That is a shallow remark, singularly lacking in perception and knowledge.
The reference to Direct Action Day was surely hint enough; it was not intended to hurt, but to remind ourselves that the Sikhs were in the forefront of the battle against the Muslims in the streets of Calcutta. Some of the bloodiest deeds were theirs. It is fatuous to think that they have any feeling of kinship with Bangladeshi Muslims, or with Muslims for that matter. Starting at this late point, one can go back further in history, until it emerges clearly, beyond the ability to fool oneself, that the Sikh religion started as a sect, and developed the completeness and unique sense of purpose that defines a full-fledged religion largely due to the excesses of the Muslim governors of the region, egged on by the discomfort of the Mughal emperors starting with Jahangir.
There is not much to add to that, besides the usual catcalls and barnyard imitations that some members seem to think define a good post.
The remark about remembering Khilji presumably means Bakhtiyar Khilji's attack and conquest of the Pala capital. This has nothing to do with the issue under discussion, and one must conclude that this gratuitously offensive remark was intended to be part of the inevitable chorus of catcalls and barnyard imitations that we must brace ourselves for.
This last remark is again singularly fatuous.
There is no effort at linking earlier posts to this conclusion. There is no effort, in the first place, at engaging with those earlier remarks. Perhaps that is asking too much, for it does seem on closer examination that the strong point of some posts is a witty remark, a seemingly witty remark, made in a vacuum. Wit for the sake of it, with no before or after.
Pity.
