i am telling it like it is (in my sour grapes induced imagination) .Sorry, if i`m a little blunt!( since I have never been abroad, I cannot be nuanced in my opinions) . Don`t fool yourself any longer mon ami. (Now I am off to salivate at blond babes on the hustler website and dream of getting to the west someday)

LOL!! Cayenne is the best entertainment on Chowk.

re:#222 by cayenne
Further to my post, US is a melting pot. Immigrants should be ready to ``melt into that pot``, to put it crudely.
Most South Asians (including me) have found that difficult. A lot of us carry baggage from home. All my colleagues are whites (i am in a hospital based group practice) and the biggest hurdle i have faced is my own ``aloofness`` that comes from the baggage i carry. Slowly i am shedding this baggage but this takes time.
I truly do not perceive any discrimination here. Maybe people here scrutinize me more than other and make sure i am good at what i do but that is to be expected. That apart, i have hardly seen any discrimination in my profession.
It may exist in IT field but then in IT most Indians are competing for the same pie with average American worker. How do u think the latter feels when he is deprived of a job by someone from Chennai who is willing to work at 1/10th the price (something that Lou Dobbs talks about all the time in CNN)?
Sridhar

Cayenne Moron:

As a Non Citizen I have more rights here than you do in India. A cop can stop you in the middle of the street and slap you around and you won`