tonyhp32

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?

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.

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.

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?

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. 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.

It is ironic that the Hindu elite of which Tharoor is a member which benefited the most from British rule are making the demand for reparations. If he really thinks that the artificial country that the British gifted to his clique was better before the British then he should not have any qualms about passing the country to those who held it before the British. He can give central India to the Marathas, West Bengal and Bihar to the Muslims, Rajasthan to the Rajputs and Punjab to the Sikhs. You do talk out of your backside. The Sikhs were the largest landowners in Central Punjab. They held 56% of all the land in Lahore district and not only did they lose more land than they got in compensation, but that land they received was of poorer quality. Not surprising as the Rajputs were well known as poor cultivators. The reason that Sikhs are referred to as Sardars is because at the stage that Sikhs were taking over the Punjab, they were very few in number and the only Sikhs that the common people came into contact with were the Sardars who were taking over entire villages and groups of villages. The Sikhs today are the inheritors of that legacy and hence have every right to claim to be Sardars.

This has to be the funniest conspiracy photo that I have seen. So the Indian 'intelligence' rather than using Hindu officers of which there are many in the Indian army and who could easily pass off as Muslims given the nature of the work use Sikhs who can be easily identified but also use two Sikhs who then use brightly coloured turbans while 'covertly' training the TTP. Really don't know who are the idiots here, the indian intelligence who came up with the idea if the photo is of Sikhs or the hindu fool who uses this photo to prove how great indian intelligence agencies are!!

Looks like the so-called Sikhs against religious fundamentalism are liberal Sikhs who rather than putting forward the truth about these events are just putting up videos in order to invite a negative reaction from other liberals. Either they are so intent on seeing extremism where no exists or they are playing to the agenda of non-Sikh players in order to malign Sikhs. I suggest that if they are truly against extremism they should concentrate on the extremism that has enslaved thousands of Yazidis in Iraq and not the non-event of Sikhs destroying the cash cow of a Muslim scamster. Maybe they should also remove the video which has probably presented a totally unwarranted image of the Sikhs to non-Sikhs. With 'sikh' activists like Sikhs against religious fundamentalism do we need enemies?

The whole trajectory of Sikh history was subverted by the annexation of Punjab. All religions have had to have a sustained and prolonged period of time of being the religion of the rulers in order to spread. Sikhism has not had that, the Lahore kingdom only lasted 50 years. Had it lasted up until now then there is no reason to believe that Sikhism would not have been the religion of the majority of the population of the Lahore kingdom. This is exactly what had happened in Patiala and Faridkot states. From a small base of under 20% in the 1800s, Sikhism became the majority in Faridkot state of 58% in 1941 and the largest minority of 46% in Patiala state. Although the Sikhs were a minority in Patiala state they were a majority in the state's Punjab region and minority in the Dadri- Mahindragarh region. Had the Lahore kingdom survived then the Sikhs today would numbered around a 100 million rather than 25 million. Christianity became a world religion when Constantine chose to use it as the vehicle for becoming the Roman emperor. The Christian church then became the state religion and using state power was able to oppress the pagan religion and became the religion of the majority of the population. The same happened with Islam. Mohammed when he did not have state power could only convert a handful of people to Islam in a decade yet when he took over Mecca by force a majority of the Arabs became Muslims and with their conquests they converted those under their rule to Islam. Buddhism needed the emperor Asoka to become it's patron in order to spread to China, Sri Lanka and central Asia. Religions that did not enjoy state power could not spread beyond their original population base. The Jews were a small minority in different countries after they lost state power and were forced to migrate by the Romans from their holy land. The Jews did almost achieve a world religion status when the ruling Khazar tribe converted to Judaism in the 800s and had their rule survived there would have been more central Asian Jews than all the other Jews around the world. Religions have always benefited from state power and grown through the patronage that state power has been able to bestow. A case in point is shown just after partition. In the 1930s and 1940s the Sikhs had been successful in converting a large number of so-called low castes in both Punjab and in UP. In fact between 1931 and 1941 censuses the Sikhs had increased from around 46,000 to 252,000 in UP. After independence, the new Indian govt. limited the benefits available to so-called lower castes to only those that were Hindu. So in order to avail themselves of these benefits, most of the lower castes who had become Sikhs a few years before reverted back to Hinduism. This shows how the state can use its power to change the religion of its inhabitants thorough the use of its patronage. I have no doubt that if Punjab became Khalistan today, within the next year the Sikhs will go from being 60% of the population to becoming 80-90%. This is how powerful state power can be. JungChamkaur Sikhism was not limited by the Singh Sabha, it was the annexation that stuck a body blow to spread of Sikhism. The Singh Sabha were the ones that stemmed the tide of Sikhism becoming just another Hindu sect after the loss of state power. Yours is just a rehash of the same Hindu narrative that Sikhism is a part of Hinduism and the Khalsa was just created to protect the Hindus. You have cited Uggardanti, but have you actually read the text or are you just repeating the same ignorant Hindu arguments? Uggardanti which was not the work of Guru Gobind Singh calls on the destruction of both the Muslim and Hindu religions and the rule of Khalsa. I suggest you read the text before you ignorantly use it to promote your Hindu lies.

The vast majority of the scheduled castes (83%) in Punjab either belong to the Chamar or Chuhra castes. Chamar are also listed as Ad Dharmis. Whereas Chuhras are listed as either Balmikis or Mazhabis. Ad Dharmis are not classed as a separate religion or even as a Hindu sect but as a caste and hence Adharmis can either report their religion as Hindu, Sikh or Buddhist as a scheduled caste person can only belong to these three religions. Of 1,045,126 Ad Dhamis in Punjab in 2001, 882,738 (85%) returned their religion as Hindu and 133,114 (13%) were Sikhs. Although I don't have the numbers according to district but Ad Dharmis are a Doaba phenomenon and hardly found in Majha or Malwa. Chamars in Doaba tend to list themselves as Ad Dharmis in Doaba and just as Chamars in the rest of Punjab. Of 1,839,082 Chamars in Punjab, 1,309,377 (71%) were Sikhs and 526,863 (29%) were Hindus. Chamars who are not from Doaba tend to Sikhs rather than Hindus. The Chuhras who are listed as Balmikis are another phenomenon of Doaba althought Balmikis are also found in all the large cities of Punjab as well. Of 785,464 Balmikis in Punjab, 559,617 (71%) were reported as Hindus and 223,885 (29%) were Sikhs. Of the 2,220, 945 Mazhabis, 2,188,429 (98.5%) were Sikhs and 32,329 (1.5%) were Hindus.

If it wasn't for the fact that Punjab would be battlefield, then I would have been good to see both the Jihadi Pakistanis and the attvadi Hindustanis fight it out, Although the Hindustanis are more in number it will be the technology that will in the end decide who wins. If you put 1 billion Hindus into a hand to hand fight with 180 Million Muslims, the Muslims will always get the better of the fight.

Dumba$$ fudhustanis like you are letting the pakistan army and govt off the hook. If they can convince the Pakistani people who because of the barbarity of the massacre that it was done by India, then the hatred of the fudhustanis increases amongst the Pakistanis and the Pakistan army doesn't need to go after the TTP.

I respect him for taking a stand but he is taking a huge risk. Even the politicians are half hearted about denouncing the Taliban. The Taliban aren't some has been bum dragged off the streets to provide Khan with an opponent and and easy pay day. They won't think twice about blowing him up.

Yes nobody can prevent terrorist attacks but your superman negotiated the release of terrorists who then went on to kill innocent people. He went with the intention of storming the plane and he was outsmarted by the Taliban. He was forced to release three dreaded terrorists. You would think a wily bahman would have known that the Taliban would not have allowed the Hindus to storm the hijacked plane but he took some NSG bandars along with him and they spent the week they were there twiddling their thumbs!

Doval also took some commandos with him intending to storm the hijacked Indian plane in Kandahar when he flew in to negotiate with the hijackers but the Taliban surrounded his plane and the commandos were kept surrounded the whole time they were there.Obviously Doval the stupid bahman mistook his country for Israel. How many times dumb Hindu do you have to be told, he was in Golden Temple in 1988 not 1984. The Hijackers killed a Hindu guy Rupen Katyal and all the Indian could do was bring his body home. Had it be the Israelis they would have hunted the hijackers down but they remain free in Pakistan as do the three terrorists that they exchanged for the passengers. After 8 days of captivity with the toilets backed up and over flowing apparently the Indian Airlines plane smelt no different than when the passengers first boarded the plane! In 1999 there was another bahman NSA advisor called Brajesh Misra who was projected as some kind of hardnut but he proved to a coward and such will be case with Doval when push comes to shove in the next few years.

I doubt there was Indian involvement, the Taliban do not need bahmans to encourage them to kill innocent people. But people like Fudhustani want to claim this as an Indian operation so they can claim to some kind success against Pakistan. This is exactly what the Pakistanis want so they do not have to face the reality that there is no a civil war going on in Pakistan. So it would not be beyond the capacity of the Pakistan intelligence agencies which have links with the Taliban to now arrange another Mumbai style attack in India. Another piece of bahman cunning, give the pakistanis a way out of their civil war!

Doval was the bahman who negotiated the release of the three terrorists in order to save the lives of Indian passengers in Kandahar in 1999, One of those terrorists then planned the Mumbai massacre. So to save the passengers, Doval negotiated the release of three terrorists and one of them planned the Mumbai attacks which killed hundreds of people. Again such bahman cunning!

And we also know what happens to anyone who attacks Harmandir Sahib. Too bad her advisors didn't tell her otherwise she wouldn't have died a dog's death at the hands of those she believed were there to protect her. No greater shame than to have walked like a fool into the path of her own executioners. So much for being a cunning bahmani! And you believe everything a Hindu bahman says about his great feats? India is a byword for gappan. Reminds me of that Hindu who said Nasa were forced to change their nationality policy because they wanted him as an employee. In India there is no regard for anyone's ability, it is who you know and what bribe you are prepared to give. If you think man's biography is 100% true then you are a bigger fool than I gave you credit for.

Dumba$$, Doval is rumoured to have been in Golden Temple in 1988 not 1984.

Yeah keep up your bahman wet dreams. Most of the stuff that you have posted is conspiracy theories. Let's see what happens when the shyt really hits the fan. Likelihood is the chahwala will shows his true colours and show what a coward he is. Meanwhile you can dream of destroying Pakiland to your heart's desire! It wasn't Doval, it was Zia's cowardice that he didn't invade India after Bluestar, there is no doubt the Sikhs would have helped the Pakis to destroy the Hindu army. Doval was the one who negotiated the Indian surrender to terrorists by exchanging three of them for the Indian passengers of the Kandahar hijacking. One of these was the mastermind of the attack on Indian parliament and the Mumbai attacks. Seems less of an iron man and more of a surrender monkey.

You must be Doval's sala because you keep on lionising the bahman as if he the best thing since sliced bread. It is a fight between one group of extremist Muslims (Pakistan Taliban) and another set of extremist Muslims (Pakistan army and establishment). Look at what Muslims have been doing to one another in Syria and Iraq. They don't need a wily bahman to make them kill each other. Next you will claim Doval was undercover as the sheep that Al Bagdadi used to bed down with each night and he instigated the massacres in the middle east through his pillow baahh ! The things that a bhahman will for his country!! Here's the guy who will destroy Pakiland! he looks more like a hen pecked husband than an intellence mastermind

Toon vi kujh karke dikhah soormiya

Compared to the Pakistani Hindus, the Sikhs of Pakistan have protested on many occasions. The latest was the incident at the Pakistan parliament. Maybe you and Sherni can do to pakiland and lead the Sikhs as you appear to be so sneering on them not protesting enough in your opinion. Hafiz Saeed tan HInduan noon vadhda Sikhan nun ohton ki darna

Your country Hindustan is named by the Persians, even India is a foreign word coming from Greek and Latin. Your religion is even named by foreigners so you should be the last to talk of Punjab being a Persian word.

So you Punjabi Hindus are not the only haramz@das that disowned their mother, the Muslim Punjabi did it as well. What a stupid excuse.