Taliban beheads two Sikhs in Pakistan

[Tronic]

Taliban beheads two Sikhs in Pakistan

Peshawar/ Islamabad: Two Sikhs who were kidnapped over a month back have been beheaded by the Pakistani Taliban in the country's restive tribal belt in a brutal act by the militants.

Some more members of theminority community are still in the custody of the rebels.

The body of Jaspal Singh was found in the Khyber tribal region, located a short distance from the provincial capital of Peshawar, while the body of Mahal Singh was found in the Aurakzai Agency, sources told PTI tonight

There was confusion about the total number of Sikhs who were kidnapped for ransom from the Bara area of Khyber Agency by the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan. A source said four Sikhs were abducted while another report said the total number of kidnapped persons was six.

The Sikhs were kidnapped 34 days ago and the Taliban had demanded Rs30 million as ransom for their release. Two of the kidnapped Sikhs were beheaded after the expiry of the deadline for the payment of the ransom, sources said.

Gurvinder Singh and Gurjit Singh are still in the custody of the militants, sources said.

The kidnapping occurred in an area where there the government has virtually no control and the militants are in a dominant position, sources said.

A sizeable number of Sikhs lived in the tribal belt, particularly Aurakzai Agency, till the Taliban imposed ‘jiziya’ or religious tax on them last year. Most members of the community then fled to cities across Pakistan.
Taliban beheads two Sikhs in Pakistan - dnaindia.com

The ironical thing about the Sikhs in the tribal belt are that by tribal laws, they are officially denied the right to carry weapons, which is for them a religious duty (to be able to carry arms to protect themselves and others); since the Sikhs have always been a minority. Don't know how they can live in a place like that, persecuted, unarmed and unable to defend themselves. They should all move out of the tribal belt for their own safety, or even better to move out of the country altogether and migrate to India.

[axeman]

The ironical thing about the Sikhs in the tribal belt are that by tribal laws, they are officially denied the right to carry weapons, which is for them a religious duty (to be able to carry arms to protect themselves and others); since the Sikhs have always been a minority. Don't know how they can live in a place like that, persecuted, unarmed and unable to defend themselves. They should all move out of the tribal belt for their own safety, or even better to move out of the country altogether and migrate to India.

Exactly what I was thinking when I read that. I can't understand why anyone would chose to live somewhere where their lives are under a very real, and constant threat.

[Tronic]

Exactly what I was thinking when I read that. I can't understand why anyone would chose to live somewhere where their lives are under a very real, and constant threat.

Hard to leave ones home I guess, another factor is probably money, they are probably too poor to migrate, and their livelihood probably depends on their land. Though, these guys are just the remaining few, numbering a few hundred. I know most Afghani Sikhs migrated in mass numbers to European countries back in the 90s when the Taliban took over. The tiny number that retain some influence are mostly up north, in places like Baghlan; Northern Alliance areas. Last year, the Afghan person of the Year, was also a Sikh lady from this region. Though, in turbulent places like that, persecution of minorities is still very real. Think the Indian government should open up its borders for these guys, and allow them to settle in Punjab. Punjab government should be more than willing.

[Cactus]

Think the Indian government should open up its borders for these guys, and allow them to settle in Punjab. Punjab government should be more than willing.

Second that. Its useless to register protests and outrage against such... Just get these people out and help them settle down with dignity as soon as possible. At least some of them are Pathan Sikhs, who generally hate leaving their hills so I am sure HP and UT can also help some settle down in environs they are used to (won't hold my breath for J&K to help... though it would definitely be a great gesture if they did). Afghan Sikhs and Hindus, who were mainly from trading communities, were much more mobile and willing to relocate to cities etc.

[axeman]

Think the Indian government should open up its borders for these guys, and allow them to settle in Punjab. Punjab government should be more than willing.

I think the government/local authorities had allowed some Pakistani Hindus and Sikhs to enter India and then overstay their visa, a sort of tacit approval of their permanent residence. I'm not sure whether a full-fledged program for their rehabilitation has been pushed through.

On the other hand, such a system could bring in 'undesirables' from Pakistan. It's not an easy thing to do for the government.

[pChan]

I think the government/local authorities had allowed some Pakistani Hindus and Sikhs to enter India and then overstay their visa, a sort of tacit approval of their permanent residence. I'm not sure whether a full-fledged program for their rehabilitation has been pushed through.

On the other hand, such a system could bring in 'undesirables' from Pakistan. It's not an easy thing to do for the government.

These people are not being persecuted by the Pak govt, they are being persecuted by the Taliban. And the taliban also persecute other Muslims/Afghans. Looks like religion is the only argument to let them in.........

[axeman]

These people are not being persecuted by the Pak govt, they are being persecuted by the Taliban. And the taliban also persecute other Muslims/Afghans. Looks like religion is the only argument to let them in.........

They are being prosecuted by the Taliban with the Pakistani government standing by and doing absolutely nothing. Whatever the reason for that may be (and whoever else is getting targetted), the fact that they're not getting any help from Pakistani authorities is the only thing that matters.

As for religion playing a part - sure it is. Another thing is that a lot of the people seeking asylum in India are Hindus and Sikhs who feel that their existence is threatened in Pakistan.

[hammer]

Looks like religion is the only argument to let them in.........

If you insinuating, Indians are sympathetic because they are Sikhs, think again. 1971, we hosted close to a million Muslim Bangladeshis.

[pChan]

They are being prosecuted by the Taliban with the Pakistani government standing by and doing absolutely nothing. Whatever the reason for that may be (and whoever else is getting targetted), the fact that they're not getting any help from Pakistani authorities is the only thing that matters.

As for religion playing a part - sure it is. Another thing is that a lot of the people seeking asylum in India are Hindus and Sikhs who feel that their existence is threatened in Pakistan.

So do you mean to say that anybody irrespective of religion persecuted by the Taliban is welcome in India? Or in other words India should have a generous asylum policy?

[pChan]

If you insinuating, Indians are sympathetic because they are Sikhs, think again. 1971, we hosted close to a million Muslim Bangladeshis.

And how are those Bengali refugees different from the Afghan refugees in Pakistan? Pakistan was known to use them for its own designs on Afghanistan, same could be said about India, except that the outcome of such an endeavour was not an extremist beast. It could be argued that their value is not merely humanitarian but "strategic" too.

[hammer]

And how are those Bengali refugees different from the Afghan refugees in Pakistan?

Why are we even talking about Afghan refugees in Pakistan? They are not the one's paying Jizya tax and getting their heads sawed off, are they?

Pakistan was known to use them for its own designs on Afghanistan, same could be said about India, except that the outcome of such an endeavour was not an extremist beast. It could be argued that their value is not merely humanitarian but "strategic" too.

India hosted a million Bengali refugees during 1971 and still hosting millions more who cross over for a living. So where is the strategic BS you were harping on?

And how about the hundreds of thousands of Tibetan Refugees? or Srilankan Refugees (a large chunk of them are Christian btw) ? All strategic value, huh?

[hammer]

So do you mean to say that anybody irrespective of religion persecuted by the Taliban is welcome in India? Or in other words India should have a generous asylum policy?

Anybody who wants to flee religious presecution by the Taliban and "want" to seek asylum in India should be welcomed. So far it has only been Sikhs and Hindus. Christians might follow.

[pChan]

Read carefully, I wrote not merely humanitarian.

India hosted a million Bengali refugees during 1971 and still hosting millions more who cross over for a living. So where is the strategic BS you were harping on?

Indian help to refugees of Bangladesh undoubtedly had humanitarian considerations, but they played into Indian objectives. If I am not mistaken, the whole rationale for the war was refugees wasn't it? And the breakup of pakistan was one of the finest moments in Indian strategic policy-making.

And how about the hundreds of thousands of Tibetan Refugees? or Srilankan Refugees (a large chunk of them are Christian btw) ? All strategic value, huh?

I only referred to the bangladeshi refugees of 1971. As for the others, I don't know for sure if the Indian govt finds strategic value in them. Do the refugee camps of Tamils offer some sort of influence over the tamil people in sri-lanka? maybe, maybe not, but what I do know was the sri-lankan govt did not like Indian meddling w.r.t IPKF.

This article gives an insight into the way India looks at refugees. It's pretty ambivalent, unlike how you make it sound.

I don't see these actions as malevolent or for that matter purely strategic move with no humanitarian considerations.

That these calls for giving them shelter is motivated by religion is obvious. My question is if a lot of muslims are persecuted by the Taliban in Pakistan(say under the same circumstances that the sikhs are facing now), will the Indian govt give them refuge too?

[hammer]

Read carefully, I wrote not merely humanitarian.

I read what you implied .... you are trying to give a reason for the humanitarian help rendered by India to Bangladeshis inspite of them being muslims.

Indian help to refugees of Bangladesh undoubtedly had humanitarian considerations, but they played into Indian objectives.

This is what I meant. You are trying to find reasons for any Humanitarian action that India takes. Let me ask you a question, lets assume that your point as valid for a second, why does India still host millions of Bangladesh's on its soil, even today ? Why haven't we kicked them out despite our so called "objectives" already being met during 1971 itself.

Note that the majority of these Bangladeshi illegals in India are "muslims".

If I am not mistaken, the whole rationale for the war was refugees wasn't it?

Hmmm... so PAF attack on Indian Airfields was not rationale enough ? Arming the Mizo rebels in the North east was not rationale enough for the war. 1971 would've happened anyway, even without the refugees.
Also note, Indians had not forgotten Operation Gibralter (1965).

And the breakup of pakistan was one of the finest moments in Indian strategic policy-making.

That was just icing on the cake.

I only referred to the bangladeshi refugees of 1971. As for the others, I don't know for sure if the Indian govt finds strategic value in them. Do the refugee camps of Tamils offer some sort of influence over the tamil people in sri-lanka?

You tell me. The war in Srilanka is over and they are still here. If India had wanted some sort of influence over the Tamil people in Srilanka, the LTTE would not have lost the war.

maybe, maybe not, but what I do know was the sri-lankan govt did not like Indian meddling w.r.t IPKF.

Irrelevant to the topic here.

This article gives an insight into the way India looks at refugees. It's pretty ambivalent, unlike how you make it sound.

Well you see, India has a free press and everyone can voice their opinion. Do you want me to google up pro-refugee articles and post it here ?

That these calls for giving them shelter is motivated by religion is obvious.

No, its not.

My question is if a lot of muslims are persecuted by the Taliban in Pakistan(say under the same circumstances that the sikhs are facing now), will the Indian govt give them refuge too?

My question is, would they want to take refuge in India?

Btw... you style of arguement reminds me of someone who used to post here in WAB. ;-)

[calass]

I think to argue that India does not discriminate on religion wrt to refugees is a losing argument. Sure India has many illegal Bangladeshis in India but they are certainly not welcome as is obvious by the fence being created around Bangladesh and where the border guards shoot to kill(a very wrong practice for a democracy but that is another topic). Compare this with Nepal with whom India has an open border and millions of whose citizens are in India without cries of demographic changes as is the case with Bangladesh. Similarly hundreds of thousands of Sri Lankan Tamils(mostly Hindu with some Christians) are in India again with no cries about demographic changes.

I believe even Pakistanis are treated differently in India based on religion..Hindus and Sikhs are allowed to overstay visas(unofficially of course) while Muslims are chased down.