मैत्रावरुणिः;3425180 said:
Namaste,
I thought you were merely naive...but, let me reiterate something which you can't seem to understand because you do not know the facts of the rapes during the 1947....and Angellous....no...it is not a good point that the above poster made...it is in fact highly un-researched.....
The male rapes didn't happen because the sole concentration was on raping females of the opposing religious groups:
1. The Muslims targeted Sikh and Hindu women to rape.
2. The Sikh and Hindus targeted Muslim women to rape.
The whole point of those riots (which were mini-wars, in my opinion) were to harm the opposing religious groups as much as possible. The best way to destroy the pride of the opposing religious groups was to rape their females. The South Asian mentality is that the honor is with the female.
These "rioters" didn't have time to rape males. That was not their objective. Even if men were raped (which would have been reported but wouldn't have necessarily occurred because that was never the goal; "to destroy an opposing religious group in South Asia let's rape their guys yo!") only a handful would have been raped. Sikhs resorted to decapitating their own female children to save them from getting raped. Do you know why they resorted to this? Of course you don't, because you came ill prepared on the matter and resorted to teach me about my own South Asian history. They resorted to doing such because it was something they thought they could do to still protect their "honor". The example of South Asia may be too complex for you to understand. To bring up the subject of male to male rape (which was pretty much non-existent during 1947 - and since you are the one who made the claim that it could have happened: bring me proof) is in fact insulting to the memory of those innocent women that were brutalized, burned alive, gang-raped, etc..
M.V.