Kashmir protests and killings

[mrggg123]

10 minutes ago, CEO said:

Damn Pakistani people can't get enough. They ruined their country, now trying to ruin another region. If only we were able to demolish these people. 

its not always the people, its mostly the gov and armies and their egos. Lets not forget India are no saints themselves. 

[Jonny101]

2 hours ago, Jacfsing2 said:

Why do some Sikhs expect helping the Muslims would benefit us in anyway? All we have to do is a see a BasicsOfSikhi video featuring a person Muslim debate to see that they really won't be friendly. What will they, (Muslims), do to Sikhs when they get yet another country for themselves? (Our people bow way too much to Muslims these days, just look at that Sunny Hundal).

When did I say help Muslims? But Kashmir issue is a very important issue for all of South Asia. And Punjab is right next door to all this. We are currently living at times which will have very serious future consequences. All of the Muslim population of Kashmir is in rebellion. Indian army has 7 lakh soldiers stationed there. India is currently being ruled by the most hard-line Hindu politician(Modi) who has a reputation of using violence against Muslims which is partly the reason Hindus in India elected him. Muslim Jihadis are also getting more extreme and confident especially due to their successful Jihad in the middle East and in Afghanistan. Both of these extreme elements(Hindus & Muslims) are headed for a clash. And that clash will be over Kashmir. Next few years we might see chaotic like situation in the Indian Sub continent.

[CEO]

2 hours ago, mrggg123 said:

its not always the people, its mostly the gov and armies and their egos. Lets not forget India are no saints themselves. 

India is even worse. What is Government, army made up of? People. And these people infuence other people. They then start forming up as "people" rather than the government etc. The people are just as "bad" as any government. 

[Jonny101]

10 hours ago, Preeet said:

Exactly, why do they need Kashmir when they can't even take care of their own Pakistan. They just want to spread their illogical laws as far as they can while doing kabza on lands which were never theirs to begin with. 

You know, the same can be said of India

[Guest Jacfsing2]

13 minutes ago, Jonny101 said:

You know, the same can be said of India

The Bharat that our people died for doesn't even exist in the modern world, when India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh would be one country, and our people wouldn't lose most of their land from Hindus and Muslims.

[Jonny101]

3 hours ago, Preeet said:

It isn't at the same extent as in Pakistan though, and Kashmir is and always will be in India.

Define India? If by India you mean the artificial state that the British created in 1947, then no. But if by India you mean a continent of independent nations and regions as it always has been historically then yes I agree with you much like Europe is a continent with many independent nations and regions. One just needs to read Mahabharat and see what was the geography of India back then. It was never an artificial one nation centralized state as it is now. Bharat was full of independent kingdoms. Back then Punjab was called Madhardesh

[StarStriker]

1 hour ago, Jonny101 said:

Define India? If by India you mean the artificial state that the British created in 1947, then no. But if by India you mean a continent of independent nations and regions as it always has been historically then yes I agree with you much like Europe is a continent with many independent nations and regions. One just needs to read Mahabharat and see what was the geography of India back then. It was never an artificial one nation centralized state as it is now. Bharat was full of independent kingdoms. Back then Punjab was called Madhardesh

great post! Btw, who gave panjab the name panjab? Was it genghis khan? Coz i know that it was formerly called the sapt sindhu (land of 7 rivers), which is panjab + sindh

[Guest Jacfsing2]

1 hour ago, Jonny101 said:

Define India? If by India you mean the artificial state that the British created in 1947, then no. But if by India you mean a continent of independent nations and regions as it always has been historically then yes I agree with you much like Europe is a continent with many independent nations and regions. One just needs to read Mahabharat and see what was the geography of India back then. It was never an artificial one nation centralized state as it is now. Bharat was full of independent kingdoms. Back then Punjab was called Madhardesh

Why was Punjab so easily conquered before Dhan Dhan Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji? Indo-Aryans, Greeks, Persians, Afghans, and Mughals, now the British and Indians, as well as Pakistan owned Punjab, all seemed to have their ownership of Punjab.

[Jonny101]

38 minutes ago, StarStriker said:

great post! Btw, who gave panjab the name panjab? Was it genghis khan? Coz i know that it was formerly called the sapt sindhu (land of 7 rivers), which is panjab + sindh

Punjab itself is a Persian name. So it was probably named that by Muslim conquerors or maybe even by the pre Islamic Persians who also sometimes extended their rule over Punjab. And the Persian name has remained till this day. The Indian based name was Madhra or Maderdesh. Guru Gobind Singh Jee also calls this land as Madherdesh in BachiterNatak(ਮੱਦ੍ਰ ਦੇਸ਼ ਹਮ ਕੋ ਲੈ ਆਏ||)

 

35 minutes ago, Jacfsing2 said:

Why was Punjab so easily conquered before Dhan Dhan Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji? Indo-Aryans, Greeks, Persians, Afghans, and Mughals, now the British and Indians, as well as Pakistan owned Punjab, all seemed to have their ownership of Punjab.

Punjabis fought against Greeks. But once the invaders became Muslim, the Punjabis whether they were Hindus or the newly converted Muslims were no match for them. The central Asian invaders had broken their fighting spirit. Only the Gurus Bani had the power to reignite Anakh and self respect in Punjabis

[StarStriker]

3 hours ago, Jacfsing2 said:

Why was Punjab so easily conquered before Dhan Dhan Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji? Indo-Aryans, Greeks, Persians, Afghans, and Mughals, now the British and Indians, as well as Pakistan owned Punjab, all seemed to have their ownership of Punjab.

Its not a coincidence that when the tribes of panjab become sikhs, that the indigenous population of panjab finally put a stop to outside invaders. What makes me laugh is how panjabi muslims have been the majority community in panjab for many centuries now (600+yrs), yet they havnt once been rulers of panjab, and were subservient to mughals/afghans, who all treated em like sh!t, yet it was under kuffar sikh kingdoms were they left alone.