Why Sikhs Shouldn’t Celebrate Indian Independence

[proactive]

Independence from british soveriegnty was a good thing. Everyone agrees that the way in which it was done was not. Remember the partition was bad for everyone..sikhs,muslims and hindus. It wasnt just sikhs who were killed.

I think we should be more strigent in presenting the Sikh suffering rather than just lump into the overall suffering of the different communities.

1. Sikhs were the first community to be targetted by Muslims in Punjab in March 1947. Whole Sikh villages were wiped out in Rawalpindi district a clear 5 months before the partition.

2. Muslims in West Punjab particularly targetted Sikhs because Sikhs owned the most land there and they wanted to take it over. The loss of Sikhs in terms of land was much more than the land left behind by Muslims in East Punjab. The land the Sikhs left behind was also better quality than the land left in East Punjab.

3. In terms of numbers although most of the communities lost similar numbers killed, in terms of total population, Sikhs lost 1 in 20, Hindus lost 1 in 35 and Muslims 1 in 55.

4. In terms of refugees 2 out of 5 Sikhs were made into refugees, for Muslims it was 2 in 8 and for Hindus 2 in 6.

The end result was that the people who suffered the most in 1947 and now the worst off in 2007. Hindus have their own country as do Muslims. Sikhs do not.

[JagtarSinghKhalsa]

Another 1947 photo:

[chatanga]

Independence from british soveriegnty was a good thing. Everyone agrees that the way in which it was done was not. Remember the partition was bad for everyone..sikhs,muslims and hindus. It wasnt just sikhs who were killed.

I think we should be more strigent in presenting the Sikh suffering rather than just lump into the overall suffering of the different communities.

1. Sikhs were the first community to be targetted by Muslims in Punjab in March 1947. Whole Sikh villages were wiped out in Rawalpindi district a clear 5 months before the partition.

2. Muslims in West Punjab particularly targetted Sikhs because Sikhs owned the most land there and they wanted to take it over. The loss of Sikhs in terms of land was much more than the land left behind by Muslims in East Punjab. The land the Sikhs left behind was also better quality than the land left in East Punjab.

3. In terms of numbers although most of the communities lost similar numbers killed, in terms of total population, Sikhs lost 1 in 20, Hindus lost 1 in 35 and Muslims 1 in 55.

4. In terms of refugees 2 out of 5 Sikhs were made into refugees, for Muslims it was 2 in 8 and for Hindus 2 in 6.

The end result was that the people who suffered the most in 1947 and now the worst off in 2007. Hindus have their own country as do Muslims. Sikhs do not.

well put proactive.

[KKV]

Personally, am glad that India and Pakistan split up but am also annoyed aswell. First thing if the partition haden't happened Muslims would have been turned MOST of the population to Muslims, and right now our Panjabi / Sikh girls and boys in India are copying Hindu's and gettin all bollywood-fied and down to SOME of UK-ers / Canadian / USA-ers they have also turned westernised. But atleast on that point they have NOT turned into Muslims.

Am a little annoyed about the fact that our Gurdwara'eh and other places that our Guru have been to have been left in Pakistan and other places that our Vud'eh Vud'eh'reh left a mark are being 'owned' by other communities. Panjaab being the land of 5 Rivers only have 3 rivers now, so thats also messed up :wub:

It really makes me wonder, if India and Pakistan was still joined, to whether the 1984 saka would have happened, since 1984 was done BECUASE of Hindus and the Indian Government. Maybe if Muslims kept these Hindus in their place (and our Sikh fightin Hindu's battles for them as usual) maybe that wouldnt have happened - makes me sad :wub: :D

If I had it my way - as "selfish" as it sounds the whole of India and Pakistan put together should be Khalisthaan - Sikh Koum is the only one that deserves it - am not sayin that since its the Religion that I try to follow - if you look back on history Sikhism is the only faith that fought for truth and justice. Mughals showed the colours by trying to convert others - even today SOME Muslims follow that route, Hindus showed the colours by being ungrateful even when our Sri Guru Tegh Bahadhar Jee laid his life for these lousy.....and all the other sakas (Nankana, 1978,1984, all the other times when our Sikh had to free our Gurdwar'eh from idiots that took control etc.)

[Guest peacemaker]

And people wonder why ss is a breeding ground for fanatics. Some people just sit here and post their screwed up ideologies that seem to only make sense in their head, but in the real world they mean diddly squat!

[Guest Narinder Singh]

A Sikh who's celebrating Hindustan/Pakistan independence is celebrating their slavery.

Fateh.

[KKV]

And people wonder why ss is a breeding ground for fanatics. Some people just sit here and post their screwed up ideologies that seem to only make sense in their head, but in the real world they mean diddly squat!

I have a name Peacemaker....laa ke'h na gal kar...

[Guest peacemaker]

And people wonder why ss is a breeding ground for fanatics. Some people just sit here and post their screwed up ideologies that seem to only make sense in their head, but in the real world they mean diddly squat!

I have a name Peacemaker....laa ke'h na gal kar...

OK, since you called me out. I wasn't going to say, but, yeah, I was talking about you. Awwwww...so sorry.

[jassa]

the leading army regiment in parade is sikh regiment ... and they lead proudly ... and its far better then slavery of white people who got kicked out of india by our forefathers ....

[Guest Narinder Singh]

the leading army regiment in parade is sikh regiment ... and they lead proudly ... and its far better then slavery of white people who got kicked out of india by our forefathers ....

There are so many different types of slaves we have in our community, Jassa falls into the "proud" slave category.

Fateh.