Jump to content
superkaur

Did Winston Churchill & British Establishment deliberately want partition and deadly violence in punjab

Recommended Posts

superkaur    312

I was watching gurinder chandha's documentary recently where some interesting points where made about how jinnah had met winston churchill before partition where they had quite warm words exchanged in letters and held secret meetings with each other. Winston churchill hated the Indians especially brahmin hindus in his documents and overall opposed and hated the idea of india for wanting to leave the British empire. He also hated Muhammadans and Islam as he had stated it in documents yet when he talks to jinnah in letters he is said to have said warm words about Islam. Maybe he was lying to hide churchills real feelings towards both communities and get jinnah on his side.

So I'm wondering did churchill along with the British ruling classes (including royal family) deliberately get cripss to draw a line to divide punjab deliberately dividing nanakana sahib and amritsar knowing it would cause mayhem in the Sikh community enough for them to resort to take up armed resistance to resist the split of their homeland. Meaning violence would have been the deliberately objective by the british enough for it to be wide spread it would either:

1) Prevent the British leaving as Indians would be begging the British administration and army to stay on longer to control the violence and continue its governance.

or

2) Splitting the united india into two countries would be a parting revenge shot to the Indian's for their insistence of the British leaving. Also having pakistan as a base to continue their efforts in south asia would be handy since the Indians had enough of the British raj.


Churchill knew the Sikhs are a martial faith community, he know most of them come from punjab, he also knew they would fight to stop their holy places and land being left in muslim hands. It seems having known all these things the unforgivable act of partitioning punjab was a deliberate policy to ensure Sikhs were  used in the evil game plan.

Edited by superkaur
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dsinghdp    42

The Muslim population were ready for partition and sharpened their axes to kill Sikhs and Hindus. The Sikhs and Hindus were saying there will be no Pakistan and only leaved the place when they heard the order on the speakers, for them to leave Pakistan.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
superkaur    312
1 hour ago, Dsinghdp said:

The Muslim population were ready for partition and sharpened their axes to kill Sikhs and Hindus. The Sikhs and Hindus were saying there will be no Pakistan and only leaved the place when they heard the order on the speakers, for them to leave Pakistan.

Not really, it was the Sikh leadership that reluctantly wanted partition of punjab because Jinnah insisted on taking all of Punjab for pakistan. Yes the muslim mobs did start off the killings first possibly aided by the British in covert plans we may never know. Sikhs wanting political power, security and safety for their community were in an impossible position with terms imposed on them by the British. The Sikh masses and the Sikh military generals along with Sikh maharajahs of princely states of jind, nabha, faridkot were very against the idea of partitioning Punjab and losing their homes, holy gurdwara's, land and businesses in west punjab.

It was the Indian independence seeking leadership (master tara singh, akali dal's baldev singh and Bhupinder Singh the maharajah of patiala) that finally sided with indian national congress party to split punjab and join their lot with indian union rather than take up jinnahs offer of keeping the punjab unified under pakistan rule but with autonomy for the Sikhs. Congress also promised the Sikhs similar terms if they joined the Indian union they would get an area in northern india for autonomous rule and we have seen how they have gone back on their word and committed many genocides and massacres on Sikhs ever since.

The point is the mischief makers in all the mess of partition of punjab were the British establishment back in england because they knew exactly what they were doing in causing such catastrophe for the Sikh nation.

Edited by superkaur
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
proactive    1,309
1 hour ago, Ranjeet01 said:

If there is one thing in politics that needs to be learnt it is this:

Promises mean nothing 

Very true even the western politician are well known to go back on promise so the Sikh leaders holding out any hope in the promises of banias like MK Gandhi and Bahmans like Nehru was the height of folly. 

With regard to British machinations it would have been easy for the British to sabotage so-called independence by giving the hundreds of native states the right to become independent. This would have left both India and Pakistan with huge areas of land out of their control and with their communications disrupted. 

The British if they required a foothold in South Asia could have easily made a deal with one the many native states when they took the decision to stay independent rather than join India or Pakistan. Look at the image below, all the yellow areas were native states 

british-india-showing-native-states-french-portuguese-possessions-FCW485.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
superkaur    312
38 minutes ago, proactive said:

Very true even the western politician are well known to go back on promise so the Sikh leaders holding out any hope in the promises of banias like MK Gandhi and Bahmans like Nehru was the height of folly. 

With regard to British machinations it would have been easy for the British to sabotage so-called independence by giving the hundreds of native states the right to become independent. This would have left both India and Pakistan with huge areas of land out of their control and with their communications disrupted. 

The British if they required a foothold in South Asia could have easily made a deal with one the many native states when they took the decision to stay independent rather than join India or Pakistan. Look at the image below, all the yellow areas were native states 

british-india-showing-native-states-french-portuguese-possessions-FCW485.jpg

 

Good point about letting native states becoming independent, however that was what happened a few of the states did not want to join india or pakistan. The most contentious of them being kashmir,  hyrderbad and sikkim where the Indian army was used to invade, dethrown the native leaders/maharajahs and force the states to join the Indian Union.

So the game plan of the British was to have a finger in many pies. Pakistan would become their main base and hub to conduct operations in south asia. India was going to be treated as a neutral or enemy state especially when the USSR soviet union had started to help Indian congress party govt in energy infrastructure and other development projects. And the native states that were outside the control of new delhi were going to be used as another convenient trading posts for British goods and commerce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
superkaur    312

Sikhs were an after thought and never in the equation of the British to be given independence and were expendable pawns to be used and abused for military adventurous-ism for the British empire in the chess board.

Its important to conclude and remember so that all those Sikhs who suck up to the racist british establishment and thinking they would have granted a separate Sikh nation had it not been for the foolishness of master tara singh (who was a fool) and the leadership do not realise what the British game plan was. Had they really wanted to they could have made exceptions for the Sikhs regardless of their population sizes in various area's of west punjab and given back the sovereignty they had stolen from them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dsinghdp    42
50 minutes ago, proactive said:

Very true even the western politician are well known to go back on promise so the Sikh leaders holding out any hope in the promises of banias like MK Gandhi and Bahmans like Nehru was the height of folly. 

With regard to British machinations it would have been easy for the British to sabotage so-called independence by giving the hundreds of native states the right to become independent. This would have left both India and Pakistan with huge areas of land out of their control and with their communications disrupted. 

The British if they required a foothold in South Asia could have easily made a deal with one the many native states when they took the decision to stay independent rather than join India or Pakistan. Look at the image below, all the yellow areas were native states 

british-india-showing-native-states-french-portuguese-possessions-FCW485.jpg

 

The British could not understand the Indian civilisation. So India/Pakistan was a easier option for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ranjeet01    1,089
45 minutes ago, Dsinghdp said:

The British could not understand the Indian civilisation. So India/Pakistan was a easier option for them.

I think they understood far better than we realise. During the raj, they documented and researched everything from village, religion, language, cultures. 

They did their homework.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ranjeet01    1,089
1 hour ago, proactive said:

Very true even the western politician are well known to go back on promise so the Sikh leaders holding out any hope in the promises of banias like MK Gandhi and Bahmans like Nehru was the height of folly. 

With regard to British machinations it would have been easy for the British to sabotage so-called independence by giving the hundreds of native states the right to become independent. This would have left both India and Pakistan with huge areas of land out of their control and with their communications disrupted. 

The British if they required a foothold in South Asia could have easily made a deal with one the many native states when they took the decision to stay independent rather than join India or Pakistan. Look at the image below, all the yellow areas were native states 

british-india-showing-native-states-french-portuguese-possessions-FCW485.jpg

 

The British wanted some division but not too much division.

If you look at the geopolitical implications from the map above, India touches Central Asia, Middle East, South East Asia, east Asia, as well as the Indian oceans where Australia and Africa would be in easy reach.

The level of potential influence would have been too much for the various powers. 

It was easier to have the country carved into two because it is simpler to control.

Having multiple states would become too hard to control.

In the history of mankind, the most successful and prosperous states were always smaller states.

The irony of what we are seeing these days is new countries are being carved into smaller units.

Even with brexit, there are people who want London to seperate from the rest of the UK as well as Scotland.

Something to ponder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JSinghnz    925
12 hours ago, superkaur said:

Sikhs were an after thought and never in the equation of the British to be given independence and were expendable pawns to be used and abused for military adventurous-ism for the British empire in the chess board.

Its important to conclude and remember so that all those Sikhs who suck up to the racist british establishment and thinking they would have granted a separate Sikh nation had it not been for the foolishness of master tara singh (who was a fool) and the leadership do not realise what the British game plan was. Had they really wanted to they could have made exceptions for the Sikhs regardless of their population sizes in various area's of west punjab and given back the sovereignty they had stolen from them.

Mind your language. Master Tara Singh was not a fool. He was a very strong and selfless leader.

It was Baldev Singh who was the traitor and sold the interests of Sikhs.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
YOYO29    52
21 hours ago, superkaur said:

had it not been for the foolishness of master tara singh (who was a fool)

This is pretty harsh word to use for him.Your leadership did not have many options at that moment.Siding with India was best available option back then.Loss of innocent lives is no doubt a tragedy but partition was the only way and Sikhs benefited from it to a great deal.

 

Imagine if there was no partition there would have been no Sikh majority Punjab today.You should also keep in mind that it was because of partition that for the first in the 500 years history of Sikhs that there is a state with Sikh majority.And master Tara Singh played a huge role in securing that state as it is evident from his interview with journalist Paul R Brass;


"1967, however, Master Tara Singh, whom I interviewed then and who was the principal political leader of the Sikh community 20 years earlier, said to me in words I have never forgotten: “We took the decision to turn the Muslims out.” By this, he meant the decision to attack violently the Muslim population in East Punjab to force them to migrate west so that the entire Sikh population in West Punjab would be able to migrate east to replace them and take their lands and property in exchange for what they would lose in the west"

  • Confused 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
YOYO29    52
7 hours ago, jkvlondon said:

giving controlof the disadvantaged to their favourite bootlickers i.e. bahmin/musley

You forgot to add sikhray in your list of bootlickers. Sikhs were as much bootlickers of Britishers as any other community in Punjab this is evident from the fact the Sikh were disproportionately represented in British Indian army and fought their wars.Today's Sikh often keep harping on this fact that how they fought for british and in return britishers did nothing for them.

Even those soldier who shot at unarmed people in Jallianwala Bagh included Sikh soldiers along with Baloch,Gurkha and pathan soldiers.When it comes to boot licking every community is in the same boat. 

Edited by YOYO29

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Big_Tera    368

Gurinder chadha master minded the whole thing

Edited by Big_Tera
  • Haha 1

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


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Heretic or a Turk. Both are repulsive. The heretic is an internal threat where as the Turk is external. Whether or not he's insulted the Gurus (as of yet), is not the issue. It's the fact that he's Turk-Beeraj.
    • I do not believe in an absolute morality, dharam is not the same for each and every individual. This is not to say that dharam does not exist, only that it doesn't exist in a monolithic form.  This concept is reflected very well in the life of the Mahapurakh Sant Baba Thakur Singh, 14th jathedar of Damdami Taksaal. Babaji was a strict vegetarian like all members of Taksaal, so for him eating meat was a great sin. However when he visited the chaunis (encampments) of Nihang Singhs around Chowk Mehta he would often bring offerings of goats to be jhatkaa'd by the nihangs and later consumed. Because eating meat was not a great paap for them as it was for babaji, rather it was their tradition and he respected that the role they were given by the Almighty was different from his own.  Satguru's Hukam affects each person differently.  Eastern dharams tend not to impose moral codes on the whole of humankind, as though such codes apply to everybody. Yes there are certain basic guiding principles of human morality - don't murder, don't rape, but most sane people don't really need to be told not to do these things by a religion because they feel an inherent revulsion towards them. However beyond this things can get quite flexible. Some people are meant to be householders and provide for a family, whilst others are meant to be celibates and devote their lives and all their energy to Akaal Purakh and Seva of the Panth. If God creates someone with the intention that they will become a warrior, battle becomes dharam for this person, a righteous deed. If however God creates a man and by his hukam determines that this man is to be peaceful saint, battle is adharam for him, not righteous. This is why different sampardas/jathebandiaan exist in Sikhi. Guru Ji is not/was not anti-samparda or anti-jathebandi, if they were, they wouldn't have created or blessed so many of them themselves. I don't know if what I'm saying is right, but this is the conclusion I have arrived at from my study of Sikhi. Others will have arrived at different conclusions, and good thing too -  Sikhi is a garden full of many diverse flowers.  I do not believe Guru Ji aspired to make all Sikhs, or all people,  identical in their religious outlook and practice. 
    • So you think that Sikhs and Muslims need to remain bitter enemies for as long as this world exists?   And because of 84 do we also need to become eternal enemies of the Hindus forever and ever?   Yesterday Hindus were our friends but they ended up knifing us in the back. And Yesterday's enemies can become strategic allies of today. Try to see the bigger picture.
    • This one statement just proves you should know before commenting on such complex topics.
×