Should we?

[phoenixdesi]

too much of PPP, PTI and PMLN politics all the time…so let me change the flavor!

One question that always pops up into my mind…should Pakistanis respect Bhagat Singh and Udham Singh and should we mention them in our syllabus? Udham singh killed General O’Dwyer to avenge Jallianwala bagh massacre whereas Bhagat singh an educated young man was a known revolutionist and was hanged by british raj at a young age

In Favor:
They were fighting for the freedom of the entire sub-continent. At the time of their deaths/existence the idea of Pakistan never really existed-so in a way they weren’t fighting for Sikhs or Hindus solely but for all indians-Hindus, Muslims,Sikhs, Christians etc. Never at any point did either of them express reservations in working for Muslims or other minorities in fact they worked with Muslims and other minorities. For example hundred of muslims alsso died in Jallianwalal massacre. Not to mention that Bhagat Singh was actually born at Chak No. 105, GB, Jaranwala Tehsil in the Lyallpur (Faisabad) district…

Against:
But they were proud nationalists, of sikh origin and probably would have been against the partition of sub-continent just like most hindus and sikhs. Plus Pakistanis still feel hostile towards the mass murder of Muslims by sikhs/hindus during the partition (and yes we killed many hindus/sikhs as well but that is a separate topic). So a viewpoint could be that honoring these sikhs as national heroes and freedom fighters by pakistanis would confuse the new generation and may also be an insult to those hundreds of thousands muslims who sacrificed their lives for Pakistan in 1947??

Open for discussion…pls keep it intellectual and civilized!

[hanibal]

Re: Should we?

I personally like Bhagat Singh, he was one brave guy and he did challenged the British Raj! he was not politician but a freedom fighter who did what deem right at that time to free his homeland from foreign occupation. Regardless what path Bhagat Singh might have chosen at the question of division, he remains the freedom fighter for me.

Let me say this, Mr. Gandhi if wanted could have saved Bhagat Singh from the death sentence but popularity of Bhagat Singh was itself a challenge for Mr. Ghandi and his cronies. People of United India were more keen to listen to Bhagat Singh then to Gandhi or Nehru for that matter.

One more thing, had Bhagat Singh not taken the road of violence or would have given it up, he might have been leader of same caliber for Sikhs as Mr. Gandhi was for Hindus and Quaid-e-Azam for Muslims of India and we may have not seen the partition of Punjab and in result their would have no dispute of Kashmir.

[kaka_in_usa]

Re: Should we?

Bhagat singh was a known atheist , he didnt die for his religion or region. He did it for country.

Udham Singh in his last statement said he killed the butcher of punjab for his country. Like countless others including Lala Lajpat Rai who was beaten to death in lahore who united all the people to stand against british these guys are freedom fighters for their motherland not for their religion.

Pakistan's islamic nationhood makes them insecure to recoganize and reward their non muslim heros. The same problem is not with India, India takes more ownership of Iqbal and BAccha khan then Pakistan.

Some day when people take off their religious glasses then may be they will be able to celebrate their non muslim heros and denounce their villains like qadri.

[kaka_in_usa]

Re: Should we?

@hanibal

I personally like Bhagat Singh, he was one brave guy and he did challenged the British Raj! he was not politician but a freedom fighter who did what deem right at that time to free his homeland from foreign occupation. Regardless what path Bhagat Singh might have chosen at the question of division, he remains the freedom fighter for me.

Let me say this, Mr. Gandhi if wanted could have saved Bhagat Singh from the death sentence but popularity of Bhagat Singh was itself a challenge for Mr. Ghandi and his cronies. People of United India were more keen to listen to Bhagat Singh then to Gandhi or Nehru for that matter.

One more thing, had Bhagat Singh not taken the road of violence or would have given it up, he might have been leader of same caliber for Sikhs as Mr. Gandhi was for Hindus and Quaid-e-Azam for Muslims of India and we may have not seen the partition of Punjab and in result their would have no dispute of Kashmir.

Gandhi was not leader of Hindus. There is nothing called leader of hindus. He was leader of All of India, had he wanted he could have become president or make India a hindu country but he chose not to and was actually killed by a hindu nationalist.

Subash Chandra Bose on the other hand was the face of armed resistance against British in 19th century.

[hanibal]

Re: Should we?

@kaka_in_usa

Gandhi was not leader of Hindus. There is nothing called leader of hindus. He was leader of All of India, had he wanted he could have become president or make India a hindu country but he chose not to and was actually killed by a hindu nationalist.

Subash Chandra Bose on the other hand was the face of armed resistance against British in 19th century.

Mr. Gandhi despite not being leader of Hindus or let me say leader of RSS kind of hardcore hindus, he sure was spiritual head or leader of Congress which was deemed as major party representing Hindus of Subcontinent. Had this not been an issue, there was no need to form All India Muslim League and most of the League's leaders including Quiad-e-Azam were once in congress.

[kaka_in_usa]

Re: Should we?

^^ Muslim league had nothing to do with hinduism or congress. I mean there is still Muslim League in Pakistan and Bangladesh. IF what you say is true then Muslim league would have been disbanded after separation.

Congress was the most and only party which was very inclusive and secular, from bengal to sarhad, from kashmir to tamilnadu they were present all over with many great leaders representing a huge diversity. Even Maulana Azad was holding a high post in Congress.

Political differences create multiple parties, those who didnt want to join Congress or Gandhi in peaceful resistance they joined INA (Indian National Army) led by legendary Subash Chandra Bose.

Not entire country was on the same page, we still had a huge number of Indians in Royal Army most of which came from Punjab and Sarhad. We were still mentally slaves to British and to our Kings, Nawabs, Samants, Jagirdars, Vdheras etc who were only dancing on the tunes of British.

If i am not wrong, After the mutiny of meerut in 1857 (famously started by Mangal Pandey) we fought only for our country together for the first time and until we got independence.

[hanibal]

Re: Should we?

@kaka_in_usa

^^ Muslim league had nothing to do with hinduism or congress. I mean there is still Muslim League in Pakistan and Bangladesh. IF what you say is true then Muslim league would have been disbanded after separation.

Congress was the most and only party which was very inclusive and secular, from bengal to sarhad, from kashmir to tamilnadu they were present all over with many great leaders representing a huge diversity. Even Maulana Azad was holding a high post in Congress.

Political differences create multiple parties, those who didnt want to join Congress or Gandhi in peaceful resistance they joined INA (Indian National Army) led by legendary Subash Chandra Bose.

Not entire country was on the same page, we still had a huge number of Indians in Royal Army most of which came from Punjab and Sarhad. We were still mentally slaves to British and to our Kings, Nawabs, Samants, Jagirdars, Vdheras etc who were only dancing on the tunes of British.

If i am not wrong, After the mutiny of meerut in 1857 (famously started by Mangal Pandey) we fought only for our country together for the first time and until we got independence.

Muslim League of Pakistan or Bangladesh is just a party who have derived from the all India Muslim League, it is not that the Party was formed after Pakistan came into being, it is common for a party to retain the same name. Which Muslim league of Pakistan and Bangladesh did.

Congress can be secular in your view but as a Muslim of subcontinent it was not secular, yes there were muslims in congress but then there are muslims who are part of Modi's hard core BJP kind of parties.

The reason many muslims may have supported is not that they believed in the leadership and manifesto of Congress but the reason for most was to divided muslims shall become a minority in India.. a debate which was there since the demand of forming a separate country for Muslims of Subcontinent.

Coming to Indian Royal Army, let me give you brief on the history of Sub-Continent, that is, no matter who the invader of India is, he always find soldiers from Sub-Continent, true with English Army as they were able to win all the wars with their Indian army jawans... as they make big ratio in it... doesn't matter from where they hail..

Now for Nawabs and waderas and Jageerdars, India was lucky to get rid of them... but unfortunately Pakistan could not get rid of them.. any how, these Jageerdars or Nawabs or Waders or Peers etc they are all the one whom History have called traitors.. Like Nizam of Hyderabad, who helped English to defeat Tipu Sultan...Shah Mehmood ( Great Grand Father of Shah Mehmood of PTI) helped butcher freedom fighters of 1857... so please do not bring these traitors in the debate..

coming back to Bhagat Singh, you wrote he was atheist? how come?

[kaka_in_usa]

Re: Should we?

@hanibal

Muslim League of Pakistan or Bangladesh is just a party who have derived from the all India Muslim League, it is not that the Party was formed after Pakistan came into being, it is common for a party to retain the same name. Which Muslim league of Pakistan and Bangladesh did.

Congress can be secular in your view but as a Muslim of subcontinent it was not secular, yes there were muslims in congress but then there are muslims who are part of Modi's hard core BJP kind of parties.

The reason many muslims may have supported is not that they believed in the leadership and manifesto of Congress but the reason for most was to divided muslims shall become a minority in India.. a debate which was there since the demand of forming a separate country for Muslims of Subcontinent.

Coming to Indian Royal Army, let me give you brief on the history of Sub-Continent, that is, no matter who the invader of India is, he always find soldiers from Sub-Continent, true with English Army as they were able to win all the wars with their Indian army jawans... as they make big ratio in it... doesn't matter from where they hail..

Now for Nawabs and waderas and Jageerdars, India was lucky to get rid of them... but unfortunately Pakistan could not get rid of them.. any how, these Jageerdars or Nawabs or Waders or Peers etc they are all the one whom History have called traitors.. Like Nizam of Hyderabad, who helped English to defeat Tipu Sultan...Shah Mehmood ( Great Grand Father of Shah Mehmood of PTI) helped butcher freedom fighters of 1857... so please do not bring these traitors in the debate..

coming back to Bhagat Singh, you wrote he was atheist? how come?

Well Muslim league of Pakistan is the same muslim league with its leader heading Pakistan in its initial days. Its like saying that the current congress is not the same congress which existed in undivided india s the party lost a lot of its territory. Lot and lot of muslims were and still are part of congress leadership.

BJP was not even in equation until very late, it was founded decades after the independence. Muslims are part of it because in Indian laws a religion based party is illegal. So its wrong to call BJP a hindu party technically.

Rest what you said is same thing i said in my post.

I am surprised that you didnt know Bhagat Singh was an atheist. He was a known atheist and he was very outspoken about it. He didnt even fight for punjabiyat, he only fought for his motherland.

His differences with Gandhi ji increased as he chose a path of violence and Gandhi ji was a non violent man. Still Bhagat singh respected and listened to Gandhi ji till his death. The granades he lobbed in parliament were non lethal and killed no one, his take on it was he wanted to wake up the nation against the atrocities of British.

Bahro so sunane ke liye dhamako ki jaroorat hoti hai -- Bhagat sigh during his trial.

Subash Chandra bose didnt believe in millitant type resistance, instead he formed an full fledged army and wanted to win the independence in which he failed though.

Tum mujhe khoon do, me tumhe azaadi doonga. - thats his famous phrase.

[kaka_in_usa]

Re: Should we?

Why I am an Atheist

Why I am an Atheist
Essay written by Bhagat Singh in lahore central jail in 1930.

[phoenixdesi]

Re: Should we?

yes Bhagat declared him atheist.

I am not going to get into congress vs musim league fiasco ..... we will settle that in a separate debate!! but yes both udham and bhagat were acknowledged nationalists.

Now one question for indian posters....let me warn you...it is an extremely provocative comment but my intention is academic and not confrontational.

if we consider udham singh to be shaheed azam (as many indians do) for taking revenge of jallianwalla massacre, then those 2 sikhs - who killed indra ghandi for ordering the blue star operation in amritsar that shed so much blood at their most sacred temple - should also be viewed as heroes by the sikh community and rest of the india shd be OK with it.....and yes i understand the difference .... brits were occupying india whereas sikhs in the amritsar temple were traitors!!!

[KKF]

Re: Should we?

i believe he is hailed as a hero among 'fanatic' Sikhs just like some Muslims consider Bin Laden as their hero.

[phoenixdesi]

Re: Should we?

@KKF

i believe he is hailed as a hero among 'fanatic' Sikhs just like some Muslims consider Bin Laden as their hero.

he who?

[KKF]

Re: Should we?

btw, Bhagat Singh was an Urdu poet as well. here is a sample of his Urdu handwriting. he wrote famous ash’aar of famous/ustaad poets

i was stunned when i saw it for the first time. i had NO idea that he was a poet and that too in Urdu and he knew how to read, write and speak classical Urdu.

---

Restored attachments:

[phoenixdesi]

Re: Should we?

@KKF

i believe he is hailed as a hero among 'fanatic' Sikhs just like some Muslims consider Bin Laden as their hero.

if you are talking abt bhagat singh...he is hero of most of the indians...what are you talking about?

[KKF]

Re: Should we?

@phoenixdesi

if you are talking abt bhagat singh...he is hero of most of the indians...what are you talking about?

no, i was talking about Bayant Singh and his accomplice, killers of Mrs. Indira Gandhi.

[phoenixdesi]

Re: Should we?

@KKF

no, i was talking about Bayant Singh and his accomplice, killers of Mrs. Indira Gandhi.

oh i see..got it

thx

[phoenixdesi]

Re: Should we?

@KKF

no, i was talking about Bayant Singh and his accomplice, killers of Mrs. Indira Gandhi.

but you did not reflect upon my question?

do you consider udham singh a hero for what he did? remember indians call udham singh shaheed azam

and in that context what are your views of bayant singh who killed indra

[kaka_in_usa]

Re: Should we?

@phoenixdesi

yes Bhagat declared him atheist.

I am not going to get into congress vs musim league fiasco ..... we will settle that in a separate debate!! but yes both udham and bhagat were acknowledged nationalists.

Now one question for indian posters....let me warn you...it is an extremely provocative comment but my intention is academic and not confrontational.

if we consider udham singh to be shaheed azam (as many indians do) for taking revenge of jallianwalla massacre, then those 2 sikhs - who killed indra ghandi for ordering the blue star operation in amritsar that shed so much blood at their most sacred temple - should also be viewed as heroes by the sikh community and rest of the india shd be OK with it.....and yes i understand the difference .... brits were occupying india whereas sikhs in the amritsar temple were traitors!!!

Peaceful protest vs armed seige of the holy temple! huge difference.

The protesters at jaliawalla bagh were using their right to hold a jalsa and only giving speeches when they were surrounded, all the gates locked and fired upon with machineguns without giving a warning . Where as in op bluestar, it was armed militants taking siege of a holy temple and challenging the writ of democratic state.

Indian double standards was exposed when govt didnt do the same with hazrat bal dargah.

Also, brits were an occupying force from a foreign land where as blue star was a internal dispute.

Even today if someone challanges the state with arms then whole of india supports an armed intervention. Where as peaceful protests like anna hazare would never get fired upon.

[kaka_in_usa]

Re: Should we?

@KKF

btw, Bhagat Singh was an Urdu poet as well. here is a sample of his Urdu handwriting. he wrote famous ash’aar of famous/ustaad poets

i was stunned when i saw it for the first time. i had NO idea that he was a poet and that too in Urdu and he knew how to read, write and speak classical Urdu.

A lot of our freedom fighters were writers, poets and artists. They wrote in their jail time which later became the guide to follow after freedom.

Mahatma Gandhi, Jawahar lal nehru, Ram prasad bismil, Azad etc were all writers and poets.

I believe Mera rang de basanti chola was written by Bhagat singh himself.

In a civilized society the intelligentsia takes the initiative against oppression which was done well by our civil society.

[hareem01]

Re: Should we?

How about teach the kids the facts as they are....without portraying the Singhs as heroes or villains.