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

[JungChamkaur]

ahahah its funny because baldev singh was a family friend of ours as hes from jhanjeri area... he wasnt neo sikh either. 

 

 

[chatanga1]

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.

The ,muslims opened aligarh under their own steam?

[tonyhp32]

ahahah its funny because baldev singh was a family friend of ours as hes from jhanjeri area... he wasnt neo sikh either. 

 

 

Yeah and Obama is your massarh and you are Modi's sala. Give it a rest man, you're becoming a joke. 

[HSD1]

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

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

But there numbers were diminishing, what matter is it how that comes about?

There was no mass sympathy for the Jews after WW2, most reports of the Holocaust were written in the media and not exactly harrowing. It was only with the trials and war criminal hunts along with video documentaries in the 50s and 60s that changed world opinion. Stop backdating how things are today to back then, the Jews fought hard for what they had because they had the balls to take what they wanted, not expect it to be handed to them like children.

[HSD1]

The ,muslims opened aligarh under their own steam?

Well it was theirs wasnt it? They wanted it, they worked towards it without making it obvious and before anyone could stop them they had it.

@JungChamkaur Have you learnt how to wash your hands yet?

[kdsingh80]

But there numbers were diminishing, what matter is it how that comes about?

There was no mass sympathy for the Jews after WW2, most reports of the Holocaust were written in the media and not exactly harrowing. It was only with the trials and war criminal hunts along with video documentaries in the 50s and 60s that changed world opinion. Stop backdating how things are today to back then, the Jews fought hard for what they had because they had the balls to take what they wanted, not expect it to be handed to them like children.

So the jews who hardly put any resistance against Nazis suddenly grew balls to get their nation

The sympathy for the Jews in general and for Zionism in particular grew markedly as a result of what the Jews suffered under the Nazis. The British ignoring their legal obligation under the terms of The Mandate illegally restricted Jewish immigration into Palestine. The political situation was reaching a breaking point. The British “occupiers” were unpopular to both the Arabs and Jews. The Jews were split as to how to deal with the British in Palestine. Some, led by David Ben Gurion and Chaim Weizman believed in negotiations and political pressure, while others led by Menachem Begin believed the only way to create the State was to fight for it – and drive the British out.

 America was the first country to officially recognize the new State of Israel – eleven minutes after it was declared. U.S. President Harry Truman signed the letter of recognition – despite the objections by The United States Secretary of State George Marshall and the entire State Department.

http://www.jewishhistory.org/the-miracle-of-israel/

 And in just 11 minutes USA recognised it brilliant

[chatanga1]

Well it was theirs wasnt it? They wanted it, they worked towards it without making it obvious and before anyone could stop them they had it.

They wanted it alright but some amongst the british were extremely supportive of it.

I certainly don't feel they did it by themselves.

[HSD1]

Yes, the Jews who were gassed and cremated magically managed to resurrect themselves, fly over to Palestine and beat up the Arabs and Brits. That's exactly what happened.

Amazingly, tying their fortunes to the Polish, Russian, British or Unites States armies didnt work out for the average Jews in Eastern Europe. The White Paper from Britain limited Jewish migration to Palestine in 1939 to 75,000 a year. Well done to Britain, in one fell swoop they condemned millions to their deaths. These were the same people we let play God over us.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Paper_of_1939

As for getting themselves recognised, so what? They're not crybabies who whine that all their allies are trying to screw them over like we Sikhs do. If the Khalsa stopped crying and pointing at others saying they've got it easy, maybe just maybe they might achieve something. Otherwise keep crying, the Jews wont care what you say, they've got their own country and no one messes with them. You wont see Israeli women leaving their homes to work in the sex industry in Europe or Israeli men working as brickies in Mullahland or Anglostan. Turn that bitterness and resentment around and use it for something constructive.

They wanted it alright but some amongst the british were extremely supportive of it.

I certainly don't feel they did it by themselves.

If you dont ask you dont get, but if you just do it chances are you'll get it. Why dont you think they did it themselves? Wasnt that place set up by a Sindhi?

[Crystal]

anyways come to india this winter... come to nawanshahr. anyone of you come there anytime and bring ranjit dhadrianwala or whoever you want. please come. please, i beg you. 

what is so special about nawanshahr? Heard it is full of retards and inbreds. Das menu, what is your pind. Would love to meet such a maha soorma who is actually a nikka lula. Crystal

Edited October 7, 2015 by Crystal

[kdsingh80]

Yes, the Jews who were gassed and cremated magically managed to resurrect themselves, fly over to Palestine and beat up the Arabs and Brits. That's exactly what happened.

Amazingly, tying their fortunes to the Polish, Russian, British or Unites States armies didnt work out for the average Jews in Eastern Europe. The White Paper from Britain limited Jewish migration to Palestine in 1939 to 75,000 a year. Well done to Britain, in one fell swoop they condemned millions to their deaths. These were the same people we let play God over us.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Paper_of_1939

As for getting themselves recognised, so what? They're not crybabies who whine that all their allies are trying to screw them over like we Sikhs do. If the Khalsa stopped crying and pointing at others saying they've got it easy, maybe just maybe they might achieve something. Otherwise keep crying, the Jews wont care what you say, they've got their own country and no one messes with them. You wont see Israeli women leaving their homes to work in the sex industry in Europe or Israeli men working as brickies in Mullahland or Anglostan. Turn that bitterness and resentment around and use it for something constructive.

If you dont ask you dont get, but if you just do it chances are you'll get it. Why dont you think they did it themselves? Wasnt that place set up by a Sindhi?

So  your thinking that with an independent sikh nation, Sikhs won't be migrating to to first world nations?There are many independent nations in world how many are like Israel. Why their people move to First world  nations? Look at Nepal , India's neighbour and independent . Their main export to India is prostitutes and men doing menial jobs

 

Moving to First world nation is more of result of aping what others did and upgrading your lifestyle, get as much luxuries as you could the sikhs that moved to west in early 20th century or 50s or 60s came back with money and much better lifestyle. It is natural for people to ape them and try to get lifestyle which they have no matter what work they have to do.

 

As far Israel is concerned it is one exception . It did get much benefit due to holocaust . West Germany paid 3 billion DM which is equivelant to 112 billion USD today from 52-66 and also plenty of aid from west. there are 100s of nation in world and most of them facing similar problem, hardly anyone is like Israel . Either jews are superhuman or truth lies in something else

[dalsingh101]

 

This geezer looks like he hasn't seen his dick in 7 years. 

[chatanga1]

look at around 31 mins.

[chatanga1]

. Why dont you think they did it themselves? Wasnt that place set up by a Sindhi?

from my reading on it, there were some british officials who guided and encouraged them to make this university. they were extremely instrumental in getting it going.

[tonyhp32]

 

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?

So you think that having ex-military men in a community under attack does not allow that community to have a better chance of defending themselves or even a better chance of moving to a safer place in a more cohesive manner?

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. 

Ramadan finished a few days after the Radcliffe award (14th August) was announced and yet these Muslim convoys were still badly led and badly organised into late September. The fact was that majority of the Punjabi Muslims who were in the military were from areas of West Punjab. The leaders of the Jathas were for the most part ex-soldiers who had joined paramilitary organisations under the Akali Dal. There might have been Sikhs from the Sikh states organising some convoys but from the ones that came from the canal colonies especially ones whose members I have talked to which came from Khanewal in Multan which was a canal colony area, these convoys were led by ex-soldiers. These ex-soldiers would know how to select defensible positions for the convoys to rest, have knowledge of organising reconnaissance, organise food rations etc. 

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...

Churchill was in no position to offer anything as he was out of power and Attlee was making the decisions. Churchill had already given his consent to the Independence of India. Had Churchill felt so strongly about giving the Sikhs a state, Baldev Singh was not the only Sikh he could have dealt with. Churchill could have used his sources in India to liaise with Master Tara Singh or Gyani Kartar Singh or others. 

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.

It wasn't a small brigade of Jews. The Jews had better support than the Sikhs could ever hope for.. For one they had contacts in the White House which influenced Truman to support the partition plan. They also used their money power to bribe the smaller countries to vote for the partition plan. But the most important difference between the Jewish and the Sikh situations were that the Jews were able to get the world community to gift them an area of land in which they were a minority and of which they had only 10% of the land. There is a big difference between defending and retaining a country which has been recognised by the world community and fighting for a land which has already been split between two states. Whatever the precariousness of the governments of  both India and Pakistan it would have been a much harder struggle for the Sikhs than the 1948 war was for the Jews. For one both governments had hundreds of thousands of troops at their disposal. The Pakistan government had managed to retain the services of British generals. Do you think the Sikhs with their ex-soldiers and the troops from the Sikh states have managed to fight with one of both governments to keep hold of areas that the partition line had robbed them of? As for Haifa, it was a NOT predominantly an Arab city. It was one of the ports where the refugees ships docked and by 1947 the Jews outnumbered the Arabs there. If the Sikhs had the same population advantage in Lahore as the Jews did in Haifa then Lahore would have had a different future than it had since 1947. Sikhs were less than 10% and the Muslims 64%. The Hindus had pretty much abandoned the city a month before the partition boundary was announced. So do you expect that 10% can hold a city against 64%? This might happen in the 18th century but we are discussing the 20th century. 

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.

I asked for a reference that the Sikh leadership had agreed to the Jathas being bombed from the air. You have just given some reference that Mountbatten had such a plan. Where is you proof that the Sikh leadership approved of it?

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.

So you support the belief that some people are more martial then other? The British also conquered most of India and the Punjab with regiments made up of Bhayyas. The Pathans and Baloch as well as Muslim Rajputs were considered at par with the Sikh soldiers. Jinnah could have supplied the British with twice the number of Punjabi Muslims to replace the Sikhs. This was why the Sikh leadership broke with the Congress and supported the war effort. As for VCs, I can see numbers are not your strong point but the Gurkhas who are recruited from a few particular tribes in Nepal and thus are smaller in number than the Sikhs have had more VCs (10: 5) than Sikhs up to 1947. The fact is that had not the Sikhs taken the opportunity to join the British army then another group would have done and the Sikhs would have been in a worst position in 1947. 

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.

Your contention would make sense if the Sikhs in the army at that time suddenly refused to fight, that would have affected the British war effort. If you that think that the British could not have replaced the Sikhs with another community then you are deluded. 

Edited October 11, 2015 by tonyhp32

[JungChamkaur]

mind you the bhayyas that conquered lahore darbar were bhumihar brahmins and thakurs not yadavs or other shudra castes of bihar... 

you can go to bihar and see for yourself who the bhumihar brahmins are and the rajputs... they are very belligerent and haughty. the most dangerous states in india are UP MP and Bihar i would say. the gujjars, brahmins and rajputs of these states have produced many dacoits and brigands and can still overrun punjab if the need was to arise today. 

[JungChamkaur]

thing is. most of you people dont step out of your khoos and talabs so you just stay in punjab. most punjabis are shit scared of visiting bihar and areas like chambal. hell, jatts cant even step to rajputs in nawanshahr or himachal. wherevere there are rajputs in punjab its held by them. look at pathankot or nawanshahr. the malwai is nothing but talk like the brars in bhangus story. one sikhi lost the mohyal brahmins, the khatris and rajputs, sikhi never formed a potent political alternative ever again. 

[JungChamkaur]

as far as being soldiers goes, i would say ranghars would defeat sikhs at any time.. its only because of internal divisions amongst ranghars that sikhs were able to defeat them anyways as tribes fought by themselves and when you look at indo-pak wars thats simply because of indian military superiority in all fields of comparison. if you actually compared a malwai lalu and majhail in his personal setting (his pind) to a ranghar in pakistan... there is a world of a difference and the ranghar is vastly superior to the eastern punjabi in terms of courage, bravery and anakh. sikhs are a very cheap and frugal people who like eating free food. otherwise cant even give cha da cup to anyone. ranghars are big hearted and men of their word. unlike the sikh who is like a saini or a pappa and says whatever is appropriate in a setting to save his own skin. in our area it is common to see jatts start problems when theyre drunk and get beat up and show up the next morning with their pag in our feet asking for forgiveness. 

[tonyhp32]

Firstly get over your Rajput pride BS. You Rajputs especially you Ghorawaha idiots are well known to have helped Mahmud of Ghor when he invaded India and as Rajputs you have excelled others by giving your women to the Muslims. Over 90% of you Ghorawaha haramzadas are Muslims so what happened, did your family not follow the herd? 

Its quite amusing to see some a person belonging to a religion of cowards give his opinion on which other communities are better fighters than another. You are a joke.

[amardeep]

I remember reading that Banda Singh Bahadur asked the Rajput rane of Rajastan to join his Dharam Yudh during his uprising. The rajput rane decided to join the Mughals instead and fight the Sikhs and reestablish Mughal rule over Punjab.

[HSD1]

So  your thinking that with an independent sikh nation, Sikhs won't be migrating to to first world nations?There are many independent nations in world how many are like Israel. Why their people move to First world  nations? Look at Nepal , India's neighbour and independent . Their main export to India is prostitutes and men doing menial jobs

Yes I do. If we had the brains and balls to get our own country, we might have actually felt the need to look after it. Nepal has never been a major country, like Punjab was.

Moving to First world nation is more of result of aping what others did and upgrading your lifestyle, get as much luxuries as you could the sikhs that moved to west in early 20th century or 50s or 60s came back with money and much better lifestyle. It is natural for people to ape them and try to get lifestyle which they have no matter what work they have to do.

So Sikhs are nothing more than a cargo cult now? Great. If aping what people did in the 60s is such a great idea, why dont some Sikhs in EP invent the telephone - I heard the guy who did that ended up filthy rich. Or maybe the people there should set up companies called 'Apple' or 'Microsoft' because those companies ended up rich didnt they? lol.

As far Israel is concerned it is one exception . It did get much benefit due to holocaust . West Germany paid 3 billion DM which is equivelant to 112 billion USD today from 52-66 and also plenty of aid from west. there are 100s of nation in world and most of them facing similar problem, hardly anyone is like Israel . Either jews are superhuman or truth lies in something else

I've heard the saying 'every silver cloud has a silver lining' but I dont think that quite translates to getting benefits out of something as mad as the Holocaust. West Germany's payments were paid as they had been let off the hook for a lot of reperations and the fact that the Jews had gone and got their own country. Do you think the West Germans would have still paid it out if the Arabs and Brits had pushed the Jews into the sea? Face it, the Jews achieved what they wanted because they werent stupid, they worked together and they fought hard. Nothing superhuman about that.

[HSD1]

 

So you think that having ex-military men in a community under attack does not allow that community to have a better chance of defending themselves or even a better chance of moving to a safer place in a more cohesive manner?

No I dont, the world is far more complicated than the simple pendu way you see things.

I find it sickening that you have to make such emotional self righteous capital out of the suffering of the Yazidis, simply telling them they should have gone and joined Saddam's army and letting them get slaughtered now. Where could they go? What could they do? You have glazed over all my points and backed yourself into a corner, what have all the Sunni tribes in Iraq who were part of Saddam's army do? They got slaughtered just like the Yazidis.

You can sit in the West chatting crap whilst people die, but lets face it what would you say if Pakistan descended into chaos and large numbers of terrorists started pouring into East Punjab?

Ramadan finished a few days after the Radcliffe award (14th August) was announced and yet these Muslim convoys were still badly led and badly organised into late September. The fact was that majority of the Punjabi Muslims who were in the military were from areas of West Punjab. The leaders of the Jathas were for the most part ex-soldiers who had joined paramilitary organisations under the Akali Dal. There might have been Sikhs from the Sikh states organising some convoys but from the ones that came from the canal colonies especially ones whose members I have talked to which came from Khanewal in Multan which was a canal colony area, these convoys were led by ex-soldiers. These ex-soldiers would know how to select defensible positions for the convoys to rest, have knowledge of organising reconnaissance, organise food rations etc. 

No it ran through most of the violence. It's why the Sikh militias in East Punjab border could go on rescues/punishment raids into West Punjab whilst the muslims didnt try anything similar into East Punjab.

The militias were set up and supplied by the militaries of East Punjab or by smart individuals at a local level. The Akali Dal couldnt organise a piss up in a brewery. The British Army never taught the rubbish you are on about. The British Armed forces used motor vehicles to transport supplies in theatre and most convoy support revolved around the use of air power. How on earth you can translate all that to SIkhs on horses and using carts is getting ludicrous.

Can you actually provide any sources that have categorically and statistically verified that Sikhs were better at organising convoys? You have some anecdotal evidence, great, my family come from the border region and the refugees they had to deal with were dishevelled, ill and shocked at loosing their homes and their birthright. They werent some cowboys who blazed a trail eastwards like 19th century Yanks in those John Wayne movies you probably watched growing up in the 60s.

Churchill was in no position to offer anything as he was out of power and Attlee was making the decisions. Churchill had already given his consent to the Independence of India. Had Churchill felt so strongly about giving the Sikhs a state, Baldev Singh was not the only Sikh he could have dealt with. Churchill could have used his sources in India to liaise with Master Tara Singh or Gyani Kartar Singh or others. 

He had been waiting for a while to get a Sikh leader on his own and when he did go out of his way he had his offer turned down. What did you want Churchill to do? Chase after Baldev Singh and beg him to do what was good for his own people? Not everyone responds that way to a blunt refusal and being talked down to- just Sikhs. Churchill could have been a valuable go between for us with the British Government, the British Armed Forces and the Americans - but we turned him down even when he tried taking a Sikh leader under his wing for a while and introducing him to people who could have given Sikhs their own country. Would the other SIkh leaders been any different? Biggest pack of morons ever.

It wasn't a small brigade of Jews. The Jews had better support than the Sikhs could ever hope for.. For one they had contacts in the White House which influenced Truman to support the partition plan. They also used their money power to bribe the smaller countries to vote for the partition plan. But the most important difference between the Jewish and the Sikh situations were that the Jews were able to get the world community to gift them an area of land in which they were a minority and of which they had only 10% of the land. There is a big difference between defending and retaining a country which has been recognised by the world community and fighting for a land which has already been split between two states. Whatever the precariousness of the governments of  both India and Pakistan it would have been a much harder struggle for the Sikhs than the 1948 war was for the Jews. For one both governments had hundreds of thousands of troops at their disposal. The Pakistan government had managed to retain the services of British generals. Do you think the Sikhs with their ex-soldiers and the troops from the Sikh states have managed to fight with one of both governments to keep hold of areas that the partition line had robbed them of? As for Haifa, it was a NOT predominantly an Arab city. It was one of the ports where the refugees ships docked and by 1947 the Jews outnumbered the Arabs there. If the Sikhs had the same population advantage in Lahore as the Jews did in Haifa then Lahore would have had a different future than it had since 1947. Sikhs were less than 10% and the Muslims 64%. The Hindus had pretty much abandoned the city a month before the partition boundary was announced. So do you expect that 10% can hold a city against 64%? This might happen in the 18th century but we are discussing the 20th century.

More excuses. No wonder Sikhs didnt get their own country if they expect it to be served on a plate to them. No one gifted them anything, the Jews werent brainless dogs who sat around watching the world go past until someone decides to give them a kicking. They planned for and took what they wanted. Again, why did we allow ourselves to get in the position where we contemplated our future all of a sudden when two different governments with no interest in our welfare were tearing up our homeland? Answer that and you might find out the real reason Jews got their own country.

So what if Pakistan had British generals? The same generals who refused to get involved in the Kashmir conflict even under direct orders from Jinnah? And what would it mattered if Sikh ex-soldiers had faced off against their former generals and officers? You were encouraging the Yazidis to do the exact same thing when you said they should have joined Saddam's army back in the day to now face ISIS who are run by a lot of Saddam's former generals and officers.

Haifa was predominantly Arab up until 1947 when the Jews started strongarming them out. In one battle the Jews managed to kick out over 50% of a city because they wanted to. You can throw around percentages but it just masks the fact Sikhs had been neutered by the Brits. Why could it be done in the 18th and not the 20th - not even with all those shiny automatic weapons the former Sikh soldiers had?

I asked for a reference that the Sikh leadership had agreed to the Jathas being bombed from the air. You have just given some reference that Mountbatten had such a plan. Where is you proof that the Sikh leadership approved of it?

All 3 main leaders signed the authorisation for Britain to use air power against agitators during independence. Sikh leaders never said anything when our lot were being killed, but when trains started rolling into West Punjab full of dead muslims, Jinnah complained to Mountbatten and he scolded the Sikh leadership who said they stood by the use of force against violent agitators. The RAF/IAF couldnt spare the planes to even patrol the railways let alone bomb suspected villages so Mountbatten gave up. Its all in his correspondence in the Mountbatten files. I know Sikhs like you are used to being spoonfed but if you want to stay ignorant I'll still sleep easy at night.

So you support the belief that some people are more martial then other? The British also conquered most of India and the Punjab with regiments made up of Bhayyas. The Pathans and Baloch as well as Muslim Rajputs were considered at par with the Sikh soldiers. Jinnah could have supplied the British with twice the number of Punjabi Muslims to replace the Sikhs. This was why the Sikh leadership broke with the Congress and supported the war effort. As for VCs, I can see numbers are not your strong point but the Gurkhas who are recruited from a few particular tribes in Nepal and thus are smaller in number than the Sikhs have had more VCs (10: 5) than Sikhs up to 1947. The fact is that had not the Sikhs taken the opportunity to join the British army then another group would have done and the Sikhs would have been in a worst position in 1947. 

I support the idea that some people are more mental others. Sikhs havent been martial since 1849. They have been cannon fodder though.

As for maths, I can tell you that I have better qualifications in it than you or ilk could ever hope for. I see English isnt your strong point as I was referencing Sikh deeds in WW1, we all know Sikh effort towards WW2 wasnt anywhere near the same level. But nice try at trying to confuse a point.

If the Brits werent bothered by who they recruited why did they put so much effort into brainwashing SIkh kids into loving Britannia and hating Britain's enemies, pay community and religous leaders in the Sikh community on commission for recruits and good old fashioned pressganging?

The problems with Pathans and Balochs is that they were considered more capable of independent thought than Sikhs, who were more useful as they blindly followed and were a bit woggish. Isnt this trip through 1930s British racial stereotyping fun?!

Your contention would make sense if the Sikhs in the army at that time suddenly refused to fight, that would have affected the British war effort. If you that think that the British could not have replaced the Sikhs with another community then you are deluded. 

If they refused to fight they would have been in massive shit far away from anywhere that they use to their advantage. The British could have replaced us, but they never did, for what kind of rupert wants to go into combat with a bunch of self-serving muslims or useless Hindus? Their thoughts, not mine.

[HSD1]

This Rajput needs his own thread where the mods can dump all his posts. Just an idea.

[kdsingh80]

 

Yes I do. If we had the brains and balls to get our own country, we might have actually felt the need to look after it. Nepal has never been a major country, like Punjab was.

 

Nepal was just an example , Sri lanka , philipines, vietnam , african nation etc how many are like Israel?

So Sikhs are nothing more than a cargo cult now? Great. If aping what people did in the 60s is such a great idea, why dont some Sikhs in EP invent the telephone - I heard the guy who did that ended up filthy rich. Or maybe the people there should set up companies called 'Apple' or 'Microsoft' because those companies ended up rich didnt they? lol.

You certainly have no Idea what aping means for humans. When a group of your own people do something and majority of them become succesful then the rest also follows the craze. upto 80s Indian middle class was badly struggling then came IT industry and those opted for that changed their fortune.  From 90s and 2000s every indian middle class family wanted their child to opt for computers this is called aping. Aping does not mean you reinvent things foolishly. As far apple and microsoft are concerned  there are thousands who tried and are trying to be like them but for 1 success story there are 9999 failure stories. Also people hardly follow exceptions. Harbhajan singh and Yuvraj singh became succesful cricketers from Punjab in 2000s , but it does not mean that most people are following them.

I've heard the saying 'every silver cloud has a silver lining' but I dont think that quite translates to getting benefits out of something as mad as the Holocaust. West Germany's payments were paid as they had been let off the hook for a lot of reperations and the fact that the Jews had gone and got their own country. Do you think the West Germans would have still paid it out if the Arabs and Brits had pushed the Jews into the sea? Face it, the Jews achieved what they wanted because they werent stupid, they worked together and they fought hard. Nothing superhuman about that.

Can you provide details how jews fought for Israel , what I have found is that Britishers were already in favour of jewish state from 1917 

There was already sympathy for the aims of Zionism in the British government, including the Prime Minister Lloyd George.^[67] In late 1917, the British Army drove the Turks out of Southern Syria,^[68] and the British foreign minister, Lord Balfour, sent a public letter to Lord Rothschild, a leading member of his party and leader of the Jewish community. The letter subsequently became known as the Balfour Declaration of 1917. It stated that the British Government "view[ed] with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people". The declaration provided the British government with a pretext for claiming and governing the country.^[69] New Middle Eastern boundaries were decided by an agreement between British and French bureaucrats. The agreement gave Britain control over what parties would begin to call "Palestine". This appellation would remain uncontroversial until the rise of Anti-Zionism in the 1940s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Israel#Increase_of_Jewish_immigration_1930.E2.80.931938

The anti jewish feeling in Europe followed by exodus from Europe in 30s and later on Holocaust . In all this the only thing I found that Jews were determined to go to Israel because of their religious belief and this only I can say is their contribution. O/W Israel is much more creation of circumstances.imagine if none of jews were ever kicked out from Europe then do you think Israel could had been created?

[Crystal]

On 05/10/2015 at 6:55 PM, chatanga1 said:

Dal, the Sikh war experience before 1914 was 1849. With a little bit of action in 1857 and then. Maybe a little action in Afghanistan in the 1880s.

But nothing of note in between. these and WW1.

Tony's point is valid. Testimonies of partition survivors tell of the Baloch military trying to disarm Sikhs before letting them move. Some gave up their arms and regreted it. Some hid their weapons and needed them later on.

Do share source for the last bit you said. I would like to read that.

[chatanga1]

15 hours ago, Crystal said:

Do share source for the last bit you said. I would like to read that.

I have so many books on partiition that I can't remember which book it was. But i would recommend the "Partition of Punjab" by Dr Kirpal Singh. It costs around £25 but is very detailed. Around 800 pages. Loads and loads of info in that.