Senior Parking Form: Fill & Download for Free

The question I answered was “What do you think about the 1984 Sikh genocide by Hindus?”The question was later mischievously edited to “What is your review of Sikh Genocide (1984)?” I do not think that is a good question to ask. It’s not a movie that can be reviewed. It is a very terrible episode of our history in which families were broken and small kids, husbands, parents were burned alive.The culprits must be punished and we should ensure such things do not happen ever anywhere.So, here’s my answer to the original question:========================================================Was it the Hindus who massacred Sikhs?Congress party“The main attackers were congress party workers, common folks who were blinded by hate speech and some members of the police too.And many folks saved sikhs in many ways. Hiding them in their homes, entering sikh houses and saying its not a sikh house we reside here etc etc.Some even sacrificed their lives.”Source: Tejbir Singh Khehra's answer to Who were the main attackers in 1984 Sikh Massacre? - mobs instigated by Congress Leaders or Police? Did Indians tried to stop such a large violence?2. Muslims“Large groups of Muslims from different madarassas came out in support of Congress raising slogans '47 ka badla le kar rahenge', they got the state supported revenge of all the killings sikhs did during 1947. All acted on behest of NSUI.”Source "Facebook post by Gaurav Pradan "In the NDTV program hosted by politician Shahzad Poonawala, a close relative of a victim of 1984 riots claimed that 70% of the attackers in 1984 who killed Sikhs were Muslims. Shahzad Poonawala interrupted the Sikh guy saying “do not talk about a religion.” I have seen this video with own eyes and anyone can check the correctness of my claim about the video.3. RSS protected the Sikhs - according to Khushwant Singh and Tavleen SinghRSS helped protecting Sikhs during 1984 Anti-Sikh Riots. Sikh intellectual and author of ‘A History of the Sikhs’, Khushwant Singh, credits members of the RSS with helping and protectingSikhs who were being targeted by members of the Congress(I) political party during the 1984 Anti-Sikh Riots.Source: RSS swayamsevaks protected Sikhs during the 1984 anti-Sikh riotsTavleen Singh: Senior Reporter4. Hindu Bengalis of Chitaranjan Park in Delhi protected Sikhs in 1984Bengali women formed a human chain around the colony and prevented the blood-thirsty mob to enter the region and attack the Sikhs. While the women formed a protective cover, men picked up bats, stumps, hockey sticks and rods to chase off the set of mobs which tried to sneak inside and target the members of the Sikh community.Source: Silver lining to 1984 genocide: Bengalis at Chittaranjan Park formed human chain to save Sikhs from slaughter

This question and a trillion like it are really starting to piss me off. Just what on earth do the writers think the army is, some form of liberal democracy?OK, rant over, now here are the facts, as usual from the British point of view.Yes, the most junior officer is senior to the most senior non-commissioned soldier – that’s an enlisted man in US terms. Yes the most junior officer can give a legal order to the most senior soldier, and expect it to be obeyed.Now lets look at it a bit more. Young officers (YOs) are by definition and selection highly educated, intelligent people who have undergone long and detailed training to get where they are. Most of that training has been carried out by senior NCOs and the YO has a highly developed sense of respect for them. Part of the training will centre on the art of giving orders in a way that invokes the best possible response from those receiving them. They know that barking orders at SNCOs is not the best way forward.YOs know that they should always develop a close relationship with their SNCOs/WOs and that they should always listen to what they have to say. BUT both parties also have to remember that when push comes to shove the officer is the senior and when orders are given they are to be obeyed without question. There can be no question of the SNCO/WO second guessing or questioning that order.British officers are in the habit of giving non-operational orders in a relaxed and informal manner. But everyone know that when a YO says to a SNCO “Time to get the guys moving I think” or “The gun park needs a bit of a sweep” or “Can you sort out the rations for tomorrow’s range day?” an order has been given and is expected to be followed.A lot of questions revolve around the suggestion that a combat experienced SNCO is better placed to make tactical decisions than a YO and that the latter could be overridden. Frankly this is bullshit. Once a soldier reaches sergeant they are no longer combat leaders, they are largely administrators who keep their platoon supplied with ammunition and rations, deal with wounded and PW, and act as second-in-command to their platoon commander. As they rise further in rank they have more and more admin work.

Life went on as if nothing happened.Contrary to popular belief, the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476 AD wasn’t some “shocking, horrific event that caused shockwaves throughout the entire Roman-Greek world”. That would more accurately describe the Fall of the Byzantine/Eastern Roman Empire in 1453 AD. The East did not spiral into a dark age after Rome fell.Thomas Cole’s Fall of Rome captures what we view as the fall of a mighty empire.Interestingly enough, life in the East was basically unaffected by the Fall of the Western Roman Empire. Why you ask? Because for the last century or so, the West had been in a continuous state of decline. After 395 AD, the Western Roman Empire was besieged by endless waves of barbarians ready to tear Rome apart. 410 AD marked the Visgothic sack of Rome, the first time in over 700 years that Rome had been conquered by a foe. In 455 the Vandals sacked Rome, further weakening Rome’s prestige. By 476 AD, the Roman Empire existed in name only, ruled by warlords with a puppet emperor on the throne.Map of the Western and Eastern Roman Empires, 476 ADMap of the Roman Empire, shortly after the final division of the empire in 395 ADLife in the west began deteriorating, as the barbarians who would later form modern Europe crossing the Rhine and invading the heartlands of the Western Roman Empire. Roads started to fall into disrepair, cities sacked and destroyed by invaders, chaos and instability plaguing the land.In the East, life was practically unchanging. Look at the 395 Eastern Roman borders and the 476 Eastern Roman borders. If anything the Byzantines actually seemed to have gained more land. The Empire in the East is extremely peaceful and stable.While warlords run rampant in the West, the East maintained its aqueducts, continued lucrative trade with the nations of the Middle and Far East, science and philosophy flourished. By 500 AD, 25 years after Rome fell, the population of Constantinople was over 450,000 people and growing. Constatinople became the richest and largest city in the Rome a few decades after her Western counterpart collapsed. The Eastern Roman Empire in fact was growing while her sister went down the drain and drowned.Constantinople during the early years of the empire. You see a powerful, rising empire that values the arts and sciences. This is in contrast with…Whats going on in Rome at the same time…The Sack of Rome by the Barbarians in 410 by Joseph-Noël SylvestreSo now let’s tackle everyday life. There are several classes in the social structure.I’ll start using Byzantine now, partially cause saying Eastern Roman is unnatural for me.The local aristocracy, state functionaries, senior military officers, and large landowners were all members of the upper class. The middle class comprised the urban population of merchants, industrialists, and owners of medium-sized landed properties, while the populace, that is, the lower class, was made up of wage-earners and paupers.The clergy did not form a distinct class, despite the fact that they enjoyed special privileges; they were distributed throughout all the social levels. Slaves did exist, although the state preferred their redemption to their subjugation.Source: Byzantine societySo we have the three classes of Byzantine society. How is actual life for each of these classes? If you are in the cream of Byzantine society, the biggest problem for you is the constant power struggle in Constantinople. The term “Byzantine politics” originated from these guys for their complicated, ridiculously bureaucratic form of government. There was no clear Imperial line of succession, which meant that power struggles could erupt at anytime after the death of a Caesar and a weak heir. You’ll most likely have a jolly time eating and drinking however. Wine is plentiful in this era of the empire. Since you are rich you get to enjoy lamb, which only rich people could afford. You’ll be eating a lot of pig and fish if you are living in the right places. Expect everything (bread, cereal, vegetables) to be boiled.Byzantine nobles from the Fourth Century ADWhat if you are part of the Middle Class? You are most likely an urbanite, working in a guild or as a merchant. You most likely are indirectly working for the government since all guilds report to the government. You might occasionally get to enjoy lamb, though more likely you’ll just eat sausage, fish and lots of boiled food.You also (if are a merchant) have the opportunity of a lifetime to peacefully roam the Mediterranean Sea and even go as far as Persia or even China/India!The lower class had the shittiest time, though you live at the height of the empire! So you probably won't have too bad of a time. Be prepared to be heavily taxed and possibly fall into debt however. You might sell yourself and family into serfdom to avoid taxation (tax evaders existed back then too!) and serve a lord/noble or something.If you are a woman, well sucks to be you. Unless you are from the nobility, you basically don’t really have a chance at making much of an impact on the world. You just might get lucky, marry the right guy and help him rule his empire (see Empress Theodora) but more than likely you are going to get married in your teens (if unlucky at age 12–13). You’ll most likely have limited education if you are from the middle-upper class. You will not be allowed to go anywhere alone, it’s basically heresy if you do.Well, few pros are that you will most likely not be domestically abused by your husband if he follows standard Christian protocols and principles. Given how rampant of a problem it is back then and even now… Well, you should live a decent life and maybe even help out your husband in his trade if you are from the middle or upper class.Bored? You can always attend the Chariot Races at the Hippodrome! It’s really exciting to watch the chariots go at it and you can show your support by dressing up in your team’s color! Just be careful though, sports violence was as prevalent back then as it is now. People would riot, beat each other up and even kill each other in these events if enough people got sour grapes.The Eastern Roman Empire, gifted with strong leadership, better natural terrain and far more rich trade centers, survived for another thousand years. You are likely to have an ok-ish to decent life. Just make sure you don’t catch the plague!