I regret my post obviously butting in between a post between two good friends on a innocious article by Rohin – I’ll lighten up. Apologies to Sunny and Rohin.

By the way – Happy New Year.

Justforfun

Ps on the Indian Constitution – I agree its a mess , but I would change it for other reasons. In the future ( but it will be a long time coming) religion should have no part in it. It throws up too many anomolies that can be used to trap people who want to be individuals and India will become more individualistic as time passes. It is the nature of the idea and I personnally think it is an unstoppable idea.

While injustice occurs everywhere in the India and in fact the world; simply stating that one regions injustice should not be tackled because it exists everywhere is not sufficient.

If you get there before me and the worst happens, can I ask for you to be a guest judge? I hope so.

Justforfun

Neet , Roobz etc etc – You want justice form the Indian Government – well get in line and don’t queue jump! You’re not the first people to be screwed and you won’t be the last, but don’t for one moment think that you are unique or share no blame. There are a few people on this site who actually grew up on the sub-continent and I sometimes think we must all have faulty memories because the picture painted by many 2nd generation British Asians ain’t what I remember. You paint a picture of the Hindu majority in charge of all arms of the stae apperatus, being some sort of unified group going around fucking up minorities. It just aint so. India is a continent full of minorities, and by birth the majority might be Hindus – Hinduism ain’t a unified faith in your understanding of religions. A Hindu from Kashmir will have little in common with a Hindu from Kerala. What they will have in common is how their fellow Indians treate them depending on where and to whom they were born. The reality is the people at the top, no matter what their religion, f**ck the people at the bottom . Don’t think the Sikhs at the top did not do their fair share of f**king the guys at the bottom during the 80’s. It might make you feel better to think you are in Britain because you are exiled “freedom fighters” on a tactical withdrawal, and it is just mundane for your self esteem to think you are here for economic gain , but that is the reality for the vast majority of British Asians. I can only think of the Ugandan Indians being the only innocents here for fear of their lives – oh and Benezir Bhutto of course – as innocent as Snow White.

My comments were addressed to Sunny and I have no problem with debates with him and others who read what is written but I really can’t be bothered with those who can’t be bothered to read a few words of English. Something a few 2nd generation British Indians seem to forget – India is more than the Punjab and Gujurat or Vikrant’s hormonal exploits in South Bombay (although I await each episode to compare notes), which now appear to be on hold, or is it now Vikrant on Tour – lets hope so.

Thanks

but Hindus like justforfun

Justforfun isn’t a Hindu. If memory serves, he’s a Parsi or an Iranian (JFF, please remind me).

but this relentless painting of Sikhs as a whole being innocent victims is just creating myths that will do no one anygod in the long run

Pointing out the state’s complicity in a religious pogrom = ‘relentless painting of Sikhs as victims’

What putrid sophistry.

The people who paint themselves as the biggest victims in modern India are Hindus, who despite constituting 85% of the country, constantly cleave to extremist right wing politics, carry out intermittent genocides of minority groups most recently in Gujarat, and have a self image of a race under constant attack and victims of a 3000 year old conspiracy to destroy them.

This relentless and poisonous mythmaking is the most vile and horrible and sinister aspect of modern India, but Hindus like justforfun have little to say about it. Quite amazing.

(b) providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus.

Explanation I.- The wearing and carrying of kirpans shall be deemed to be included in the profession of the Sikh religion.

Explanation II.- In sub-clause (b) of clause (2), the reference to Hindus shall be construed as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jaina or Buddhist religion, and the reference to Hindu religious institutions shall be construed accordingly.

So the constitution states that Sikhs plus Buddhist and Jains are referred to as Hindus. Hmm kind of contradicts the title of article 25;
“Right to Freedom of Religion
25. Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion”.
However the same article (25) offers another explanation (bearing in mind Sikhs,Bhuddists and Jains are all seen as Hindus)
Explanation I.- The wearing and carrying of kirpans shall be deemed to be included in the profession of the Sikh religion.
Pretty inconsistent to say the least, one minute Sikhs are granted freedom to wear a kirpan and then they are told they will be referred to as Hindus!

Still the British leaving it 4 days before announcing the partition lines takes some beating in cowardice. How many people perished in that 4 day period?…….

pre partition

“…the brave Sikhs of Punjab are entitled to special considerations. I see
nothing wrong in an area set up in the North of India wherein, the Sikhs can also experience the glow of freedom.” (Jawahar Lal Nehru, Lahore Bulletin, January 9, 1930)

nehru’s ‘darkside’
“…the individual known to common Indian masses as chacha (uncle) Nehru, the so-called messiah of peace and secularism, was, in fact, the main architect of anti-Sikh policies and practices, in India and abroad” (Dr
Harjinder Singh Dilgeer)

warnings to sikhs
“You have seen the Hindus as co-slaves and you will know when they will be your masters and you (the Sikhs), their slaves”
(Mohammed Ali Jinnah, Quid-e-Azam

post partition
” The Sikhs are a lawless people and a menace to the law abiding Hindus … The [Government] should take strict measures against them.” (Pandit Nehru, Indian Prime Minister, on Sikhs)

“Kya main taqat dushman (the enemy : the Sikhs) ke haath main de dun (How can I entrust power into the hands of the enemies).” (Jawahar Lal Nehru, 1961)

@Neet: Indian government DOESNT regard Sikhism as a sect of Hinduism. Its just that Sikhs, Buddhist nd Jains have to register their marriages under Hindu marriage laws, because most rituals/customs blah blah are similar. I dont see Buddhists nd Jains having any beef with it. It is just a gross misrepresentation of Indian govt. laws. Constituaionally Hindu is defined as an adherent of Vedas,which which Sikhs clearly arent.

Its funny to see all the ethnic groups in India compete for the victim card!

I would once have said Han Solo obviously but the Jedi are a bloodline and religion based cult.

Malcolm X gets a citation for willingness to change.

MLK and Gandhi both had interesting sex lives. (as in the Chinese curse – one was blackmailed by J. Edgar Hoover for playing away, the other found the best possible way to publcily proclaim celibacy)

“For instance, one negative outcome of the Bengali based nationalism of the struggle was that whilst it was not hard to remind people that it is or should be wrong to discriminate between bengali Hindu and Muslim, ethnically different minorities in the Hill Tracts had to endure a violent conflict for many years -and this partly started because of the way the post-liberation govt. defined national identity.”

: Yes it was Yayha Khan on top of the chain of command closely abetted by Bhutto (and they in a tangible sense were enabled by Nixon/Kissinger). No doubts there. The Liberation war Museuem is a good place to start http://www.liberationmuseum.org.bd/ plus Legacy of Blood: Maschareneas. Banglapaedia not so detailed – better to talk to a few 60 year olds. http://banglapedia.search.com.bd/HT/A_0167.htm

Thing is there were only 90000 or so Pakistani troops with many penned in Dhaka, so a helluva a lot of the 9 month war’s killing was by collaborators such as Al Badr and similar death squads. (including the intellectual death lists)

The ‘can of worms’ aspect is that active collaborators were of course only a tiny % of the civilian population – but it was politically convenient after the war to blame Biharis (non-Bengali speakers)as a community and seize their property.

This was partly true as yes people from minority ethnic communities did collaborate with the Pakistani soldiers, BUT so did a fair number of ethnic Bangalees. (Not of all whom because they were extreme members of Jammat either, some just motivated by misguided loyalty to their then passport)

So while the Bangladesh Liberation struggle is an inspiring struggle (dig out John Pilger and David Frost if you ever go to the BFI archives) and the secular left constitution established by the struggle was a good thing, reality and truth is more complex.

For instance, one negative outcome of the Bengali based nationalism of the struggle for instance was that whilst it was not hard to remind people that it is or should be wrong not to dicriminate between bengali Hindu and Muslim, ethnically different minorities in the Hill Tracts had to endure a violent conflict for many years -and this partly started because of the way the post-liberation govt. defined national identity.

Tricky stuff this history lark. And the most difficult part for Bangladeshis is that if history is written by the winners, every one of the top criminals of 1971 got away with it. (Bhutto at least did get hanged but it was for something different and by the way, the main reason his hangman Pakistani military dictator Zia-ul Huq does not feature prominenetly in lists of Pakistani top brass responsible for massacres in 1971, was because he was seconded to the Jordanian army at the tme, helping to put down the same Palestinians that many Pakistanis now purport to get excited about)

India claims to be the worlds largest democracy-yet its constitution fails to see Sikhs as distinct from Hindu’s (they regard Sikh’s as a sect of Hinduism).

Partition split the Punjab specifically and as a result left many Sikh families homeless yet when presented with opportunities to have a separate nation during partition Sikh’s chose to stay unified with India. Had we chose to build a separate nation would the 1984 attack have happened? Some Sikh’s feel let down and betrayed by a government they fought for turning round on them and mutilating their fellow Sikhs.

The Indian constitution, its laws and monopolization of power have had different effects on different communities; namely empowering the dominant ethnic community (a common feature in postcolonial states in Asia and Africa).

While India may preach one nation, they have rendered many ethnic groups devoid of power or influence.

Yes Sikh’s are prevalent in the army and indeed it was KPS Gill who co-ordinated the attack on Harmandir Sahib but that does not take away from the fact that injustice exists. There are British Soldiers fighting in Iraq for a war that the majority of the country doesn’t want.

In addition no other province has exported so many of its people abroad to extent that Punjab has; especially during the last three decades (Tatla, 1999). Being in the Sikh Diaspora more specifically as the daughter of a previous Indian Army Officer (who’s Father and Grandfather fought for India) it is personally saddening to see how the Indian Government repays loyalty. So perhaps Sikh human rights may not be of interest to you but there is no doubting the fact it played a pivotal role in why many Sikh’s moved away from the promise of one nation.

Wasn’t it?

(genuinely ignorant. Would appreciate a link)

I was taught in school that it was Yahia Khan wot done it