Wapsi (The Returning)

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?