Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by YOYO29

  1. I have been on this forum for quite a long time now and gradually I have developed a keen interest in Sikhism.So,I was just wondering what does Sikhi say on slavery ? Does it condemn openly or it is silent on this issue ? Please give your answer with reference from Sikh scriptures.Thank you
  2. @chatanga bro, how about creating another thread ? I think we have hijacked superkaur's thread.
  3. Man , you are generalizing whole bunch of people. It is very rare to find a person in Pakistan who does not want Sikhs to have their own sate. Sometimes people even forget all the Muslim massacre in East Punjab. Such is anti Indian mindset of our people who want to avenge the humiliation of 1971 war. And the thing you posted about Quranic verses. Such kind of hateful verses can be found in every Abrahamic religion. If you ask an average Muslim how he thinks of these verse ; you would be surprised to know how many Muslims don't even know such verses even exist. Only time when Quran is used in our family it is some wedding or when some one dies. Having said that I don't claim that there are not any Muslims who believe in Quran word by word.Such people don't have the backing of entire Muslim population.Heck our people think 9/11 was inside job,Daesh,Al qaeda are Jewish conspiracy. LOL because they can't digest the fact that a Muslim can do such thing.
  4. I understand that.Actually , This discussion has moved from injustice of partition award to who suffered more losses.As proactive and you highlighted land ownership stuff and I tried to counter it by the fact that more muslims became homeless than hindus and sikhs put together. These figures are absolutely right.You can check Tariq's work and also see Ishtiaq Ahmed's book. If we count Migration from UP and other Indian provinces then it goes further higher close to 7.6 million. So far it has worked in India and to some extent in Pakistan too. Only in Kashmir there is some struggle but there is religion factor in it.If Kashmiris had been Hindu,India would have no need to deploy 7 lac army to keep Kashmir with India. Same with Indian Punjab too. These two states have some section of their population who want independence but that is because of religion. Most Indian Sikhs I have encountered on Facebook are very patriotic. Very few Khalistan supporter. This fact amazes me. India , despite desecrating holiest Sikh temple has managed to win back the trust of Sikhs. Something which we need to learn from our Hindu cousins and pacify our Baloch citizens. NRI Sikhs also have two different tendencies in regards to creation of Sikh state but Khalistani supporter have dominant voice in the diaspora.For them 1984 memory is still fresh and they have not moved on. To sum up . Religion is big issue in sub continent than ethnicity.
  5. you already did that in East Punjab. Kashmir's Muslim population was more than 3 million. Muslims were wiped out by Hindu majority in eastern district of jammu province.And Muslim in Western Jammu (Today's Azad Kashmir) did the same with hindus in their majority districts.
  6. It does matter.It was near impossible to completely wipe out an entire ethnic group.Driving out a minority from a few districts is one thing but driving out a whole ethnic group is whole other level.Also,Nehru was on good terms with Sheikh Abdullah.He knew he can count on Abdullah to keep Kashmirs in India that's why he even offered referendum in Kashmir. Please get your facts right.3.6 million hindu n sikhs migrated from west punjab as against 5.4 million Muslims from east Punjab.
  7. Just one county ?? Name of that county ?? Anyways they did that in Punjab too by awarding Muslim majority Gurdaspur to India.
  8. No comparison between Kapurthala and Jammau and Kashmir. Kapurthala was a tiny stae whose muslims population was barely over 2 hundred thousand. Jamm and Kashmir was a larger stae. Here Muslims were dominat in most regions. Like valley had more than 90 % population and still does. Gilgit and Baltistan area was also entirely muslims very few non muslims. In Jammu divison , there were Hindu dominated district in eastern side.Here Muslim minority was expelled and hindu and sikhs from west punjab were settled. Jammu district's muslim population was reduced from 36 percent to just 2 % .
  9. Why should not they be included ? They suffered the same fate as people living in British territory
  10. Indeed he accepted. Because they received a Muslim majority district Murshadabad, and three other Muslim district Malda,Nadia and dinajpur.This was a good deal for India.
  11. Perhaps Nehru was not wise man like you. If ruler's religion was to be held a criteria then there were many muslim ruled states in India.Bhopal in central India ,Hyderbad the largest state in India was also ruled by Muslim.All these muslims states should have been given the same choice then.This would have created a whole other mess in India.Muslim states in every corner of India lolzz
  12. This map is on Tehsil basis not on District basis. Yes,you are right Muslims were not outright majority , they were single largest group in Jalandhar,Amritsar and Firozpore. I think you are being confused seeing Jalandhar painted green in map.It is Kapurthala state spreading in Jalandhar district.One part of Kapurthala state was surrounded by Jalandhar dsitrict from all sides. This state was ruled by Sikh but had Muslim majority of 56 % . There is another factor ; 5.4 million Muslims found themselves on Indian side whereas there were only 3.6 million HIndus and Sikhs on Pakistani side who had to move. 30.27 % of Muslims found themselves on Indian side compared to 26.90 % Sikhs in West Punjab and 22.39 %Hindus who found themselves in West Punjab. Bottom line is , since we have more muslims on east side hence we lost more people than hindus and sikhs. So we lost more people and you lost more property. This factor is often ignored by many people.
  13. See the ares claimed by Sikhs/Congress and Muslim league.You will have no difficulty knowing who was being unreasonable here.If you have been granted all areas which you have asked. fer saday kol ki reh jana c ? see the map
  14. I have no doubt UN screwed over Muslims in Palestine but the fact remains by the time partition of India was announced there was no such precedent.This precedent was set in November 1947 by then Punjab has been partitioned. And clearly you have seen how that decision has turned out.There is still fight going on for this land by Palestinians. What Sikhs were demanding was not possible. If britian had awarded those heavily Muslim areas to India, Muslim league would not have accepted the award and war would have started over Punjab.And today Punjab would have been an Internationally disputed area.
  15. I would not say that.Hindu have lost too much.Unlike Bengali Hindus who got their state.Punjab Hindus were not that lucky.
  16. If you take into consideration princely states , most of them were in East Punjab. Including princely states in East Punjab our share reduces to 58.97 % . And your land is fertile whereas we have two big deserts in Punjab and one plateau. Have a look at these stats.
  17. Clearly they were wrong to believe that.There was no such precedent in recent history where such factors were taken into consideration for division of land.If you have gotten all the areas which congress and sikhs claimed then we would have left with nothing but chankana.
  18. Interesting subject you have brought it up.May I know how you got so much information about this ? From gazetteers or from books ? Pardon my ignorance about this.I have always focused on 1941 census and so i don't know what was the situation before 1941 census took place.It would be good if u can suggest some good books on this migration.
  19. Malaysia,Indonesia,Pakistan,Bangladesh are trying to put International pressure on Mynamar .Turkey is most vocal and had also sent aid in Dhaka for Rohangya refugees. Visit this http://theconversation.com/turkey-the-rohingya-crisis-and-erdogans-ambitions-to-be-a-global-muslim-leader-83854
  20. That's debatable. We might have lost the little bit of Azad Kashmir that today we have This instrument of accession was disputed by Pakistan.There is strong evidence to suggest Indian reached Kashmir before the instrument was signed. This original instrument was not produced and shown. You knew this all along when the subject of partition was brought up by Muslim League. This was bitter choice which you had to make.Just like we Muslims were not ready to submit to Hindu rule, same can be expected from Sikhs. For Sikhs joining Pakistan was out of question. Bro,whether you like it or not. Population matters and it definitely matters when dividing a country. Personally I don't see any problem with boundary drawn by Sir rad cliff. The reason I insisted on Gurdaspur is because it was no ordinary district it gave India a physical link with Kashmir. Losing a few Muslim majority tracts of land is though a loss but considering the fact it is first time we Punajbi Muslims got any real power and control of our own areas.Even during Mughal era no Punjabi Muslim was appointed Punjab's governor apart from Adina Beg of Jalandhar. So taking into consideration all these facts i think partition was worth it though not to our complete satisfaction.
  21. i have not read Guru Nanak's work so i can't say for sure. I've just started reading Oshoo's compilation of lectures in urdu Jeeven Bhed (secrets of life ). will get back to you once ive finished this book
  22. come on bro cut me some slack.I'm going through a passing phase, i don't think i'll be here for a long period.There was a time when i was obsessed with Islamic history,read a lot of stuff on it,then this phase passed,then i got interested in sikhism/sikhs and now i have developed interest in Oshoo; reading his work which is just amazing. So you gotta tolerate my presence for a few months at best till my interest in sikhism/sikhs fades.
  23. What does Sikhi say on slavery ?

    None give.You said i have not met any sikh or hindu who view abrahmic faith with their dhamric lense.And i told you there are plenty hindus. Whether they are educated or not.This was not point. My point there are people from dharmic religions who view abrahmic religion their dharmic goggles.