genie

If British Intelligence Mi6 Believed Sikhistan Was Imminent What Went Wrong?

22 posts in this topic

I was reading an article a few years ago regarding what British Intelligence reports were saying that Sikhistan/Khalistan is going to be established very soon during 1940s.

So my question is does anyone have any background information what went wrong to prevent it apart from the British white imperialists not wanting it created?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was reading an article a few years ago regarding what British Intelligence reports were saying that Sikhistan/Khalistan is going to be established very soon during 1940s.

So my question is does anyone have any background information what went wrong to prevent it apart from the British white imperialists not wanting it created?

From what I know a separate Sikh state was definitely on the cards but there gadaars like Master Tara Singh who back stabbed the panth and showed loyalty towards inc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was down to economics

That is why in 40's seperate sikh country was rejected

It would of bin very difficult for trade without a port as well the neibours would of dictated trade policies an could implement heavy taxes on anything needed to be imported or exported using india or pakistans ports

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would of bin very difficult for trade without a port as well the neibours would of dictated trade policies an could implement heavy taxes on anything needed to be imported or exported using india or pakistans ports

Being landlocked would definitely be a big problem for this hypothetical country. Obviously the Sikhs would need to carry out parchaar all the way to some stretch of coastline. But, having accomplished that, I think they'd be in a very reasonable position to dictate trade terms to their neighbors. After all the famine state of India, barely capable of feeding all its people, relies on the tiny Punjab for 1/5th of its wheat and nearly 1/5th of its rice. That's a hell of a lot of crops. Khalistan would have something the Indians desperately need, and the Khalistanis could really hold them to ransom over it.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I know a separate Sikh state was definitely on the cards but there gadaars like Master Tara Singh who back stabbed the panth and showed loyalty towards inc.

Yeah he was a gaddar as the the freemason maharajah of pataila who didnt want Khalistan created either against sikh kaum's best interests. But it seems like some Sikh rajahs of former princely states and Sikh mililtary commanders within British Indian army also were prepared to put their lot in by preventing the creation of pakistan and division of punjab by creating sikhistan/khalistan first instead.

I have seen communication docs where its suggested jinnah and nehru hated Sikhs spoiling the plans of division of india and even asked the british to control the Sikhs by threat of brutal military force.

It was down to economics

That is why in 40's seperate sikh country was rejected

It would of bin very difficult for trade without a port as well the neibours would of dictated trade policies an could implement heavy taxes on anything needed to be imported or exported using india or pakistans ports

Creating a separate Sikh country would not have been the problem, the problem would have been who ruled it and thats where I think different interest groups within the Sikh kaums clashed and put their lot with different agenda's for the indian subcontinent against best interest of the Sikhs.

Edited by genie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well before pre partition negotiations Baba Nand Singh sent one of his close personal Kavi Madsudan Singh to Master Tara Singh telling him to involve Maharaja Patiala Yadwinder Singh in the negotiations. Since his father Maharaja Bhupinder Singh and him was very well known to British sending troops for WW1 and 2 and even going to the war fronts. But Tara Singh said what do these sants know about political matters? Well the outcome would have been different if they were involved. Baba Nand Singh also said that this Master Tara Singh along with Gandhi will lead Sikhs to slavery.

Edited by scali

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gandhi Nehru also said before 1947 that Sikhs could have their own area where they could experience 'the glow of freedom', after 1947 they said ' things have change now'. Sikhs again made no legal agreements and trusted a bunch of liars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I have read there was definitely a plan by the Sikh leadership to create Khalistan/Sikhistan in 1947. The reason why this is never highlighted is that after the plan failed the Sikhs had to prove that they were as loyal as the others as Indians and hence the constant refrain since 1947 about how Sikhs were at the forefront of the freedom movement. After 1947 the Sikhs had to prove their nationalist credentials especially as their struggle for Punjabi Suba was being portrayed as an attempt at creating a Sikh state. Sikhs activities aimed at creating Khalistan/Sikhistan in 1947 normally gets a couple of lines in the standard books on partition. 

In the partition negotiations the only option the British have to the Sikhs was either to join Pakistan and thus the Punjab would not have to be partitioned or for it to be partitioned because the Sikhs wanted to join India. The Sikhs having experienced Muslim rule knew just what would be in store for the Sikhs in Pakistan so the Sikhs opted to join India and have the Punjab partitioned. The mistake the Sikh leadership made through Baldev Singh was the accept the Radcliffe award in ADVANCE as did the Congress and Muslim League. The Sikhs should have refused to accept the Radcliffe award in advance unless the 'other factors' in the terms of reference were defined ie Sikh historical Gurdwaras, Sikh land holdings etc The Sikh leadership could have derailed the whole British plan to leave India quickly by refusing to accept the Radcliffe award and then working with the Sikh states to derail Mountbatten's plan to force the Maharajas to join either India or Pakistan. The Sikhs could have played havoc with the carefully laid out British plans.

Having made the mistake of accepting the Radcliffe award in advance, the Sikhs were left with only one option and that was the ensure that East Punjab was cleared of Muslims so that Sikhs who were left in Pakistan by the Radcliffe award would be able to come over to East Punjab. The Sikh leadership did at least make common cause with the Sikh Maharajas to ensure that the Sikhs were ready and able to drive the Muslims out of East Punjab and the Sikh states. 

The Sikh leadership knew that they could not start anything while the British were still in charge so the plan was to start after the Radcliffe award was announced. The Maharajas were to concentrate on taking over the districts adjoining their states. Faridkot was to take over Ferozpur district and Patiala was to take over districts to the east of the state. The Jathas reinforced by soldiers from the Sikh states and ex-soldiers from the Indian army were to take over Amritsar and Lahore and the canal colonies.

Why did it fail? There are a number of reasons for this.

At most the Jathas had 100,000 members split all over Punjab. Some Jathas were a few hundred in number and other were many thousands. The Jathas had a good strategy and the help of former soldiers as well as soldiers of the Sikh states made these Jathas very effective. They were also able to swell their numbers by getting help from Sikhs in the local area who were not members of these Jathas. According to a paper I read called The Master and the Maharajas, the Jathas had plans to evict the Muslims from areas of British Punjab that Sikhs wanted to be a part of Sikhistan but the East Punjab Muslims especially in the Sikh states were in an aggressive mood and started to congregate in large numbers at various places which became a security concern for the non-Muslim residents of these areas. Muslims also attacked Sikh and Hindu villages in these areas and therefore the Jathas had to operate in the Sikhs states to deal with these Muslims whereas in the initial estimation the Sikh states would have been considered as safe areas not requiring any Jatha activity until the main objectives had been achieved. 

The Jathas also were not in a position to openly challenge the Punjab Boundary Force (PBF)which were the only military force to operate in the crucial central Punjab area. The PBF could call upon tanks to support them and in one clash they killed over 60 members of a Jatha that had clashed with them because of their having support from tanks. If the Jathas has been supplied with anti-Tank weapons then they would have had a much better chance of success against the PBF.  Also not much action seems to have been taken to bring over the Sikh troops in the PBF force over to the side of the Jathas. The PBF devoid of the support of the Sikh troops would have become ineffective. 

To create a viable Sikhistan, the Sikhs would have had to take areas allocated to Pakistan in the Radcliffe award such as Lahore, Nankana Sahib and the canal colonies of Lyallpur and Montgomery. In Lahore city the Sikhs were only 5% while the Muslims were 64% and the Hindus 26%. By the time of the Radcliffe award a majority of the Hindus and Sikhs had already left the city as the Muslims had burnt the Hindus out of their main base Shahalmi area, so to gain the city would have entailed a siege without much support from inside the city. Had the Hindus held out like the Sikhs had in Amritsar then the city could have been an objective for the Jathas. As the Jathas also now had to deal prematurely with the Muslims in East Punjab and the Sikh states there would have been no manpower to spare to take Lahore. The same was with the case canal colonies, the Sikhs there stayed put and were well organised but with no help coming from the Jathas from East Punjab, these Sikhs would have not be able to take the offensive against the Muslims in their areas. The only thing that was provided in the end was an order to move to India and some men to escort the Sikh caravans to East Punjab. 

The Sikhistan plan also envisaged that the Indian would be strong and may even assist the Sikhs with regular troops with which to take back the Sikh areas of West Punjab. Nehru was weak and it was felt that Sardar Patel might either take over the government and assist the Sikhs or that he might bully Nehru into doing so. It was also felt that the Pakistan govt would be weak and being a being far from Punjab in Karachi would not be able to take control of West Punjab. The Indian government was weak for more than six months and in West Punjab the Pakistan government was never put to the test due to the factors outlines above. 

The main drawbacks of the Sikhistan plan was that it relied on too many variables such as support from Indian govt, a weak Pakistan and a passive Muslim population in East Punjab and the Sikh states. Also the Sikhs were caught in a catch 22 situation. If they revolted before the Radcliffe award then they would have faced British troops and a unified British Indian army but if they revolted after Radcliffe award they would be fighting against an agreed upon border to which they had already accepted in advance. Also the plan needed to be better thought out. Sikhs troops should have been ordered to leave their barracks and make for Punjab and join the Jathas. Sikh troops of the PBF should have been won over and thus the PBF neutralised. Like the Jews did exactly a year later, the Sikhs should have aimed to arm the Jathas with more modern weapons and turned them into regular units. The Jews were even able to set up a small Air Force in Palestine just as the British left so something similar could also have been attempted by the Sikhs. There were a lot of Sikh soldiers who had experience in fighting in tank units and the Sikh states should have arranged for the supply of these types of weapons which would have turned the tide against the Muslims in West Punjab. Had this been done then it is likely that given what the Jathas had achieved in East Punjab then these units of paramilitaries could have taken over areas of West Punjab as well.

Another drawback of the Sikhistan plan was that the Sikh states did not fight to become independent after the end of the British paramountcy over them ended in 1947. They meekly accepted a change of masters and had they held out against Mountbatten and with the support of the Sikhs in British areas threatening violence they could have forced Mountbatten to allow them to become independent or merge into an Independent Sikh state. With their eastern front defended by the Sikh state thus preventing any Indian intervention in  Punjab, the Sikhs had they been better armed and formed into regular army units could have had a free hand in West Punjab against a weak Pakistan government. The Sikhs would have had to take West Punjab up to a river boundary so that it would have been easily defensible. The Ravi would have been a good boundary but it would have meant that Nankana Sahib would still be left out so it would probably have been the Chenab as a frontier and this ironically would have been same boundary as demanded by the Sikhs in their representations to the Radcliife commission. The repercussions of what was happening in Punjab would have been felt in other areas of India as well. It is likely that the Rajputana states would have held out for independence as well becoming a headache for India. Seeing what the Sikhs achieving in Punjab, the Dogras may have attempted for an Independent Kashmir and driving out the Muslims from Kashmir making more problems for the Pakistan government. Hyderabad would also have gone for Independence and this would have kept India busy in this area. 

 

When you think about it, had the Sikh leadership both in the British areas and in the Sikh states been better prepared the map of South Asia would have been unrecognisible from what it is today.

Edited by proactive
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, proactive said:

From what I have read there was definitely a plan by the Sikh leadership to create Khalistan/Sikhistan in 1947.

The Sikhs did more to plan for a Sih state in Panjab than either the Muslims or HIndus. The only problem was the Sikh state that was envisaged would have a Sikh population of less than 30%. So the British argued how could it actually be a Sikh state. The Sikh population factor was the biggest handicap, followed by our religious heritage being spread all over Panjab. No matter what the Sikhs thought of they couldn't get both together and remain a majority anywhere.

 

20 minutes ago, proactive said:

 The mistake the Sikh leadership made through Baldev Singh was the accept the Radcliffe award in ADVANCE as did the Congress and Muslim League.


To have blind acceptance of the decision of the Radcliffe line was one of the conditions for an early partition. Both the Muslim League and Congress wanted the British gone as soon as possible, and Mountbatten laid the condition that whatever was decided by the British in terms of partition would have to be accepted by Muslims, Sikhs and Congress. All 3 accepted.

 

But, and this is a really big but. The scheming devilish Brit-scum, told the 3 groups that there would be an appeal panel called teh Boundary Commission to which all 3 groups could appeal to if they felt the award was unfair to them. But this commission was wound up the day after the final boundary was demarcated (in Lahore) and so there was no actual process of being able to appeal to the Boundary Commission. 

It is a huge injustice that a border village housing "Sr Darbar Kartarpur" was placed inside Pakistan when it could have come to India instead. Then we would have at least had Guru Nanak's jyoti jyot place in our control. Similarly there were 5 other border villages, I mean properly on the border, which housed important Sikh historical Gurdwaras. These could all have easily come to India, if the Boundary Commission was a genuine organisation. But the british devils deliberately used this ploy to dampen down the Sikh fears.

 

What is also interesting is that the SGPC actually pettitioned the Indian Govt to arrange an exchange of territory in Panjab with the Pakistan Govt, so we could have these precious Gurdwaras in our control, but the indian govt were not interested.

 

20 minutes ago, proactive said:

When you think about it, had the Sikh leadership both in the British areas and in the Sikh states been better prepared the map of South Asia would have been unrecognisible from what it is today.

Unfortunately, the Sikhs were preoccupied with being anti-muslim league, and anti-britsih rule, and not focusing enough on their future position. that scoundrel nehru pledged to the Sikhs in 1929 that "the Sikhs would be given an autonomous unit wher they could feel the glow of freedom." Yet for the next 18 years the Sikhs didn't develop that further in writing and concrete assurances and ended up where we are now.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, chatanga said:

The Sikhs did more to plan for a Sih state in Panjab than either the Muslims or HIndus. The only problem was the Sikh state that was envisaged would have a Sikh population of less than 30%. So the British argued how could it actually be a Sikh state. The Sikh population factor was the biggest handicap, followed by our religious heritage being spread all over Panjab. No matter what the Sikhs thought of they couldn't get both together and remain a majority anywhere.

That is the key for me why our past, present and future depends on our demographics willing to fight for our existence and eventual nationhood. At the moment we have a demographics battle going on in india which is less than 2% population that even christians have taken over which is a disgrace. How has that happened? SGPC puppets and their masters indian establishments wishing for that case.

Guru Gobind singh ji didnt state "without political power everyone will be helpless" for no reason. He knew if you didnt have your own nation state your own administration your own army to protect your religion and community then your basically under the thumb of your oppressors or those who do not have your best interests at heart.
 

4 hours ago, proactive said:

Sikh troops of the PBF should have been won over and thus the PBF neutralised. Like the Jews did exactly a year later, the Sikhs should have aimed to arm the Jathas with more modern weapons and turned them into regular units. The Jews were even able to set up a small Air Force in Palestine just as the British left so something similar could also have been attempted by the Sikhs. There were a lot of Sikh soldiers who had experience in fighting in tank units and the Sikh states should have arranged for the supply of these types of weapons which would have turned the tide against the Muslims in West Punjab. Had this been done then it is likely that given what the Jathas had achieved in East Punjab then these units of paramilitaries could have taken over areas of West Punjab as well.

Another drawback of the Sikhistan plan was that the Sikh states did not fight to become independent after the end of the British paramountcy over them ended in 1947. They meekly accepted a change of masters and had they held out against Mountbatten and with the support of the Sikhs in British areas threatening violence they could have forced Mountbatten to allow them to become independent or merge into an Independent Sikh state. With their eastern front defended by the Sikh state thus preventing any Indian intervention in  Punjab, the Sikhs had they been better armed and formed into regular army units could have had a free hand in West Punjab against a weak Pakistan government. The Sikhs would have had to take West Punjab up to a river boundary so that it would have been easily defensible. The Ravi would have been a good boundary but it would have meant that Nankana Sahib would still be left out so it would probably have been the Chenab as a frontier and this ironically would have been same boundary as demanded by the Sikhs in their representations to the Radcliife commission. The repercussions of what was happening in Punjab would have been felt in other areas of India as well. It is likely that the Rajputana states would have held out for independence as well becoming a headache for India. Seeing what the Sikhs achieving in Punjab, the Dogras may have attempted for an Independent Kashmir and driving out the Muslims from Kashmir making more problems for the Pakistan government. Hyderabad would also have gone for Independence and this would have kept India busy in this area. 

Good points. As we look at our present times now and wonder why is the Sikh nation suffering? We can see why by analysing the past. We are under the thumb or rely on non-sikh authorities for our safety and protection, that is a undesirable position we should have never got in to. And the failure lies squarely at our political and religious leaders having foresight.

It would be interesting to find out if there is documents out there of Sikh kingdom intelligence agents who may have recorded their activities on paper for the states they worked for. I have read how maharajah's of faridkot and jind were quite keen on insuring some sort of Sikh autonomy. Maharajah of patalia was an out right sell out and a freemason (as listed on freemasonry website) so his interests were serving his freemason/ british masters which is did by supplying them with hundreds of thousands of sikh troops in both world wars.

Sikh's did cause alot of trouble for british indian authorities and nehru's congress by trying to prevent the split of punjab. Nehru went as far as to call Sikhs (ie those fighting against the division of punjab) as a tribe of criminals. So already we knew the chess board was already set in such a way that Sikhs had no political hope for their own homeland being sold off to non-sikhs. They had agents already in place to prevent khalistan/sikhistan (ie master tara singh and baldev singh). They had PBF troops in place, they had killed or converted many Sikhs from punjab and prevented Sikhs from organising any real opposition. They let put their castist agents in SGPC who prevented dalits from embracing Sikhism and created rehat maryada out of the air putting sehjdhari sikhs into the camp of hindu punjabi's  which if that did not happen would have given a huge population to create separate country to rival pakistan.

So all in all Sikhs had to fight a physical bloody ruthless fight to get any slice of the independence/freedom cake. MI6 had embarrassing information on maharajah's so they blackmailed maharajah of paitala, nehru , gandhi  and jinnah. Often these intelligence agencies used plots and tapped information to take down their political opponents just like they do to this very day. If there was more people like donald trump as he is like teflon nothing sticks to him no matter what he does or says then blackmail would not work ever.

So thats how the british imperialists got people in their pockets it wasnt all about alleged  talk of freedom and huge financial incentives via swiss bank accounts It was a much more carefully planned chess game and the game was already set to ensure Sikhs never got their independence as we can see in 1984 how the british establishment again helped the Indian establishment to plan murder of innocent Sikh civilians and of religious and political sikh figures (ie sant jarnail singh bhindranwale). They did not want us to get independence and still dont because their scummy agents in india are happily making the British billions in trade import and exports.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, genie said:

Guru Gobind singh ji didnt state "without political power everyone will be helpless" for no reason.

Guru Sahib never stated it.

 

17 hours ago, genie said:

Sikh's did cause alot of trouble for british indian authorities and nehru's congress by trying to prevent the split of punjab.

I don't know what books you have been reading, but you're wrong. It was the Sikhs who wanted partition of Panjab to stop ALL of Panjab going to Pakistan.

 

17 hours ago, genie said:

Nehru went as far as to call Sikhs (ie those fighting against the division of punjab) as a tribe of criminals.

No he didn't.

 

17 hours ago, genie said:

They had agents already in place to prevent khalistan/sikhistan (ie master tara singh and baldev singh).


Master Tara Singh was no agent. He was just not politically shrewd or longsighted. But he wasn't an agent.

 

17 hours ago, genie said:

They had PBF troops in place, they had killed or converted many Sikhs from punjab and prevented Sikhs from organising any real opposition.

 

The PBF was a hopeless force from day 1. It was wound up after 2 weeks because it was so ineffective. They did have one major encounter with a sikh jatha in Amritsar, where they killed about 62 Sikhs from the jatha.

 

Your post seems quite full of hysteria more than anything. What books have you read about partition?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, chatanga said:

Guru Sahib never stated it.

He is said to have state this “Without political power, Dharma cannot be practised, and without Dharma, the society would be an admixture of scum. Nobody will offer you sovereignty. It will have to be obtained with the force of arms.” - Guru Gobind Singh Ji

14 minutes ago, chatanga said:

I don't know what books you have been reading, but you're wrong. It was the Sikhs who wanted partition of Panjab to stop ALL of Panjab going to Pakistan.

I've read the history of Sikhs by kushwant singh and other sources over the years and I've seen actual secret documents where Nehru communicated he wanted the Sikhs sorted out because they were violently resisting the partition of punjab with armed groups.

16 minutes ago, chatanga said:

No he didn't.

What planet you on. He (nehru) did call Sikhs a tribe of criminals go do your research its all over the web.

17 minutes ago, chatanga said:

Master Tara Singh was no agent. He was just not politically shrewd or longsighted. But he wasn't an agent.

 

Master tara singh was an agent of the british and the hindutva orgs he was born as a punjabi hindu who later converted to Sikhism to infiltrate Sikh orgs. How did this unknown failed school headteacher come to represent the prestige of the Sikh community who ruled an empire? you living in la la land if you think he wasnt an agent.

19 minutes ago, chatanga said:

The PBF was a hopeless force from day 1. It was wound up after 2 weeks because it was so ineffective. They did have one major encounter with a sikh jatha in Amritsar, where they killed about 62 Sikhs from the jatha.

I've read actual secret documents from the british authorities of the time that state they were using their PBF troops to prevent Sikh armed groups from preventing partition.

And as for the british killing and trying to convert sikhs what do you think they did when they invaded the Sikh empire? They killed Sikh civilians who resisted after capturing lahore and they raped, pillaged and they tried to convert Sikhs to christianity how you think they got their hundred churchs in punjab and a church at harmandir sahib which was later destroyed by the sikhs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 21/05/2016 at 8:42 AM, lsingh said:

Gandhi Nehru also said before 1947 that Sikhs could have their own area where they could experience 'the glow of freedom', after 1947 they said ' things have change now'. Sikhs again made no legal agreements and trusted a bunch of liars.

but why did they take the oath of Gandhi , when Guru Pita ji had told us to never believe in oaths given to us on any holy granth ...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/15/2017 at 7:19 PM, chatanga said:

The Sikhs did more to plan for a Sih state in Panjab than either the Muslims or HIndus. The only problem was the Sikh state that was envisaged would have a Sikh population of less than 30%. So the British argued how could it actually be a Sikh state. The Sikh population factor was the biggest handicap, followed by our religious heritage being spread all over Panjab. No matter what the Sikhs thought of they couldn't get both together and remain a majority anywhere.

If the population factor was detrimental to the Sikh cause then the Sikh leadership needed to think outside the box. There were the Sikh states which had a population of 3.5 million of which Sikhs were 39%, Hindus 34% and Muslims 24%. So they would have been the nucleus of a Sikh state. With the Muslims gone from these states the Sikhs would have been a majority. These states had treaties with the British and once the British announced they were leaving then these Sikhs should have reverted to the independent status they had before the British came. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, genie said:

He is said to have state this “Without political power, Dharma cannot be practised, and without Dharma, the society would be an admixture of scum. Nobody will offer you sovereignty. It will have to be obtained with the force of arms.” - Guru Gobind Singh Ji

I've read the history of Sikhs by kushwant singh and other sources over the years and I've seen actual secret documents where Nehru communicated he wanted the Sikhs sorted out because they were violently resisting the partition of punjab with armed groups.

What planet you on. He (nehru) did call Sikhs a tribe of criminals go do your research its all over the web.

Master tara singh was an agent of the british and the hindutva orgs he was born as a punjabi hindu who later converted to Sikhism to infiltrate Sikh orgs. How did this unknown failed school headteacher come to represent the prestige of the Sikh community who ruled an empire? you living in la la land if you think he wasnt an agent.

I've read actual secret documents from the british authorities of the time that state they were using their PBF troops to prevent Sikh armed groups from preventing partition.

And as for the british killing and trying to convert sikhs what do you think they did when they invaded the Sikh empire? They killed Sikh civilians who resisted after capturing lahore and they raped, pillaged and they tried to convert Sikhs to christianity how you think they got their hundred churchs in punjab and a church at harmandir sahib which was later destroyed by the sikhs.

The Sikhs were the ones which had fought for the partition of Punjab. The British were quite happy to leave the Punjab as a whole to Pakistan but it was the agitation by the Sikhs that forced them to deny Jinnah the whole of the Punjab. The Sikh agitation especially to stop the Muslim League minority government from taking power in Punjab was what convinced the British that the Sikhs would never accept Muslim rule in Punjab.  The Sikhs especially after the March massacres in Rawalpindi knew that if the whole of the Punjab went to Pakistan then the Muslims would make life hell for the Sikhs. What the Sikhs were violently resisting was a partition line which was splitting the Sikh population in half and placing millions of Sikhs and the Sikh shrines in Pakistan/

That quote is attributed to Trivedi as South Indian who Nehru appointed as governor of East Punjab in 1947.

Master Tara Singh was not a traitor. He became a Sikh out of choice and had he been a traitor as you allege then after 1947 and having in your view betrayed Sikh interests why did he fight for Punjabi Suba? Surely Nehru would have awarded his treachery and Master Tara Singh could have had an easy life. If anything his life was a life of struggle to get the Sikhs their due rights in India.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/15/2017 at 7:19 PM, chatanga said:

To have blind acceptance of the decision of the Radcliffe line was one of the conditions for an early partition. Both the Muslim League and Congress wanted the British gone as soon as possible, and Mountbatten laid the condition that whatever was decided by the British in terms of partition would have to be accepted by Muslims, Sikhs and Congress. All 3 accepted.

 

But, and this is a really big but. The scheming devilish Brit-scum, told the 3 groups that there would be an appeal panel called teh Boundary Commission to which all 3 groups could appeal to if they felt the award was unfair to them. But this commission was wound up the day after the final boundary was demarcated (in Lahore) and so there was no actual process of being able to appeal to the Boundary Commission. 

The major mistake the Sikhs made was to allow the 'other factors' in  the terms of reference to be vague and open to interpretation. The Sikhs should have held back on accepting the decision in advance unless the other factors were properly defined and equal weightage given to them with population. If equal weightage had been given then given that the Hindus and Sikhs virtually owned the whole of the city of Lahore and had a majority of the businesses, factories, schools, colleges etc and that the Sikhs owned about 58% of the land in Lahore district then it should have gone to East Punjab in 1947. As far as I know the boundary commission never had an appeals process. Because they representatives of all the communities could not agree to anything then Radcliffe was given the final decision and you are right he made a right hash of the partition line. The British chose someone who had never been to India and did not know the ground realities present in Punjab. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, proactive said:

The Sikhs were the ones which had fought for the partition of Punjab.

The Sikh leadership did eventually accept the partition of punjab after failing to persuade jinnah of a united india with muslim league being in power of punjab or having an azad punjab area. However the vast majority of the  Sikh population did not accept partition of punjab under any circumstances, and we all know the sikh leadership was either brought off by the british or inept in political matters. The sikh population mostly who lived in west punjab and whose homes and businesses and land would now come under a proposed pakistan so they violently opposed partition of punjab. The "sikh leadership" could not control the masses whose lives would be uprooted having to move to newly allocated areas in east punjab.

4 hours ago, proactive said:

Master Tara Singh was not a traitor. He became a Sikh out of choice and had he been a traitor as you allege then after 1947 and having in your view betrayed Sikh interests why did he fight for Punjabi Suba? Surely Nehru would have awarded his treachery and Master Tara Singh could have had an easy life. If anything his life was a life of struggle to get the Sikhs their due rights in India.  

I think history has shown he was a traitor, he may have converted to a Sikh but it wasnt in Sikh interests. He drew a Sword and threatened a demonstration for pakistani by PML which turned violent and many Sikhs killed by muslim mobs due to his idiocy. Then he negotiated all of Sikh political interests away to brahmin ruled congress. What part of him made him Sikh? Did he achieve anything for us? He achieved everything for his political masters in delhi. As for punjabi suba, I think his hand was forced to campaign for it as Sikhs were now realising the trap they had fallen into and blamed him for the mess so he had to save his own skin. He even failed to complete a fast unto death for Sikh autonomy he was a total disaster for the Sikh kaum.

What would be interesting to know is how he became to represent the Sikhs in the round table talks for independence. What authority or credentials did this failed high school headmaster have to represent the interests and prestige of the once powerful Sikh nation.

Edited by genie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, genie said:

He is said to have state this “Without political power, Dharma cannot be practised, and without Dharma, the society would be an admixture of scum. Nobody will offer you sovereignty. It will have to be obtained with the force of arms.” - Guru Gobind Singh Ji

Guru Gobind Singh has not written that anywhere, and there is a chance he may have said it. The quote is also attributed to Sardar Jassa SIngh Alhuwalia, but above all it's a quote from Prachin Panth Parkash.

 

22 hours ago, genie said:

I've read the history of Sikhs by kushwant singh and other sources over the years and I've seen actual secret documents where Nehru communicated he wanted the Sikhs sorted out because they were violently resisting the partition of punjab with armed groups.

Khushwant Singh is a cretin. His books are trading a fine line between sneering and outright contempt at the Sikh faith, the Sikh people, and Sikh future.

As i said before the Sikhs did not resisit partition, they were the ones who called for it in Panjab.

 

22 hours ago, genie said:

What planet you on. He (nehru) did call Sikhs a tribe of criminals go do your research its all over the web.

I'm on planet earth and i will tell you that it was Chandu Lal Trivedi who called the Sikhs a criminal tribe. Now if you are still claiming it was Nehru, please tell us what planet you are from?

 

22 hours ago, genie said:

Master tara singh was an agent of the british and the hindutva orgs he was born as a punjabi hindu who later converted to Sikhism to infiltrate Sikh orgs. How did this unknown failed school headteacher come to represent the prestige of the Sikh community who ruled an empire? you living in la la land if you think he wasnt an agent.

Unknown failed teacher? You show your ignorance of his life. Master Tara Singh was not unknown, and not failed either.

 

22 hours ago, genie said:

I've read actual secret documents from the british authorities of the time that state they were using their PBF troops to prevent Sikh armed groups from preventing partition.

I don't know what you've read, but the partition had already happened and the PBF was there to ensure the peace. How could a body that was created to help with a smooth partition actually prevent, or accelerate partition?

 

22 hours ago, genie said:

And as for the british killing and trying to convert sikhs what do you think they did when they invaded the Sikh empire? They killed Sikh civilians who resisted after capturing lahore and they raped, pillaged and they tried to convert Sikhs to christianity how you think they got their hundred churchs in punjab and a church at harmandir sahib which was later destroyed by the sikhs.

Ok, so now you have moved from 1947 to 1849?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, proactive said:

If the population factor was detrimental to the Sikh cause then the Sikh leadership needed to think outside the box. There were the Sikh states which had a population of 3.5 million of which Sikhs were 39%, Hindus 34% and Muslims 24%. So they would have been the nucleus of a Sikh state. With the Muslims gone from these states the Sikhs would have been a majority. These states had treaties with the British and once the British announced they were leaving then these Sikhs should have reverted to the independent status they had before the British came. 

IN an ideal world the Sikh states and the Panjabi Sikhs wold have joined hands. But the Sikh states, esp Patiala, were more pro-Britihs than pro-Sikh. The Maharaja of Patiala and Master Tara Singh never got on. Patiala always supported the British over the SGPC and Akali Dal.

 

Concerning the Kingdoms/princely states, Mountbatten gave them two ultimatums: join India or Pakistan. None were given a third option. If a huge Kingdom such as Hyderabad couldn't hold out against India, despite being 10 times bigger than all the Sikhs states put together, how could the Sikh Kingdoms?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, proactive said:

The British were quite happy to leave the Punjab as a whole to Pakistan but it was the agitation by the Sikhs that forced them to deny Jinnah the whole of the Punjab.

The British were of the opinion that Panjab should remain undivided and go completely to Pakistan. But <banned word filter activated> was the Congress who using Jinnah's own weapon against him, stating that as the Muslim majority areas cannot be forced to live under India (as part of the two-nation theory) Non-muslim majority areas could not be forced to live under pakistan rule. The British agreed with this and agreed to partition the two states of Panjab and Bengal.

 

So the two main states, Panjab and Bengal were divided in a similair fashion.

 

10 hours ago, proactive said:

The Sikh agitation especially to stop the Muslim League minority government from taking power in Punjab was what convinced the British that the Sikhs would never accept Muslim rule in Punjab

The Sikhs never launched any agitation that I know of against ML minority govt, as the muslim league were denied the opportunity to form a govt by the Panjab Secretary who invoked Governor's law after the muslim league brought down the Unionist govt. The muslim league only had 80 mps out of 178 so they couldn't form a government in Panjab by themselves. Governor Jenkins many times refused them on this basis.

 

10 hours ago, proactive said:

What the Sikhs were violently resisting was a partition line which was splitting the Sikh population in half and placing millions of Sikhs and the Sikh shrines in Pakistan/

 

What the Sikhs were doing in east Panjab was trying to kill as many muslims as they could whilst they had the chance to, and the West Panjab Sikhs were trying to escape with their lives. At that time, the East Panjab Sikhs  should have focused on the border villages of Lahore/Amritsar/Gurdaspur that held important Sikh shrines such as Kartarpur etc. They should have occupied these villages and refused to let them go to pakistan.

We have all seen what a mess the pakistanis have made of Sikh heritage there.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, proactive said:

As far as I know the boundary commission never had an appeals process.

It was supposed to have one. But it was decommissioned on the day, the final partition was announced. So there was no-one to appeal to after partition happened. The criminal british did it on purpose.

 

6 hours ago, genie said:

we all know the sikh leadership was either brought off by the british

First it was hthe Brahmans, now its the British?

 

6 hours ago, genie said:

The sikh population mostly who lived in west punjab and whose homes and businesses and land would now come under a proposed pakistan so they violently opposed partition of punjab.

The Sikhs of West Panjab did little more than defend their own lives and hope to reach East Pakistan.

 

6 hours ago, genie said:

 He drew a Sword and threatened a demonstration for pakistani by PML which turned violent and many Sikhs killed by muslim mobs due to his idiocy.

This was one of his biggest blunders. The Sikhs had to pay a huge price for this. Still I like the way you have said "many Sikhs" when there was around 7000 killed.

 

6 hours ago, genie said:

Then he negotiated all of Sikh political interests away to brahmin ruled congress.

By being the first person to be jailed in a free India for sedition?

 

You worry me. A lot. Your perception of history is based on some kind of paranoia. You can't blame others for everything all the time. we Sikhs made many mistakes over this period. But to say it was down to some conspiracy by the Brahmans or the criminal british is poor.

 

 

6 hours ago, genie said:

What would be interesting to know is how he became to represent the Sikhs in the round table talks for independence. What authority or credentials did this failed high school headmaster have to represent the interests and prestige of the once powerful Sikh nation.

Read about his life and you will find out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/15/2017 at 7:38 PM, proactive said:

The Maharajas were to concentrate on taking over the districts adjoining their states. Faridkot was to take over Ferozpur district and Patiala was to take over districts to the east of the state. The Jathas reinforced by soldiers from the Sikh states and ex-soldiers from the Indian army were to take over Amritsar and Lahore and the canal colonies.

Good post. I however disagree with the above part in bold. There is no doubt that Maharaja Harinder Singh of Faridkot wanted an autonomous Sikh state as he had put forward this demand to the British, but Patiala has always been a sell out state viz a viz the Sikh Qaum. 

Vallabhbhai Patel used Maharaja  Yadvinder Singh of Patiala to quell the demands for Khalistan or Sikhistan. The Maharaja organized a Panthic smagam in Patiala where he told Sikhs not to ask for an independant state. This fact was mentioned in the Hindustan Times paper at that time.

The Maharaja Patiala was satisfied because he got good posts after independence. It is only after steps were taken such as the derecognition of princely families that the Yadvinder Singh started supporting the idea of an independent Sikh country. This fact is barely known but was shared by Jagjit Singh Chauhan in one of his articles.

Edited by HarfunMaula
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now