Amrita Pritam

#139 by dullabhatti
#142 by drlokraj

Thanks for sharing these sweet poems.

Re: # 144 dost-mittar ``Who was `we`? `We` were certainly not Punjabis but Muslims of `phoney India`, including Punjabi Muslims to demand a separate nation of all Muslims. Elementary, Mr. Watson!``

Elementary?? I don`t know what your point is. In fact I`m pretty sure you don`t even have a point to make and are just trying to obfuscate. My point is that despite all this pith-sayapa we hear all the time from Punjab Hindus about partition they, NOT Punjabi Muslims, were responsible for the crime of partitioning a nation. They, NOT Punjabi Muslims, are responsible for having extra territorial loyalties to foriegn lands and nations on the basis of religious nationalism.

What is your point??

Re: # 143 Shishapa

`Pakistan` is just as fake and phony as `India`. The best option in 1947 was without a doubt an independent Punjab, including Punjabi speaking areas of the NWFP and J & K. Once the religious fever wears off in both parts of Punjab, and there are signs that is beginning to happen, it may even once again in the future become the best option..

Re: # 144dost-mittar ji
you are absolutely right that there were no differences amongst hindus and sikhs at that time or even after that.Even the 1984 crisis and the terrorists` regn of that time failed to create any such divide because both are so related to each other.

I dont think common punjabi muslim was in favour of partition.It was the brain child of non punjabi muslims and accepted by non punjabi non muslims the price of which was paid with punjabi blood.

If punjabis dont understand this even now,they will continue to remain divided and never even dream of Nation Punjab again.

This is a great sikh movement site
Lot to learn from this. Many Panjabis in Pakistan are not aware of such brutalities upon Sikhs. Kind of like a mini ``partition`` that couldn`t happen in 1984.

Has the movement been stamped-out completely or is it still smouldering?

Re # 147

So when Punjabi Muslims (and they were the initiators) decided to trash the idea of Punjabi nation and decided to merge their nation into Pakistani nation, did they consult Hindu and Sikh Punjabi before making that decision? Then as a reaction, what is wrong with Hindus and Sikhs wanting to merge their Punjabi nation into Indian nation?

Just like Punjabi Muslims have a right to do whatever with their Punjabi nation, don`t
Hindu and Sikhs have a right to whatever they want to do with their Punjabi nation?
So first Punjabi Muslims decided to destroy the concept of Punjabi nation and they
accuse Hindu and Sikhs of tearing apart that nation?

Just as you as a Punjabi (I am assuming you are) thinks Punjab is a nation, probably every Sindhi think Sindh is a nation, Kashmiri thinks Kashmir is a nation, Maharashtrian think Maharashtra is a nation.
Wait, may be Vidarbha thinks it is a nation and not part of Maharashtra, Deccan Hyderabad thinks it was a nation and not a part of Andhra Pradesh.

Where do you stop? Can every Tom, Dick, and Harry want and have a nation of their own?

dionysus:

``What is your point??``

My point is that before independence, a case could be made that India consisited of not one but several nations, with Punjab being one of them. But that point was never made (except, perhaps, by the communists). There were only two competing visions - a unified India and an India partitioned on the basis of Muslim majority provinces; so everyone had to make a choice between those two competing visions.

The other point is that these are all ``garhe murday``. How do we move forward? The best way is to relax the borders and let the people meet each other. Our ancestors may have created walls; this should not stop us from opening windows.

Don`t let your hatred of fellow Punjabis of a particular faith cloud your thinking.

its confusing for outsiders, how fellow panjabis who murdered and raped each other, and clensed vast areas of each others identitiy only a couple of generations away talk of a panjabi nation, and blame UP bhaiyyas for it to boot, all the bhayyas did was draw an imaginary line. panjabis could have simply ignored it :(

My aunt says ``Maahtad`` and ``Tamhaatad`` - later I found out it is corruption of ``Hamtarh`` and ``Tumtarah``.

jang #152 because panjabis have big hearts - they dont keep grudges.

I grew up in those turbulent times (80s). To say that there was no difference between Hindus and Sikhs is incorrect. In villages and rural areas (sikh majority), there is less difference. In cities and urban centers, the hostility by Hindus was evident. Daily, there were jeers, taunting, and demands to cut hair and calls to revert back to Hinduism. These were just Hindu kids who immitated their elders and boasted members of RSS and other organizations. I witnessed fights and small scale riots. The culprits were always Punjabi Hindus.

The generation that grew up before us also witnessed the agitations and Punjabi Suba turmoil. During trifucation of Punjab, the hostilities and prejudices against Sikhs was rampant too. Punjabi Hindus undermined the Punjabi cause. To this day, the Centre with connivance to Punjabi Hindus are hell bent on destroying Punjab further. They are demanding Pathankot, Abohar, Fazilka, Kharar to be taken out of Punjab.

Ambala, and other Punjabi speaking districts were given to Haryana and HP.

154,

they don`t have big hearts, they have small brains (mota dimag).

Re: # 152 jang
//....its confusing for outsiders,.fellow panjabis who murdered and raped each other, and clensed vast areas of each others identitiy only a couple of generations away talk of a panjabi nation ...//

Yep. And if you put these people back together as a ``Punjabi Nation`` - they will kill each other again. It`s like putting two crazy monkeys with razors in the same cage.

So best thing is to keep these guys kept separated from each other - for their own good and for the good of others. That`s the reason why partition was done - to keep the monkeys away from each other. Enough said.

#144 Dost ji, youa re right. I knew the meaning of hamatarh but line ``asiN hamatarh maarhay lok aan`` was some what difficult for me to translate...that si why I sed `we are lowly, poor people``. In fact now that I am thinking about it, poet might not have meant ``maarhay lok aan`` in the sense of being poor but ``maarhay lok aan`` because we have even abandoned our language.

Irfan has his own translations.. I have not seen this one...would ne great to see how he translated this one.

Re: # 151 Dost-mittar ``There were only two competing visions - a unified India and an India partitioned on the basis of Muslim majority provinces; so everyone had to make a choice between those two competing visions. ``

Competing visions?? The main priority of everyone, at least initially, was getting rid of the British. When Gandhi started going on about Ram Raj some Muslims started worrying about the Hindus too.

``Don`t let your hatred of fellow Punjabis of a particular faith cloud your thinking. ``

Whoa! Hold on a second there! Who hates fellow Punjabis? Not me. Punjabi Hindus have betrayed Punjab and their fellow Punjabis MANY times during the last century. It isn`t hateful to speak the truth.

Re: # 159 dionysus

Yep - it`s always the Hindus. it`s all their fault.... The cunning banias always betray others.

And Biggest cunning bania of them all is Gandhi - had he not talked about ``Ram Raj`` everything would have been fine and dandy...... If it was not for Gandhi, Punjabis would have lived happily ever after in the ``Punjabi Nation``.

M0r0n.