and yes muslims suffered in 1947 partition too but Muslims demanded a separate land, so they should be willing to bear all the collateral damage.....right?
and NO i am not sidetracking every thread about US and Israel by bring Pakistan into it...I am giving historical reference of indo-pak separation and suggesting that hamas should give up on their demand of destroying israel and getting the land back....that is simply not realistic...they shd work towards a realistic solution.
and YES I am also suggesting that Pakistanis should always remember ... always ... that if their is one country on this planet which provides complete ideological support to israel's creation conceptually, that is PAKISTAN ....
pretty ironic if you ask me!
The vast majority of the population whether they were Hindu, Sikhs or Muslims voluntarily moved because they wanted to be among their own kind. They were not forced. Excesses did happen but you cannot say that it was just muslims that murdered hindus and sikhs, the sikhs killed more muslims than the muslims killed sikhs. I am not taking sides here but whatever happened was bad on both sides.
Then Pakistan should have got a bigger area in Punjab but it did not due to the British bias.
How does that fit in with pre-planned and organised forcible eviction of the Palestinians? Or is it your intention to simply derail the thread? Are you trying to say that the Jews tried to copy the hindus and the sikhs? Or are you blaming Britain for dividing Punjab and giving a part of it to India? Or are you trying to put all the blame on the Muslims for the killings, whilst saying that Sikhs and Hindus were victims?
"From East Punjab some six million Muslims tried to cross the order into Pakistan while some four million Hindus and Sikhs moved in the opposite direction from West Punjab.** According to Sir Penderel Moon 60,000 Hindus and Sikhs were killed in West Punjab and twice as many: 120,000 Muslims in East Punjab**. This estimate is too low. Justice G D Kholsa claimed that at least 500,000 died, of which 200,000 to 250,000 were Hindus and Sikhs. He admitted that more Muslims were killed in East Punjab than Hindus and Sikhs in West Punjab. Lt-General (r) Aftab Ahmad Khan who served in the Punjab Boundary Force and then in the Pakistani force that along with Indian units escorted refugee conveys across the border, claimed in a letter to me that at least 500,000 Muslims lost their lives.
I have done interviews on both sides of Punjab. There is no doubt that many more Muslims lost their lives. Between 700,000 and 800,000 Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs perished altogether. That year the monsoons were also in a bloody mood. A large number of deaths was the result of cholera, dysentery, malaria and typhoid which plagued the refugee camps and the caravans on the move".
** Punjab holocaust of 1947
David Ben Gurion, Israel’s first Prime Minister, candidly admitted
** that the Arab regimes are “Israel’s first line of defence.”**
he also said "the Moslem regime is artificial and easy for us to undermine." [David Ben-Gurion, May 1948, to the General Staff. From Ben-Gurion, A Biography, by Michael Ben-Zohar, Delacorte, New York 1978.]
What he means by artificial is that these Muslim rulers have been artificially imposed on the Muslim Ummah for past 100 years by the colonial powers.
Even this non muslim former prime minister is telling you the real situation regarding the issue of occupied palestine your own rulers are conspiring against you.
The vast majority of the population whether they were Hindu, Sikhs or Muslims voluntarily moved because they wanted to be among their own kind. They were not forced.
I am a humble student of indo-pak history for over 20 years and have read extensively on this topic ... and i can say with full confidence that hindus and sikhs did not move"voluntarily"...
just ask yourself a logical question...why would they move from their lands and houses voluntarily where they were living for centuries? hindus and sikhs did not demand for partition.... did they? they never said that we cannot live with muslims and that we need to live in a hindu majority area...we muslims demanded that and hence the movement took place ... even in lahore, hindus refused to move....they were forced but they refused until that fateful nite arrived when muslims burned shahalami which was the trading center for hindus....after that hindus just moved to indian in rush...
hindus and sikhks had no choice but to move or get killed...this was absolutely a forceful eviction and hence on moral basis equivalent to palesntianisn being kciked out of their lands
I am a humble student of indo-pak history for over 20 years and have read extensively on this topic ... and i can say with full confidence that hindus and sikhs did not move"voluntarily"...
just ask yourself a logical question...why would they move from their lands and houses voluntarily where they were living for centuries? hindus and sikhs did not demand for partition.... did they? they never said that we cannot live with muslims and that we need to live in a hindu majority area...we muslims demanded that and hence the movement took place ... even in lahore, hindus refused to move....they were forced but they refused until that fateful nite arrived when muslims burned shahalami which was the trading center for hindus....after that hindus just moved to indian in rush...
hindus and sikhks had no choice but to move or get killed...this was absolutely a forceful eviction and hence on moral basis equivalent to palesntianisn being kciked out of their lands
Just ask yourself why would the muslims move from Punjab when they expected Punjab to be a part of Pakistan. Why were more muslims killed than hindu and sikhs? Why were 50,000 muslim women abducted by hindus and sikhs wheras 33,000 hindu women were abducted by muslims?
Excesses did happen but you cannot say that it was just muslims that murdered hindus and sikhs, the sikhs killed more muslims than the muslims killed sikhs. I am not taking sides here but whatever happened was bad on both sides.
sure... but i dont know why you keep going back to "who suffered more" ... I am not debating the numbers....i am absolutely not debating that...muslims suffered a lot...my whole family migrated from jalandhar and amrtisar and for years we heard horror stories from our elders how sikhs murdered muslims....but that is not the debate....
the debate is about a conceptual issue.... you believe and support Hamas's demand "to take back each and every inch of israel" and "destroy israel" and I am trying to tell you that how about we look into our own separation where hindus and sikhs were forcefully evicted....can they also demand their land back?.... will you support that? is it realistic?
i am not sidetracking every thread about US and Israel by bring Pakistan into it...I am giving historical reference of indo-pak separation to suggest that that hamas should be realistic...they shd work towards a practical solution..
and YES I am also suggesting that Pakistanis should always remember ... that if their is one country on this planet which provides complete ideological support to israel's creation on a conceptual and ideological basis, that is PAKISTAN ....
Just ask yourself why would the muslims move from Punjab when they expected Punjab to be a part of Pakistan. Why were more muslims killed than hindu and sikhs? Why were 50,000 muslim women abducted by hindus and sikhs wheras 33,000 hindu women were abducted by muslims?
my friend.... form jalhandhar to Amritsar to gurdaspur to ferozpur... Muslims never planned on moving because they thought they will be part of pakistan.....only few weeks from partition, it occurred to them that these areas will be part of india and hence they started to move in rush...i challenge you on this historical fact.
but that is not what we are debating about...we are debating about forcible eviction pf hindus and sikhs and I am saying that on moral ground that is equivalent to Palestinian eviction...
on the other hand, conceptually muslim migration in 1947 cannot be considered "by force" .... muslims demanded a separate country with muslim majority.....so they moved because they wanted to live in Pakistan with their brothers!!!
sure... but i dont know why you keep going back to "who suffered more" ... I am not debating the numbers....i am absolutely not debating that...muslims suffered a lot...my whole family migrated from jalandhar and amrtisar and for years we heard horror stories from our elders how sikhs murdered muslims....but that is not the debate....
the debate is about a conceptual issue.... you believe and support Hamas's demand "to take back each and every inch of israel" and "destroy israel" and I am trying to tell you that how about we look into our own separation where hindus and sikhs were forcefully evicted....can they also demand their land back?.... will you support that? is it realistic?
i am not sidetracking every thread about US and Israel by bring Pakistan into it...I am giving historical reference of indo-pak separation to suggest that that hamas should be realistic...they shd work towards a practical solution..
and YES I am also suggesting that Pakistanis should always remember ... that if their is one country on this planet which provides complete ideological support to israel's creation on a conceptual and ideological basis, that is PAKISTAN ....
pretty ironic if you ask me!
When did I write that I support Hamas in forcefully taking back all territory from which they were evicted by the Jews?
The people of Pakistan were not evicted into Afghanistan, they still live in the same country which has been divided. Whatever they have lost in one part of the undivided country they have gained in another part by at least the same amount if not more. Palestinians have been forced out to land that belongs to Jordan and a refugee camp near Egypt. Many of the Palestinians are scattered across many different countries in the region. They have still to get a state outside Israel let alone within Israel. They are even being driven out of the land the occupy outside Israel as Israel wants to expand and build new settlements on that land as well.
my friend.... form jalhandhar to Amritsar to gurdaspur to ferozpur... Muslims never planned on moving because they thought they will be part of pakistan.....only few weeks from partition, it occurred to them that these areas will be part of india and hence they started to move in rush...i challenge you on this historical fact.
but that is not what we are debating about...we are debating about forcible eviction pf hindus and sikhs and I am saying that on moral ground that is equivalent to Palestinian eviction...
on the other hand, conceptually muslim migration in 1947 cannot be considered "by force" .... muslims demanded a separate country with muslim majority.....so they moved because they wanted to live in Pakistan with their brothers!!!
I am glad that you agree that most of East Punjab should have been part of Pakistan. When the sikhs and hindus found out that they were going to be living in Pakistan did they not start moving to India? Did the RSS not use bombs against the muslims? Did the factions of Akalis led by Udham Singh Nagoke and Niranjan Singh Gill not try to assault muslims? Were the muslims not living in peace before with sikhs and hindus before the sikhs and hindus started assaulting them.
I am glad that you agree that most of East Punjab should have been part of Pakistan. When the sikhs and hindus found out that they were going to be living in Pakistan did they not start moving to India? Did the RSS not use bombs against the muslims? Did the factions of Akalis led by Udham Singh Nagoke and Niranjan Singh Gill not try to assault muslims? Were the muslims not living in peace before with sikhs and hindus before the sikhs and hindus started assaulting them.
ok we can go in circles .... forever and there is no point in doing that.
All i am saying that you cannot equate "muslims migration from indian portion to pakistani portion" with "hindus/sikhs migration from pakistani portion to india".
Muslims demanded for a separate country where they could live in majority ... hence their migration will and should be considered volunteer from historical perspective.
Hindus and sikhs did not make any such demand...they never asked for a separate land ..so their migration from their land will and should be considered a forceful eviction from moral and historical perspective...thus creating a moral resemblance with forceful eviction of Palestinians from israel ...
also jews' ideological demand for a jewish land ironically resonates well with the demand that subcontinental Muslims made to live in a muslim land called Pakistan.... many researchers point out this ideological compatibility but off-course Pakistanis will have an "ideological diarrhea" by a mere thought of this concept!
That is all.... by the way I get your viewpoint and appreciate it.
Why did the Hindu and Sikhs not stay in Pakistan? Mr Jinnah did say that your religion has nothing to do with you being a Pakistani.
Were the muslims from Amritsar not the largest single group in the district? did they want to leave or were they forced out?
Anyway this is all different from say someone saying that 2000 years ago my ancestors were living here so I am going to evict the current inhabitants by force and make it my home. A vast majority of the Jews are not even ancestors of the Jews of Israels but are Khazars. They were from areas that were part of the soviet union and just randomly decided to chose a religion which happened to be judaism. Technically they are not even Jews as they were not born to a Jewish mother.
Why did the Hindu and Sikhs not stay in Pakistan? Mr Jinnah did say that your religion has nothing to do with you being a Pakistani.
.
awesome..i am glad that you asked this question....and i urge you to ask this question again arshad because the answer lies in your own question.....would you move out of your home, your land where you have been living their for centuries into an unknown territory *VOLUNTARILY? * I wont ... so why did those hindus and sikhs move? they moved because otherwise they would have got killed....and this is a historical fact.....
it wasn't volunteer ... hindus/sikhs never demanded for a separate land for hindus... we did....division of country was not their demand...it was our demand...an agreement took plae and was imposed on everyone...so hindus/sikhs migration from their land will and should be considered a forceful eviction from moral and historical perspective...
Anyway this is all different from say someone saying that 2000 years ago my ancestors were living here so I am going to evict the current inhabitants by force and make it my home. A vast majority of the Jews are not even ancestors of the Jews of Israels but are Khazars. They were from areas that were part of the soviet union and just randomly decided to chose a religion which happened to be judaism. Technically they are not even Jews as they were not born to a Jewish mother.
does not matter what "rationale" one uses to get a land for a certain objective....jews used a certain rationale and we used a different one...we came up with 2-nation theory also deeply rooted into a 1000 year history!!! how about that....didnt we say that Pakistan was formed the day Muhammad Qasim invaded india....LOL
but the end goal of both groups were same.. to have a jewish and muslim land respectively....one was called israel and other was called pakistan....the only difference is that jewish had more emotional attachment to Palestine..but that does not make any difference to the end result...both movements were deeply rooted into a religious identity with no "respect/care/thought" given to all the bloodshed/hatred that it would inevitably cause for other "people/groups/communities"...i am merely pointing out the similarities!
does not matter what "rationale" one uses to get a land for a certain objective....jews used a certain rationale and we used a different one...we came up with 2-nation theory also deeply rooted into a 1000 year history!!! how about that....didnt we say that Pakistan was formed the day Muhammad Qasim invaded india....LOL
but the end goal of both groups were same.. to have a jewish and muslim land respectively....one was called israel and other was called pakistan....the only difference is that jewish had more emotional attachment to Palestine..but that does not make any difference to the end result...both movements were deeply rooted into a religious identity with no "respect/care/thought" given to all the bloodshed/hatred that it would inevitably cause for other "people/groups/communities"...i am merely pointing out the similarities!
Does not matter what rationale is used to get land? Jews got land, the muslims of Pakistan did not get any land, in fact we probably lost land.
I don't know whether you are ignoring what I write or you simply do not understand what I write.
