Jump to content

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


superkaur
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Jacfsing2
32 minutes ago, S1ngh said:

I can say that you are a non-sikh person and of course naturally you would side with more unified india but it is not so simple for sikhs. For sikhs siding with either muslim or hindu based ideology state was not the best option. After siding with hindus in 1947, we have seen the results of many disadvantages for us. I don't want to go into deep in discussion but below is the practical disadvantages without involving any religious issue in it:

1. Punjab land was driven to small size - Took HP, HR and huge chunk of lands away from Punjab. Just now Modi govt gave huge industrial incentives to HP so that leftover industry from Punjab shifts to that state. 

2. All Punjabis corporations, factory owners production house was in Haryana/Noida. It took decades for Punjabis to build the industry powerhouse in Haryana and with clever disguise of "language spoken" basis, they carved haryana out of Punjab. Thus we lost all of our industries. 

3. Water rights are not given to us. 

Also, i would never ever trust anything that Gurinder chadha creates. She is not Sikh at all and never showed any interest in speaking in favor of sikhs. 

Wasn't the India that the great Sikhs who died to create a united subcontinent? One with all 3 of the British India countries together. No Sikh accepted the partition as beneficial to them, and our people benefited in no way at all. Also even today because of Tara Singh's decisions Sikhs today in the Indian constitution are referred to as Hindus. If in 1947 Sikhs were smart enough to demand a Non-Democratic elected Punjab ruled by Sikh people, we wouldn't have many of our current problems today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, S1ngh said:

I can say that you are a non-sikh person and of course naturally you would side with more unified india but it is not so simple for sikhs. For sikhs siding with either muslim or hindu based ideology state was not the best option. After siding with hindus in 1947, we have seen the results of many disadvantages for us. I don't want to go into deep in discussion but below is the practical disadvantages without involving any religious issue in it:

1. Punjab land was driven to small size - Took HP, HR and huge chunk of lands away from Punjab. Just now Modi govt gave huge industrial incentives to HP so that leftover industry from Punjab shifts to that state. 

2. All Punjabis corporations, factory owners production house was in Haryana/Noida. It took decades for Punjabis to build the industry powerhouse in Haryana and with clever disguise of "language spoken" basis, they carved haryana out of Punjab. Thus we lost all of our industries. 

3. Water rights are not given to us. 

Also, i would never ever trust anything that Gurinder chadha creates. She is not Sikh at all and never showed any interest in speaking in favor of sikhs. 

I agree with all of this

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, S1ngh said:

I can say that you are a non-sikh person and of course naturally you would side with more unified india but it is not so simple for sikhs. For sikhs siding with either muslim or hindu based ideology state was not the best option. After siding with hindus in 1947, we have seen the results of many disadvantages for us. I don't want to go into deep in discussion but below is the practical disadvantages without involving any religious issue in it:

1. Punjab land was driven to small size - Took HP, HR and huge chunk of lands away from Punjab. Just now Modi govt gave huge industrial incentives to HP so that leftover industry from Punjab shifts to that state. 

2. All Punjabis corporations, factory owners production house was in Haryana/Noida. It took decades for Punjabis to build the industry powerhouse in Haryana and with clever disguise of "language spoken" basis, they carved haryana out of Punjab. Thus we lost all of our industries. 

3. Water rights are not given to us. 

Also, i would never ever trust anything that Gurinder chadha creates. She is not Sikh at all and never showed any interest in speaking in favor of sikhs. 

The big elephant in the room is the proximity of Delhi to Punjab.

Gurgaon and Noida's success is largely due to being close to Delhi.

Delhi being the capital city is going to grab a large share of the resources. Delhi is a parasite city that feeds off other states.

If after partition,  India's capital was shifted further south to say Madya Pradesh/Andhra Pradesh/Maharashtra borders, Delhi''s influence would have been seriously curtailed and they would have had less clout to steal our waters. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Ranjeet01 said:

Gurgaon and Noida's success is largely due to being close to Delhi.

True with your post but they were once part of Punjab and taking it away from Punjab brings thunderous crippling state economy. Imagine the state tax revenue being lost by taking this land away from punjab. That was the main point. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, JSinghnz said:

End of the day it was the British who were responsible for this carnage. They had the resources like the Army etc to facilitate a peaceful transition of power but they chose not to. Dividing Punjab in a matter of weeks by a drunkard showed their real intentions.

They were definitely responsible for all the deaths and destruction by handling this in the worst manner. I believe that transition was supposed to be handled over the years but the person in charge was getting other position and he did it hurriedly (forgot where i read/saw the source). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, proactive said:

You need to understand the situation at the time that this incident took place. Someone had to make a stand against the Muslims who were agitating for a Muslim league government to be put in place. If that had happened then you can make sure that the whole of Punjab would have gone to Pakistan

Bengal had Muslim league government but it was partitioned anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, superkaur said:

Benefited how? by becoming majority in 1/3 of already halved punjab (between india and pakistan) and enslaved in the hindu majority Indian Union?

OKay.What you would have done differently if you were the leader of sikhs in 1940s ? Sikh leadership did not have many options because Sikhs were scattered all over Punjab.The only district where sikh were single largest group was Ludhiana where they formed about 41.7% of population.In the rest of 29 districts in Punjab Sikhs were either second biggest or 3rd biggest religious group.And the only princely state where they formed majority was Faridkot 57.7 % .So tell me while keeping in mind this demographic situation; what would have done differently ?

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