Jump to content

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


superkaur
 Share

Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, superkaur said:

I think the topic has deviated a little from the focus I was trying to get to and where it has landed. Focus should be on racist Winston churchill and the racist british establishment overall how they cleverly played the game of divide and rule.

We have memoirs of winston churchill where he praises the Sikhs where he stood up for Sikhs right to wear kirpan in the UK which is great. However he was a very scheming man and a political opportunist as he refereed to indians, hindus brahmims, Islam and muslims in derogatory racist terms. He clearly wanted Indians to be disunited and wanted to cause them pain for allegedly British rule ending there. So by warming up to jinnah and giving him support of Pakistan he wanted to ensure india remained divided and suffered huge communal violence/genocide.

I wouldn't put it past the calculating churchill and co egging on and funding the cannon fodder martial punjabi sikhs (ie Sikh princely state rulers, sikh army generals, sikh jatha's) to physically fight to curve out a khalistan/sikhistan knowing full well it would cause a bloodbath inflecting pain for the disobedient breakaway indian slaves but also be fruitless goal for the Sikhs for nationhood as it would not be allowed to become a reality because it was decided that pakistan would be officially and legally recognized as its main base of operations there if or when india decides to have nothing to do with UK trade links and started to look at the soviet USSR russian enemy for military support and trade.

I personally think WAAAY too much is made of British 'divide and rule'. The British didn't really cause the divisions which exist in the subcontinent,  they identified and exploited them. The divisions between Hindu/Sikh/Muslim, this caste and that caste, this country and its neighbor, have extensive historical precedents reaching back centuries before the Raj. Where the Brits succeeded was in preserving these divisions - come 1947, it was almost as if India had been in a stasis for 200 years. 

I think this notion of some omnipotent, endlessly scheming white devil is a convenient myth for a lot of South Asians, Hindu, Muslim and Sikh to absolve themselves of personal accountability for their own circumstances. In particular blaming the goraay for current problems such as Indian/Pakistani poverty is a very convenient way for the corrupt, money-grubbing elites of the two nations to continue their exploitation of their countrymen and simultaneously throw them off their trail.  

In my opinion bhenji most of the serious problems in South Asia are due to radical Islam or Brahminism/caste-Hinduism, and the mutually reinforcing relationship between the two. The Brits created neither of these things. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Balkaar said:

I personally think WAAAY too much is made of British 'divide and rule'. The British didn't really cause the divisions which exist in the subcontinent,  they identified and exploited them. The divisions between Hindu/Sikh/Muslim, this caste and that caste, this country and its neighbor, have extensive historical precedents reaching back centuries before the Raj. Where the Brits succeeded was in preserving these divisions - come 1947, it was almost as if India had been in a stasis for 200 years. 

I think this notion of some omnipotent, endlessly scheming white devil is a convenient myth for a lot of South Asians, Hindu, Muslim and Sikh to absolve themselves of personal accountability for their own circumstances. In particular blaming the goraay for current problems such as Indian/Pakistani poverty is a very convenient way for the corrupt, money-grubbing elites of the two nations to continue their exploitation of their countrymen and simultaneously throw them off their trail.  

In my opinion bhenji most of the serious problems in South Asia are due to radical Islam or Brahminism/caste-Hinduism, and the mutually reinforcing relationship between the two. The Brits created neither of these things. 

That's where your wrong paji, divide and rule was a policy widely and expertly used by the British imperialists who learn't their trade from the roman empire that had conquered them. Your right about they not being responsible for the existing divisive circumstances that already existed in south asian religious communities however what they did was exploit those differences, widened them and enhanced them to use them for the geo-political economic advantage just as they do today in the middle east and africa.

I watched a documentary years ago on how the white european colonialists in africa interfered in rwanda / congo social structure by giving tutsis positions in power in 1900's and putting the hutu's in lower social status and thus lower end jobs. Then when these countries gained independence from their former western white colonial masters those decades of resentment and hate for the other tribe built up and unleashed itself in a huge genocide and inter-tribe conflict where 1 million tutis were horribly massacred by the hutu tribe. When the british ruled that area they had made the tutis appear they were genetically superior to hutu's they egged them on about their qualities against the inferior hutu's which was done deliberately to create the divide and rule conflict and separation between the communities so that rather than the africans uniting and removing the white western colonial cancer amoungst them they ended up spending their energies on fighting each other while the white masters stood back and ruled over their domains.

Similarly this tactic of divide and rule was exploited in south asia / indian subcontinent also. They used territories they had already conquered or had come under their protectorate to wage war or supply troops from to fight against other south asian kingdoms and empires so that rather than the indian's uniting and fighting the common european colonial powers they were fighting amoungst themselves and in-turn being subjugated by their european white masters.

So if we relate this to our own Punjabi Sikh kingdoms and empire. They first conquered south indian bengali kingdoms then central indian then used troops from there to conquer pataila, jind, faridkot, nabha and finally using that manpower and resources to fight Ranjit Singh's Sikh empire of punjab, having divided and ruled. And so when it came to partition in 1947 they gave covert support and political power to jinnah and his pakistani muslim league to take punjab, bengali and cause division and strife against the idea of a free united india without british interference and rule which was against british interests so they had to do something to keep their stake in indian subcontinent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/19/2017 at 2:29 PM, superkaur said:

Similarly this tactic of divide and rule was exploited in south asia / indian subcontinent also. They used territories they had already conquered or had come under their protectorate to wage war or supply troops from to fight against other south asian kingdoms and empires so that rather than the indian's uniting and fighting the common european colonial powers they were fighting amoungst themselves and in-turn being subjugated by their european white masters.

So if we relate this to our own Punjabi Sikh kingdoms and empire. They first conquered south indian bengali kingdoms then central indian then used troops from there to conquer pataila, jind, faridkot, nabha and finally using that manpower and resources to fight Ranjit Singh's Sikh empire of punjab, having divided and ruled. And so when it came to partition in 1947 they gave covert support and political power to jinnah and his pakistani muslim league to take punjab, bengali and cause division and strife against the idea of a free united india without british interference and rule which was against british interests so they had to do something to keep their stake in indian subcontinent.

I sympathize with a lot of what you are saying, but 'divide and rule' seems like a highly inaccurate and misleading phrase in this situation. You can only 'divide' something, a country or a people, if it was united in the first place. 'India' was never united, no such country existed before 1947. The bengali troops who fought against the Sikh soldiers in the Anglo-Sikh Wars were not Indians fighting their fellow countrymen, but foreign invaders attacking somebody else's country. Indian nationalists often sling mud at the Sikhs for giving into this supposed 'divide and rule' by refusing to participate in their so-called 'war of Indian independence'. They completely skim over the fact that it was not a war for pan-Indian independence at the time, but a Mughal restoration. This narrative, like the narrative of divide and rule, gained most of its currency with postcolonial Indian scholars - after the Brits had left India - who attempted to construct a completely mythological narrative of India as a once united country which was later 'divided' by scheming Brits. This was done in part to discredit the various separatist urges which had sprung up in parts of India after independence, among peoples who understood that it had never been one country - Kashmiris, Sikhs, Nagas, Tamils etc. I think the divide and rule myth is actually harmful to the cause of Sikh independence, because it allows Hindu supremacists and Indian nationalists to explain away our genuine grievances against their terrorist state as the seeds of 'division' planted in our minds by the Brits. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Balkaar said:

I sympathize with a lot of what you are saying, but 'divide and rule' seems like a highly inaccurate and misleading phrase in this situation. You can only 'divide' something, a country or a people, if it was united in the first place. 'India' was never united, no such country existed before 1947. The bengali troops who fought against the Sikh soldiers in the Anglo-Sikh Wars were not Indians fighting their fellow countrymen, but foreign invaders attacking somebody else's country. Indian nationalists often sling mud at the Sikhs for giving into this supposed 'divide and rule' by refusing to participate in their so-called 'war of Indian independence'. They completely skim over the fact that it was not a war for pan-Indian independence at the time, but a Mughal restoration. This narrative, like the narrative of divide and rule, gained most of its currency with postcolonial Indian scholars - after the Brits had left India - who attempted to construct a completely mythological narrative of India as a once united country which was later 'divided' by scheming Brits. This was done in part to discredit the various separatist urges which had sprung up in parts of India after independence, among peoples who understood that it had never been one country - Kashmiris, Sikhs, Nagas, Tamils etc. I think the divide and rule myth is actually harmful to the cause of Sikh independence, because it allows Hindu supremacists and Indian nationalists to explain away our genuine grievances against their terrorist state as the seeds of 'division' planted in our minds by the Brits.

I agree with that, especially where the Indian secular and hindu nationalists atttempt to rewrite history by painting india as once being a united land which was then ravaged by first the islamic moghuls and later the british christian and other european powers. When the truth was india never was a united country there was no country called india. That land of the indian subcontinent had various competing hindu and buddhist and jain kingdoms and empires way before the abahramic outsiders arrived.

And yes your right the "Indian" Bengali troops from mysore of the British east india company were foreigners to punjab and were treated us such by the punjabi population whom were largely muslims I suspect alot of rape and looting was carried out by the so called victors and so an historical grudge has been held against the bengali's. Thats probably why to this day there is this hatred for bengalis mostly by pakistani punjabi muslims and in their revenge against them came out atrocities in 1971 when pakistani army raped their women and genocided their fighting age men to show their dominance and subjugation of the cheeky independence wanting bengali's

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, superkaur said:

I suspect alot of rape and looting was carried out by the so called victors and so an historical grudge has been held against the bengali's.

You suspect ?That means you got no evidence to back up your claim.I think you're making this up.I have read some book on Punjab history but i have not read of such instance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, superkaur said:

Similarly this tactic of divide and rule was exploited in south asia / indian subcontinent also. They used territories they had already conquered or had come under their protectorate to wage war or supply troops from to fight against other south asian kingdoms and empires so that rather than the indian's uniting and fighting the common european colonial powers they were fighting amoungst themselves and in-turn being subjugated by their european white masters.

That's what empire are for. Many empires used this tactic of divide and rule.And british did this in the most effective way and they were able to do only because there already existed discord in sub continent.Hindu Muslim divide was always there.They did not create it they just used it to their advantage.They did it many places though.For example in Iraq they gave political power to sunni minority over a shia majority country.Similarly in Syria they pitted alawite minority against Syrian Sunnis.In India they recruited a large number of Punjabi Muslims,Pathans and Sikhs in Indian army despite the fact that India was a hindu majority country.They could not afford to have so many Hindus in army. 

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