Jump to content

anita-ranis-grandfathers-first-wife-killed-herself-in-india-rather-than-be-raped


dalsingh101

Recommended Posts

Lol, it's always the Jats' fault. So it was the big bad Jats that forced Dal's family to migrate to whitey-land! 

Well, they definitely made a complete shyte hole out of Panjab that even they are trying to run away from. lol!!  

 

So they can go from the glory of being a big zamindaar, lord of the manor to a cement bucket carrying skivvy abroad. 

 

 

Anyway, eff off ho ja pendu salaa. 

Edited by dalsingh101
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one else dominate the positions of power in Panjab to cause the damage that has been done. It's not complicated N30.

 

You don't get so-called 'low-castes' complaining about abuse from most other Sikh groups. You know who keep coming up. 

 

Tony's grandpa: 

Edited by dalsingh101
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is getting boring now. 

 

My point is about playing sycophantic politics with outsiders whilst not paying attention to the position of your own community. We've done this and are suffering for it. 

We've still got a legacy of misty eyed-ism towards goray from colonialism. 

It's time we straight recognised this. 

Especially given the moronic actions of the British government today, and the tokenisation of Sikhs, whilst repeatedly stabbing them in the back over things like grooming and even 1984 (apparently). 

 

And the new ploy to push the Sikh misogynist card, because people want to retain Anand Karaj for Sikhs. 

 

Buffon-like people like Tony can't see through this in eternal gratitude for his grandpa being given a chance to take on the white man's burden. 

Edited by dalsingh101
Link to comment
Share on other sites

. Because the violence in Lahore had been going on since March 1947, the Hindus had started to leave after their largest locality Shahalmi was destroyed by Muslim arson and by the time of the boundary award the city had been emptied of non-Muslims. 

i wonder why the Sikh and HIndus never put up a concerted defence of the city. Reinforcements were never far away.

Guys take it easy stop attacking each other families, and stop being bickering among each other over nitty stuff- like we don't have enough problems in this world.

Come on Neo. Its fun when the boys get tough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The Yazidis if they had been in Saddams army would have been better equipped to fight the onslaught by IS. I don't know what exactly your point is. Any community that has a substantial numbers in any military force will do better in a civil war situation than a community which does not. 

Patiala and the other states up to the second world war these  had small armies and it was only because Patiala along with the Akali leaders went against the Congress and supported the British war effort that the Sikhs in the British army went up and also the armies of the states were counted in tens of thousands and not thousands as prior to the war. 

The reason why the Sikhs did not survive in West Punjab was twofold. The main one was that the Sikh leadership had pretty much made up its mind to a exchange of population. They had seen what the Muslims had done to the Sikhs of Rawalpindi in March 1947 and knew that the Sikhs left in Pakistan would face the same if they remained there. There had already been migration of non-Muslims from Rawalpindi to East Punjab and the Sikhs rationalised that this was the only way to save the Sikhs from being hostages in Pakistan. `The Sikhs had pinned their hopes of getting the boundary as far to the west as possible and when it it was announced they had already made the decision to clear East Punjab of Muslims and make space for the resettlement of the Sikhs from West Punjab in East Punjab. The only bones of contention was the Canal colonies and Nankana Sahib and the Sikh leadership had hoped to get Nankana Sahib and at least one canal colony possibly Montgomery. So when they lost these they had make a decision, either fight the Pakistani army in West Punjab areas while also clearing East Punjab of Muslims.  The Sikh leadership had warned the British that if the boundary was not to their liking then they would fight along revolutionary lines. After the boundary was announced the Sikh leadership placed all their efforts on the clearing of Muslims from East Punjab. They decided not to act in both areas of Punjab in what would essentially have been akin to a war on two fronts. The ejection of Muslims from East Punjab was easier as the administration there had collapsed, the Muslim police had been disarmed and the Indian leadership was weak in the case of Nehru and supportive of the Sikh cause in the form of Sardar Patel. In the West Punjab it was different, the Sikhs here would have faced the Pakistan army, the Muslim police as well as the Muslim mobs. This is not to say that the ex-soldiers in these area would not have given a good account of themselves but the rationale was why risk a destructive civil war against the West Punjab administration when the Sikhs from there could be resettled in East Punjab. In areas where the Sikhs were a small minority, they were attacked by the Muslim mobs as well as the Pakistan military. But in areas were the Sikhs were large numbers like the canal colonies as well as rural areas of Lahore the Muslims mobs were reluctant to attack given that these Sikhs had arms as well as being ex-soldiers and skilled in the use of arms. In fact from these areas many of the refugee columns of Sikhs that left for East Punjab were commented on by many observers as being well armed and able to give as good as they got if attacked by the Muslims. On the opposite side you had Muslims that were barely able to keep formation in their refugee columns and stragglers being picked off easily by the Jathas. After the Sikh columns left West Punjab the Muslims on the borders were still jumpy as the rumours were that the Sikhs had strategically evacuated their land and would then regroup and reclaim their lands back. 

On the main point, what do you think the Sikhs should have done after 1849? 

 

 

Well let me spell it out for you. If the Yazidis did as you say, who do you think the Iraqi Army would have sent into the minefields without weapons like they did in the Iran-Iraq War when the predominantly Sunni Iraqi Army used those who werent like them as cannon fodder? During the First Gulf War, who do you think the Republican Guard would have forced to stay and face the American onslaught whilst they tried to run and hide from the USAF? You dont need to be a genius to know it would be the people referred to as Devil Worshippers by the Sunnis. Finally, with many former members of Saddam's army now part of ISIS what difference would have being in Saddam's army made? Look at the Sunni tribes in Anbar and Tikrit who have been practically wiped out by ISIS - where did being in Saddam's army get them? I hope this spells out my point that your analogy is terrible as the Yazidis were never a major political/military force in the previous century or former rulers of Iraq unlike SIkhs who were both in Punjab.

Patiala may have had a small army but it was functional. Germany had an army of 100,000 at one point and a few years later had control of most of Europe in that time period. The Israeli Defense Force and its predecessors was small yet they still won the Arab-Israeli War of 1948. What is your point? After Partition the Hindustanis deliberately minimised the role Sikhs play in the Armed Forces... looks like we played that martial race card so many times that our enemies saw it coming.

Hindsight is a beautiful thing. To say that what happened would have happened anyway is laughable. Speak to the generation who went through it and many of them felt there was nothing stopping the Muslims descending on East Punjab - that's why they started the reprisals to make sure that their backs were clear before the onslaught (that never came even if the British tried to help the muslims). You say that Sikhs had well armed convoys - well of course those who had weapons would have been well armed when they made their move eastwards. But plenty werent and many SIkhs died. The oh so mighty Sikhs who fought to save the world from Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan couldnt even save their own people when it came to it. The fact that rather than take destiny into our own hands and decide our own borders we waited for some four eyed anglo administrator to decide who could live where and which side of the border you had to get to shows how impotent the Khalsa was. Who the hell would listen to their former masters who were running away over the needs and lives of their own people? Dress it up how you want, not all of us crave acceptance and need a skewed worldview to support it.

As for what happened after 1849 we should have done what any normal people would have done. Planned to get back on top. Remilitarization. Waited for a time when our occupiers where engaged elsewhere. Not fought wars for them like utter prats. Your kind like to go on about how many Sikhs fought in the World Wars, yet you never talk about how many were killed, wounded or desensitized by what they went through. Face it, the British sold us a lie, we fell for it, they screwed us and walked away with everything whilst we were left to pick up the pieces. FFS Partition has negative effect to this day with the poverty and backwardness of East Punjab to issues with the Pakistani community in the Commonwealth, terrorism in South Asia and our own people's lack of a backbone due to knowing how far we have fallen. To dress it up as anything else makes you as bad as the BBC lefties who spin their rubbish about 1947.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Yazidis may not have the same military history as the Sikhs but they would have been in a much better position to fight had they had military training. Your contention that they would have been cannon fodder may or may not have come about. Saddam was a tribalist and a sectarian. He was against any individual or group who he believed were capable of overthrowing him. 

The rank and file in the Jathas may have held the belief that they were fighting the Muslims in East Punjab to secure their rear in case of a Muslim attack from West Punjab but the leadership was aware that the intent was to create a compact Sikh area. The general belief especially among the Sikhs was that Pakistan would collapse very quickly and with or without Indian government assistance the Sikhs would be able to take back the lands  lost to Pakistan. At every forum where the Sikh leadership had put forward their claim to an independent Sikh state, they were universally answered with the simple question..demarcate the area of Punjab where the Sikhs are in a majority. The Sikh leadership learnt their lesson from these incidents. They knew that without a clear majority in a compact area a Sikh state would never be conceded. This is not to say that they did not think of fighting like the Jews were to do a year later in Palestine but at some stage they decided that securing a Sikh majority area was a better option. Even after the loss of Nankana Sahib and the canal colonies became apparent, they stayed focussed on the plan to evict the Muslims from East Punjab. The loss of these just added to the fury with which the plan was carried out. I doubt that had Lahore, Nankana Sahib and the canal colonies been given to East Punjab that they original plan would have changed. The Muslims would just have been evicted from these areas as well. The lack of a Sikh majority area was the biggest frustration of the Sikh leadership and something which in their view led to them not being able to take advantage of the British departure. The only two options that would he  resulted in the East Punjab Muslims being allowed to stay put would have been of an undivided Punjab in united India or an East Punjab with special status in Pakistan. 

Your opinion on what the Sikhs should have done in 1849 is unrealistic. How tens of thousands of Sikhs whose military pay from the Lahore Durbar used to pay the land revenue demands for their villages find a livelihood? 

Such an option may make sense when faced with enemies like the Mughals and Afghans where local rivalries and jealousies among the enemy can be taken advantage off but do you really that was possible against the British? If the Sikhs were to remain aloof from the British army who do you think would have taken the place of the Sikhs? Punjabi Muslims including the Pathans who incidentally took the same advantage between 1919-1930 when the British limited Sikh recruitment due to the Akali movement. The Punjabi Muslim went from 17.4 % of the British Indian army to  29% in 1930 while the Sikh percentage reduced from 17.4% to 13.6%. Without the Sikhs in the army the Punjabi Muslims would have been in a better position to browbeat the non-Muslims onto accepting the whole Punjab as a part of Pakistan. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 If the Sikhs were to remain aloof from the British army who do you think would have taken the place of the Sikhs?

HSD, what do you think about Tonys point here?

If we look a little further in history, one of the reasons for starting the Aligarh University was to help the muslims receive the education that the hindus had embraced 40 years earlier, which had helped them claim nearly all the public service jobs and help their community progress rapidly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Tony

You have a very colloquial view of history and using that logic to draw analogies with the present is neither here nor there. If the Yazidis had joined Saddam's army and not been picked on they would still have suffered plenty dead in the Iran-Iraq War as well as both Gulf Wars. Trading all those men for a few weapons would have made no difference. The Sunni tribes, the Free Syrian Army, Syrian Arab Army, the Iraqi Army, Hezbollah and Shiah militias have all been fought to a standstill by ISIS. You still havent explained why military experience and guns would have helped the Yazidis if it hasnt helped any of the former? Secondly, and more importanly, no one saw what happened to the Yazidis coming. I bet no one here knew who they were until ISIS attacked them. Even if they had weapons, what difference would it have made if they had been caught with their pants down like we were at Partition? ISIS would still be raping their women and girls, they would just have more guns to add to their arsenal. Stop comparing apples and oranges.

Ironically the only force in the region who have held their own against ISIS are the Kurds...... do they have a proud history of serving in Saddam's army? Quite the opposite I'll think you'll find. Go ponder that.

Sikh leadership had plenty of options. Churchill offered us our own state and we turned him down to his face as we were happy with Congress. At the end of the day what kind of leaders take orders from others when they when they can just go and get what they want? Sikhs are reactionary, the violence of Partition came as a shock to all Sikhs, you have no evidence that our leaders premeditated what happened in East Punjab. When Sikhs started fighting back in East Punjab, Montbatten summoned the Sikh leaders who agreed to his plan to use air power to quell uprisings in East Punjab! Our leaders were docile, complacent and wholly spineless. On a side note, it's this very style of lazy, apathetic and uncaring leadership and attitude that encourages so many Sikh youth to tolerate abuse from outsiders in order to feel some sort of acceptance nowadays. They prefer it to the fear of having to grow up and turn into the domesticated turkeys they have for elders. If our leadership cant do better for us then they shouldnt be in charge. We came away from Partition with next to nothing. We still have nothing. Yet things keep getting worse.

I'll tell you what was unrealistic - sitting on your own hands for a hundred years. Seriously no one goes through that length of colonialism willingly unless they are retarded. I'm not talking about the ability to throw off the shackles of occupation, I'm talking about the absolute lack of will to change our situation. Most Sikhs werent worried about paying for levies, they happily accepted colonialim - for a chance to get balls deep in a memsahib when her husband was chasing little boys around Lahore bazaar or to go abroad and see the world looting or doing Britannia's 'good work'. If the Sikhs back then had done this for the Khalsa and Punjab Empire I could sort of understand, but to do it for someone else and then say that we were forced into it is a bit of a stretch.

The British in Palestine had no Jews in their army or police. Yet in 1948 at Haifa a few Jews took on thousands of Arabs who were backed up by British regulars and tanks. The Jews won. How? Because they wanted it more. They slaughtered the Arabs, fought house to house, killed Arab snipers with impunity. Then the British tanks came rolling in. Did the Irgun stand around like old women farting and discussing the merits of whether they could do anything about it or not like Sikhs would have? No, they ran into the buildings along the road that the British tanks were driving down and blew up the larger houses covering the tanks in rubble. They then ran towards the tanks and poured petrol into the visors and hatches trying to set the crew alight. When the Brits inside opened their tank hatches the Jews stabbed and beat them whilst others lit dynamite used for mining or molotov cocktails and threw them into tanks and forced the crew back in by shutting the hatches. Why did they fight so ferociously? Why didnt they just kill the Arabs in their vicinity and sit there saying 'I'm alright now'? They didnt wait for some outsider to show them the way, they had the will to act. Something Sikhs back in 1947 and to this day lack.

You still havent countered my earlier point that a predominantly non-Sikh Indian Army would have been able to acheive far less in both World Wars and put the British in the position where they may not have been able to call the shots on who got what. Or havent you wrapped your brain around the notion yet?

 Is it not true that sikh population dramatically fell in 1850s?.It was a stupid idea to fight when your own people were not even raising children as sikhs

Using that same logic we should have just given up after the Ghalugharas too.

Maybe it's stupid to not fight for a future where you can raise your children as Sikhs.

Edited by HSD1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Yazidis may not have the same military history as the Sikhs but they would have been in a much better position to fight had they had military training. Your contention that they would have been cannon fodder may or may not have come about. Saddam was a tribalist and a sectarian. He was against any individual or group who he believed were capable of overthrowing him. 

The rank and file in the Jathas may have held the belief that they were fighting the Muslims in East Punjab to secure their rear in case of a Muslim attack from West Punjab but the leadership was aware that the intent was to create a compact Sikh area. The general belief especially among the Sikhs was that Pakistan would collapse very quickly and with or without Indian government assistance the Sikhs would be able to take back the lands  lost to Pakistan. At every forum where the Sikh leadership had put forward their claim to an independent Sikh state, they were universally answered with the simple question..demarcate the area of Punjab where the Sikhs are in a majority. The Sikh leadership learnt their lesson from these incidents. They knew that without a clear majority in a compact area a Sikh state would never be conceded. This is not to say that they did not think of fighting like the Jews were to do a year later in Palestine but at some stage they decided that securing a Sikh majority area was a better option. Even after the loss of Nankana Sahib and the canal colonies became apparent, they stayed focussed on the plan to evict the Muslims from East Punjab. The loss of these just added to the fury with which the plan was carried out. I doubt that had Lahore, Nankana Sahib and the canal colonies been given to East Punjab that they original plan would have changed. The Muslims would just have been evicted from these areas as well. The lack of a Sikh majority area was the biggest frustration of the Sikh leadership and something which in their view led to them not being able to take advantage of the British departure. The only two options that would he  resulted in the East Punjab Muslims being allowed to stay put would have been of an undivided Punjab in united India or an East Punjab with special status in Pakistan. 

Your opinion on what the Sikhs should have done in 1849 is unrealistic. How tens of thousands of Sikhs whose military pay from the Lahore Durbar used to pay the land revenue demands for their villages find a livelihood? 

Such an option may make sense when faced with enemies like the Mughals and Afghans where local rivalries and jealousies among the enemy can be taken advantage off but do you really that was possible against the British? If the Sikhs were to remain aloof from the British army who do you think would have taken the place of the Sikhs? Punjabi Muslims including the Pathans who incidentally took the same advantage between 1919-1930 when the British limited Sikh recruitment due to the Akali movement. The Punjabi Muslim went from 17.4 % of the British Indian army to  29% in 1930 while the Sikh percentage reduced from 17.4% to 13.6%. Without the Sikhs in the army the Punjabi Muslims would have been in a better position to browbeat the non-Muslims onto accepting the whole Punjab as a part of Pakistan. 

 

Without the Sikhs in the army the Punjabi Muslims would have been in a better position to browbeat the non-Muslims onto accepting the whole Punjab as a part of Pakistan. "

 

What Sikhs in the army had to do with the partitioning of Punjab? It was done according to the population percentage. Muslim majority tehsils went to pakistan and Hindu/Sikh majority came to India (with few exceptions like Gurdaspur which was a Muslim majority area). 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It;s not about expending men in a war for the chance of possessing a few guns. It is about having men who can both fight back as well as have experience in military tactics. You glossed over the fact that a lot of the Sikh convoys from West Punjab were more organised and travelled in formation with armed guards compared to the Muslim convoys which were disorganised and open to attack. The only ones which were organised would have been ones which contained former soldiers from Punjabi Muslim regiments recruited from East Punjab. I did not say that the Yazidis would have been able to defeat ISIS but between the option of fighting back and taking some of your oppressors with you or meekly submitting to having your women raped and become sex slaves.. which option is the better one? The Kurds have been able to take on IS because they have a military tradition outside of the Iraqi army namely as a rebel force which has a history of having rebelled against the governments of the three states that they reside in. 

There is no record of any offer of a Sikh state either from Churchill or any other British statesman. It;s fanciful to make such claims and the only offer of any substance which might have given the Sikh some autonomy was the one by Jinnah of an East Punjab as a unit in Pakistan equal to other units such as West Punjab and Sindh with the Sikhs having a role in the Pakistan army. There is no doubt that the Sikh leadership was outplayed by both the Hindu and Muslim politicians. The Sikh leadership should have had only one demand and that was a Sikh state. The nucleus of a Sikh state already existed in the from of Sikh states like Patiala. The Sikh leadership should have convinced the Sikh Maharajas to agree to a merger of their states by giving them some power or honorary status in the new Sikh state. Patiala Maharaja could have been made President etc. With this nucleus already in existence then the only matter left was to decide which districts of Punjab would be merged into the Sikh state. In the end the only option the British gave was for the Maharajas to agree to cede their states to either India or Pakistan. But if the Sikh Maharajas had argued that hey wanted to unite then there would not have been anything that the British could have done. Nehru had to struggle and threaten the Maharajas across India to give up on their scheme for becoming Independent rather than joining either India or Pakistan. The Sikh state union might even have led to a much more balkanised India with separate states made up of the former kingdoms.

Where did you get the idea that the Sikh leadership had agreed to the bombing of Jathas by the British? Some reference would be helpful. 

With regard to the Jews, their situation was a lot better than the Sikhs. They had just been allocated over 50% of the land of Palestine with just 30% of the population and with Jews just owning about 10% of the land. Contrary to what you stated the Jews had made full use of the British army by having their own Jewish legion during the first world war and a Jewish Brigade in world war 2. I read that 35 members of the Jewish brigade became generals in the Israeli army. The Jews were members of the Palestine police as well. 

You state state the non-Sikh Indian army would not have achieved as much because of the non-participation of Sikhs. Let's be honest here, do you think that 200,000 Sikhs in an army of millions would not have been able to get replacements for these Sikhs. Jinnah was an avid supporter of the British war effort and he could easily have got even double the amount of Muslims recruited to replace the Sikhs. My contention is not that the Sikhs saved the British empire in both world wars but that the contribution by Sikhs at least made them more ready to face the Muslim onslaught as well as being made one of the three parties consulted on partition. If the leadership was unable to use this effectively doesn't make the contribution any less significant. How exactly would you have seen the partition play out had there been no Sikh participation in world war 2? 

Edited by tonyhp32
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hang on a minute you were talking about modern weapons earlier and the training in how to use them, now you're saying it's to do with military tactics. So what military tactics are you on about that the Sikhs learned and that the Yazidis could have made use of?

You glossed over the fact that a lot of the Sikh convoys from West Punjab were more organised and travelled in formation with armed guards compared to the Muslim convoys which were disorganised and open to attack. The only ones which were organised would have been ones which contained former soldiers from Punjabi Muslim regiments recruited from East Punjab.

The muslim convoys were badly organised as it was Ramadan and they tended to bring all their livestock with them for some reason. Sikhs travelling westwards werent so stupid to fast or bring cattle, and their armed guards tended to be cavalry militia from East Punjab many of whom were armed with swords/lances - not all had firearms. They were co-ordinated by havildars from the independent states. Stop trying to sound quasi-scientific in your assertation that it took some kind of military training to help deal with these kinds of situations. I dont remember the British Army issuing pamphlets to their troops on how to fight your way out of hordes of angry muslims. 

I did not say that the Yazidis would have been able to defeat ISIS but between the option of fighting back and taking some of your oppressors with you or meekly submitting to having your women raped and become sex slaves.. which option is the better one?

Well in the binary world Sikhs like you live in there is only option but in reality being in Saddam's army could have caused all sorts of problems and been absolutely no guarantee that they wouldnt have been steamrolled by ISIS like the Sunni tribes have.

The Kurds have been able to take on IS because they have a military tradition outside of the Iraqi army namely as a rebel force which has a history of having rebelled against the governments of the three states that they reside in. 

And it was our own Sikh military traditions that allowed us to kill so many muslims, not British infantry squad tactics.

There is no record of any offer of a Sikh state either from Churchill or any other British statesman. It;s fanciful to make such claims and the only offer of any substance which might have given the Sikh some autonomy was the one by Jinnah of an East Punjab as a unit in Pakistan equal to other units such as West Punjab and Sindh with the Sikhs having a role in the Pakistan army. There is no doubt that the Sikh leadership was outplayed by both the Hindu and Muslim politicians. The Sikh leadership should have had only one demand and that was a Sikh state. The nucleus of a Sikh state already existed in the from of Sikh states like Patiala. The Sikh leadership should have convinced the Sikh Maharajas to agree to a merger of their states by giving them some power or honorary status in the new Sikh state. Patiala Maharaja could have been made President etc. With this nucleus already in existence then the only matter left was to decide which districts of Punjab would be merged into the Sikh state. In the end the only option the British gave was for the Maharajas to agree to cede their states to either India or Pakistan. But if the Sikh Maharajas had argued that hey wanted to unite then there would not have been anything that the British could have done. Nehru had to struggle and threaten the Maharajas across India to give up on their scheme for becoming Independent rather than joining either India or Pakistan. The Sikh state union might even have led to a much more balkanised India with separate states made up of the former kingdoms.

Churchill tried to talk Baldev Singh into meeting the British cabinet and military leadership. He wanted to cut some weird deal where Sikhs got their own country and in return Sikhs would side with Britain in the Cold War and guarantee the sovereignty of Singapore with the deployment of two divisions there and emigration. It was in Churchill's memoirs and referenced by some other top brass back then but Baldev went and told Nehru who sweet talked him that India would offer Sikhs so much more...

Where did you get the idea that the Sikh leadership had agreed to the bombing of Jathas by the British? Some reference would be helpful. 

The Mountbatten Papers detail how there was indifference to the violence until Sikhs retaliated and trouble in villages would be bombed and fighter planes used to strafe groups moving towards railways.

With regard to the Jews, their situation was a lot better than the Sikhs. They had just been allocated over 50% of the land of Palestine with just 30% of the population and with Jews just owning about 10% of the land. Contrary to what you stated the Jews had made full use of the British army by having their own Jewish legion during the first world war and a Jewish Brigade in world war 2. I read that 35 members of the Jewish brigade became generals in the Israeli army. The Jews were members of the Palestine police as well. 

Your obsessed with percentages, but what you say is right. If Jews with a small brigade in the British Army were able to take over 50% of the land with less than 30% of the population then what excuses do Sikhs have for 1947? You havent explained why units completely independent of the British army like the Haganah and Irgun were able to face the British in Haifa and beat them in predominantly Arab city. What excuse do we have for losing for Lahore? Apart from the fact that Sikhs have accustomed to trying to save face rather than achieve real world results.

You state state the non-Sikh Indian army would not have achieved as much because of the non-participation of Sikhs. Let's be honest here, do you think that 200,000 Sikhs in an army of millions would not have been able to get replacements for these Sikhs. Jinnah was an avid supporter of the British war effort and he could easily have got even double the amount of Muslims recruited to replace the Sikhs. My contention is not that the Sikhs saved the British empire in both world wars but that the contribution by Sikhs at least made them more ready to face the Muslim onslaught as well as being made one of the three parties consulted on partition. If the leadership was unable to use this effectively doesn't make the contribution any less significant. How exactly would you have seen the partition play out had there been no Sikh participation in world war 2? 

Well Sikhs held as much of the Western Front in WW1 as the Belglian Army or US did when the war ended. Not bad for a colonised people. We won more Victoria Crosses per capita than any other nation including the four home nations. Before all that we were instrumental in a lot of Britain's wars in East Asia.

Jinnah could have offered millions of muslims but the British wouldnt have had them. You may like to peruse British Indian Army religous makeup figures in your spare time but it doesnt take a genius to see that the numbers fluctuated based on two things: Britain's own economic state and the nature of the wars she was fighting. In peace or poverty, the amount of overall troops would fall, in war the British would go out of their way to recruit Sikhs - including pressganging and bribing religous/political figures to produce a certain number of Sikhs for service...All the other stuff you say is neither here nor there if you cant even see basic statistical patterns or understand the reality of recruitment.

If there had been no SIkhs in the British Armed Forces and police it would have been even harder for them to keep the Axis out of Egypt, Burma and East Asia. WIthout control of those their own rule in India would have crumpled into a free for all, where soldiers stationed abroad would have languished in Japanese or Italian POW camps. In India it would have been left to those left there to forge their own path. Doesnt take a genius to see what would have happened.

For a moment can you stop oscillating between such binary extremes? Not everything is either 6th gear or neutral. It must be absolutely mental to see everything in such way.

 

 

HSD, what do you think about Tonys point here?

If we look a little further in history, one of the reasons for starting the Aligarh University was to help the muslims receive the education that the hindus had embraced 40 years earlier, which had helped them claim nearly all the public service jobs and help their community progress rapidly.

Except they did that under their own steam, not under the noses of the Brits who were very keen to stamp on individualism and independent thought in their Sikh troops. Read some British army officers memoirs of WW1 and see how easily they wound up Sikh soldiers. British Indian Army training wasnt exactly a chance to 'be the best you can be', it reinforced class, caste and other prejudices that can be seen in all branches of their Armed Forces in those time periods, which in turn was a reflection of their own society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

why would patiala want a "sikh" state? just because you neo-sikhs are afraid of the fact that all sikhs come from hindu families, doesnt mean patiala is. patiala household is related to other royal houses throughout india, they dont pander to you losers now and they didnt before... and at the time of partition, neosikhi was not as strong as it is today, back then it was still common for many hindus to raise a son as sikh, now you buckets want to act like you dropped from the skies and cant even read gurbani without using kahn singh nabha as if hes your guru.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

go look up the individual history of all the sikh generals families including bhagat singh and come to daulatpur and nawanshahr and look at the history of sikhs, they were proud hindus. keep lying to yourselves and listen to your guru kahn nabha the british puppet. keep lying about terminology in SGGSji and all the other sikh literature from pre-singh sabha era. you are all fools. patiala household is proud of its hindu rajpoot ancestry hence the title "bhati kulbhushan" and you can go see the "hindu" frescos in the patiala palaces. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

patiala and kashmir royals destroyed lahore darbar and helped create this neosikhi you believe in today and control your destiny whilst maintaining their hindu history and pride, yet you fools cant see that. thats what happens when common men aspire to being ubermensch. you guys are big fat joke. which other community in this world lies about its own literature, artefacts and terminology. a serious inferiority complex is prevalent in sikh populations due to the singh sabha and jatt domination post singh sabha. bhagat singhs family were proud hindu sikhs as were hari singh nalwa and all of ranjits generals. the khatri papay from lahore side that were hindu sikhs were local landlords under hari singh and dewan mohkam chand and misr dewan chand. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Using that same logic we should have just given up after the Ghalugharas too.

Maybe it's stupid to not fight for a future where you can raise your children as Sikhs. 

I never read any source that Sikhs voluntarily started leaving sikhism in 18th century  

No census was taken during those days and no exact or near exact figures can be computed from any sources of information available today, but a general estimate has come down the generations that Sikh population in what then constituted Raṇjīt Siṅgh's Punjab was around ten million. But with the fall of the Sikh Kingdom in 1849, there set in a rapid decline in the numerical strengh of the community. As the Punjab Administration Report for the year 1851-52 issued by the British noted:

The Sikh faith and ecclesiastical polity is rapidly going where the Sikh political ascendancy has already gone. Of the two elements in the old Khalsa, namely, the followers of Nanuck, the first prophet, and the followers of Guru Govind Singh, the second great religious leader, the former will hold their ground, and the latter will lose it. The Sikhs of Nanuck, a comparatively small body of peaceful habits and old family, will perhaps cling to the faith of their fathers; but the Sikhs of Govind who are of more recent origin, who are more specially styled the Singhs or "lions", and who embraced the faith as being the religion of warfare and conquest, no longer regard the Khalsa now that the prestige has departed from it.

http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/threads/population-of-sikhs-at-the-time-of-maharaja-ranjit-singh.26485/

 Your obsessed with percentages, but what you say is right. If Jews with a small brigade in the British Army were able to take over 50% of the land with less than 30% of the population then what excuses do Sikhs have for 1947? You havent explained why units completely independent of the British army like the Haganah and Irgun were able to face the British in Haifa and beat them in predominantly Arab city. What excuse do we have for losing for Lahore? Apart from the fact that Sikhs have accustomed to trying to save face rather than achieve real world results.

There was extreme sympathy for Jews after 2nd WW , don't compare it with situation of sikhs  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

why would patiala want a "sikh" state? just because you neo-sikhs are afraid of the fact that all sikhs come from hindu families, doesnt mean patiala is. patiala household is related to other royal houses throughout india, they dont pander to you losers now and they didnt before... and at the time of partition, neosikhi was not as strong as it is today, back then it was still common for many hindus to raise a son as sikh, now you buckets want to act like you dropped from the skies and cant even read gurbani without using kahn singh nabha as if hes your guru.

It must be that day again when they let the mental patients out of the hospital? Go back to sleep Hindu, you have been countered many times but like a bad smell you keep lingering. You are a typical dumb Hindu who does not know his own history yet want to give your views on others. FYI Jodhpur and a number of other Hindu kingdoms were considering joining Pakistan and other wanted to remain independent kingdoms so much was their love for 'Hindustan'. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

show some references to your claims and at the end of the day its you who thinks murari means something else other than krishan and govind, you are a big fat joke. go read history of the sikh generals and how hindu . it was my clan who gave homage in chamkaur and to babbars, . you cant even fathom the truth.. you think SGGS is made up of new terms LMAO thats like me trying to change the definition of ubermensch whilst basing my arguments on nietzsche. you guys are major kluns. bhagat singhs family is very close to mine and everyone thats from the locality knows of the true history of their family and other sikh sardar families. its only you who are reluctant. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...