Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
dalsingh101

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

Recommended Posts

I saw this yesterday , one very interesting point was that , her grandfathers father was born as Dheru Ram , from Hindu family and it was custom to give one of their chilldren into Sikhi  out of respect due to the sacrifices the Gurus and Singhs made to uphold justice in India , hence her grandfather was Sant Ram and then Sant Singh ... truly amazing.

My father also told me of the sacrifices Sikh Women had to make in order to save them from rape/torture by the muslims ...shocking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw this yesterday , one very interesting point was that , her grandfathers father was born as Dheru Ram , from Hindu family and it was custom to give one of their chilldren into Sikhi  out of respect due to the sacrifices the Gurus and Singhs made to uphold justice in India , hence her grandfather was Sant Ram and then Sant Singh ... truly amazing.

My father also told me of the sacrifices Sikh Women had to make in order to save them from rape/torture by the muslims ...shocking

why one has to be so disgustingly sectarian. Hindus gave children ...due to the sacrifices the Gurus and Singhs made to uphold justice in India"

Crazy!

and ONLY Sikh women made sacrifices. Hindu and Muslim women were possibly presented to the mobs so that their coward men could be allowed to escape without being molested.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets keep this to discussing the program. I thought it was very unusual for the program to not have mentioned her fathers' name once, or that she stated "my mom's a Sikh", insinuating her father was not. Anita spoke HIndi quite well which I find is unusual as Panjabis in the UK struggle with Panjabi, nevermind HIndi.

Otherwise it was great to see Khalsa College briefly, it looks so elegant and the guy Ankit came across as very well-spoken. He's the kind of guy I would love to know being a mine of information about this period. The guy Rana from Delhi was very well-spoken as well. Contrast this with the english woman who spoke with a hint of an indian accent.

It was quite amusing to see a potter pull the wool over english eyes and state he was a jat to get enlisted. I wonder how many people thought of doing this and how would the british have known.

Anita's reaction on the killings of the women during partition seemed to be a little reactionary. She stated that they were not given a choice in the matter, but to me it felt like she was applying her 2015 lifestyle to Panjab 1947. Of course it was a horrible situation for anyone to find themselves in, but was it any worse than a lifetime of abuse or being converted and married to another person by force? Or a lifetime of destitution? It was a decision taken in those circumstances where the menfolk felt like they would not get out alive. So it was better to kill the women lest they should be abducted and raped.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw this yesterday , one very interesting point was that , her grandfathers father was born as Dheru Ram , from Hindu family and it was custom to give one of their chilldren into Sikhi  out of respect due to the sacrifices the Gurus and Singhs made to uphold justice in India , hence her grandfather was Sant Ram and then Sant Singh ... truly amazing.

My father also told me of the sacrifices Sikh Women had to make in order to save them from rape/torture by the muslims ...shocking

The white lady who stated this in the documentary was just repeating something that either she had read about or more probably be told and accepted as a fact rather than investigating further. 

Probably the reason that Sant Ram became Sant Singh was that in order to join the British Indian army he needed to belong to a martial race which for Sikhs was Jat, Lobana, Mazhabi, Rajput etc.  Being from a Hindu Ghumar background he could not join the army so he gave his caste as Jat Sikh as was noted on his military record.  Although he appears to have been in the Kashmir State army first so probably that state army also gave preference to martial castes as well. Maybe he joined that army as there would not have been much of a background check but if he joined the British army then he would have been background checked through the Zaildar or Lambardar of the village. Also in order to own land which they did I think in both Montgomery and Jalandhar they would have had to have been classed as an agricultural caste. The probability is that either their land in village in Jalandhar had been in the family prior to 1901 when the Alienation of Land act came in denying non-agricultural castes the chance to buy agricultural land. It was amusing when she asked her relative why had her grandfather's land and from his expression you could see that something dodgy had gone on.  The programme also didn't go much into Sant Singh's time in the army. He had been in the army since the late 1930s so he probably saw action in WW2. 

Anita's reaction on the killings of the women during partition seemed to be a little reactionary. She stated that they were not given a choice in the matter, but to me it felt like she was applying her 2015 lifestyle to Panjab 1947. Of course it was a horrible situation for anyone to find themselves in, but was it any worse than a lifetime of abuse or being converted and married to another person by force? Or a lifetime of destitution? It was a decision taken in those circumstances where the menfolk felt like they would not get out alive. So it was better to kill the women lest they should be abducted and raped.

You are right that she applied her 2015 secular European sensibilities to the 1947 situation. At one point she even called the killing of women by menfolk or suicide of women as barbaric. The programme did not give any background to the violence in Rawalpindi  and this may have been because the BBC know how Islam now has such a bad name and didn't want to contribute to make it worse. 

All in all it was a good programme and should give those in our community who want to research their family history good encouragement. 

 

Edited by tonyhp32

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eugh, another BBC programme about Partition and another chance to drag out the same old hashed out story of Sikh patriarchs killing their daughters who would have preffered to be raped, tortured and forced to produce more terror tots than die with dignity according to the BBC. I think we need to write letters to the BBC letting them know that even though cuckoldry is common amongst Englishman (and Sunny Hundal) not everyone would enjoy watching their daughters get gang-raped by random men, even though this is something that is a cornerstone of English culture. Surely the British sense of tolerance that we hear so much about could stretch to accomodate those of us who dont indulge in that sort of thing?

If you believed the BBC you'd end up believing that Muslims killed no one and the Sikhs were responsible for all the violence - including killing their own. Outside of BBC-La-La-Land we all knew that Britain gave Jinah the nod to go ahead and when it didnt work Montbatten tried to getting the RAF to carpet bomb Sikh towns and villages. When the RAF couldnt do it he wanted the British Army to force Sikhs onto cattle trains and deport them to central India. Seeing as the British forces were having a hard enough time in Amritsar even with tanks against civilians the plan was dropped. No wonder the Irgun over in Palestine hung as many Brits as they could get their hands on.

As for Anita Rai crying over the women not having a say, it's not like they had a lot of good options anyway. I'm surprised Nihal hasnt done a radio show about with a phone in to capitalise on slagging off Sikhs.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anita is fit, but a typically dumb biatch.

 

I for one, as a bloke, would rather someone I loved put one in my head whilst I was praying ending things honourably and quickly, as opposed to being raped multiple times, probably mutilated, then either sold off or married to some old pervert - if not killed.

 

What a c**t.

 

Again, see how Mr. British Soldier Singh  is miles away fighting for whiteman's agenda rather than around to help his own family/people.

 

Learn lessons people!!!!

Edited by dalsingh101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, see how Mr. British Soldier Singh  is miles away fighting for whiteman's agenda rather than around to help his own family/people.

 

Learn lessons people!!!!

If it hadn't been for the tens of thousands of demobbed Sikh ex-soldiers available to take on the Muslims then what do you think would have been the result? The Muslims had already shown how their majority (77%) in the Punjab Police had allowed them to kill non-Muslims with impunity. Do you really think that Sikhs having the necessary military training to take on the Muslims gained because they had fought in the 'white man's war' was a bad thing? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look at what's happening to the Yazidis in Iraq. An exact replica of what the Muslims did to the Sikhs and Hindus in West Punjab. Maybe if the Yazidis had been recruited into Saddam's army maybe their villages would have had ex-military people to defend themselves when IS attacked. 

Maybe the Yazidis should have joined Saddam's army back in the day to help them fight wars in the present. After all a lot of Saddam's top commanders and officer class who would have led the Yazidis (in a disastrous war with Iran and then the US in the 80s/90s) are now in charge of ISIS military operations. Then the Yazidis could be just like us, fighting for one group who in turn try and bring about their destruction in the next war. Because that's done us so well.......

You say that if it wasnt for the Sikhs in the Indian Army then the muslims would washed over us and taken all Punjab. But that's just your opinion. Some nutjobs say the reason EP stayed Sikh was the high prevalance of former INA/Tiger Legion soldiers there. I personally feel that it was down to one simple thing - East Punjab had two independant states who's militaries took the role in Partition that the Irgun/Haganah were doing in Palestine. They armed Sikhs with guns and the necessary ammunition, provided jeeps and trucks and were standoffish with the British occupiers enough so that they didnt go after the Sikh militias.

Your point also doesnt explain why Sikhs in West Punjab didnt survive, seeing as many of them had served in the British Armed Forces. Why didnt they prevent the muslims taking over? Before you go off on one detailing the number of jatts/chamars in the Indian Army was higher in the Doaba/Majha/whatever region, take a step back. A long time ago, a great man said all who take refuge under the Nishan Sahib would be protected by the Khalsa. 100 years before Partition if a Sikh village was under threat from muslims they would send someone to their local FaujiQilajat garrison. Within days thousands of Sikh regulars and militias would be in the area ensuring the rule of law and Sikh values as laid out by our Gurus - as well as knocking some muslims about. Yet for many of our grandparents, the Nishan Sahib wasnt a symbol of protection and strength - it was a target that drew the monsters to the door. Have you ever asked yourself why?

I'll tell you why - the British demilitarised Punjab and made sure Sikhs were exposed so that in future they could finish us off when we were no longer useful. They tore down the walls around our villages, filled in our defensive ditches, confiscated all weapons in every household and took any books that would mentally arm Sikhs with any kind of foresight. If anything, Partition was a continuation of the Second Anglo-Sikh War; during that war the British flooded West Punjab with hundreds of political agents, weapons and money. They turned a mass of people who had been forced to live nicely with others back into the savages they were under the Mughals. After the defeat of one legion at Gujrat I believe that if we hadnt agreed terms the British would have encouraged the muslims hordes to head towards Lahore/Amritsar. It suited them to stop the war then, but when it suited them to finish us off they didnt waste any time. Why was there such a large British military presence around Amritsar? Why do you never ever hear of any account of British troops helping Sikh or Hindu refugees from West Punjab get to safety, yet the British poured troops and weapons into East Punjab to help muslim refugees get through? 

Face it, the muslims and brits pulled a fast one and you lot are still trying to get your heads round it. 70 years later. I hope you still dont think that Guru Nanak prophecised that Britannia and the Khalsa would rule the world together? If we had let the British fight their own wars they wouldnt have been in a position to tear Punjab apart...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tony is the white-man's apologist mouthpiece. Loves whitey because that's the only way his family could get work outside of peasantry. 

My great-grandfather backed his ish up at partition, he didn't have to sell his soul to Brits in order to do so, or need British military training - he was strong as eff from working hard.

Stop being the typical sycophant because you don't have enough brain power to see through gora schemes (probably like your father, his father and his father too). This dumb mentality is bringing the community down. 

Edited by dalsingh101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your point also doesnt explain why Sikhs in West Punjab didnt survive, seeing as many of them had served in the British Armed Forces. Why didnt they prevent the muslims taking over?

HSD, Dally and tony, you all make valid points in your posts above. From what I've read Sikh soldiers who retired from the british army kept their weapons with them, mainly pistols and shotguns, but also the odd stengun here and there. People armed with these formed the vanguard of the kafilas moving towards India. Those that were caught up used these weapons to defend themselves.

Now coming onto HSD's point quoted above. The Sikhs in west Panjab coudnt survive. They couldn't survive in those areas where 80% of the population were hostile to them and wanted them gone. Add to this, the new pakistan govt didnt want them there either, so what choice did they have when neither govt or populace wanted them there?

 

If you think about Lahore, it was much easier to defend than other areas in W Panjab, the muslims being about 57%, but they still took Lahore and amongst feeble opposition from the Sikhs. Plus it was only a matter of miles from Amritsar, where the Sikhs outnumered by 3 to 1 still managed to save Amritsar. Yet the reverse happened in Lahore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What, and Singh's didn't have ample military experience to deal with sullay prior to whitey turning up?

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.

Edited by chatanga1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tony is the white-man's apologist mouthpiece. Loves whitey because that's the only way his family could get work outside of peasantry. 

My great-grandfather backed his ish up at partition, he didn't have to sell his soul to Brits in order to do so, or need British military training - he was strong as eff from working hard.

Stop being the typical sycophant because you don't have enough brain power to see through gora schemes (probably like your father, his father and his father too). This dumb mentality is bringing the community down. 

So your great grandfather wasn't one of the Tarkhans that took advantage of the goray's rule by migrating to Kenya and becoming their Duggus to build the railways there? Well that's good for you, But the Sikhs after 1849 were more intelligent then fools like you who would have advised the Sikhs to stay away from the British administration and allowed the Hindus to dominate the business field and the Muslims to become the backbone of the army. Only a complete fool would give that kind of advice to a small minority in competition against larger communities. Yes, my ancestors were peasants but they had land and a means of livelihood other than the army whereas your ancestors were reliant on mine for their livelihood. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So your great grandfather wasn't one of the Tarkhans that took advantage of the goray's rule by migrating to Kenya and becoming their Duggus to build the railways there? Well that's good for you, But the Sikhs after 1849 were more intelligent then fools like you who would have advised the Sikhs to stay away from the British administration and allowed the Hindus to dominate the business field and the Muslims to become the backbone of the army. Only a complete fool would give that kind of advice to a small minority in competition against larger communities. Yes, my ancestors were peasants but they had land and a means of livelihood other than the army whereas your ancestors were reliant on mine for their livelihood. 

What your family do when they got here? Clean toilets at Heathrow or a minicab driving like a regular pakis? 

 

If you've got no strategy for going forward other than sycophancy to goray, try keeping your mouth shut. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the Yazidis should have joined Saddam's army back in the day to help them fight wars in the present. After all a lot of Saddam's top commanders and officer class who would have led the Yazidis (in a disastrous war with Iran and then the US in the 80s/90s) are now in charge of ISIS military operations. Then the Yazidis could be just like us, fighting for one group who in turn try and bring about their destruction in the next war. Because that's done us so well.......

You say that if it wasnt for the Sikhs in the Indian Army then the muslims would washed over us and taken all Punjab. But that's just your opinion. Some nutjobs say the reason EP stayed Sikh was the high prevalance of former INA/Tiger Legion soldiers there. I personally feel that it was down to one simple thing - East Punjab had two independant states who's militaries took the role in Partition that the Irgun/Haganah were doing in Palestine. They armed Sikhs with guns and the necessary ammunition, provided jeeps and trucks and were standoffish with the British occupiers enough so that they didnt go after the Sikh militias.

Your point also doesnt explain why Sikhs in West Punjab didnt survive, seeing as many of them had served in the British Armed Forces. Why didnt they prevent the muslims taking over? Before you go off on one detailing the number of jatts/chamars in the Indian Army was higher in the Doaba/Majha/whatever region, take a step back. A long time ago, a great man said all who take refuge under the Nishan Sahib would be protected by the Khalsa. 100 years before Partition if a Sikh village was under threat from muslims they would send someone to their local FaujiQilajat garrison. Within days thousands of Sikh regulars and militias would be in the area ensuring the rule of law and Sikh values as laid out by our Gurus - as well as knocking some muslims about. Yet for many of our grandparents, the Nishan Sahib wasnt a symbol of protection and strength - it was a target that drew the monsters to the door. Have you ever asked yourself why?

I'll tell you why - the British demilitarised Punjab and made sure Sikhs were exposed so that in future they could finish us off when we were no longer useful. They tore down the walls around our villages, filled in our defensive ditches, confiscated all weapons in every household and took any books that would mentally arm Sikhs with any kind of foresight. If anything, Partition was a continuation of the Second Anglo-Sikh War; during that war the British flooded West Punjab with hundreds of political agents, weapons and money. They turned a mass of people who had been forced to live nicely with others back into the savages they were under the Mughals. After the defeat of one legion at Gujrat I believe that if we hadnt agreed terms the British would have encouraged the muslims hordes to head towards Lahore/Amritsar. It suited them to stop the war then, but when it suited them to finish us off they didnt waste any time. Why was there such a large British military presence around Amritsar? Why do you never ever hear of any account of British troops helping Sikh or Hindu refugees from West Punjab get to safety, yet the British poured troops and weapons into East Punjab to help muslim refugees get through? 

Face it, the muslims and brits pulled a fast one and you lot are still trying to get your heads round it. 70 years later. I hope you still dont think that Guru Nanak prophecised that Britannia and the Khalsa would rule the world together? If we had let the British fight their own wars they wouldnt have been in a position to tear Punjab apart...

 

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? 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Go to muslim blogs and forums they tell Britishers were against muslims and were benefitting Hindu- sikhs

Go to Hindu blogs and forums they tell Britishers favoured sikhs and muslims

Sikh forums also tell Britishers were pro muslims and hindu's

 

So where the truth lies?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What your family do when they got here? Clean toilets at Heathrow or a minicab driving like a regular pakis? 

 

If you've got no strategy for going forward other than sycophancy to goray, try keeping your mouth shut. 

What are you on about? We got here because the British were handing out visas to ex-soldiers. We didn't need to clean any toilets. How did your family get here? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are you on about? We got here because the British were handing out visas to ex-soldiers. We didn't need to clean any toilets. How did your family get here? 

Because they were skilled and talented. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HSD, Dally and tony, you all make valid points in your posts above. From what I've read Sikh soldiers who retired from the british army kept their weapons with them, mainly pistols and shotguns, but also the odd stengun here and there. People armed with these formed the vanguard of the kafilas moving towards India. Those that were caught up used these weapons to defend themselves.

Now coming onto HSD's point quoted above. The Sikhs in west Panjab coudnt survive. They couldn't survive in those areas where 80% of the population were hostile to them and wanted them gone. Add to this, the new pakistan govt didnt want them there either, so what choice did they have when neither govt or populace wanted them there?

 

If you think about Lahore, it was much easier to defend than other areas in W Panjab, the muslims being about 57%, but they still took Lahore and amongst feeble opposition from the Sikhs. Plus it was only a matter of miles from Amritsar, where the Sikhs outnumered by 3 to 1 still managed to save Amritsar. Yet the reverse happened in Lahore.

If by Lahore you are referring to the city itself, it would have been difficult to hold Lahore especially as the Sikhs there were only about 7% while the Sikhs in Amritsar were over 15%. Also the rural areas around Amritsar were Sikh dominated whereas the ones around Lahore were Muslim dominated. The Muslims were 64% in Lahore and only 47% in Amritsar. The Sikh population of Lahore district was also concentrated in the South of the district in Kasur and Chunian Tehsils rather than Lahore itself. Half the Kasur Tehsil was given to East Punjab anyway and the intention was to concentrate the Sikhs in East Punjab and get rid of the Muslims from there. 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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...