08-20-2005, 01:00 AM
Bharatvarsha asked whether they were Hindus against Sikh riots.
My thoughts are as follows. This is without prejudice to what Mudy wrote earlier in response to my posts. This is also without any bitterness whatsoever. So please don't try to explain, rationalize or otherwise respond in a confrontational manner.
Much time has passed since then and emotions of today are far different. I don't want to open old wounds
1. They weren't riots as we understand the term "riot." I would call it a massacre.
2. Most Hindus believed that Sikhs needed to be taught a lesson. This was the prevalent feeling of the time.
3. Even though they believed (2), they would add that it was perhaps overdone.
4. Hindus usually said "Had we given you (the Sikhs) 3 days you would have caused more mayhem. (P.S. I don't see that as a compliment).
Mudy wrote:
"neighbors were not involved in killing each other"
This is most probably false in trans-Yamuna areas where most of the killings took place. Whether or not they killed, they (the neighbours) did loot and burn. I know that for a fact.
Mudy further wrote:
"Infact they went all the way to protect Sikhs. Hindus were patrolling streets with lathies 24 x 7. "
The first statement is partially true. There are two parts to that statement.
1. Many good Hindus did protect Sikhs out of the goodness of their hearts. They even lied to the marauding mobs.
2. Many protected them because their property shared a common wall or something and a fire would have damaged all houses/businesses in the neighbourhood.
As to the statement about Hindus patrolling streets with lathies 24 x 7. The only reason I have heard they did so was not because they were protecting Sikhs but they feared retaliatory attacks by Sikhs. Again, that's the version of the truth I've heard and yours may be different but it doesn't make me wrong.
Hence my belief is that
(a) at that time, it was Hindus against Sikhs, not just Congress against them.
(b) at this time, a majority appears to be ashamed of what happened.
My thoughts are as follows. This is without prejudice to what Mudy wrote earlier in response to my posts. This is also without any bitterness whatsoever. So please don't try to explain, rationalize or otherwise respond in a confrontational manner.
Much time has passed since then and emotions of today are far different. I don't want to open old wounds
1. They weren't riots as we understand the term "riot." I would call it a massacre.
2. Most Hindus believed that Sikhs needed to be taught a lesson. This was the prevalent feeling of the time.
3. Even though they believed (2), they would add that it was perhaps overdone.
4. Hindus usually said "Had we given you (the Sikhs) 3 days you would have caused more mayhem. (P.S. I don't see that as a compliment).
Mudy wrote:
"neighbors were not involved in killing each other"
This is most probably false in trans-Yamuna areas where most of the killings took place. Whether or not they killed, they (the neighbours) did loot and burn. I know that for a fact.
Mudy further wrote:
"Infact they went all the way to protect Sikhs. Hindus were patrolling streets with lathies 24 x 7. "
The first statement is partially true. There are two parts to that statement.
1. Many good Hindus did protect Sikhs out of the goodness of their hearts. They even lied to the marauding mobs.
2. Many protected them because their property shared a common wall or something and a fire would have damaged all houses/businesses in the neighbourhood.
As to the statement about Hindus patrolling streets with lathies 24 x 7. The only reason I have heard they did so was not because they were protecting Sikhs but they feared retaliatory attacks by Sikhs. Again, that's the version of the truth I've heard and yours may be different but it doesn't make me wrong.
Hence my belief is that
(a) at that time, it was Hindus against Sikhs, not just Congress against them.
(b) at this time, a majority appears to be ashamed of what happened.