1984 Anti-Sikh Riots

why is it hard for the world to digest the fact that a country of the hindus wants to become hindus(and of other indian-born relgions with due respect). Why do u wanna stop us. It would be a homeland and a father for the all the hindu races of the world. I m a pakistani hindu, and we dont have a father nation. Whom shall we depend on--''nepal''??!! We need a land for all hindus united and safe in their area. Th partition has happened, now we want our right. There have been more number of hindu-killings in india then in current pakistan. Are we hindus not safe in our own land??? I m a sindhi, by ancestaral 5000 yr old ancient hindu land is now under pakistan and mohajirs, i cant do anything. We feel scared to go to the temple. bUT WHEN WE CAME TO BOMBAY WE COULD see MUSLIMS ROAMING ABOUT FREELY AND EVEN SOMETIMES KILLING HINDUS!. If today after 1200 yrs of supression we want to speak out for our rights--the missionaries and islamic forces want to stop us!!
to achieve a full hindu india it is but necessary to stop  the terorist operations and the missionaries. If for that if i had to be fundamentalists--then yess i would be. I accept that i m an extremist! because i believe my cause is right. The missionaries brainwash average local hindus, who have no knowledge about sanatana dharma. This has to stopped. We are a poor nation to go around preaching vedas in every nook and conner, so it hink it would be best to shoot down every missionary and terrorist. I think islam is right in its terrorism. It believes in its fundamentals and is protecting its people and land, if u ponder over what has been done to them. We can place ourselves in that context, and if we analyse the situation--then i believ it is essential for every hindu to be fanatic, fundamentalist and freedom fighter or as others may call it terrorist.
My uncles and all came to bombay many years back. The most stunning event we have witnessed is that, they were been injured in mumbai(india) during the riots of hindu-muslims, and we are safe here in karachi(paksitan). I feel like laughing at the situation of the hindus. I m not here to speak agaisnt any religion, but to ask for a land for our defense and not to offend others. We juss wanna defend ourselves in our land. Nagaland has become christian n demands a new state! tamil nadu has massive christian population--when will a second swami-vivekananda come?? when will there be a new dayanand saraswati!! its we hoo can make it possible!!
fight o ye all the hindus, unto the last drop of your blood is yet fresh red!!
har har mahadev!
raaj karega khalsa aake rahe naa koi!
jai jinendra!
budham sharanam gachami! dhamam sharanam gacchhami! sangham sharanam gachhami!

i appologize for the comments--but its true!
i sincerely do applogize but have no regrets for what i have writen
i have just written what i feel is rite
i spoke for a land which i believe should be mine and where i feel free
if it has hurt any one then i do appologize sincerely.
i have no hostility towards any other religion or race, but i spoke for the defense of me and my people.
In any case if it has hurt any one, then i appologize genuinely.

The nationalism on this board is just growing and growing...

Originally posted by Master_Blaster The anti-Sikh riots were a government pogram anchored by vigilantes of the Hindu right. These Hindu extremists were also responsible for the anti-Muslim rights in Gujurat in 2002 and the anti-untouchable and anti-Christian violence which occurs regularly there.

Whoever this Master blaster is, he does'nt know about India. The riots were orchestrated by the Congress (indira gandhi,s party). Everybody who is in India or knows about India knows who is the nationalist party. A the time of the riots & ever since, the nationalist party has been the only one which has fought for the rights of the affected sikhs.

And further the parties blamed for the gujarat & sikh riots are entirel different & opposite. So much for your similarity.

Master blaster, you should at least use the google to do some homework before making posts.

Originally posted by Jay. Yes, the Khalistan movement and the violence it entailed claimed the lives of a total of 11,694 civilians between 1981-1993, including 7,139 Sikhs, or so says Wikipedia.

The killed fell into three categories :

1.   Terrorists
2.   Police forces
3.   Innocents massacred by the terrorists

Originally posted by malizai_ Originally posted by Anujkhamar An engineering report has said that the train seelf-ignited or something simlar, and was not torched. I have seen another report that says some muslims were harrassing thetrain but never lit it. The Gujaratis back then rioted because they THOUGHT muslims killed innocents in the train. Although dispicable, this form of retaliation i would expect from any nation. Wouold there not be hate crimes in England if muslims torched a train (or so they thought)?   With all due respect, i dont want to seem to be splitting hairs. But I dont think the use of the term Gujratis is accurate in the given context. Since a large section of Gujratis are muslims themselves. The term used should be hindu extremists, rather than the Gujrati community.

Malizai, your logic is right, but unfortunatley the practical situation in india is different.

A hindu could call himself a gujrati or Punjabi or Malyalee or telgu or whatever depending upon the origin, but a muslim would call himself a muslim. That's the tragedy in india

Their are numerous other examples for eg. it is common amongst Muslim communities to celebrate the victory of pakistani cricket team over Indian cricket team.

Many of them refuse to sing vande mataram, which is the national song of india. Their are n number of fatwas to that effect.

Their were many instances of sweets being distributed in Muslim neighbourhoods after the serial bomb blasts killed hundreds of hindus in Mumbai & after the hindu pilgrims were torched to death in Gujarat. What do you expect from a resurgent hindu community in such cases?

The present President of India is truly secular, a top Space Research Scientist, a very popular personality specially among children and was acceptable to all the parties. I am sure he did not win even a single vote on the basis that he is a Muslim candidate and he is equally popular among all the people of India.  I am curious to know if BJP would have supported Shahi Imam of Jama Masjid as a Muslim candidate for the post of president to show that they are a nationalistic party? Certainly not.

Edited by AP Singh - 13-Sep-2006 at 08:28

And the most learned one possibly.

Thanks for deleting the double post.

There would be bad people everywhere. Just that both Indian's & Pakistan's populations have mistaken the bad people for good & vice versa.