The Disaster/catastrophe

[dalsingh101]

Can you share any examples?

You really need me too? I've been saying it for ages.

The sycophancy that goes on with the military in Singh Sabha Gurdwaras for instance. The giving away of siropas left, right and centre to anyone who turns up at a Gurdwara with their own scarcely concealed political agenda.

Talking like the 'annexation' wasn't an outright attack on Sikhs and their sovereignty with consequences that last till today.

Then our lot joining the imperial cause in droves for money.

Truth is that the Paks were smart politically and our lot went down the sycophant route - and paid dearly for it.

Edited August 16, 2014 by dalsingh101

[chatanga1]

I know you have said it before, but was just interested if there were any specific instances of sycophancy.

If you read "muslim politics in Panjab" (Rakkar), he has detailed how the muslim community wholeheartedly supported the british whenever and wherever possible, to keep in their good books, whereas the Congress usually took the opposite line.

Only in the last 3 or 4 years of british rule, did the Muslim Commiunity cause the British any problems.

Whereas Sikh history in the Panjab, shows the SIkhs being in conflict with the british for quite large periods. The two world wars being the exception.

[dalsingh101]

Whereas Sikh history in the Panjab, shows the SIkhs being in conflict with the british for quite large periods. The two world wars being the exception.

I think you are deluding yourself. Yes, sure some [relatively small amount of] brave Sikhs fought against colonisation, but that doesn't detract from the way hordes of apnay got in bed with it - in a conspicuously BIG way. And get this - IN A WAY MANY STILL CELEBRATE TODAY.

Relating to your earlier point about arse-licking - there seems to be a lot of it going on - for a long time too.

Let's face it, hordes of Sikhs were too busy making money being the 'sword arm of the British empire'; this played no small part in our people getting caught with their pants down by other more politically astute communities. Whilst many Sikhs were protecting British interests abroad, others protected and secured their interests closer to home.

How about applying some critical thinking for a change instead of excusing our own people's c0ck ups?

Edited August 16, 2014 by dalsingh101

[chatanga1]

I know history tells us that the Sikhs did end up becoming firm loyalists of the english, to the point where they denied their own king, Maharaja Dalip Singh. That can be classed as one part of major sycophancy.

Joining the british army most likely would have been a wage-earner more than anything, the british were known at that time and before I may add, to pay soldiers on time and correctly (whereas in Maharaja Ranjit Singh's rule, soldiers pay was usually running 6 months in arrears).

What other major instances can we list?

But from the part when Panjab became part of the empire. History tells us there was great resentment from the Sikhs against the british after 1849.

The next part where we have detailed info is when the Sikhs fought against the british govt in the Gurdwara Sudhar Lehar, and the morchas from 1920s to 1925 with the Gurdwara Act bill.

The Gadar Lehar, although not an exclusive Sikh movement, was primarily run by Sikhs.

The Babbal Akali Lehar, a short but violent movement in mainly Doab Jalandhar, in the 1920s.

Another part is the fact that the Sikhs formed the majority of the Indian Army under Capt Mohan SIngh and then Bose to fight the british.

What other times in this period 1849-1947 did Sikhs fight against the British?

Edited August 17, 2014 by chatanga1

[dalsingh101]

See the above answer is typical from people like you and just makes it appear as if 'denial mentality' is seriously embedded and natural to you. You make it appear as if you are mentally incapable of critical thinking; instead you excuse away things that essentially justify things that have led to the slide in the Sikh community.

What other major instances can we list?

Are you serious?

It went A LOT deeper than what you outlined above. Apnay got so carried away that they started fusing Protestant Christianity with Sikhi. They went to the extent of corrupting Amrit Sanchar to include vows of loyalty to a foreign monarchy/government.

There were groups around that were actually fighting against being colonised subjects, but that didn't inspire the masses to unite and join and fight - instead hordes of pendus went for money over their independence/freedom and ended up fighting for another race's interests. Instead of keeping an eye on their homeland, they were fighting for the interests of anothers?!?

Maybe we should all congratulate the Paks for not being dumb mfs like we arguably was then?

And let us not gloss over the fact that despite manipulative posturing to the contrary, our 'masters' in their heart of hearts, NEVER deemed us as equals (nor do they to this day btw), and only saw us as a useful lesser species whose value was to take up the 'white man's burden' - something they covered by simply throwing out the occasional, patronising ego boosting comment to the Sikh peasantry, right up to the point when they were legging it whilst Panjab burnt.

If you are reflection of your recent ancestors, it is no wonder Sikhs got mugged off so easily...

I congratulate those Pakis myself, maybe someone like you can learn important lessons about the benefits of independent mindedness over flagrant arse-licking in the events leading to independence?

PS - I tell you what the real 'disaster/catastrophe' is: the way the quom seems to have lost its personal, corporate and political self- confidence subsequent to annexation.

Edited August 19, 2014 by dalsingh101

[chatanga1]

See the above answer is typical from people like you and just makes it appear as if 'denial mentality' is seriously embedded and natural to you. You make it appear as if you are mentally incapable of critical thinking; instead you excuse away things that essentially justify things that have led to the slide in the Sikh community.

I haven't denied anything, just listed what I can see or not see. you know more about this, so let's hear it.

It went A LOT deeper than what you outlined above. Apnay got so carried away that they started fusing Protestant Christianity with Sikhi. They went to the extent of corrupting Amrit Sanchar to include vows of loyalty to a foreign monarchy/government.

I haven't heard of amrit sinchar being corrupted to include such vows, but would like to know more.

How would fusing sikhi with protestant christianity help the british rule in india? The missionaries wanted to convert as many people to christianity, which is understandable, but would it help them to have a mix of the two?

There were groups around that were actually fighting against being colonised subjects, but that didn't inspire the masses to unite and join and fight - instead hordes of pendus went for money over their independence/freedom and ended up fighting for another race's interests. Instead of keeping an eye on their homeland, they were fighting for the interests of anothers?!?

Panjab's (and India's) history tells us that the majority of volunteers for the british army were panjabi muslims(over 50%).

As I said earlier, the muslims were the one community that professed outright loyalty to the crown. This was their party policy from around 1890 onwards, after the establishment of the aligarh university.

The congress on the other hand, based their relationship on the policies of the rulers. the muslims came out of the situation very well off indeed, based on their relationship with the rulers. Both parties fought for/against the rulers, but came off well indeed.

instead hordes of pendus went for money over their independence/freedom and ended up fighting for another race's interests.

expand on this.

I congratulate those Pakis myself, maybe someone like you can learn important lessons about the benefits of independent mindedness over flagrant arse-licking in the events leading to independence?

That is a key issue here, the Muslim League reminded the british over and over, about it's unflinching loyalty when the Congress were carrying out their swaraj campaigns. For this the british gave them a promise that india would only be handed back, in a situation that they were comfortable with.

The only time the muslims showed independent-mindedness was when they (jinnah) knew that the muslim political capacity under delhi rule would be curtailed.

If you are reflection of your recent ancestors, it is no wonder Sikhs got mugged off so easily...

The Sikhs didnt get mugged off, solely because of their relationship with the british. The fact is that the Sikhs had a extremely weak deck to begin with, and the hands that were controlling that deck was quite weak as well.