Jump to content

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


superkaur
 Share

Recommended Posts

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"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, JSinghnz said:

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.

What do you mean mind my language? would you say the same thing if i had posted gurbani verses that mentions fools?

Besides whats wrong with calling Master Tara Singh a fool he was more than a fool he was a maha gadar fool. Every Sikh knows this except a few who havent studied what actions he did that led to catastrophe for not only his own family but the Sikh kaum as a whole.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, jkvlondon said:

the first things they did was note then promptly destroyed the organisation and free education resources in each village, giving controlof the disadvantaged to their favourite bootlickers i.e. bahmin/musley ...whilst murdering the nihangs and custodians of the seena baseena knowledge of warfare, itihaas, sikh traditions. 

They then diminished our Maa boli's use , gurmat sangeet by introducing the missionaries' harmonium, victorian sensiblities and teadrinking (which they sold to us at exorbitent prices). WHen they packed up shop they made sure that they  handed over to trusted hands i.e. english educated yes men  ....did you not find it strange that all three were close , Jinnah, Nehru and gandhi- all had same profession: lawyers all went to england for their 'educations' ?

these yes men completed the task of making sure the working classes didn't think let alone become Sikhs , I mean they were the last to be conquered in the subcontinent and the first to rebel against control: with that kind of pedigree sikhs were dangerous to Bahmins and mullahs alike in turning the masses' heads against their flimsy mental reins of superstition and servility 

Totally agree. This is how they impose their culture their ideology their way of life on various peoples of the world they wanted to enslave and control and still do to this day with threat of economic sanctions or warfare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, YOYO29 said:

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"

Benefited how? by becoming majority in 1/3 of already halved punjab (between india and pakistan) and enslaved in the hindu majority Indian Union? Genocided in 1980s 90s. Golden temple attacked, books destroyed and looted. women raped, kids killed? What benefit?

And If his actions of drawing the sword infront of a crowd of baying mob of Muslim nationalists rallying for pakistan in 1940s is not the actions of a fool and is not an act of aggression then I dont know what is.

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