India's Kargil operation - An Analysis

Society Military and Strategic Issues
21

Xtreme.

Islam is not racist like you are, and there is no caste system which means that the shudras are treated like filth and women are required to shave their heads and live in isolation if their husbands die.<<

It is a good thing that you are so concerned about Shudras India is moving away from evils of caste system. Pagan women have come long way, the days of shaving heads are over. They are highly educated have professionals degrees and occupy high positions in private and public companies. I think you should help your women to have more freedom, equality and stop honor killing, give them equal rights, currently they are second class ....oops third or fourth class citizen.

I don’t hate my pagan past. I have no problem people worshipping one God or many Gods as long as they are decent people have good values and do not preach hatred towards others.

Gulsher

I never attacked Sikhism, it is not my style to mock reliugeons, I was asking what country did your parents applied P.A thats it, and as for religeons my dear, Alhamdulliah my four genrations have been Muslim. Ask your parents what were there ancestors<<

Rest assured my parents did not apply to Pakistan or to any other muslim country because they know how followers of Islam treat others as a matter of fact lot of my relatives live in India. What are you doing in land of Kaffirs or Satan., why are you not living in your pureland. Sikhs share common heritage and culture with Hindus and many of my good friends are Hindus.

[This message has been edited by Rani (edited March 02, 2000).]

22

[quote]
Originally posted by ehsan:
*Well Rani would you like to tell us what your ancestors were before they converted to sikhism. After all this religion is not that old too. Look in the mirror before writing rubbish about other religions which you so relish all the time. Maybe a sign of severe inferiority complex. Could not be anything else.
*
[/quote]

Ehsan framosh, Sikhism is a religion created to save the mankind (Indians of that time, which includes all the religions existing at that time, not my fault if majority were Hindus) and was initially carved out of Hindus to fight the onslaught of Moghuls. It has spread because of good virtues it has and is basically an off-shoot of Hinduism. For your information till date many Hindu families prefer to make their first son a Sikh, it is like giving their son for the benefit of mankind. My family is also one such. Don't try to put a daraar between the two great people telling them stories you also don't know properly.

Regarding what you have quoted for me, let me take it the other way, some people prefer to remain in light and some people switch off their lights to save money for the hay day.(Jannat)

23

Dhir, I had not written anything against the Sikh religion, just asked Rani what her ancestors were before they converted. So in future get your facts right before you start posting rubbish.

24

Now that the in between posts are deleted you can very well say that. Do you remember the context in which you were talking. It was an argument about why you guys converted to Islam between Rani and Gulsher and you remarked in that context, that is the reason I wanted to make it clear that creation of sikhism and spread of islam were because of different reasons.

By the way my facts are all right, the very fact that you asked her implies that you want to hurt her feeling of being a sikh now after converting from hinduism and hence my mail. And I don't have to ask Rani, we don't ask obvious questions and there is no need also.

P.S. Can you mark the rubbish part of my post, so that next time I don't do the same.
[This message has been edited by dhir (edited March 02, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by dhir (edited March 02, 2000).]

25

Ehsan

just asked Rani what her ancestors were before they converted<<

My ancestors were Hindus and they converted to Sikhism to fight the tyranny and protect freedom of choice of the people. They were not aganist anyone or any religion nor they were forced to adopt Sikhism but they were aganist spread of religion by sword.

Sikhism is an eastern relgion with its roots in India and it is not a revealed religion therefore founder of the religion are called Gurus (teachers).

Generally, I try to avoid answering posts that make personal attacks or generalize by calling my post garbage because these kind of remarks leave very little room for discussion.

[This message has been edited by Rani (edited March 02, 2000).]

26

[quote]
Originally posted by Rani:
Read History not the version taught in Pakistani schools, but real History - Kashmir is and has been part of India from thousands of years.
[/quote]

My Dear Rani,
The areas now forming Pakistan were also once part of India but separated for obvious reasons. This is real history. I wonder what has been taught to you in your schools. May be you also believe that the "Taj Mahal was built by a Hindu King"!

27

You should definitely try to know what is taught in Indian history textbooks. That would be a good comparison.

In fact, they are more polite on Musims than the western historians. Afterall, Gandhi called Guru Govind Singh Ji and Shivaji as misguided patriots. Perhaps he expected them to carry out for a nonviolent morcha against religious atrocities.

28

Neither historians are so tolerant as is being debated about in the thread.

Compare the writings regarding Ghauri, Ghaznavi and Abdaali. Akbar is considered by Indian historians to be a believer in secularism and the great admirer of the Rajput culture.
While muslims, in pukhto and iranian writings consider him to be the first in teh line of muslims who decided to forgoe their teachings to adopt a more "morally degrading" culture.

It is understandable why these muslims considered the Indian native aryan culture to be backward, as they had considered Islam to be their salvation from it themselves.
You could argue that they considered Akbar's revival of teh Scythian and Aryan tendencieds to be vile and regressive.

As for the treatment of Muslim rulers that decided to keep their relegious identity, well, Indian historians do not treat them with much regard. Sher Shah Suri, Sikander Lodhi, Tughlaq, Aibek, Ghauri and Ghaznavi are considered to be simple plunderers or opportunists.

So you see, the buck does not stop anywhere. From the spread of Islam in the Ghandhara and Makran and then later in Sindh, Islam has not been considered as a notable religion unless its practitioners are willing to amalgamate some of the hindu rituals or customs within it.
To not do so is considered to be "intolerant".

Its astonishing is it not. Pukhtoons and Iranians are accepted as great rulers as long as they are Aryans, Ashoka or Chandargupt but not as Sher Shah, Ahmed Shah or Haider Ali.
The rule of Taxila is accepted while a Scythian, Pukhtoon, Oxusian or Aryan rules it........ he may even be a hero, but not if he is a muslim, because that equates him to be intolerant and barbaric.

I am afraid the following is a statement from a text book in India.

' Having conquered only the outlying areas of the Maharashtra region, the muslims found that there was more to living than barbarism and wars. India opened their eyes to the enormity of culture that was non existant to them. Having arrived by the will of sword they soon decided to inhabit the land that brought them to humanity and its wonderful attributes".

The next is an extract from a history book that was part of the metriculation course for the Federal Board in Pakistan.

" Having seen the splendour of the muslim army in battle the wealthy and self proclaimed relegious saviours of Somnat were willing to offer Ghaznavi his weight in gold ornaments and all the valuables that his army could mount upon their horses. GHaznavi, not the most pious of all muslims, turned around and claimed:

"Mein butfarosh naheen, butshikan hoon"

translation" I AM NOT AMONGST THE WORSHIPERS OF IDOLS, I AM THE DESTROYER OF THEM "

Muslims in there belief in the one true god were mistified why such people would bow to these manufactures of their myths and imagination even after the proclaimation of Allah's Message.

So you see, no love is lost amongst historians!
However, I must confess. There is no understanding amongst the muslims in Pakistan with regards to any LINK amongst them their cultures and those of the rest of teh SUB-CONTINENT, especially not those who live on the West bank of the Indus.

Mind you these are the very people that are portrayed now as too bold and too temperamental.

I wonder what the reason for that is ?

29

Saeed....I would question the validity of the paragraph that you pasted from an "Indian" textbook. AT NO POINT EVER has the word "Muslims" been used in our History textbooks. Our books have always used the word "Mughals" to describe them. Our books have NEVER been this direct...In fact they have tried to always hide the crimes committed by the plunderers.

30

You have narrated a temple breking or idol breaking incident with lot of pride. Then you complain that such people are considered 'intolerent'. Why complain about Babri Mosque demolition then. Consider Kalyan Singh as hero.
There are certain things relative in life. You may consider my worshipping many gods or no gods as pagan and whatever. I have no objection to that. But if you are going to force the religion by breaking places of worship and threatening people, in modern times it is not called an acceptable behavior.

31

Abdul,

Congress the psuedo secularists have tinkered with our histroy to favor muslims. History should be told as truthfully as possible so that people can learn from it and form their own conclusions instead of being told what to think.

Tajmahal is beautiful monument build by Shah Jahan. Rest assured we think or Shah Jahan to be follower of Islam not Hinduism or Sikhism. It was a Greek artitecture who designed it and semi precious stones such as lopaz were imported from Russia. We consider it as a Indian monument because lots of Indian money, material was spend on it and skilled Indian artisans worked on it for 20 years.

In my opinion it was a huge waste of money and time. This money and time could have been utilized for public good. I personally think that building a Grand Truck Road was far better achievement than Taj Mahal.

ZZ,

I knew that Gandhi never liked Sikhs but to call Sikh Gurus whose unparallel sacrifies (killing of four sons) to save Hindus from tyranny is unforgivable. If he felt that nobody should have stopped muslims from forcibly converting Hindu to Islam then he should have become muslim himself and gone to Pakistan. Gandhi was willing to sacrifice and everything and everbody inorder to be called Mahatama.

32

Gandhi practiced this turning other chick policy all his life. So was Nehru. He addressed killer of Swami Shradhanand as 'bhai rashid'. In Bhagatsingh, rajguru, sukhdev, ashfqullahkhan case he refused to do anything. Sikh history is a taboo because of secularism. And so in Maratha history. What non marathi, non punjabi students know about it? Very little, i believe.
The contribution of armed struggle by Subhash Chandra Bose, naval uprising, and so on is hevily neglected in Indian textbooks.

33

Tajmahal is beautiful monument build by Shah Jahan. Rest assured we think or Shah Jahan to be follower of Islam not Hinduism or Sikhism. It was a Greek artitecture who designed it and semi precious stones such as lopaz were imported from Russia. We consider it as a Indian monument because lots of Indian money, material was spend on it and skilled Indian artisans worked on it for 20 years.<<<<

good point rani, so u agree that hindus make perfect slaves and sardars make perfect fighters. lets work together on restoring the muslim rule in india then and bring back the happy times.

34

Mundyaa,

By calling people slaves you only show your insecurity and intoleration it is a reflection of your charcter and in no way effects the people you call such names. Another name for people like you is religious fanatic and terrorists.

[This message has been edited by Rani (edited March 03, 2000).]

35

ZZ,

Gandhi's other cheek policy was not very clear, when he threatened to fast unto death if his demands were not met, he clearly counted on English being threatened by the voilence which will follow if he were to die. I don't think for a minute that we got freedom because of his other cheek policy. The threat of voilence and weak Britan because of the world war were responsible for forcing the British to leave.

It is a shame that the History of last 500 years is lost because of psuedo secular agenda of congress. I have heard that people lile Arun Shourie are trying to dig up the true histroy. Histroy is very important because if you don't know where you have come from you will never know where you are going. Also it is very important for a nation to have a role models, who have made selfless sacrifies.

[This message has been edited by Rani (edited March 04, 2000).]

36

.

[This message has been edited by ZZ (edited March 04, 2000).]

37

[quote]
Originally posted by mundyaa:
*>>>>>good point rani, so u agree that hindus make perfect slaves and sardars make perfect fighters. lets work together on restoring the muslim rule in india then and bring back the happy times. *
[/quote]

Mundayaa, Please be consistent in what you want to say. So from the construction of Taj Mahal you wanted to infer that Hindus were perfect slaves because the ruler at that time was a Muslim. Let us take the same case for Kashmir, The ruler was a Hindu and Kashmiris were a perfect slave for him. Would you agree to this statement? Punjab was ruled for years by sikhs and a lot of Punjab (now a part of Pakistan) was under their rule, so the Pakistani Punjabi muslims were perfect slaves. All your Muslim kings were later ruled by British, so all your muslim kings were perfect slaves. And b.t.w. another angle to see things is that Hindus at that time were loyal to their nation/kings, irrespective of the religion of the ruler. So what do you say to this?

38

>>All your Muslim kings were later ruled by British, so all your muslim kings were perfect slaves<<

While mentioning this, don't forget that, had it not been for the Muslims' struggle for independence, u guys would still be licking angrez's boots just as u did to Mughal emperors.

>>And b.t.w. another angle to see things is that Hindus at that time were loyal to their nation/kings, irrespective of the religion of the ruler. So what do you say to this?<<

u r looking from the wrong angle. Look back at ur own history. Hindus have been ruled by every tom, dick & harry who ever happened to wander around this region and it had become the basic instinct of ur nation to be ruled....thanks to the Muslims of subcontinent, who showed u guys that slavery is not the only option in a nation's life....thanks to the Muslims, u were finally able to get urself to a more humane level!

39

What? Muslim struggle for independence? Who? When? 1857 saw Jafar revolt, alongwith Nanasahib Pehwa and Mangal Pande and Laxmibai and so on. Then you have Tilak in the struggle, leadership later went to Gandhi.
Now give me another name. From the armed struggle side side. Ashfaqulla Khan is only name that comes to mind who was handed with Bhagat Singh, Rajguru, Sukhdev and so on. He called himself socialist. Hardly a jihadi struggle. Subhash Chandra Bose was accompanied by some Muslim soldiers in rebellion. Again Forward Block was socialist.
then you have Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan who sided with Gandhi. Maybe add Maulana Azad to the list. Gaffar Khan and later ANP called themselves socialist. It is a different matter that they support honor killings these days.
Was Jinnah ever jailed by British govt. for a single day?
All communities have participated freedom struggle. That includes Muslims. But not under leadership that opted for Pakistan. And leadership or participation was rarely all Muslim.

[This message has been edited by ZZ (edited March 06, 2000).]

40

humm...ever heard of Haider Ali Khan & Tipu Sultan???....who laid the true foundations for the subcontinent's independence.

Is going to jail a must in order to be recognized?? If u really wanna know about the impact of Jinnah's contribution towards the independence movemnets, refer to Mountbatten's words when upon learning about the Quaid -e Azam's medical conditions, he remarked that if he knew about this even a day before, he'd have never let the creation of Pakistan be materialized!
Jinnah was a man of principles, not a rolling Lota just to get a bit of support!