The Delhi Walla hangs out with a dancing girl of Lahore’s Heera Mandi



Heera Mandi, Lahore’s fabled red light district, is almost dead. Most dancing establishments have shut down. The courtesans no longer pretend to be mere dancers. Operating as full-fledged sex workers, they have set up discrete bases in the city’s other areas where they solicit clients on cell phones.

The mujra woman at a heera mandi kotha

However, tonight as The Delhi Walla is walking in a Heera Mandi street, while the moon is rising above the minaret of the grand Badshahi Mosque, I can hear the music of dholaks and harmoniums, and the tinkling of womens’ pajebs (anklets).

The Delhiwalla with a heera mandi madam

Once, Mughal princes courted the Heera Mandi’s virgins. The feudal families of North India sent their young sons to be trained under the guidance of the Heera Mandi ladies. They were expected to learn the style of fine Urdu conversation, to appreciate the nuances of Hindustani classical music and to get well versed in the art of lovemaking. But now times have changed. Heera Mandi is merely another red light district where men go only for sex, not for music and poems.

Stepping into an establishment, I find a lady sitting on a sofa. Her face is gleaming with layers of makeup. Dressed in a parrot-green kurta and mullah shalwar, she is wearing one necklace and two finger rings. On the floor, her musicians are waiting for customers. I try talking to her but she is refusing to tell me her name. She is not saying where she has come from. But now she is getting up to dance for me. She is the last of the Heera Mandi legend.

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (6 votes, average: 3.83 out of 5)
Loading ... Loading ...
  • http://- Rajeev

    Soofi may come back to India with a bride and possibly HIV.

    [Reply]

  • Mystic

    Another interesting , ugly facet of big city. We all know about heera mandi , one just has to write mujra on youtube to be befaced with this harsh reality of pakistani society. I wonder if you would visit the birth place of Guru Nanak and post some pics from there. You may interview , now in minority , Sikhs in and around that place and if rumours of Jazia tax they pay, is true???

    [Reply]

    Rajeev Reply:

    No..No..No..how can muslims be communal? Muslims in pakistan regularly visit gurudwaras and consider Nanak equal to Mohammad.

    [Reply]

    Salman Reply:

    Muslims have great regard for Baba guru Nanak but muslims dont consider anyone equal to Muhammad PBUH

    [Reply]

    Rajeev Reply:

    You should. Infact Nanak was far better than Mohammad.

    Salman Reply:

    Look..Do u know Guru Nanak has written poetry in which he praised Muhammad. Go and read that…Guru Nanak has also performed hajj. Many of his teachers were muslims. Any how I dont expect from non muslim to have a faith in Muhammad.

    Kishore Reply:

    To praise someone is a sign of humility.It is a saintly quality because a saint always see others as more saintly.When Nanda Maharaj asked Sri Krsna to fetch his sandals He would bring them on His head.But that does not mean that Sri Krsna is inferior to Nanda Maharaj.If Muhammad was so great why don’t we see any greatness in his followers.The only thing I see is more death,misery and sufferings brought on by his followers.A Guru is known by the quality of his disciples.The Sikh community is infinitely more peaceful therefore Sri Guru Nanak is a genuine spiritual master.

    Roop Reply:

    why is this thing being connected to any religion??? Both sikh and islam are high in their own place.
    I am a hindu brahmin boy, but I have read almost all religious books. Nowhere is written that our religion is higher. the only common teaching of all religion is love all people and you will be loved.
    There is no mention of any other religion being looked down upon or is lesser. it’s some nonsense religious leaders who are preaching nonsense stuffs. friends everyone has to die, what is the use of dying before actual death or killing others. also regarding the lady from the Heera Mandi, this is their profession, one of the oldest profession in the world. even if someone will dance infront of us, we will enjoy as well. so what to fight for? JUST ENJOY !!!!!

    Sunil Reply:

    Salman.. there has been a question that has always intrigued me. Answer it honestly… Non muslims refer to others as Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, Jains, etc… But muslims refer to non-muslims as INFIDELS…. why??

    Salman Reply:

    In Urdu, infidels means kafir. Correct me if I m wrong…Kafir comes from word Kufir. Kufir means deny and Kafir means some one who denies. Thus Infidel means someone who denies in oneness of a God, Its holy prophets, angels, Holy books, Day of Judgement etc..

    So non muslims should not be offended by calling thmeselves as Infidels by muslims cos they deny…

    The word “Infidels” is also present in christianity.

    Rajeev Reply:

    You see Nanak praised Mohammad and even performed Hajj but have muslims ever returned the favor. The 99.9999% sikhs consider heathen Mohammad as respectful as true noble soul Nanak but you consider heathen Mohammad supreme.

  • David Karush

    Today the Chinese emassador to India said that the Indian press has to change its negative behaviour against its neighbor. Every time some one wrote in Indian news papers about Pakistan, the Indian shows their hate blogging and putting down others.. No one is perfect including Hindus, Muslims, Christians. In fact Hindus has lot of strange practices but they love to throw rocks on others while they are living in glass house.

    [Reply]

    Rajeev Reply:

    BS

    [Reply]

  • Major (Retd) Virendra Sharma

    Mohamad, Nanak, Budha, Mahavira all are same. Why fight? Must we fight every time some thing is written about the people we praise? Can’t we be good Human beings for a change? Did not all of then teach us compassion, love and understanding? Then, why the hell, terrorists in the name of Islam creating terror every where? Where did Mohmad say to kill innocent/ Think over.

    [Reply]

    Rajeev Reply:

    Sorry, Nanak and Budhha never indulged in violence and rape like MOHAMMAD.

    [Reply]

    Raghav Reply:

    I agree wholeheartedly with you. The main problem is that of intolerance and appreciation of different points of view.

    This is where the Muslims falter… most of these ignorant Muslims, whp have never gone deeply into the teachings of Holy Quran or other holy scriptures, exhibit this intolerant attitude.

    My dear Muslim Brethern, you have every right to say what you think is right, BUT, you must give same rights to others as well!

    S

    [Reply]

  • Naveed Khan

    Guru Nanak was a great spiritual leader. His book is amalgamation of what he learned from Islam, Hinduism and many other religions and deities. Comparing him to Mohammad is not right. When Mohammad brought the divine message the world was very different. Muslims can never consider Nanak sb, as equal to Mohammad. Islam accepts all the prophets and has always respected other divine religions. Muslims consider Sikhism as a divine inspired religion because there is no idol worship in it. Sikhism is a lot closer to Islam than Hinduism.

    [Reply]

    Rajeev Reply:

    But Mohammad was a rapist and child molester so how can he be equal to Nanak. Vo to nanak ki peir ki dhool bhi nahi hai…

    [Reply]

    Mystic Reply:

    Religion and god is and should be personal choice not enforced. Again all religions teach how to love each other. I comes down to the preacher what they preach’s the listeners. He may call all kafirs or he may call all as also fellow citizens. Baba nanak must have done hajj but remember god is not at any one place , book or stone. He lives in everyone , you , me and everyone. Har surat which tazveer rub di hai ( everyone has god in him) If we think like this we would love everyone. Dil main hai tasveer-e-yaar , sir jhuka aur dekh le. ( The picture of your god/the supreme/the loved one , is in your heart. Bend your face down and look though it).

    One word Coexist.

    [Reply]

    Salman Reply:

    Mystic Bhai…You r really soofi and I too belive in Soofism.

    summana Reply:

    mystic it is really a relief to read your post after all the venom spewed posts. calling dreadful names to saints and prophets of other religions simply shows where you are placed in life and the upbringing you have had.

    Rajeev Reply:

    Did Mohammad not rape 9 year old Ayesha?
    Did he not force his adpoted son to give his wife Zainab to Mohammad?

    Can you deny this?

    If Mohammad was alive today, he would be rotting in jail for child molestation and rape.

    summana Reply:

    that ayesha was 9 years old is part of the deliberate controversy generated by the western world to defame mohammad and as of the adopted son part ,i have never heard of him. the only zainab i know of in Islamic history is the grand daughter of the prophet, the sister of hussain who was matyred in Karbala.Rajeev may i know why you hate muslims, so much so that you do not hesitate to abuse the port Iqbal who has given us Saare Jahan se Achha and whose literary greatness is unquestionable? I have been part of that generation where hindus and muslims have grown up together..No muslim in his sane mind would justify mindless killing of innocents but do try not to look at history or even the present situation from a biased perspective.

    Mystic Reply:

    First, I think, it wasn’t rape Abu Bakar (Ayesha’s Father) married her to Mohammad. Secondly she was 12 years old not 9. Today in jail , he might be out numbered by many still practicing child marriage. I am not praising Mohamed but, he was in a society 1400 years old. We still see child marriages happening all around us , don’t we??? Again there are good and bad everywhere, depends on what you hear /read and want to believe in. Love life and people you see. Life’s too short to have grudges , enjoy it while you can.

    Salman Reply:

    First we dont worship Muhammad. Muhammad was not a God but meseenger of a God.

    And as far as Ayesha (R.A) is concenred, she was already engaged with someone else before getting married to Muhammad and she has already passed her puberty and this was recorded. And this is the reason that worst enemies of Muhammad didnt object the marriage of Muhammad with Ayesha at that time. And there is also a dispute abt her age too at the time of marriage with Muhammad.

    No..Muhammad didnt force his adopted son to divorce. Infact he told him not to divorce his wife.

    Rejeev..its very easy for me…really very easy for me…to say any thing abt ur animals God..Like Hanuman (Monkey), Ganesh (Elephant), Rats, Snakes, Cows. Sorry I forgot Shiva Ling..And U wat is Shiva Ling…and their stories from their Births to their sexual intercourse..

    I leave this to you..

    No one has a right to point a finger on a private life of some one…Even I can point a finger on private life of ur parents..

    Rajeev Reply:

    Go ahead and curse Hindu gods. Hinduism will survive even without gods but can Islam exist without Mohammad.

    Mohammad married a child and that’s a fact so don’t give spin to the facts.
    Mohmmad made adoption illegal in Islam because he himself forced his adopted son to give his wife Zainab to Mohammad.

    Mohammad was a pervert and sex addict and nothing else.

    Salman Reply:

    Although I can abuse Hindusim but I will not do..Litsen Carefully…We muslims know Muhmammad better than u.

    Just 50, 60 years ago in Indian Subcontinent, it was very common to marry 12-13 years of girls. This was not only in India but even in the USA and rest of the world. And I dont have a single doubt in my mind that your own forefarthers too have married in that age.

    Again, Muhammad didnt force his son to divorce his wife. He actually told him not divorce her. And I know better than u.

    Salman Reply:

    Muhammad had 11 wives altogether. 4 women out of 11 at the time of marriage with Prophet Muhammad were above the age of 60. 10 women out of 11 at the time of marriage with Prophet Muhammad were either widowed or divorced and these women had thier own children from their prevoius husbands. Most of these women were poor and Prophet married them to took care of them and there were also political reasons behind some marriages.

    The only virgin was Ayesha (R.A) who got married to Muhammad. It was clear that she has crossed her puberty and this was recorded.

    Look at ur own religon where women had been sati from thousands of years and u point fingers on rights of women of others religon.

  • http://www.aaref.com/2010/04/02/news/the-delhi-walla-hangs-out-with-a-dancing-girl-of-lahore%e2%80%99s-heera-mandi/ The Delhi Walla hangs out with a dancing girl of Lahore’s Heera Mandi | Arif's Blog

    [...] Most dancing establishments have shut down. The courtesans no longer pretend to be mere dancers. Read more…Runaway Negligence | Fine wine, oysters and Euro-despondency var addthis_language = 'en';var [...]

  • Jehan

    Sunil. Infidel or Kafir simply means one who does not believe or rejects. It is so called because from Islamic point of view they reject the ideology

    [Reply]

  • answer

    Sunil,
    I dont know about other religions, But not all christians /Jews are called infidels , you have got your fact wrong,
    basically anyone who does not worship allah and ascribes partners to him is an infidel in front of GOD, We as muslims obly follow what we believe is truth,you are welcome to practice anything you want, but every sould will be answerable to God on the day of judgement, And you will be questioned about all the partners you have ascribed to God,(mainly idols)
    Even christians have done the same mistake by calling “Jesus the Son of God”God does not need a son, if he needed one, then why one”
    Jesus and Mohammed are Gods messengers, nothing more,
    when people did not listen to Jesus’s teachings , God had to send Muhammad, But as we know, humans are always thankless and still question the existence of God

    [Reply]

    Sunil Reply:

    Your reply smacks of arrogance typical of Islam. “every soul will be answerable to God on the day of judgement…” Hindus do not believe in the day of judgement.. So it is irrelevent to them.

    “Even christians have done the same mistake by calling “Jesus the Son of God….” Again judgemental and arrogance… Ask any Christian if they think they are mistaken by calling Jesus ..Son of God. You are free to believe whatever you want… but please do not impose your beliefs on people who follow other religions. Do not find faults in their beliefs.

    Another question for you….. In Islam a man can divorce his wife by saying “Talaq” 3 times. As simple as that. Can a woman do the same?? Give a simple reply please.
    Cheers

    [Reply]

    Salman Reply:

    Saying Talaq 3 times is not a proper way of Talaq in Islam..In Islam, if someone has to dicorce his wife, he will give First Talaq at one time. Then he will wait for 3 months. If he still doesnt want his wife, He will give the 2nd Talaq. He will wait for further 3 months. If still he doesnt need his wife, then he will give 3rd Talaq. Thus 3 talaq takes roughly 6 months. This is the proper way of giving Talaq 3 times in Islam..

    But in India, Pak, muslims give Talaq 3 times in same time. Some sects of muslims believe in this way, Talaq could happen though they believe this is not a proper way and some sects say Talaq cant happen by saying 3 times at one time.

    Although god has given the option of Talaq but God doesnt like Talaq.

    The woman can give Talaq to her husband if this right has given to her at the time of marriage.

    [Reply]

    Sunil Reply:

    “The woman can give Talaq to her husband if this right has given to her at the time of marriage”. What a laugh!!! How often is this right given to the woman at the time of marriage?? Be honest in your reply.

    I am going to put you in spotlight….. If you are married, have you given this right to your wife or if you are single… will you give this right to your future wife?? Again .. be honest in your reply..!!! please..
    Cheers

    Sunil Reply:

    Its a personal question… feel free not to answer it..!!
    Cheers

    Salman Reply:

    A woman can put a condition at the time of marriage that she will have a right to give Talaq, if not agreed by her future husband, then she can refuse to marry. Many woman do this

    Second, a woman has full right to take divorce from husband in Islam.

    answer Reply:

    believe whatever you want,
    say whatever you have to say, i am not your dad to teach you things now, it is too late in life for you,
    At least muslims do not kill female foetus,divorce is prevalent across all races and religions,
    talaq is the most unaccepted practice in Islam,we do not use gas bottles to kill our wives for dowry,we do terminate pregnancy when we find out there is girl in the womb,talaq is better than killing someone,you have many goddess’s , but your treatment of women is medieval

    [Reply]

    Rajeev Reply:

    Yeah..ask your dad Osama..You people behead people, kill foetus of kafirs..Most heathen people on earth.

    Sunil Reply:

    You guys only strap bombs on your self and kill innocent people on streets on tuberails, on buses.. all because you’ll get 50 (??) virgins when u go jannat…. (sic!!)

  • NADEEM

    Sunil, Can u please explain what is meant by NRI? At least we do not add “non” prefix to a mulsim living in any part of the world. Also our broader deifinition of nation is based on islam hence anyone not part of this has a prefix non. One of the reason that other do not use it is they are not really convinced by their religion as it will prove a weak basis for their unity that is why they use other definitions.

    [Reply]

    Sunil Reply:

    Nadeem… I’m scratching my head and trying to understand what are you trying to put across.

    [Reply]

    Rajeev Reply:

    It is ENGLISH quran style.

    [Reply]

    Sunil Reply:

    Rajeev… that was funny man!!!

    Mystic Reply:

    NRI: Non- Resident Indian . He could be Hindu , Muslim, Sikh etc….. Religion doesn’t matter in that. If you were born in India and live out side India, thats what you are called. Its not a bad terminology. Its just to classify certain group of people for logistics/census purposes. Besides one may get out of India , but one can’t get India out of himself. Not sure what part of world you belong to, but from your question and you explanation, i can safely assume you can’t be Indian.

    [Reply]

  • Narender

    nice reply by Salman ..Rajeev is kind of fantic. But Salman one thing is there ..as no religeon should offend others same way not religion should need its followers to defend itself.
    Like all the great things of time ..a true religeon will survive on its own.

    Why we see people pointing fingers on first place ..and then we we see people killings kaafirs ..just because they are wrong in analysing islaam !!

    This is alos not done !!

    [Reply]

    Salman Reply:

    I agree with u Narender

    [Reply]

    Rajeev Reply:

    Please visit site of Prophet Ali Sina (PBUH) faithfreedom.org to know reality of Mohammad.

    [Reply]

    Sunil Reply:

    Narender…. Rajeev has a point in his statements. He is not fanatic. Perhaps you are being naive. I don’t know how much you have encountered Islamic practices.. but the religion is barbaric, medevial and full of threats. I have worked in a muslim country and I have encountered their practices first hand.
    No respect for women what so ever, kill anyone who doesn’t agree with your idealogy, kill any muslim who leaves islam, kill, kill, kill, kill……… their aim is to kill all infidels including you to create a global khaliphate where the law of sharia is enforced. Watch out mate… !!!
    I can accept my brother/sister/son/daughter marrying any community but NEVER EVER A MUSLIM..!!! Would you??.. be honest..!!

    [Reply]

  • Raghav

    A Nice piece about this dying institution of ” Courtesans of Heeramandi” has been turned into an Inslam Bashing exercise. What nonsense is this? My Hindu freinds like Sunil & Rajeev should not stoop so low as to bring basic philosophy of Hinduism to shame. Hinduism teaches, tolerance, respect , and healthy respect for different points of view including atheism. Muslims by and large are intolerant and rabid , let us teach them a lesson through our virtues. We need not join them in the shouting match!

    [Reply]

    summana Reply:

    who is shouting mr raghav?scroll up and u will find the answer.rajeev’s writings give me an insight into a rioter’s mind. it is people like these who kill and rape.he has just heard some half truths and is wasting everybody’s time by getting worked up on that.

    [Reply]

    Rajeev Reply:

    You can rave and rant all you want but you can’t change the facts about Mohammad.

    I admire Mohammad for being a great politician, leader and warrior but he was morally bankrupt.

    [Reply]

    Salman Reply:

    The leaders of non believers of Makkah have asked Muhammad through his uncle Abu Talib that if you (Muhammad) need a wealth, they are ready to make him the most wealthiest person of the Arab, And if he needs to be a king, they are ready to accept him thier king and if you want a beautiful woman they are ready to give him the most beautiful woman of the Arab but you must have to stop preaching of oneness of a God.

    The prophet replied if you put sun on my one hand and moon on my other hand, still I will stop preaching of oneness of a God and he refused.

    [Reply]

    Salman Reply:

    * correction…I will not stop preaching of oneness of a God

    Rajeev Reply:

    He refused because he aimed for ALL the wealth of ARAB world. Wasn’t he a caravan bandit?

    Salman Reply:

    Non believers of Makkah forced muslims to leave their houses and their belongings in Makkah and muslims were forced to migrate to Madina. After their migration, non believers captured their houses, their belongings and every things which muslims left. So muslims have tried to take on the caravan of the very same people who have looted thier houses in Makkah but that didnt happen at all. Instad a war happened in Islamic year of Calender 1st hijri (migration) betwwen muslims and non belivers of Makkah where muslims were 313 and non belivers were 1000 and muslims got victory with help of Allah.

    Salman Reply:

    And as far as wealth is concerned, the whole Arab peninsula became muslims in the last days of the life of Muhammad and Mohammad was their religous, spiritual and political leader. Despite being the leader of the whole muslims and Arab peninsula, Muhammad was living in a house of a single room and only 3 people can be in that room at one time. He said to his wife Ayesha (R.A) on the last night of his life “O Ayesha! I have seven Darhum. Take these from me and give to some one who is poor. Tommorrow morning..I have to meet my God and I cannot like something will present in my house at that time”…and next morning..He died and buried in a very same room which is called now Roza e Rasool.

    Durham is the currency.

    Rajeev Reply:

    But when Mohammad entered Makkah as VICTOR, he looted all the properties of non-believer and forced them to accept Islam.
    He was a criminal and nothing else.

    Salman Reply:

    Makkah was conquered in the last year of the life of Muhammad. The nob believers of Makkah broke the treatry called “Suleh e Hadaibia” and thus initiated a war. But Makkah was conquered without a war as non believers of Makkah didnt give a fight though some small skirmishes occured. Muhammad pardoned all of the Makkah including his worst enemies like Wahshi who killed Hamza (Muhammad’s uncle), Hindah etc. Only few were killed. Muhammad broke all of the 360 idols in Kabba whom Makkah worshped them and status of Kaba was restored to its original status as it was during the time of Prophet Ibrahim.

    After few days in Makkah, Muhammad returned to Madina and he died after few months.

    You can say anything abt anyone but every one has to die and truth will be prevailed hereafter.

    Sunil Reply:

    Why do have to refer to us non-believers… why can’t you refer to us as non-muslims?? You guys have a real problem.!!! Just arrogance!!!

    Rajeev Reply:

    Mohammad broke idols hurting sentiments of majority. This is what you guys do even today.
    She was a sicko and so are his followers.

    Salman Reply:

    Kaba was made by Adam who was the first man created by God. All Jews, christians and muslims belives in Adam though muslims belive he was a first prophet too. Later, Kaba was desttroyed in Noah time. Again all muslims, jews and christians belives in Naoh as God’s prophet. Then Kaba was rebuilt by Prophet Ibrahim and all Jews, muslims and christians believe in Prophet Ibrahim too. All the three ibrahimic religon (Jews, christians and msulims) dont worship idols. With passage of time, people used to worship idols in Kaba. Thus Mohammad broke all the 360 idols 1400 yeasr ago in Kaba in order to restore the original status of Kaba.

    Anyway these 360 idols were free to defend themselves against Muhammad but they didnt. And if they couldnt then this is not the fault of any one.

    Islam doent force any one to embrace Islam.

    Rajeev Reply:

    At the end of the day, kaaba was pagan temple which was forcibly occupied by Mohammad and his men.
    It was a criminal act and nothing else.

    Rajeev Reply:

    All this Adam building kaaba is pur BS invented by Mohammad to fool people like you.

  • Shehzad

    @ Rajiv and Sunil

    I am from Pakistan , a direct descendant of Muslim Parents migrated from Bihar .
    Thank you very much for opening up my eyes m guys , Gratitude por favor .

    Now I belive I am able to comprehend why the Muslims of India opted for Paksitan .

    until tomorrow , I was against people like Ajmal Qasab who broke a havoc in Mumbai .
    I had the notion that creation of Pakistan was a mistake .

    Good , the siesta , i had been through, is over to me .Thank you guys ,

    So much so for tolerance and the largest democracy ,lolzzzzzzzzzzzzz,

    [Reply]

  • http://www.anukoolenterprizes.webs.co mukeyshmehtab

    dear brothers naveed sunil, salman,
    major sharma is right we should not spoil our knowledge in criticizing great peoples like mohamad sb. shri guru nanak dev ji and adam
    this will diminish their values but we appriciate their guidence given for humanity
    none of us was with them so why to fight for their sayings right /or wrong.
    we should let live their soul in peace.
    so we may live peacefully
    thanks

    [Reply]

  • Kushal

    Ooooh, my sssssympathiesssss, Massssha.

    [Reply]

  • Kushal

    Thanks, Sushmita!

    [Reply]

  • Anamika

    Oh!!! This is divine intervention – a physiotherapist named Dr. Bookwala I mean. I’m sure you’re attending every session religiously, just to have a chance at calling out aloud to her ;-)

    Hope your wrist has healed and you’re better.

    Cheers!

    [Reply]

  • kashmiri pandit

    you moron your parliament has been bombed mumbai has been burnt twice and you have not learnt your lesson yet I am not surprised you have been a slave for 1000 years and you wer conqurede by 21 year old shame on you

    [Reply]

  • RG

    parliament bombed mumbai burnt twice when are you going to learn your leson when hindus from north India will start migrating towrds south india

    [Reply]

  • Gt12563

    Hindus are not against Sikhs and they can not be because your Guru Nanak Dev ji father was Hindu it self and moreover in your Granth Sahib on every page Lord Ram’s name is there.Your all Guru’s were brutally killed by muslims not by Hindus.Your writing for muslimls are all because of riots in 1984 which Sikhs had started after killing of Hindu Prime Minister Indira Gandhi.I say killing of innocent Prime Minister by her body guard was coward act of Sikh.Our Prime Minister sent army to flush out terrorist who were killing innocent Hindus dragging them out from buses.If Hindus have to go defend Kashmiri Pundits we do not need your Sikh communty help.Dear your Gurunanak Devji was born in Talwandi near Lahore so as your Nankana Sahib and Punja sahib there if your community was brave enough they should have asked Khali Isthan from Pakistan whom you are defending.I can use your words Siks are like Khusro who could not able to defend their religious places in Pakistan and run cowardly as refuggees in our country.Hindus are nice enough to let Sikh be our Prime Minister even after killing our beloved Prime Minister.If Sikhs want to join with muslims fine with us because some Sikhs have too many grevounces from Hindus they should go live in Pakistan and please do not write your sarcastic language against Hindus.

    [Reply]

  • Anonymous

    A word about Azadi from History, I would share here. After the invasion of J&K by Pakistani Regulars & tribal’s in 1947, after the massacre of Hindus in Muzzafarabad on 22/10/1947 & killing its DC named Doni Chand Mehta in front of his wife, one KP Pandit Tarachand Wagam was taken as prisoner & later was so-called appointed as new ‘wazir wazarat’ of muzzafarabad (deputy commissioner). Radio Pakistan was broadcasting (propaganda only) repeatedly ‘kashmiri pandit ko wazir wazarat banaya gaya hai, ek aur kashmiri ko judge’. This judge was a Shia Muslim Ashiq Hussain neighbor of Abbas Ansari (former Hurriyat Chairman) & Moulvi Iftaikhar Hussain Ansari at present with PDP. With active connivance of Pakistanis & goons of Muslim conference (who was from baramullah) Tara Chand was converted to Muslim with new name given to him was Mohammad Tariq. After some days he developed fever. Medicines were not available, all the while Tara Chand was muttering the words of his family members, and 15 days later he passed away. He was buried near a mosque in muzzafarabad. His daughter and son Srikrishan came back to valley with Red Cross, this was their azadi. KP,s have tasted their so-called azadi in 1947 itself. Today no Hindu lives in POK that they had cleansed it in 1947 itself.

    1990 being water-shed in politics of Kashmir as it was continuation where Pakis tan left it in 1947, there were first targeted killing of Kashmiri Pandits, KP,s were not & are not aligned to separatism based on religion as none of their political aspirations were not going to be fulfilled by this violence & from day one. They are vindicated on this, the valley based KP Sangharsh Samiti i.e those who did not leave Kashmir (leave alone Migrants for a second) have came out with a report stating that from May-1990 to July 1990, a killing of a Kashmiri Hindu each day took place in valley & Jag-Mohan was not then the Governor, so it speaks volumes about the whole situation.

    The violence in Kashmir was not in any way in their physical & political interests so were forced to migrate. And now this 7.5 lakh KP’ they have a political demand as original residents of Valley like, after all separatists cannot spread the canard that they are politically correct with violence with gun & KP,s are politically incorrect with non-violence, that is political bankruptcy in reality.

    [Reply]

  • Anonymous

    About 1990 the late Mr P.N. Haksar (1913-1998) came to speak at the University of Delhi and was introduced, if introduction was needed, by the late Professor V.P. Dutt (1925-2011). In his remarks Professor Dutt noted the anguish of the Kashmiri Pandits who had started pouring out of Kashmir in the preceding year in the wake of terrorist violence that made short work of the famed Kashmiriat, which to us in India was the same as the secular attitude. The problem of the displacement of Kashmiri Pandits had started becoming noticeable.
    As the write up says, the attitude of Kashmiri Pandits was much the same as that of the displaced persons from Pakistan in the wake of the Partition. I remember my late father (1883-1978) telling me in late 1947 that we, displaced from Rawalpindi, would be back in Rawalpindi in a few months. After Gandhi’s assassination, my father stopped talking of going back. We stayed on in India, with hardly a helping hand from Nehru’s government. The refugee camps in which we lived were closed within a year. I am not surprised that the present government is not doing much for the Kashmiri Pandits.
    The world was concerned about the Jewish diaspora and decided to give them a homeland of their own: for the first time in history, a new State had been created by gift. Whenever ethnic cleansing happens anywhere in the world now, the world press waxes eloquent, especially if the victims are whites, as in the case of the Jews and the Europeans. But the equally white Kashmiri Pandits do not seem to make the grade and receive very little attention from the world press and from world bodies like the UN. Not much attention is paid to several African countries where events resemble ethnic cleansing.
    It is a moot question whether the Kashmiri terrorists, whom you still prefer to describe as militants, were concerned about Kashmiriat, a characteristic of the state of J&K, which must have had something to do with the psyche and attitude of Nehru, himself a Pandit of Kashmiri extraction. The terrorists have gone on to distinguish themselves by killing even Kashmiri Muslims who were not in agreement with the ideas and objectives that the terrorists were attempting to ram down the throats of Kashmiris. In the upshot, Kashmiriat has been the first casualty of terrorism in Kashmir.
    Perhaps we do not need to argue at great length to make the point that terrorism in Kashmir is for the most part Pakistan’s export and that Pakistan, itself far from being a secular place, could hardly be expected to care about Kashmiriat. To be sure, Kashmiriat ran counter to the ideas and inspiration that went into the making of Pakistan in the first place. If Pakistan’s leaders and terrorist masterminds had no use for Kashmiriat, it was hardly surprising. It is even possible to contend that abolishing Kashmiriat was one of the primary objectives of those who sent terrorists across the IB and LOC from Pakistan and POK. Pakistan’s leaders of all hues have been known to have been fanatics, with the possible and sole exception of M.A. Jinnah (1876-1948) who did not have much time to leave a lasting impact, though.
    Whatever the political colour of governments at the centre or in J&K, their first concern is to appeal to the Muslims of Kashmir, who, as you say, may not care overmuch for the kind of dispensation that they may have to live under if they were part of Pakistan. If these governments have to appeal to the Muslims of Kashmir, then Kashmiri Pandits naturally cannot be objects of the attention of these governments. Then, who should be concerned about ‘ethnic cleansing’ in Kashmir that you speak of? In any case, such ethnic cleansing is the handiwork of terrorists, who are still being distinguished from the State and the Government of Pakistan, in my view erroneously.
    In this scenario, there is little hope or possibility that Kashmiri Pandits shall receive much attention from the Indian central government or the state government of J&K, or from the world press.
    V. C. Bhutani, Delhi, India, 21 Jan 2012, 1200 IST

    [Reply]

  • Anonymous

    make inquiry with panoon kahsmir you will find who always fought and helped kashmiri pandits, it has been rss and bjp, each year my family has been sending money which we are capable of for helping poor Hindu victims of jihadi militants

    [Reply]

  • Kumars1

    Self styled Harbir aka fanatic mullah, mind your own business. Sort out Zardari, Gilani, Kayani etc. Leave the brothers Hindus and Sikhs alone. We do not take kindly to your meddling. We are brothers, any differences are between a family, we will sort them out ourselves. Don’t stir, we are not fools. There are no anti Sikh comments. Our faiths are born from the soil of India, not Arabia.

    [Reply]

  • Anonymous

    Shan,

    Why have you stopped visiting Mr. Sharma’s blog ?

    [Reply]

  • RajX

    Zia, good job.

    “On record at that. Major Iqbal, he said, was a classmate of 26/11-accused David Headley, had long retired from the Pakistani army and lived abroad.”

    Interesting to know that the iqbal guy lives abroad. Wonder where?

    [Reply]

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Fair-Reforms/100001048670263 Fair Reforms

    If he had any sentiments for this country he would have changed his name first. If the Pakistani public has to confide with him he must have blamed India and supported Pakistani views. There must be a law to severely punish such anti-national black sheep who eat Indian bread and work against its interests.

    [Reply]

    Anonymous Reply:

    Lets not let our faith get in the way of our patriotism. I have read Zia’s blogs, and disagreed with him often, but let us not forget that we are all batting for the same side.

    [Reply]

  • Abu Ahmed

    Glad to learn that Pakistani people including army and politicians are veering around to the point that Indians are not their enemy # 1. Had they realized this fact in 1947, there would have been no wars between the two countrty would have prevailed in the sub-continent during all these years. Alas.
    On the Indian side, glad to see the Hindu leadership of many a political party recognizing Indian Muslims’ problems and power (latest U.P. elections) and are talking (just talking as of now) of providing 18% reservations from the OBC quota in education, jobs and welfare schemes.
    Guys, had Nehru, Patel & Jinnah come to some agreement on Muslim reservations before 1947, there would have been no Partition at all.
    It needed the USA’s bombs to teach Pakistan a lesson.
    It needed Indian Muslims’ votes to teach Indian Hindus a lesson.
    Glad both of them are learning well, after all said and done. Let us see some positive action on the ground for a change.

    [Reply]