What's new

Mass Graves of Sikhs killed in 1984 Sikh Genocide discovered after 26 years.

NOT ENOUGH

Are you ok? passing one liner judgements!

We had already discussed this apology too. Coming from a Sikh PM apologising to the Sikh community for the genocide symbolically a bad move that leaves bad taste. it would have been better if Gandhi family or a Non-Sikh leader should have apologised.

Not at all, its symbolically very apt that a Sikh made it to be post of PM of india and then the PM of India apologised on behalf of the govt. Not at all symbolic, he IS the PM of India, into his second term now.
 
Abir according to the article Sikhs are classified as Hindus not a separate faith

and some points in this article are very contradicting to freedom religion

freedom of religion in India’s Constitution (Article 25) reads as follows:


Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion -

(1) Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion.

(2) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the State from making any law -

(a) regulating or restricting any economic, political or other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice;

(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.

Here Hindu is used as a geo-political term, not as the religion which is Sanatana Dharma.

When it mentions Sikh along with Budhhist and Jain as religions, that means it acknowledges them as separate religion.
 
My religion is 500 years old but my country is 5000 years old. I’m thankful to waheguru that the dream of Khaaali stan never came true because I can’t even imagine myself as not the part of this great nation called Bharat.

Nations could be formed on bases of languages, colour , race, and other thousand of reasons which bring divide among individuals but how could ever nation be formed on bases of religion which is just a matter b/w individual and God. I can say I’m a sikh(one of the rivers flowing in great sea of the hindu religion) but how could ever say we are sikh because in matter regarding God and individual none is allowed to be a representative of group of people.

Whatever happened in 1984 was not a hindu vs sikh clash/genocide. It was congress vs sikh clash. The culprits will get punishment one day. But I would like to thank the Nationalistic organizations like RSS for helping in saving lives of Sikhs from congress mobs

But the divide that 1984 created could still be seen. Yesterday some census counting officials came to my house and I was sad to see that they have separate coloumns for sikhs and hindus and I have to fill any one of them. These sort of things are done at the will of SGPC who will always try to create a divide b/w hindus and Sikhs only to get red lights on their cars. They are needed to be taught a lesson. They are publishing advertisement urging Sikhs to mark their religion as sikh in census form. They are not stopping at that but also urging Marathi sikhs to mark their mother tongue as Punjabi. Now wouldn’t this gave shivsena an oppurtunity to spread hatred?
 
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.


The article clearly mentions sikhs, jains and buddhists as a separate religion. only for the sake of the act they are included in the term hindu. your interpretation is mischievous and does not stand the test of legal scrutiny.
 
Here Hindu is used as a geo-political term, not as the religion which is Sanatana Dharma.

When it mentions Sikh along with Budhhist and Jain as religions, that means it acknowledges them as separate religion.

1. Geo-political term? can you also mention Muslims in India as category of Hindus as geo-political term in Indian Constitution ??

NO you cant. its surely is NOT a geo-political term

. Because if it was like that then Sikhs would not have been struggling for getting the separate faith status since 1950.

They still are waiting for Separate Sikh Marriage laws which were abolished after independence and replaced with Hindu Marriage act.

This article is indeed clubbing Sikhs as Hindus in the faith section.
 
1. Geo-political term? can you also mention Muslims in India as category of Hindus as geo-political term in Indian Constitution ??

NO you cant. its surely is NOT a geo-political term

It doesn't mention Muslims because it is a geo-political term. Islam is Semitic religion, not Indian/Hindu.
 
1. Geo-political term? can you also mention Muslims in India as category of Hindus as geo-political term in Indian Constitution ??

NO you cant. its surely is NOT a geo-political term

. Because if it was like that then Sikhs would not have been struggling for getting the separate faith status since 1950.

They still are waiting for Separate Sikh Marriage laws which were abolished after independence and replaced with Hindu Marriage act.

This article is indeed clubbing Sikhs as Hindus in the faith section.

More lies, Sikhs ARE a separate religion, their institutions can be registered as minority status, the census ticks their religion as sikh.

Your interpretation is completely incorrect and any person with a smattering of legalese will tell u that.
 
I find it ridiculous --- all the Indians, Sikhs and non-Sikhs unanimously agree it was a sad,regrettable chapter in Indian history where a political experiment went terribly wrong and the Pakistanis as usual shedding their crocodile tears for the Sikhs.

Go to other threads and you will find them cursing them for Partition violence. So much for their sympathy.
 
The article clearly mentions sikhs, jains and buddhists as a separate religion. only for the sake of the act they are included in the term hindu. your interpretation is mischievous and does not stand the test of legal scrutiny.

first of all that is not my interpretation please ask your legal experts and ask them why they called Sikhs as Hindus in Constitution .

here is what Indian Supreme Court ruling in 2005 says





Supreme Court of India: Sikhs "Part of Wider Hindu Community"

By S.S. NEGI

The Tribune, New Delhi, Aug. 11, 2005

In a significant ruling defining the status of communities like Sikhs and Jains within the Constitutional framework, the Supreme Court has declined to treat them as minority communities separate from the broad Hindu religion, saying encouraging such tendencies would pose a serious jolt to secularism and democracy in the country.

'The so-called minority communities like Sikhs and Jains were not treated as national minorities at the time of framing of the Constitution. Sikhs and Jains, in fact, have throughout been treated as part of the wider Hindu community, which has different sects, sub-sects, faiths, modes of worship and religious philosophies,' a Bench of Chief Justice R.C. Lahoti, Mr. Justice D.M. Dharmadhikari and Mr. Justice P.K. Balasubramanyan said.

Disposing of an appeal by Bal Patil and others against the Bombay High Court order, seeking direction to the Union Government to notify 'Jains' as a minority community under Section 2C of the National Commission for Minority Act, the Bench said: 'We do not find that any case is made out for grant of any relief to appellants in exercise of writ jurisdiction of the High Court and, hence, the writ jurisdiction of this (apex) court.'

The High Court had rejected their plea.

Quoting from the provisions of the Constitution and the historic background on how the Constitution had come into existence after Partition, the court said: 'Encouragement of such fissiparous tendencies would be a serious jolt to the secular structure of the constitutional democracy.'

'We should guard against making our country akin to a theocratic state based on multi-nationalism. Our concept of secularism, to put it in a nutshell, is that the state will have no religion,' the Bench held, while asking the National Minorities Commission to 'gear up its activities' to keep all religious groups in right direction with 'constitutional perspective, principles and ideals in its view.'

Mr. Justice Dharmadhikari, writing the judgement for the Bench, said the Constitution had clearly laid down that 'the state will treat all religions and religious groups equally and with equal respect without in any manner interfering with their individual rights or religions, faith and worship.'

The court said in various codified customary laws like the Hindu Marriage Act, the Hindu Succession Act, the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act and other laws of the pre- and post-Constitution period, the definition of 'Hindu' included all sects, sub-sects of Hindu religion, including Sikhs and Jains.

It said if the argument for recognising every religious group within the broad Hindu religion as separate religious minority was accepted and such tendencies were encouraged, 'the whole country, which is already under class and social conflicts due to various divisive forces, will further face divisions on the basis of religious diversities.'

'Such claims to minority status based on religion would increase in the fond hope of various sections of people getting special protections, privileges and treatment as part of a constitutional guarantee,' the court said adding 'a claim by one group of citizens would lead to a similar claim by another group and conflict and strife would ensue.'


full report The Sikh Times - News and Analysis - Supreme Court of India: Sikhs "Part of Wider Hindu Community"
 
I find it ridiculous --- all the Indians, Sikhs and non-Sikhs unanimously agree it was a sad,regrettable chapter in Indian history where a political experiment went terribly wrong and the Pakistanis as usual shedding their crocodile tears for the Sikhs.

Go to other threads and you will find them cursing them for Partition violence. So much for their sympathy.

Two different things and topics. nowhere the forum rules stop us from discussing an issue here.
 
The fact remains that sikhs did not get justice yet. The point that it was not a hindu vs sikh violence is hardly of any consolation to the victims.
Secondly:
Not many sikhs condemn the murder of Indira Gandhi by their bodyguards. Riots do not wash away the wrongs that the body guards did.

About khalistanis: They were reported as militants before. Now militant/terrorists.
 
It is good that the mass grave of the Sikhs was discovered, but that should not be concluded that this is the "one and only" mass grave of Sikhs. Indian Forces killed thousands of Sikh youth during the Khalistan Movement Peak in the 80s and 90s.

Pakistan needs to bring these attrocities up at the UN, OIC and EU Parliament, if India tries again for the UN Permanent Seat again.
 
i am happy that this kind of incidents doesn't dilute my patriotism for my country.i am indian first
 
It is good that the mass grave of the Sikhs was discovered, but that should not be concluded that this is the "one and only" mass grave of Sikhs. Indian Forces killed thousands of Sikh youth during the Khalistan Movement Peak in the 80s and 90s.

Pakistan needs to bring these attrocities up at the UN, OIC and EU Parliament, if India tries again for the UN Permanent Seat again.

Pakistan was responsible for the bloodshed through their support to militants. You are hardly in any position to take this to the UN, not when your own Sikhs are moving to India.
 
Back
Top Bottom