HSD1

It's because we teach a skewed form of our history and we dont quite get the world we live in. If you live in a predominantly muslim area you cant expect not to be dragged down with them.

In the 80s Sikhs used to encourage their boys to get educated but told the girls they might as well just get jobs after school as their husbands would look after them financially. This caused a 'class gap' to form where boys were well educated and had gone to unis and mixed with white girls where as Sikh girls had gone and got jobs and stayed working class. The paki boys werent that smart but were more on the same level as the Sikh girls and they could relate. Sikh girls were too stupid to see what was going on. A lot of other Sikhs didnt care. Living so close to them and not knowing the other tricks the sulleh have just goes makes most of this grooming go over most Sikh's heads.

Even today the way religion is taught gives girls a skewed view of men that they convince themselves that what they see is true even though the reality is different.

Teaching your girls that everyone is the same and that everyone is good just leads to a quixotic viewpoint in these girls. They hear that and grow up around Sikhs who get up to all sorts and are far from the perfrect model of humanity that we like to convince ourselves everyone else is like. They also grow up in poor ghettoed areas and make the mistake of linking their poverty in upbringing to Sikhs as community rather than realising the realities of immigrant development and their own recent history. Once they go out in the big bad world and come across some gorah or sulleh or kaleh they are like lambs to the slaughter. All a gorah has to say is 'oh you guys are the ones with the golden temple right? oh man you guys are so cool and you fought for us in the world wars, man I would love to know more about you guys and increase my spirituality' , and whereas a typical asian girl would think 'oh great a perv with an asian fetish', sikh girls are like 'omg! he says he likes my religion so he cant be a racist! wow I could save him and make him a Sikh and my family would love him and we could get married and have piles of mixed race babies and everyone would love us and we just be perfect! I would get to know a white family and feel accepted and not be an immigrant no more! Oh Waheguru Waheguru Waheguru!', rather than realising he probably says it to any girl who will listen. The girl gets into a relationship and gives the guy the one thing he wants. If he sees there is no sexual/social/money reason to stick around he just tells her it wont work out and goes off to give the line to the next girl. If there is a reason to stick around they end up like those couples you see in London. The Sikh bint then has to evaluate what just happened if she gets dumped. She's too perfect so it cant be her (lol). The bloke is perfect so it cant be him (lol). Sikhi is perfect so it cant be that. Of course it's those dirty smelly Punjabis in the wider family and community! They ruin everything! They should have worshipped the bloke and gone overboard to make him stay and not driven him away! At this point the girl goes in overdrive hating on her own community and causing the rest of us grief until she gets used and dumped a few more times before it sinks in what is going on. At that point she wants an arranged marriage to a rich Sikh bloke if some gorah doesnt see a reason to get married to her first.

Even if girls know this they still fall for other tricks. People like to hit on a girl from a different race and if they cant get their way they call her racist. No one likes being called racist right? Dumb girls fall for that as well. Sometimes this boils down to an intelligence thing.

Sulleh on the other hand try the forbidden thing or play on girls boredom or unhappiness within their community. Trying to get girls to be more religous aint going to help. Involving and including them in the community and not raising them solely to be good housewives would help. That doesnt mean trying to stick turbans on them or keeping them in the Gurdwara all weekend. It means doing things that real culture does. But hobbies and wider culture arent flavour of the month amongst us.

Kaleh play off being cool and again use the thing about giving girls something they dont get in their own community. When their living in a council flat with a kid they suddenly arent so proud of what they've done but it's too late by then.

At the end of the day look after the women in your family and wider community. Keep an eye out and do something. Nothing criminal, but reason with them. Show them what is really going on and how they are being used. Raise them with the self respect and intelligence they need to not turn into victims. Raise your sons to want women like that.

Healthier food that isnt so greasy would be a start for Langar.

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...

If KFC shuts because of this I am going to be so p***ed off.

So your not against jhatka, but dont agree with eating meat? Or are you saying that jhatka is irrelevant with today's weapons and techniques? If so, its a fair enough comment to make.



Yes, some chickens do run around, but the head does not feel the pain. The body is just acting without instruction, just like pressing buttons randomly on a machine without knowledge of what it will do. As for death, I dont really think thats an issue. Death and birth are nothing more than road bumps in the journey of our souls, but we do have to be considerate to animals and plants. I've always wondered if souls can be reincarnated into plants, but never actually asked anyone as I was worried it would be considered a stupid question. You raise some interesting points.



Thank you for the reference brother. When reading ANG 142, the important part is the reference to corn. This is a metaphor used to describe the lower class of society, as corn is a common crop. The corn that sticks to the central stone and is spared represents those great souls who will be saved from reincarnation by Waheguru. The rest of the kernels are ground into nothing, which is what will happen to the majority of people in this world. On ANG 143, the sugar cane represents the decadent, selfish and money loving people at the higher end of society (i.e. the people who do not understand the Guru's message as mentioned in the first half of ANG 142). The sugar cane suffers as it has been treated so well during its life, and its treated in high regard for its sweet crop and value compared to simple corn. Even though people are treated well and respected when living, in the end these bad people have the worse fate. A very apt and deep metaphor.



Well I hope you dont feel the same way if you read what I wrote above. Animals and plants are not equal, unless of course we can be reincarnated as plants. If we can, then what about certain rocks, bacteria, other undiscovered forms of 'life'? I'm not sure where but I have been told that Sikhi does say that humans are one of the highest forms of existence on this planet. I personally do not believe that animals and plants are equal.

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.
 

This is a terrible topic, it just gives the fundos a chance to get wound up and show the rest of us how stupid they are. Still better than most of Paapiman's spam topics though.

250 years on, Battle of Panipat revisited
January 13, 2011 16:55 IST Colonel (Dr) Anil Athale (retd) recalls how the Battle of Panipat, 250 years ago, changed the history of the Indian subcontinent for the next century and half.
 
The doyen in the field of military history, Dr Srinandan Prasad underscored the importance of this field. According to him, wars are an acid test of the economic, social, technological and moral strength of a nation. On the other hand the result of wars affects all fields of human endeavour. History of nations can well be understood as history of its wars. On this score other than the exception of Shivaji and Ranjit Singh, Indian history is a succession of military defeats.
 
The events of January 1761 were momentous and had its impact for the next century and a half. The freedom that Indians lost was only regained in 1947. It is an event that needs to be studied and remembered even after 250 years since modern India again faces a similar Af-Pak threat.
 
The invasion of Nadir Shah of Iran in 1740 forced the Marathas to consider the strategic importance of Punjab. The Marathas were at the same time also involved in fighting in the south in Karnataka and against the Nizam whose capital then was at Aurangabad. Both these theatres of war were on an average 1,000 miles away from Maharashtra. The 1750s saw them over stretching in fighting in far flung areas.
The discord with the Rajputs meant a loss of potential allies as well as a secure base close to Delhi. The loyalties of various Mughal nobles were always suspect as most of them disliked the overlordship of the Marathas. When the Marathas took on the might of Abdali, the King of Afghanistan, it was a decisive moment in the Indian history. The Marathas not only had the plans to defeat Abdali but also wanted to move on to Bengal to reduce the growing British power there.  
 
The Marathas had committed several policy blunders in the preceding years. Right from the time of Shivaji, friendship with Rajputs was a constant in Maratha policy. But in the 1750s, they got involved in the internal fights of the Rajputs and played one side against the other. Maharaj Surajmal Jat was a staunch Maratha ally. But when he demanded to be made governor of Delhi, the Marathas preferred the Nawab of Awadh, Shuja ud Daulla. His 50,000 strong cavalry was thought to be a greater asset. The fact that he was Shia and wary of Sunni Afghans, made the Marathas rely on him. But in the event Abadali lured him to his side by invoking Islamic solidarity.
The Sikhs under various 'Misals' (fighting groups) were similarly well disposed towards the Marathas. But the overconfident Marathas ignored them. Thus at Panipat, the Marathas who were fighting for India, nearly thousand miles away from their home base, found themselves lonely and friendless. Faulty Maratha diplomacy was largely responsible for this mess and the blame goes directly to the Peshwa or the prime minister of the Marathas.
On 14 April, Sadashivrao Bhau left Poona on his way to Delhi with the bulk of Huzurat or the Peshwa's army. The fighting strength of the army was around 50,000. Nearly three times that number also accompanied as followers. Most of the experienced soldiers like Mehendale, Samsherbahadur, Winchurkar, Pawar, Gaikwar of Baroda and Mankeshwar went with this force.
A major addition was the French-trained infantry of Ibrahim Khan Gardi that had a strength of 8,000 men armed with the latest French-made rifles. Gardi had an artillery park of 200 excellent guns and also war rockets. Many Goans, Portuguese and some western mercenaries manned the artillery. In May and June on reaching Agra, Malharao Holkar and Jankoji Shinde joined the Maratha army with their cavalry. By the time the Marathas reached Delhi the strength of their army had swelled to nearly 2 lakhs.
It was a confident Maratha army that embarked on this venture. The Maratha war aims were to re-establish their domination in Delhi and deal with the Afghan threat. In addition the Peshwa had also instructed Bhau that after settling Delhi, he was to proceed to Bengal to reduce the British power there.
The Marathas were treaty-bound to come to the aid of Mughal Emperor. In Delhi itself however the Marathas had very few friends. Most Mughal courtiers resented the Maratha domination and some like Najib Khan were instrumental in inviting Abdali.
In a similar way, in 1739, it was the Mughlal politicians that had invited Nadir Shah of Iran. Nadir Shah made no distinction between the Hindus and Muslims in looting and walked away with the Mughal Emperor's peacock throne and the Kohinoor diamond besides other goods worth Rs 100 crore. Despite this past, the hatred of Marathas proved stronger than common sense.
Abdali had invaded India not merely for loot but dreamt of establishing Afghan supremacy in place of the Mughals in Delhi. In this the Rohillas, people of Afghan descent living north of Delhi were fully on his side. The local support to Abdali was to prove crucial in the end.
On August 2, 1761, the Marathas entered Delhi and captured it after only slight resistance.
Between August and October 1760 negotiations continued between Abdali and the Marathas. Abdali wanted control over Punjab right upto Sirhind. The Marathas were not prepared to concede the rich province to him. All this while the Afghan army remained across Jamuna while the Marathas remained at Delhi. In October the Marathas marched north of Delhi and reduced the fort at Kunjpura to dust. Qutub Shah, the Afghan general defending the fort was killed so were nearly 10,000 Afghans. Qutub Shah's severed head was paraded by the Marathas in vengeance for the death of Dattaji Scindia.
Abdali was shaken up by the loss of Kunjpura and the bitterness generated by Qutub Shah's death made peace virtually impossible. While Bhau was thus engaged in the north, on October 25, Abdali crossed the Jamuna near Bhagpat and located himself between the Marathas at Kunjpura and their rear in Delhi.
Bhau had initially planned to advance further north and get in touch with the Sikhs. But the move of the Afghans caught him by surprise and he turned back towards Delhi. On reaching the plains of Panipat, he found his path to Delhi blocked by Abdali camped to his south. The opportunity to attack the Afghan army while it crossed the river had already passed. The Maratha army entrenched near Panipat, blocking the road to Afghanistan. Govindpant Bundele, a Maratha general with long experience in the north, was allotted the task of cutting off the supplies of Abdali.
The two armies entrenched themselves in the vicinity of Panipat, the Marathas blocking Abdali's route to Afghanistan and he in turn blocked the Maratha route to Delhi and down south. A war now became inevitable. In the initial period the Marathas were successful in cutting off supplies to the Afghan army and appeared to be in a better position.
  On December 17, Govindpant Bundele, the experienced general in charge of procuring supplies to the Maratha army, was killed in an encounter. After this the Maratha supply position deteriorated rapidly. All the valuables in the camp were collected and sold to get food. The countryside around Panipat was dominated by Muslims of Afghan descent further complicated the problem of supplies for the Marathas. Soon the horses of the famed Maratha cavalry began dying of starvation. Bhau's essentially sound strategy of waiting for Abdali to attack his entrenched position and then destroy him with his artillery failed due to the problem of logistics.
The Marathas were unwise to carry a large number of non-combatants including wives along with them. This proved a severe handicap as it not only slowed down the movement of the army but also put extra burden on the supplies. A large part of the fighting strength had to be diverted to protecting the camp. The Maratha morale was however still very high and an attack in December offered the best hope. This was not to be and Bhau waited till January 14, 1761. Finally he was forced to battle as the Marathas could take the starvation no more and begged him to finish the agony once and for all. It was this army weakened by starvation that fought the decisive battle of Panipat.
On January 14, the Maratha army in a huge square formation began slowly moving south towards Delhi. The aim of the Marathas was to fight through the Afghan army to Delhi and safety. The Marathas battle array perforce had to keep a sizeable number of troops to guard the rear. The Marathas had formed a rough sphere with guns in front defended by infantry and cavalry. The aim of this formation was to keep the guns free to engage the enemy.
While Ibrahim Khan and his trained Gardis were familiar with these tactics the cavalry oriented Maratha armies of other generals were not. The ferocity of the Maratha attack in the early phase was such that the Afghans reeled under it and began running away. The Maratha artillery and rockets took a heavy toll of the enemy. It was at this juncture around mid-day that confusion occurred when the dismounted Maratha cavalry troopers left their position and masked the fire of guns. This proved fatal and Afghans regained their footing.
At this time a bullet hit Vishwasrao, the eldest son of the Peshwa. Bhau at this stage lost his cool and left his elephant and joined hand to hand combat. Rumours of leader's death set panic wave in the Marathas. At this crucial moment, Abdali unleashed his reserves of 12,000 chosen cavalry that attacked and broke the centre of the Maratha army.
A near victory now turned into a rout and Marathas began running in the direction of Delhi. A fearful slaughter took place and the Marathas were completely routed. The Afghan casualties were also very heavy and soon after the battle Abdali quickly left for Afghanistan.
On his way his army suffered heavily due to the attacks by Sikhs. In battle of Govindwal the Sikhs rescued many Maratha prisoners who were being carried off to Afghanistan as slaves. Many widows never came back and instead married Sikh soldiers. Many Marathas instead of coming back to Maharashtra went to the hills of north and settled there. In all the Maratha losses were put at 22 generals and nearly 1 lakh soldiers. The estimated population of Maharashtra at that time was around 80 lakh and it was indeed a heavy blow and flower of the youth of one whole generation perished at Panipat.
There was scarcely a home in Maharashtra that did not lose at least one member of its family at Panipat.
The battle of Panipat was a turning point in the history of not only Marathas but whole of India. A British historian writing about this battle has opined that but for this defeat' whole of India would have been 'Marathaised'.
Panipat was the first major battle that Marathas fought with reliance on artillery and fire-arms based infantry. The defeat at Panipat discredited this form of war and Maratha armies again reverted back to cavalry mode of fighting. The Maratha faith in efficacy of guns was shaken up so thoroughly that in many future battles with the British, they never hesitated to abandon the guns.
The Maratha defeat at Panipat can be primarily attributed to their failure to harmonise the cavalry mode of warfare with the drilled infantry and artillery based set piece battles. This problem was to plague the Marathas for long time to come.
Politically the Maratha loss was not felt for very long as they soon recovered and re-established themselves at Delhi. The Marathas however never again attempted to control Punjab and their western frontier remained on the Sutlej river for a long time. The Sikhs were other beneficiaries of the battle of Panipat. The weakened Afghans could no longer hold Punjab and soon a powerful Sikh state came up and ruled from Lahore.
The Marathas fought at Panipat for a national cause. Their failure to defend India left a deep psychological impact on them. The ideal of Hindavi Swarajya and aim to dominate the entire country was given up.
Panipat inculcated a kind of diffidence in the Maratha psyche that brought in defeatist mentality when it came to a really great contest. The tendency now on was to retreat in good time rather than risk everything on an uncertain prospect. This caution that can be seen in many later day battles can be directly traced back to the happenings at Panipat. Panipat was a major national trauma and never again were the Marathas to repeat the daring feat of Bajirao the first and his dash to Delhi. Most post Panipat wars fought by the Marathas were defensive wars. The offensive spirit of the Marathas was the biggest casualty at Panipat.
The disaster of Panipat took place mainly due to bad politics on part of the Marathas.  The lessons from Shivaji's time were forgotten and Marathas fought simultaneously both in the south as well as in the north. Half the Maratha army was in south when the life and death struggle was being fought at Panipat. The Rajputs were alienated, the Jats spurned and Sikhs underestimated. With even one of these as allies, Panipat would never have taken place.
Unfortunately this lesson was never learnt and even in the fight against the British the Marathas fought alone except in 1804 when Holkar took the help of Jats of Bharatpore and defeated the British.
Colonel (Dr.) Anil Athale studied Maratha history as first Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses fellow in military history between 1991 -1996.
 
Colonel (Dr) Anil Athale (retd)

So I'm not the only one LOOOOOOLL

http://series.fountainink.in/indian-worker-isis-iraq-escape/

What people have to bare in mind is that only two sides are really interested in the facts of what happened - us and the British. If you know anything about the way in which the British describe their history it comes as no surprise the way they describe their losses as being small. Each historical book written by British historians that I have read tends to round off each battle with a little paragraph about how there were more enemies than Brits but somehow they still managed to kill plenty of the enemy and win. - it can feel like reading a cricket score rather than an actual factual set of figures! It's a bit like those war films where the people who made the film like to show their side mowing down loads of the other side, whilst each of their losses is given a heroic moment to signify their importance over the enemy. It should therefore come as no surprise that the British fudged their casualty figures during the Anglo-Sikh Wars, doing things like only reporting on one regiment's losses as the figure for the entire army, not counting how many of their own sepoys they lost or simply just ordering the press not to report on any casualties. Considering how many British regiments used to have days named after battles from the Anglo-SIkh Wars where the officers would hand over all battle standards to their sergeants to commemorate how during the actual battle their officers were wiped out just shows where the actual truth lies. Or reading more factual accounts showing the levels of shell shock and grief caused by their losses inflicted on the Brits mentally.
As for our losses, we'll never know. The casualty figures were kept by the regiments but after the Wars the headquarters would have been taken over by the Brits so all evidence would no longer be available. Some accounts are passed down by the families from some of the old regiments but these are largely anecdotal. Personally, I think Sikh casualty figures were lighter than the Brits for most battles but overall may have been higher in the first war due to the events of Sobraon and what went down in Patiala. In the second war I think the massacre of Sikh troops retreating from Gujrat would have tipped the casualty figures to balance earlier British losses in the war.
On balance, it's probably best not to get too worked up about the actual numbers. The British could replace their losses in the time it took a ship to sail from Portsmouth to Calcutta, where as we were a minority ruling a empire full of backstabbers and idiots, we could not replace the quality and quantity we lost. Not even all this time since those wars.

Do you know what pound shot that swivel gun alongside the swords fires and how old it is? Wonderful pictures btw, any measurements you have of the firearms would be great to know.

I thinks the reluctance is more to do with the fact that the average sikh coconut in Canada has more in common with the singhs hired by the likes of Hopkinson than they do with a freedom lover like Mewa Singh. It's a bit rich for Hindustanis to appropriate the Ghadar party especially as many of their beliefs were a mixture of Sikh Imperial attitudes towards liberating all of India from the pre-colonial era combined with newer schools of thought that included Socialism and Nationalism. I doubt the Ghadars from the turn of the last century would celebrate Partition, 1984 and the way Hindustan has become a more modern version of British India with brown folk instead of white folk in charge of impoverishing the masses and poisoning their minds with bigotry and fecklessness.

I thinks the reluctance is more to do with the fact that the average sikh coconut in Canada has more in common with the singhs hired by the likes of Hopkinson than they do with a freedom lover like Mewa Singh. It's a bit rich for Hindustanis to appropriate the Ghadar party especially as many of their beliefs were a mixture of Sikh Imperial attitudes towards liberating all of India from the pre-colonial era combined with newer schools of thought that included Socialism and Nationalism. I doubt the Ghadars from the turn of the last century would celebrate Partition, 1984 and the way Hindustan has become a more modern version of British India with brown folk instead of white folk in charge of impoverishing the masses and poisoning their minds with bigotry and fecklessness.

These are some of the pics that I was able to take at Hazur sahib 4 years ago. Enjoy !!  Dedicated to Mata Bhago Ji!
@BhagatSingh look at the size of those rifles eh

http://scroll.in/article/801617/a-century-on-canada-sikhs-are-making-peace-with-an-inconvenient-history-with-a-play

Shooting Hari Singh Nalwa in the back when he acheived victory at Jamrud over 60,000 Afghans. Or murdering the odd drunken soldier in Lahore. Or giving the wrong supplies to your own side during the First Anglo Sikh war. With bravery like that it's no wonder you have to appropriate other people's heroes or make up fairy tales to keep your ego up!

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.

Bad time to be a shifty looking person in East Punjab.

As a diehard Khalistani I have to say the idea of a Sikhi inspired state fills me with dread.

It is so weird how Sikhs think all their problems will evaporate overnight with independence and that all we will have to worry about is solving world hunger or making the world Sikh lol. What about food security, law and order, defence, economic planning? So many Sikhs are in cloud cuckoo land that I'm glad there are so many level headed Punjabi nationalists in the movement to keep it in the real world.

If we do get our own state it will be a predominantly Punjabi state. That means only those of Punjabi ancestry or parentage/grandparentage will be allowed in. Maybe some others, but it wont be an open door policy. Anything else will lead to annihilation. As you can see by the present immigration level in East Punjab. Does that make us racist? No. Does that make us hypocrites? No. Does that go against our Gurus' teachings? No. Will foreign people/coconuts/lefties/sulleh lovers guilt trip us into getting their way and doing what they want? You bet your ass on it. If you want a multicultural SIkh state why dont you start somewhere else in the world? Punjabis have nowhere else to go and you fundos all say you will rule the whole world one day, so why not start in Southall or Arizona instead.

Which brings me onto another thing. If East Punjab was an independant country, what would it be like? Sikhs are so lost from reality that they think a good thing is a bad thing and vice versa. If any American/African/Asian/European country had the same levels of emigration as EP they would be considered failed states. Yet Sikhs act like leaving EP is great and that it furthers their own future - by laying bricks and shagging poor foreigners. Oh dear oh dear. You want to build a country out of wannabe builders and prostitutes? Go for it.

The irony is that if the Sikh religous and political institutions created an environment where Sikh family life was the norm, something to strive for and economically sustainable then these people wouldn't have had to leave. If they had got married and had 5 kids (with support from the government and community) within one generation our number would have increased to 50 million. If this had carried on for another generation we would have had a 100 million Punjabi Sikhs by 2048. Obviously some would have to emigrate but which country in their right mind would turn away hard working SIkhs?

But no. No we couldnt do it. We guilt tripped the people back home about our supposedly great lives here. They filled their own heads with bizarre fantasies about what their kids would achieve abroad. None of this was tempered by Sikh religous leaders. They sent their kids off and now an entire generation is lost to the construction sites and brothels of the rest of the world. Round of applause! Even the Africans in EP say as much to the Sikhs there lol. Who in their right mind lets people into their country to create 'colonies'? The word is so loaded, but as usual Sikhs decide to just imagine their own reality so devoid of reason it would be funny if it wasnt so damaging.

If you cant even save your own people how can you claim to save the world?

I cant even imagine day to day things being achievable in Khalistan with the number of religous nutters we have. Could you imagine being in something like a nuclear submarine full of Sikhs? Alarms going off, flooding, radioactive leaks and some of the the sailors would be like 'It is all his Hukam, dont worry Guruji will protect me from radiation and drowning!' whilst sitting on their hands and endagering everyone around them. Might sound a bit far fetched but there are enough Sikhs like this that we cant put them in certain situations.

Going back to social problems Khalistan would face, look at the treatment of women. Singhs are indifferent to female infanticide, grooming and women trafficking...... until they have to get married. Then when they cant find a girl for themselves it becomes a massive issue over Sikh women not liking men with beards and turbans. Trust me, women couldnt care less how you look as long as your clean/fit. But if you're ugly on the inside and a selfish idiot who is obsessed with nothing but quasi-holiness and self-gratification then no normal Sikh woman will want to build a future with you. And no amount of prostituting Sikhi abroad will bring in enough goriya for all of you lol.

Add to all this how Sikhs in EP now put statues of Buddha, Jesus, Koranic writings etc next to pictures of our Gurus in their homes. You even see picture of Jesus and Guru Gobind Singh in freshies' cars in the UK. Why? Because 'all paths lead to God'. Oh dear, oh dear, who let that happen? Might sound like a lovely sound bite when trying to ingratiate yourself with your hosts and idols but it's misinterpretation is ruining the very faith you proclaim to love and spread. Go home Khalsa, you're drunk.

If we were to have a Khalistan, it would be a real country in the real world. The question is would Sikhs and Punjabis be willing to work to make it a great place, or does the fantasy of a Sikh country provide some kind of a 'hit' for the addled minds of the average Sikh?

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

JungChamkaur, you stupid inbred little twat,  if you have such a massive problem with Sikhs (and it's clear that you do), leave this forum, but DON'T YOU DARE INSULT OUR GURUS!
Honestly, I don't know of any Sikhs who can be bothered to join a Hindu or Muslim forum with the sole intention of spreading hate.
You've been countered time and time again, and every time you comment, you spew your tyrannical twisted hate. 
This is Sikhawareness. You don't like it, then bugger off , bloody Internet warrior!

JungChamkaur the keyboard Hindu soorma from Nawashahar
 

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...

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.