Sikh organizations staging massive protests on Operation Bluestar anniversary - Radio Pakistan.

[Maula Jatt]

I'm saying people need to make up their minds. It's confusing to come across one view one moment and then the diametrically opposite view the next moment.

I have a consistent view - you can see it in every thread related to mughals

B- Pakistan as a state doesn't consider itself a successor state of mughals nor does even India - no one does

Are you going by what people are saying on the internet than it's mixed really

 

[Joe Shearer]

I have a consistent view - you can see it in every thread related to mughals

It was about the diversity of views, not necessarily from you individually, but from various quarters from time to time.

B- Pakistan as a state doesn't consider itself a successor state of mughals nor does even India - no one does

That is by a strict interpretation. Otherwise, the Crown Colony of India was set up by conquest of Mughal dominions, and it would by any reasonable legal understanding be considered a successor state of the Mughals, as the Mughals themselves might be considered a successor state to the Lodhi Sultanate, or the Suri Sultanate, depending on claims and counter-claims of the legitimacy of the Suri rule. The states of India and Pakistan were created by Act of Parliament of the British Parliament, and are successors of the Indian Crown Colony, therefore successors of the Mughals at one remove.

So whether we consider ourselves successors to the Mughals or not, we are in practical terms successors to their successors. Not that it matters in any useful way.

Are you going by what people are saying on the internet than it's mixed really

It is.

My question is, when we read such feverish and very angry posts, sent by people of all shades of character and configuration, what are we to make of these thoroughly mutually contradictory points of view?

 

[Sayfullah]

We_are_the_Mughals_and_their_heritage_is_ours days, is it?

That’s true not just that but heritage of every Muslim empire to walk this planet to this day.
A lot of propaganda has been spread about them but it doesn’t matter, majority like 90% of Pakistanis consider it their heritage including me.

I am Aurangzeb, I am Bin Qassim, I am Ghaznavi, I am Abdali

(I don’t support hate towards any religion, but I will continue to claim heritage of all Muslim empires to exist)

 

[Joe Shearer]

That’s true not just that but heritage of every Muslim empire to walk this planet to this day.

There you go, @Sainthood 101.

Ek dhundo to sau nikal aate hain.

 

[Sayfullah]

I'm saying people need to make up their minds. It's confusing to come across one view one moment and then the diametrically opposite view the next moment.

Pakistan IS THE SUCCESSOR.
The Jihad for Pakistan started in 1857 against the British occupiers.
The last Mughal ruler helped us in our Jihad against British. Even though 1857 rebellion ultimately failed, it changed the history of the whole subcontinent. Even though the idea of Pakistan wasn’t even brought up then but that was the start of Pakistan movement.
There will always be a Muslim state in the subcontinent that will be successor to the previous.
Bahadur Shah left us the torch, we brought it to its destination.
If other then Pakistan any other Muslim state was born in the subcontinent it would have been rightly successor as well.
Our struggle began in 1857!

It was about the diversity of views, not necessarily from you individually, but from various quarters from time to time.

That is by a strict interpretation. Otherwise, the Crown Colony of India was set up by conquest of Mughal dominions, and it would by any reasonable legal understanding be considered a successor state of the Mughals, as the Mughals themselves might be considered a successor state to the Lodhi Sultanate, or the Suri Sultanate, depending on claims and counter-claims of the legitimacy of the Suri rule. The states of India and Pakistan were created by Act of Parliament of the British Parliament, and are successors of the Indian Crown Colony, therefore successors of the Mughals at one remove.

So whether we consider ourselves successors to the Mughals or not, we are in practical terms successors to their successors. Not that it matters in any useful way.

It is.

My question is, when we read such feverish and very angry posts, sent by people of all shades of character and configuration, what are we to make of these thoroughly mutually contradictory points of view?

Pakistan is majority Muslim right?
Mughals were a Muslim empire right?
British were occupiers right?
The partition of the subcontinent originally was between Pakistan and india a Muslim state and ‘secular’ state right?
Pakistan was part of historical Mughal empire right?
Pakistan has Mughal historic sites right?

So everything adds up to us being Mughals successor.
We aren’t successor of a occupier, we are successor of a Muslim state who brought prosperity to the region.

India IS NOT successor to Mughals because a secular state cannot be successor to a Muslim state.

 

[Maula Jatt]

There you go, @Sainthood 101.

Ek dhundo to sau nikal aate hain.

every country in the world can have different ways of looking at history
don't you have massive differences within India - right-wing looks at history one way left-wing another

why can't Pak have those differences in views? we are not the first country to have that nor will we be the last - do you consider Pak to be a successor state of Mughals? does GOP consider it? what does the world think?
so many variables involved

to say hey some of yall have one view, others have another (which is normal in many countries) and use it to somehow - one day say we are the oppressors or their crimes are ours to carry while another day when someone says we ruled you for 1000 years statement, you laugh it off, cause you do not acknowledge that connection

if you think along those lines- even yall then have to make up your minds

 

[Sayfullah]

At the time of decisive war with India Sikhs of Indian Punjab will side with Pakistan to take revenge of the desecration of Darbar Saheb.

 

[Sayfullah]

does GOP consider it?

Pakistan IS THE SUCCESSOR.
The Jihad for Pakistan started in 1857 against the British occupiers.
The last Mughal ruler helped us in our Jihad against British. Even though 1857 rebellion ultimately failed, it changed the history of the whole subcontinent. Even though the idea of Pakistan wasn’t even brought up then but that was the start of Pakistan movement.
There will always be a Muslim state in the subcontinent that will be successor to the previous.
Bahadur Shah left us the torch, we brought it to its destination.
If other then Pakistan any other Muslim state was born in the subcontinent it would have been rightly successor as well.
Our struggle began in 1857!

https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLcAPTl-NPAsvVayXxZe5424TD94KqN-u0

Ispr official YouTube posting our history since 1857 and mentioning Bahadur Shah the last ruler of Mughals in it and mentioning him as someone who worked for our independence which we ultimately got.
So it shows ISPR considers Pakistan to be Mughals successor.
Also both government and ispr and everyone in Pakistan agrees that British were occupiers. We literally got our freedom from British. How can we be successor to an occupier? If we say we’re successor of British India that means we’re still a colonial state because we succeeded an occupier. The Muslim empire over the subcontinent before that which was occupied by British is Mughals.
So Mughals we’re occupied by British and British gave us freedom. British in 1857 destroyed Mughals finally and got rid of them. So what does all this mean?
It means we are successors to Mughals because it was Sultanate of Mughals before British occupied it with force. We got freedom from British occupation who occupied Mughals so we are successors of Mughals.

 

[PradoTLC]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1533657639489609731

Sikh organizations staging massive protests on Operation Bluestar anniversary

June 06, 2022

The Sikh organizations are staging massive protests and rallies on occasion of 38th anniversary of the operation blue star by Indian forces of the golden temple in Amratsar today.
In a statement President Dal Khalsa Harpal Singh Cheema said we are undertaking an Azaadi March in Amritsar to pay homage to Sikh heroes who fought till their last breath.
On other side security has been beefed up in Amritsar city by deploying along with the city police, four additional companies of paramilitary forces, 1,500 Punjab Armed Police personnel.
Operation Blue Star was the codename of a military operation carried out by Indian security forces between 1 and 10 June 1984 in order to remove Damdami Taksal, Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale and their followers from the buildings of the Golden Temple, the holiest site for Sikhs.
This operation was aimed to suppress the Khalistan movement of Sikhs.
According to media reports thousands of civilians were killed in the notorious operation involving several divisions of Indian army and paramilitary forces and even tanks.

Sikhs should have a independent home land

 

[El Sidd]

How can Pakistan think of trade with such fanatical genocidal country?

 

[El Sidd]

Both sides of border like aalo gosht shayad isliye

The industrialists will always long for such trade. It is not desirable to have them a say in policymaking.

 

[Joe Shearer]

every country in the world can have different ways of looking at history
don't you have massive differences within India - right-wing looks at history one way left-wing another

Of course we have differences in the ways we look at history, in India. Here, however, I was asking you and your fellow-posters how to deal with your differences, not why there are differences among yourselves.

why can't Pak have those differences in views? we are not the first country to have that nor will we be the last - do you consider Pak to be a successor state of Mughals? does GOP consider it? what does the world think?
so many variables involved

Already have explained there is no interest in knowing why there are differences in your viewing of history. The only question is how to deal with these gusts of anger and righteous indignation, as they are of such contradictory types.

If we were concerned with the point of view expressed by the GoP, this conversation would not be taking place. Our diplomatic service, neutered though they are, would have been talking to your diplomatic service, neutered though they, in turn, are. We could concern ourselves then with selecting the popcorn that should assist the resultant close scrutiny of these diplomatic conversations that might follow.

to say hey some of yall have one view, others have another (which is normal in many countries) and use it to somehow - one day say we are the oppressors or their crimes are ours to carry while another day when someone says we ruled you for 1000 years statement, you laugh it off, cause you do not acknowledge that connection

May it then be concluded that our response to these misguided and misdirected, ah, gusts of anger should be a continuing ripple of laughter? That certainly will be a matter of huge relief of pressure for our blood circulation mechanisms.

 

[Joe Shearer]

if you think along those lines- even yall then have to make up your minds

Ah, think along what lines? Did you mean that if we are confused how to answer your divergent points of view, and seek guidance, then you too are confused by our divergent answers, and want to know from us, in turn, how to answer, then I must gently but firmly stop you immediately.

That is plain Whataboutery.

Ispr official YouTube posting our history since 1857 and mentioning Bahadur Shah the last ruler of Mughals in it and mentioning him as someone who worked for our independence which we ultimately got.
So it shows ISPR considers Pakistan to be Mughals successor.

@Sainthood 101

Also both government and ispr and everyone in Pakistan agrees that British were occupiers. We literally got our freedom from British. How can we be successor to an occupier? If we say we’re successor of British India that means we’re still a colonial state because we succeeded an occupier. The Muslim empire over the subcontinent before that which was occupied by British is Mughals.

@Sainthood 101

You might want to point out to jackasses gentlemen who have curious ideas about state and nation, and who trot out this argument, that if the acceptance of Dominion status, not freedom, from British India is unacceptable, then the basis of the foundation of Pakistan in the British parliamentary act is null and void, and the existence of the country is then based on a non-event.

 

[Joe Shearer]

So Mughals we’re occupied by British and British gave us freedom. British in 1857 destroyed Mughals finally and got rid of them. So what does all this mean?
It means we are successors to Mughals because it was Sultanate of Mughals before British occupied it with force. We got freedom from British occupation who occupied Mughals so we are successors of Mughals.

<sigh>

@Sainthood 101

Please ask this distinguished professor of history from the WhatsApp University of Liberal Arts how the Mughals got there in the first place, other than by occupying the Sultanate of the Lodis (or, if they prefer, the Sultanate of the Suris). If the British claim to rule is invalid because of the forcible displacement of the Mughal rulers, the Mughal claim to rule is invalid because of the forcible displacement of the rulers whom the Mughals displaced (Lodi, or Suri).

 

[El Sidd]

Off topic posts should be deleted. The Indian tactics should be ignored.