Does Pakistan have Sikh empire syndrome? (Ranjit's Empire)

[SpiritOf1903]

Does Pakistan have Sikh empire syndrome? (Ranjit's Empire)

Why do Pakistanis as majority Muslims and de facto Indian Muslims pre-secession, always put India down because the Mughals (a blasphemous, heretic dynasty so not necessarily Islamic) ruled the Hindu majority yet bury their head in the sand abut the fact the sikh empire had a hold; physically culturally - their emperor copulated on the Minaret in Peshawar with a Muslim woman and hung the citizens from it.

The Sikh empire commited atrocities against Muslims like no other before Britain ousted it. Brutality like no othe,through an occupation of sheer brutality and subjugation aided by Italian mercenaries.

Their cultural impact of all of what is now present-day Pakistan, or Punjab, which has a unfair stranglehold of a country while sidelining its bloodline,namely Balochistan and the North West is tainted by the sikhs.

Kashmir is a pawn used to deflect from the sugarcoating of an inherently corrupt political system, namely the commodity-hauling Sharifs and Punjabi-Kurds,. the Bhutto's .

It took the British Empire to defeat ranjit - whose statue defiles Pakistan's holy compound in Lahore- and Pakistanis now 'own' this key part of the history, with it being the strongest heritage having consumed all that is 'Pakistani'.

Do Pakistanis have Stockholm Syndrome or the equivalent, Sikh syndrome?..

 

[Major]

Could you plz be more clear in what you are trying to say.

Your title and than your op makes no sense as it hasnt been written to proper english

 

[ElRaja]

there was no pakistan during ranjits time, so how could his rule consume all that is "Pakistani"?

also please write in normal english, u seem to be trying to convey, i think, a fairly simple idea in needlessly convoluted language.

 

[moghul]

Could you plz be more clear in what you are trying to say.

Your title and than your op makes no sense as it hasnt been written to proper english

Thanks for asking him, the title is catchy but I could not make sense of what exactly is he trying to say , I read twice.

 

[Ummer Khan]

OP, could you please re-write your post after thinking it through properly. It makes no sense at all. I entered the thread with excitement, leaving with a bad headache. Thanks.

 

[topspin]

RIP English

 

[Kroll]

Somebody's been on an all mighty bender during these jubilee celebrations.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Apart from internet debates I can honestly say no Pakistani cares about Sikhs or Sikh empire nor has any hang ups over it.

In fact if you were to poll most laymen and ask them about Ranjit 85%+ would stare back at you blankly.

 

[TSA321]

Apart from internet debates I can honestly say no Pakistani cares about Sikhs

Apart from the OP.

 

[PakLFC]

Not at all. Most Pakistanis i assure don't give a damn about Ranjit Singh or Bhagat Singh for that matter. If anything at all it is the Sikh's who have a Pakistani syndrome big time. They would have worshiped Quaid Jinnah had he been a Sikh. From 1.40 on wards we can see how Sikh's who are well versed in history respect Quaid Jinnah.

 

[ghaint]

How times have changed. Now Sikhs are not very relevant in Pakistan, where most of their history was.

 

[Tera Gawaandi]

Why don't you live in present?

Maharaja Ranjeet Singh was a ruler, not a Sikh religious leader, in-fact he was flogged by Sikh religious body Akal Takht for atrocities and sins committed.

You know why he is still respected? as a child he survived small pox, lost eye sight in one eye. He had short height, never schooled. He lost his dad at 12, and mother at 18. Attempts were made at his life as early as at the age of 13. He rose to fame at the age of 17 when he resisted Abdali's invasion of Lahore in 1797.

If you think sinner like Aurangzeb was an ideal Muslim then yes Maharaja Ranjeet Singh was an ideal Sikh.

He is respected for his knowledge, strategies and he is son of soil.

 

[ghaint]

Sikhs and Muslims of Punjab have much in common except for the religion. Whether one past ruler was better than the other one does not matter much in the present world.

 

[PakLFC]

Everything in the subcontinent has religious undertones. Just look at India today where everyday there is fighting among the two communities. Where the RSS are finding temples under every ancient Masjid some 200 years after they were erected. Being non Muslim's Ranjit and Bhagat would probably have been against the creation of Pakistan had they been alive at the time. Always remember that Pakistan was established in the name of the Islamic faith.

 

[Ahmad-GERMANFC]

OP doesn’t know himself what he’s trying to say. And doesn’t seem to really understand Stockholm Syndrome it seems.

Anyways I think why the Sikh empire and Ranjit Singh are largely irrelevant in Pakistan Today is because 1) in grand scheme of things they didn’t rule that long, 2) there really aren’t many remnants of it or buildings or impact on culture

 

[SpiritOf1903]

So why does Pakistan bend over for them?

 

[ElRaja]

i still have no idea abt what OP is asking but ill take a stab at answering what i think OP is asking:

1. given Pakistan exists there is very little threat of sikhs ever ruling over these areas, or exploiting Pakistanis

2. Pakistan continues to harbour hopes of creation of a khalistan to undermine India and create a buffer state on its border and therefore....

3. Pakistan will continue to play up sikh history in hopes of galvanising a second khalistani movement someday

4. Pakistan makes money from religious tourism, and sikhs are an important part of this.

 

[WhenSultansBowled]

So why does Pakistan bend over for them?

Maybe because (same as Indian Muslims / Kashmiris) Sikhs are oppressed in fascist India?

 

[ghaint]

I do not think this is political when it comes to the common man. Of course the current government rulers will play it politically to gain some advantage. In the end nothing changes, because Sikhs are a minority in every country they are in, which makes them politically less relevant.
Regarding the OP question - East and Went Punjab have much in common. I think there is a natural connection and/or affection from people of punjab because of that. I do not think it has much to do with Ranjit Singh. I do not think people from non punjab areas of Pakistan have the same feelings about Sikhs due to no common Punjabi cultural connection.

 

[SpiritOf1903]

Maybe because (same as Indian Muslims / Kashmiris) Sikhs are oppressed in fascist India?

That's an absurdism. Why are Kashmiri Pandit not afforded the same pathos?

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

So why does Pakistan bend over for them?

If you are referring to the statue of the Ranjit Singh (?) in Lahore, I am already on record here as saying that I disagree with Pakistan erecting it. But it's not a massive issue either, so not really sure why you use such emotive language as "bend over for them" or Stockhom Syndrome. It's a part of Punjab history, maybe they just want to commemorate it as such. Not what I would do, but don't really care that much either.

 

[shaz619]

Ranjit Jobber Singh

 

[DeadlyVenom]

i still have no idea abt what OP is asking but ill take a stab at answering what i think OP is asking:

1. given Pakistan exists there is very little threat of sikhs ever ruling over these areas, or exploiting Pakistanis

2. Pakistan continues to harbour hopes of creation of a khalistan to undermine India and create a buffer state on its border and therefore....

3. Pakistan will continue to play up sikh history in hopes of galvanising a second khalistani movement someday

4. Pakistan makes money from religious tourism, and sikhs are an important part of this.

I think theres a genuine respect of Sikh punjabi culture/language too from Pak Punjabis.

The language reminds us of our own elders a bit, particularly those that moved during partition. Pak punjabi has been urdufied now.