Jump to content

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


genie
 Share

Recommended Posts

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?

 

 

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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 ...?

Link to comment
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. 

Link to comment
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.  

Link to comment
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. 

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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?

Link to comment
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?

 

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • yeh it's true, we shouldn't be lazy and need to learn jhatka shikaar. It doesn't help some of grew up in surrounding areas like Slough and Southall where everyone thought it was super bad for amrit dharis to eat meat, and they were following Sant babas and jathas, and instead the Singhs should have been normalising jhatka just like the recent world war soldiers did. We are trying to rectifiy this and khalsa should learn jhatka.  But I am just writing about bhog for those that are still learning rehit. As I explained, there are all these negative influences in the panth that talk against rehit, but this shouldn't deter us from taking khanda pahul, no matter what level of rehit we are!
    • How is it going to help? The link is of a Sikh hunter. Fine, but what good does that do the lazy Sikh who ate khulla maas in a restaurant? By the way, for the OP, yes, it's against rehit to eat khulla maas.
    • Yeah, Sikhs should do bhog of food they eat. But the point of bhog is to only do bhog of food which is fit to be presented to Maharaj. It's not maryada to do bhog of khulla maas and pretend it's OK to eat. It's not. Come on, bro, you should know better than to bring this Sakhi into it. Is this Sikh in the restaurant accompanied by Guru Gobind Singh ji? Is he fighting a dharam yudh? Or is he merely filling his belly with the nearest restaurant?  Please don't make a mockery of our puratan Singhs' sacrifices by comparing them to lazy Sikhs who eat khulla maas.
    • Seriously?? The Dhadi is trying to be cute. For those who didn't get it, he said: "Some say Maharaj killed bakras (goats). Some say he cut the heads of the Panj Piyaras. The truth is that they weren't goats. It was she-goats (ਬਕਰੀਆਂ). He jhatka'd she-goats. Not he-goats." Wow. This is possibly the stupidest thing I've ever heard in relation to Sikhi.
    • Instead of a 9 inch or larger kirpan, take a smaller kirpan and put it (without gatra) inside your smaller turban and tie the turban tightly. This keeps a kirpan on your person without interfering with the massage or alarming the masseuse. I'm not talking about a trinket but rather an actual small kirpan that fits in a sheath (you'll have to search to find one). As for ahem, "problems", you could get a male masseuse. I don't know where you are, but in most places there are professional masseuses who actually know what they are doing and can really relieve your muscle pains.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use