British Raj In India

[dalsingh101]

dal singh , many times you over lap things . Need to remember as i wrote that this happened in 1950s.

Muslims were in pakistan and keep their case separate from sikhs as sikhs were in india.

It was not a question of skill at all. had been so then you would have only ramgarhia sikhs only

in britian. Most of the invitataions were sent to jat sikhs who had only one skill and that was farming.

Also at that time Germany wanted work force for their factories. But they did not want to give that force

a right to settle there. Now you can compare the attitude of two countries.

If you are saying Sikhs got preferential treatment why exclude Pakistanis from the comparison? I think you are majorly wrong here. I would expect more Sikhs had there been preferential treatment. Instead there are many more Pakistanis here than Sikhs. Even West Indians outnumber us. If you look at these stats from a few years ago, apparently even Hindus outnumber us here.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=954

I think you are wrong about the preferential treatment. My own family was one who migrated here during the times you talk of. If you talk to anyone from that time, the country was accepting from all former colonies. Hence the large Pakistani, West Indian communities here.

Plus, there was a hostile racist reaction in many places. So your preferential treatment theory, if true, doesn't seem to have applied to the majority of Sikh migrants here.

If Sikhs migrated in relatively large numbers, so did Muslim Panjabis from Pakistan and many others.

What you notice when it comes to the British, is that there is a certain type of Jat who are forever exhalting them.

[singh2]

If you are saying Sikhs got preferential treatment why exclude Pakistanis from the comparison? I think you are majorly wrong here. I would expect more Sikhs had there been preferential treatment. Instead there are many more Pakistanis here than Sikhs. Even West Indians outnumber us. If you look at these stats from a few years ago, apparently even Hindus outnumber us here.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=954

I think you are wrong about the preferential treatment. My own family was one who migrated here during the times you talk of. If you talk to anyone from that time, the country was accepting from all former colonies. Hence the large Pakistani, West Indian communities here.

Plus, there was a hostile racist reaction in many places. So your preferential treatment theory, if true, doesn't seem to have applied to the majority of Sikh migrants here.

If Sikhs migrated in relatively large numbers, so did Muslim Panjabis from Pakistan and many others.

What you notice when it comes to the British, is that there is a certain type of Jat who are forever exhalting them.

The Govt. of host country has policies on immigration for different countries. There is numerical limit on new entrants

from each country. So do not club different countries together as a lump.

When we talk of sikh immigration you have to keep the entrants from india in mind. Do NOT MIX APPLE AND ORANGES.

[singh2]

If you are saying Sikhs got preferential treatment why exclude Pakistanis from the comparison? I think you are majorly wrong here. I would expect more Sikhs had there been preferential treatment. Instead there are many more Pakistanis here than Sikhs. Even West Indians outnumber us. If you look at these stats from a few years ago, apparently even Hindus outnumber us here.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=954

I think you are wrong about the preferential treatment. My own family was one who migrated here during the times you talk of. If you talk to anyone from that time, the country was accepting from all former colonies. Hence the large Pakistani, West Indian communities here.

Plus, there was a hostile racist reaction in many places. So your preferential treatment theory, if true, doesn't seem to have applied to the majority of Sikh migrants here.

If Sikhs migrated in relatively large numbers, so did Muslim Panjabis from Pakistan and many others.

What you notice when it comes to the British, is that there is a certain type of Jat who are forever exhalting them.

The Govt. of host country has policies on immigration for different countries. There is numerical limit on new entrants

from each country. So do not club different countries together as a lump.

When we talk of sikh immigration you have to keep the entrants from india in mind. Do NOT MIX APPLE AND ORANGES.

[dalsingh101]

Why not clearly say that you believe that Britain favoured Sikhs as migrants from India.

I think you also need to realise that the nature of work that was here (i.e. mainly physical) meant that Panjabis would be better suited than others from India.

[singh2]

Why not clearly say that you believe that Britain favoured Sikhs as migrants from India.

I think you also need to realise that the nature of work that was here (i.e. mainly physical) meant that Panjabis would be better suited than others from India.

I did say that. Sometimes you miss many things. of course sikhs( not all punjabis) have more stamina

for work than other indians.

[dalsingh101]

of course sikhs( not all punjabis) have more stamina

for work than other indians.

This is true, I noticed that generally Pakistani Panjabis avoid physical work such as construction like the plague. Whilst Sikhs seem to have a preference for it (as well as running Off Licences for some strange reason).

In general Panjabi Sikhs don't seem to mind physical work many other communities look down on.

[singh2]

In his "Let's Respect the Turban" speech to the House of Commons, following the conclusion of the second World War, Churchill said:

".....It is a matter of regret that due to the obsession of the present times people are distorting the superior religious and social values, but those who wish to preserve them with respect, we should appreciate them as well as help them. Sikhs do need our help for such a cause and we should give it happily. Those who know the Sikh history, know England's relationship with the Sikhs and are aware of the achievements of the Sikhs, they should persistently support the idea of relaxation to Sikhs to ride a motorbike with their turbans on, because it is their religious privilege...British people are highly indebted and obliged to Sikhs for a long time. I know that within this century we needed their help twice and they did help us very well. As a result of their timely help, we are today able to live with honour, dignity, and independence. In the war, they fought and died for us, wearing the turbans. At that time we were not adamant that they should wear safety helmets because we knew that they are not going to wear them anyways and we would be deprived of their help. At that time due to our miserable and poor situation, we did not force it on them to wear safety helmets, why should we force it now? Rather, we should now respect their traditions and by granting this legitimate concession, win their applaud."

Unquote

Compare that with what sikhs are facing in France

[dalsingh101]

What is happening these days is that the newer generation in the UK are largely ignorant of WW1 and WW2, let alone the Sikh contribution.

[singh2]

What is happening these days is that the newer generation in the UK are largely ignorant of WW1 and WW2, let alone the Sikh contribution.

They try to look into sikh history from their personal experiences. that is not right way.

[Mekhane'ch Jannat]

Why are you quoting the racist winston churchill? even sweet words coming from a snake are still poisonous.

[Xylitol]

British had a law that any citizen of the commonwealth had a right to freelly move about and settle in any other commonwealth country. The komagata maru incident, which required ships to arrive in Canada without refueling, was a shameless attempt to get around this law and prevent Indians from arriving.

[singh2]

Why are you quoting the racist winston churchill? even sweet words coming from a snake are still poisonous.

I am quoting the facts when he stood on a moral ground unlike French these days who want to ban turbans.

What about naked fasicsm in India in 1984 when state participated in killing of innocent sikhs. If you do not

know i can post it for you.

[dalsingh101]

They try to look into sikh history from their personal experiences. that is not right way.

I was talking about the average white English/British kids having little knowledge of world wars these days, let alone the Sikh contribution to it.

I guess it is just old hat for them. Something of their grandparents or great grandparents time.

[dalsingh101]

Why are you quoting the racist winston churchill? even sweet words coming from a snake are still poisonous.

Whenever Sikhs talk about the British, there is always one person defending them to the hilt as the best thing since sliced bread.

You know they would have been the biggest chumchas had they been in Panjab during their raj. lol

[Mithar]

Whenever Sikhs talk about the British, there is always one person defending them to the hilt as the best thing since sliced bread.

You know they would have been the biggest chumchas had they been in Panjab during their raj. lol

Bro, seeing the Nehru Raaj after 1947 after the so called "independence" of India, it is no wonder that many people in India regret why the British had to leave so soon. So many great freedom fighters had died for the independence of India, but is the India of today what they really died for? There is nothing "Chamchagiri" about this way of thinking.

Truth is, just compare the Congressi Raaj and British Raaj, the British Raaj is the lesser of the two evils. Yes, the British had their own ulterior motive and they used Sikhs martial spirit for this. In return Sikhs were given advantage over the Hindus and Muslims even though Sikhs were numerically much smaller. The biggest losers of the so called independence of India are the Sikhs, Sindhi Hindus and the Dalits. These three communities were at a much better position before 1947. All these communities have suffered after 1947.

[singh2]

Whenever Sikhs talk about the British, there is always one person defending them to the hilt as the best thing since sliced bread.

You know they would have been the biggest chumchas had they been in Panjab during their raj. lol

If you are so much allergic of british why are you living there? Why do not you go and live in Punjab.

There are many chamchas of congress and Hindu bhagats of India who will always denigrate

other countries to hide the tyranny committed on sikhs in modern times. When you discuss

history you need to be open minded.To hide things is not a sikh trait.

[shaheediyan]

Exactly.

[HSD1]

churchill was a bad guy? like when he spoke out against the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, which led to him being ostracized by the ruling class of britiain during the interwar years? or when he offered our sikh nation a homeland, which our leader refused because he was too busy setting up the VHP? sounds like a good friend to me. so what if he gassed and bombed a few arabs here and there. no great loss is it? its seems its the musis on here who get their knickers in a twist about the grand old man. any real sikh should be glad britain produced men who were willing to be our friends rather than our enemies.

what i find interesting about this thread is how different it is to a similar one on sikh sangat. well, apart from the musi presence, the intelligence on here is a little better - no ones accused the brits of stopping sikh girls wearing dastars yet! lol.

but on a side note, i thing the english saw us in the same way they viewed the scots, and that explains some of their behaviour towards us. but as to whether the british raj or hindustan is better, all i can say is its the same for the sikhs who live in the punjab to some extent. as we live in the west we are able to see it in a different light, which leads to a fairly wide range of opinions.

[shaheediyan]

Without giving an opinion on Churchill, just to add, he did send Sikh Regiments to war in North Africa with used WW1 rifles against state of the art tanks, planes, rockets etc of the Germans, many thousands of Sikhs were simply used as canon fodder - he is even said to have called Indian soldiers as no better than animals. The General that was leading the Sikhs (forget his name) at that time was dismissed by Churchill because he 'cared' to much about the Indian soldiers i.e. asking for better equipment and opposing pointless loss of life i.e. sacrificing a whole battalion just to gain a few hours etc.

His comments re Sikhs after the war contradict his personality during it - either he developed a conscience or he was farsighted enough to see the economic benefit of pleasing the Sikhs i.e. the motorcylce helmet decision etc.

[HSD1]

Without giving an opinion on Churchill, just to add, he did send Sikh Regiments to war in North Africa with used WW1 rifles against state of the art tanks, planes, rockets etc of the Germans, many thousands of Sikhs were simply used as canon fodder - he is even said to have called Indian soldiers as no better than animals. The General that was leading the Sikhs (forget his name) at that time was dismissed by Churchill because he 'cared' to much about the Indian soldiers i.e. asking for better equipment and opposing pointless loss of life i.e. sacrificing a whole battalion just to gain a few hours etc.

His comments re Sikhs after the war contradict his personality during it - either he developed a conscience or he was farsighted enough to see the economic benefit of pleasing the Sikhs i.e. the motorcylce helmet decision etc.

when you say WW1 rifles, i presume your referring to the lee enfield rifle, which was standard issue to all riflemen in the british and commonwealth forces during both world wars. i had a relative who was in the artillery in n.africa and he never mentioned that sikhs were under equipped, could you tell me which division the battalions came from? as for cannon fodder, do you know what australians think of churchill? quite a lot i know hate him, as they believe he threw the young men of two generations into unwinnable operations with little regard for their lives (gallipoli and the japanese onslaught into SE asia). but hey, guess what it was a war. dont join up if your going to cry about casualties. and look into history a bit more. in n.africa, before montgomery arrived on the scene, churchill sacked almost dozens of generals for failing to have the courage to attack the germans and italians. you seem to confuse the bad and almost mad military decisions of a man who had his heart in the right place and was honourable towards us outside of war. politics/religion/military dont really mix.

Edited July 22, 2009 by HSD

[singh2]

Without giving an opinion on Churchill, just to add, he did send Sikh Regiments to war in North Africa with used WW1 rifles against state of the art tanks, planes, rockets etc of the Germans, many thousands of Sikhs were simply used as canon fodder - he is even said to have called Indian soldiers as no better than animals. The General that was leading the Sikhs (forget his name) at that time was dismissed by Churchill because he 'cared' to much about the Indian soldiers i.e. asking for better equipment and opposing pointless loss of life i.e. sacrificing a whole battalion just to gain a few hours etc.

His comments re Sikhs after the war contradict his personality during it - either he developed a conscience or he was farsighted enough to see the economic benefit of pleasing the Sikhs i.e. the motorcylce helmet decision etc.

Have you read this

http://rskhalsa.blogspot.com/2009/04/churc...f-malakand.html

Churchill on Sikhs : The Story of the Malakand Field Force

Wed Mar 4, 2009 10:37 pm (PST)

http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext05/mkdff10.txt

In the Sikh the more civilised man appears. He does not shoot naturally,

but he learns by patient practice. He is not so tough as the Pathan, but

he delights in feats of strength--wrestling, running, or swimming. He is

a much cleaner soldier and more careful. He is frequently parsimonious,

and always thrifty, and does not generally feed himself as well as the

Pathan. [indeed in some regiments the pay of very thin Sikhs is given

them in the form of food, and they have to be carefully watched by their

officers till they get fat and strong.]

15. During the fighting above described, the conduct of the whole of the

garrison, whether fighting men, departmental details, or followers, is

reported to have been most gallant. Not the least marked display of

courage and constancy was that made by the small detachment in the

signal tower, who were without water for the last eighteen hours of the

siege. The signallers, under No.2729, Lance-Naik Vir Singh, 45th Sikhs,

who set a brilliant example, behaved throughout in a most courageous

manner; one of them, No.2829, Sepoy Prem Singh, climbing several times

out of a window in the tower with a heliograph, and signaling outside to

the Malakand under a hot fire from sungars in every direction.

The Sikhs arrived first, but by a

very little. As they turned the corner they met the mass of the enemy,

nearly a thousand strong, armed chiefly with swords and knives, creeping

silently and stealthily up the gorge, in the hope and assurance of

rushing the camp and massacring every soul in it. The whole road was

crowded with the wild figures. McRae opened fire at once. Volley after

volley was poured into the dense mass, at deadly range. At length the

Sikhs fired independently. This checked the enemy, who shouted and

yelled in fury at being thus stopped. The small party of soldiers then

fell back, pace by pace, firing incessantly, and took up a position in a

cutting about fifty yards behind the corner. Their flanks were protected

on the left by high rocks, and on the right by boulders and rough

ground, over which in the darkness it was impossible to move. The road

was about five yards wide. As fast as the tribesmen turned the corner

they were shot down. It was a strong position.

In that strait path a thousand

Might well be stopped by three

Being thus effectively checked in their direct advance, the tribesmen

began climbing up the hill to the left and throwing down rocks and

stones on those who barred their path. They also fired their rifles

round the corner, but as they were unable to see the soldiers without

exposing themselves, most of their bullets went to the right.

The band of Sikhs were closely packed in the cutting, the front rank

kneeling to fire. Nearly all were struck by stones and rocks. Major

Taylor, displaying great gallantry, was mortally wounded. Several of the Sepoys were killed. Colonel McRae himself was accidentally stabbed in the neck by a bayonet and became covered with blood. But he called upon the men to maintain the good name of "Rattray's Sikhs," and to hold their position till death or till the regiment came up. And the soldiers replied by loudly shouting the Sikh warcry, and defying the enemy to advance.

On the right Colonel McRae and his

Sikhs were repeatedly charged by the swordsmen, many of whom succeeded

in forcing their way into the pickets and perished by the bayonet.

Others reached the two guns and were cut down while attacking the

gunners. All assaults were however beaten off. The tribesmen suffered

terrible losses. The casualties among the Sikhs were also severe. In the morning Colonel McRae advanced from his defences, and, covered by the fire of his two guns, cleared the ground in his front of the enemy.

How terrible that march must

have been, may be judged from the fact, that in the 35th Sikhs twenty-

one men actually died on the road of heat apoplexy. The fact that these

men marched till they dropped dead, is another proof of the soldierly

eagerness displayed by all ranks to get to the front. Brigadier-General

Meiklejohn, feeling confidence in his ability to hold his own with the

troops he had, ordered them to remain halted at Dargai, and rest the

next day.

NATIVE NON-COMMISSIONED OFFICERS AND PRIVATES.

Killed. Wounded.

No.5 Company Q.O. Sappers and Miners . 3 18

24th Punjaub Infantry . . . 3 14

31st " " . . . . 12 32

45th Sikhs . . . . . 4 28

Q.O. Corps of Guides . . . . 3 27

TOTAL NON-COMMISSIONED OFFICERS AND MEN KILLED AND WOUNDED--153.

Colonel Goldney simultaneously advanced to the attack

of the spur, which now bears his name, with 250 men of the 35th Sikhs

and 50 of the 38th Dogras. He moved silently towards the stone shelters,

that the tribesmen had erected on the crest. He got to within a hundred

yards unperceived. The enemy, surprised, opened an irregular and

ineffective fire. The Sikhs shouted and dashed forward. The ridge was

captured without loss of any kind. The enemy fled in disorder, leaving

seven dead and one prisoner on the ground.

On this occasion, our provisions were supplemented by the hospitality of

the khan. A long row of men appeared, each laden with food. Some carried

fruit,--pears or apples; others piles of chupatties, or dishes of

pillau.

Nor were our troopers forgotten. The Mahommedans among them eagerly

accepted the proffered food. But the Sikhs maintained a remorseful

silence and declined it. They could not eat what had been prepared by

Mussulman hands, and so they sat gazing wistfully at the appetising

dishes, and contented themselves with a little fruit.

The

Sikhs, who now numbered perhaps sixty, were hard pressed, and fired

without effect. Then some one--who it was is uncertain--ordered the

bugler to sound the "charge." The shrill notes rang out not once but a

dozen times. Every one began to shout. The officers waved their swords

frantically. Then the Sikhs commenced to move slowly forward towards the

enemy, cheering. It was a supreme moment. The tribesmen turned, and

began to retreat. Instantly the soldiers opened a steady fire, shooting down their late persecutors with savage energy.

Afterwards in

the Mamund Valley whole battalions were employed to do what these two

Sikh companies had attempted. But Sikhs need no one to bear witness to

their courage.

Out of a force which at no time exceeded 1000 men, nine British

officers, four native officers, and 136 soldiers were either killed or

wounded. The following is the full return:--

BRITISH OFFICERS.

Killed--Lieutenant and Adjutant V. Hughes, 35th Sikhs.

" " A.T. Crawford, R.A.

Wounded severely--Captain W.I. Ryder, attd. 35th Sikhs.

" " Lieutenant O.G. Gunning, 35th Sikhs.

" " " O.R. Cassells, 35th Sikhs.

" " " T.C. Watson, R.E.

" " " F.A. Wynter, R.A.

Wounded slightly--Brigadier-General Jeffreys, Commanding 2nd Bde.

M.F.F.

" " Captain Birch, R.A.

BRITISH SOLDIERS.

Killed. Wounded.

The Buffs . . . . 2 9

NATIVE RANKS.

Killed. Wounded.

11th Bengal Lancers . . 0 2

No.8 Mountain Battery . . 6 21

Guides Infantry . . . 2 10

35th Sikhs . . . . 22 45

38th Dogras . . . . 0 2

Sappers . . . . . 4 15

The next day the first instalment of rifles was surrendered. Fifteen

Martini-Henrys taken on the 16th from the 35th Sikhs were brought into

camp, by the Khan of Khar's men, and deposited in front of the general's

tent. Nearly all were hacked and marked by sword cuts, showing that

their owners, the Sikhs, had perished fighting to the last. Perhaps,

these firearms had cost more in blood and treasure than any others ever

made. The remainder of the twenty-one were promised later, and have

There are many on the frontier who realise these things, and who

sympathise with the Afridi soldier in his dilemma. An officer of the

Guides Infantry, of long experience and considerable distinction, who

commands both Sikhs and Afridis, and has led both many times in action,

writes as follows: "Personally, I don't blame any Afridis who desert to

go and defend their own country, now that we have invaded it, and I

think it is only natural and proper that they should want to do so."

Such an opinion may be taken as typical of the views of a great number

of officers, who have some title to speak on the subject, as it is one

on which their lives might at any moment depend.

The Sikh is the guardian of the Marches. He was originally invented to

combat the Pathan. His religion was designed to be diametrically opposed

to Mahommedanism. It was a shrewd act of policy. Fanaticism was met by

fanaticism. Religious abhorrence was added to racial hatred. The Pathan

invaders were rolled back to the mountains, and the Sikhs established

themselves at Lahore and Peshawar. The strong contrast, and much of the

animosity, remain to-day. The Sikh wears his hair down to his waist; the

Pathan shaves his head. The Sikh drinks what he will; the Pathan is an

abstainer. The Sikh is burnt after death; the Pathan would be thus

deprived of Paradise. As a soldier the Pathan is a finer shot, a hardier

man, a better marcher, especially on the hillside, and possibly an even

more brilliant fighter. He relies more on instinct than education: war

is in his blood; he is a born marksman, but he is dirty, lazy and a

spendthrift.

In the Sikh the more civilised man appears. He does not shoot naturally,

but he learns by patient practice. He is not so tough as the Pathan, but

he delights in feats of strength--wrestling, running, or swimming. He is

a much cleaner soldier and more careful. He is frequently parsimonious,

and always thrifty, and does not generally feed himself as well as the

Pathan. [indeed in some regiments the pay of very thin Sikhs is given

them in the form of food, and they have to be carefully watched by their

officers till they get fat and strong.]

There are some who say that the Sikh will go on under circumstances

which will dishearten and discourage his rival, and that if the latter

has more dash he has less stamina. The assertion is not supported by

facts. In 1895, when Lieut.-Colonel Battye was killed near the Panjkora

River and the Guides were hard pressed, the subadar of the Afridi

company, turning to his countrymen, shouted: "Now, then, Afridi folk of

the Corps of Guides, the Commanding Officer's killed, now's the time to

charge!" and the British officers had the greatest difficulty in

restraining these impetuous soldiers from leaving their position, and

rushing to certain death. The story recalls the speech of the famous

cavalry colonel at the action of Tamai, when the squares were seen to be

broken, and an excited and demoralised correspondent galloped wildly up

to the squadrons, declaring that all was lost. "How do you mean, 'all's

lost'? Don't you see the 10th Hussars are here?" There are men in the

world who derive as stern an exultation from the proximity of disaster

and ruin as others from success, and who are more magnificent in defeat

than others are in victory. Such spirits are undoubtedly to be found

among the Afridis and Pathans.

---------------

since all been surrendered.

Total Casualties, 149; with 48 horses and mules.

[dalsingh101]

If you are so much allergic of british why are you living there? Why do not you go and live in Punjab.

There are many chamchas of congress and Hindu bhagats of India who will always denigrate

other countries to hide the tyranny committed on sikhs in modern times. When you discuss

history you need to be open minded.To hide things is not a sikh trait.

Havng a 'star in your eyes' attitude towards Anglo Saxons isn't a Sikh trait either. Sometimes it seems like some Sikhs can't see past some perceived glory as a cog of British imperialism.

Edited July 23, 2009 by dalsingh101

[singh2]

Havng a 'star in your eyes' attitude towards Anglo Saxons isn't a Sikh trait either. Sometimes it seems like some Sikhs can't see past some perceived glory as a cog of British imperialism.

All is being said here is that sikhs are in no better position in a so called independent India now.

For them change has been for the worst.

You have given no opinion on that at all. All you have been doing is presenting your personal

views as a result of your upbringing in UK. That is not the purpose of thread. You may be

a Gandhi Bhagat but need to keep in mind that thread is not about that.

[dalsingh101]

All is being said here is that sikhs are in no better position in a so called independent India now.

For them change has been for the worst.

You have given no opinion on that at all. All you have been doing is presenting your personal

views as a result of your upbringing in UK. That is not the purpose of thread. You may be

a Gandhi Bhagat but need to keep in mind that thread is not about that.

There you go again. Are you becoming bitter and twisted in the sunset of your life? I'm no fan of India either but I try and restain myself on cheap comments like "You may be a Gandhi Bhagat ". That is rich coming from a supporter of an exposed blasphemer against SGGS ji no less.

What about your own views are they not personal themselves? lol

See the thing with modern technology is one can talk rubbish and post upmteen articles that are copy and pasted from the net as if they lend some credence. This only fools - well fools.

Yes Sikhs do have it rough in so-called independent India but to look back at Britsh occupation with wisty eyes as a result is the hight of stupidity.

See this is part of our long struggle for freedom, don't justify one form of subjegation using another.

[singh2]

There you go again. Are you becoming bitter and twisted in the sunset of your life? I'm no fan of India either but I try and restain myself on cheap comments like "You may be a Gandhi Bhagat ". That is rich coming from a supporter of an exposed blasphemer against SGGS ji no less.

What about your own views are they not personal themselves? lol

See the thing with modern technology is one can talk rubbish and post upmteen articles that are copy and pasted from the net as if they lend some credence. This only fools - well fools.

Yes Sikhs do have it rough in so-called independent India but to look back at Britsh occupation with wisty eyes as a result is the hight of stupidity.

See this is part of our long struggle for freedom, don't justify one form of subjegation using another.

The thread is british rule in India. So stop looking it from your personal experiences in UK.

I have opined for sikhs independence from British rule did not bring any relief. In other words

all their sacrifices for so called independence which was not be independent have gone in vain.

They shifted form one system to another system of slavery. The previuois system would have been

better for sikhs than the present one. In the present system there is very bleak hope of Independence

for sikhs until the tyrant system breaks down.

Have you got any experience in India? . On the other hand i have experience of growing up there.

I have seen the the system with my eyes. I also read how Hindus changed their stances towrads sikhs

after promising them self autonomy before 1947. I also witneesed how they manipulated census of India

where Hindus of Punjab declared their mother tongue Hindi instead of Punjabi. Then there was operation

blue star followed by outright massacre of sikh youth in operation woodrose.

Punjab is still out of limits for amnesty international.

How did you fail to read these atrocities. these are all recorded. You seem to project a selective view point.

When two systems are being discussed it is imperative that pros and cons are discussed and not biased personal

views are given.

Do not worry about my age. Age is not a subject of discussion.

Edited July 23, 2009 by singh2