Jump to content

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


superkaur
 Share

Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, akaltaksal said:

Yeah, well acting like them isn't really the best idea.

come on bro cut me some slack.I'm going through a passing phase, i don't think i'll be here for a long period.There was a time when i was obsessed with Islamic history,read a lot of stuff on it,then this phase passed,then i got interested in sikhism/sikhs and now i have developed interest in Oshoo; reading his work which is just amazing.  So you gotta tolerate my presence for a few months at best till my interest in sikhism/sikhs fades.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, YOYO29 said:

come on bro cut me some slack.I'm going through a passing phase, i don't think i'll be here for a long period.There was a time when i was obsessed with Islamic history,read a lot of stuff on it,then this phase passed,then i got interested in sikhism/sikhs and now i have developed interest in Oshoo; reading his work which is just amazing.  So you gotta tolerate my presence for a few months at best till my interest in sikhism/sikhs fades.

you do realise that Osho borrows a lot from Guru Nanak dev ji , in fact he did a exposition of jap ji Sahib the  first Morning prayer of the Sikhs, which Sant Singh Maskeen said was done well. The other freelove stuff is just a hook for western people .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, jkvlondon said:

you do realise that Osho borrows a lot from Guru Nanak dev ji , in fact he did a exposition of jap ji Sahib the  first Morning prayer of the Sikhs, which Sant Singh Maskeen said was done well. The other freelove stuff is just a hook for western people .

i have not read Guru Nanak's work so i can't say for sure. I've just started reading Oshoo's compilation of lectures in urdu Jeeven Bhed (secrets of life ). will get back to you once ive finished this book

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 15/09/2017 at 5:30 PM, YOYO29 said:

As per the partition of India it was supposed to go with Pakistan.

 

No it wasn't. I'm repeating this for the third time here. The princely states had the option to choose between India and Pakistan. Kashmir was a princely state. If Kashmir was supposed to have gone to Pakistan, there would have been no dispute from Nehru. He had already resigned himself to Kashmir choosing Pakistan. Pakistan was a more viable choice than India for Kashmir. The Pakistanis just needed to exercise a little patience and Kashmir would have come to them in some form or another.

 

On 15/09/2017 at 5:30 PM, YOYO29 said:

.About law of agreement you're right but nobody gave a damn about it.

 

Well the UN certainly gave a dammn about it. It was a legal document. Whether it was right or not, that is subjective. But there is no way in a any legal definition that it could be anything else than legal.

 

On 15/09/2017 at 5:30 PM, YOYO29 said:

.It was also against the democratic principles.

 

Agreed. But if there were no proviso for a democratic choice then what can you do? The choice was in the matter of one person only. Democratic principles have no place in authoratative setups. We both know that.

 

On 15/09/2017 at 5:30 PM, YOYO29 said:

 India did not accept Junagarh's accession to Pakistan even though ruler of that state had signed instrument of accession to Pakistan but here India insisted on princple of democratic rights and they maintained that Muslim ruler had no right to accede to Pakistan only people of that state will decide their future.

 

You're right. India was very hypocritical in its own actions. The only difference here, as with some other states, was that these states that wanted to join Pakistan has no land connection with Pakistan.

 

 

On 15/09/2017 at 5:30 PM, YOYO29 said:

 

Which right you're talking about ? You're being emotional. Everyone knew that muslim majority areas would go with Pakistan and non muslim areas would go to India. Any neutral person can look at the demographics and tell India got favorable deal in both Bengal and Punjab.

 

Bro, over our Sikh heritage in Pakistan, any Sikh would get emotional. It was a vibrant part of our history and now its majority dust. We cannot go there and repair our shrines. We cannot protect them anymore. It feels like half of our body has been cut away. I'm sure you will understand why Sikhs get emotional over it.

 

"majority areas" is the problem. If you look at the places like Lyallpur and Montgomery (Faislabad and Sargodha) these places were barren deserts. The british through their water engineering turned these deserts into places of cultivation. Sikhs (amongst others) bought huge swathes of land to cultivate.

 

Take this as an example. For one Sikh landlord in a village there would be 10  people working for him. Most of the labourers were Muslims. But take a consensus and there are 11 people in that village. The majority are Muslims. Under the division of Panjab, now that area belongs to the Muslims. So the Sikh landlord has to leave and will get on average 40% of his land back in India. That is how Panjab was divided.

 

The stats vary a little, as I said earlier from 52% to 57%. I always go for the middle figure of around 55% Muslim majority. That is how the land should have been divided. Along percentage figures. Being in a majority shouldn't mean you can claim everything.

 

On 18/09/2017 at 2:10 AM, akaltaksal said:

Yeah, but this forum is for Sikhs. You have no contribution or use here. 

 

Leave him alone. He is not doing any harm here but discussing things that are intersting to him and us.

 

I dont see you having any problem with the missionarys and their lies on this forum.

1 hour ago, YOYO29 said:

  So you gotta tolerate my presence for a few months at best till my interest in sikhism/sikhs fades.

 

Absolutely.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, chatanga said:

The Pakistanis just needed to exercise a little patience and Kashmir would have come to them in some form or another.

That's debatable. We might have lost the little bit of Azad Kashmir that today we have
 

24 minutes ago, chatanga said:

Well the UN certainly gave a dammn about it. It was a legal document. Whether it was right or not, that is subjective. But there is no way in a any legal definition that it could be anything else than legal.

This instrument of accession was disputed by Pakistan.There is strong evidence to suggest Indian reached Kashmir before the instrument was signed. This original instrument was not produced and shown.

 

26 minutes ago, chatanga said:

Bro, over our Sikh heritage in Pakistan, any Sikh would get emotional. It was a vibrant part of our history and now its majority dust. We cannot go there and repair our shrines.

You knew this all along when the subject of partition was brought up by Muslim League. This was bitter choice which you had to make.Just like we Muslims were not ready to submit to Hindu rule, same can be expected from Sikhs. For Sikhs joining Pakistan was out of question.

 

30 minutes ago, chatanga said:

majority areas" is the problem

Bro,whether you like it or not. Population matters and it definitely matters when dividing a country. Personally I don't see any problem with boundary drawn by Sir rad cliff. The reason I insisted on Gurdaspur is because it was no ordinary district it gave India a physical link with Kashmir. Losing a few Muslim majority tracts of land is though a loss but considering the fact it is first time we Punajbi Muslims got any real power and control of our own areas.Even during Mughal era no Punjabi Muslim was appointed Punjab's governor apart from Adina Beg of Jalandhar. So taking into consideration all these facts i think partition was worth it though not to our complete satisfaction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, YOYO29 said:

That's debatable. We might have lost the little bit of Azad Kashmir that today we have

 

I'm not sure about that. Kashmir had an elected assembly and given how monarchies are viewed in todays times I'm sure that muslim-majority Kashmir would have been much better.

 

11 hours ago, YOYO29 said:

This instrument of accession was disputed by Pakistan.There is strong evidence to suggest Indian reached Kashmir before the instrument was signed. This original instrument was not produced and shown.

 

From what I've read nehru insisted on getting this accession signed before he would commit any troops. Of course he had troops ready for this occasion. Nehru was a man who cared a lot about his international image. I do not think he would have conjured up some accession document to stake his claim knowing that if he were to be exposed in the international arena it would be worse than a death sentence for him.

 

Of course if he had made it up then King hari Singh woould have spoken up. But he didn't.

 

11 hours ago, YOYO29 said:

You knew this all along when the subject of partition was brought up by Muslim League. This was bitter choice which you had to make.

 

What the Sikhs were led to beleive was that religious and economic factors would play a part in the division of Panjab. The new border came as a very shock to the Sikh political leadership as they had never thought that Sri Nankana Sahib, Lahore and the canal Colonies would be in Pakistan.

 

11 hours ago, YOYO29 said:

. For Sikhs joining Pakistan was out of question.

 

Absolutely. The first nail in the coffin of Muslim-Sikh unity in Panjab was driven in by the Muslim League and their refusal to support the minorty Sikhs in gaining a higher represntation in state government. the ML had succesfuly argued for higher representation in several states on the basis of being a minority. The Sikhs had asked for the same status to applied to them in Panjab but the ML opposed this. This was in the 1920s. After that the Sikh political leadership did not see the ML as likely political partners.

 

11 hours ago, YOYO29 said:

Bro,whether you like it or not. Population matters and it definitely matters when dividing a country. Personally I don't see any problem with boundary drawn by Sir rad cliff. The reason I insisted on Gurdaspur is because it was no ordinary district it gave India a physical link with Kashmir.

 

Population does matter. I have never said it didn't matter. What I have always said that it was unfair for the Muslims to recieve 61% of the land mass when they were around 55% of the population. As I said earlier why would it be fair if the 10 muslim labourers could claim the land of 1 Sikh landlord just because they outnumbered him?

 

There are 6 border villages, which have historically religous Gurdwaras in them on the border. Radcliffe could have included these in our side so we could at least keep these Gurdwaras from turning into dust. Quite why the Sikhs didn't take this action themselves  in 47 is also puzzling.

Gurdaspur isn't the only route into kashmir, it's the easiest. there are other routes as there was in 47 but more difficult.

 

11 hours ago, YOYO29 said:

 Losing a few Muslim majority tracts of land is though a loss but considering the fact it is first time we Punajbi Muslims got any real power and control of our own areas.Even during Mughal era no Punjabi Muslim was appointed Punjab's governor apart from Adina Beg of Jalandhar. So taking into consideration all these facts i think partition was worth it though not to our complete satisfaction.

 

Panjabi Muslims controlled a lot of their own areas in the Moghal times, but they weren't the rulers. Even under Maharaja ranjit Singh the Muslim tribes still controlled their own lands but they had to pay tribute to Maharaja.

Nobody was satisfied with partition. But the HIndu and Muslim communities have moved on better than the Sikhs. Our hearts still yearn for our heritage in Pakistan.

 

3 hours ago, akaltaksal said:

Yeah, because missionaries are Sikhs, at the end of the day. 

 

What kind of Sikh insults their own Guru?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, chatanga said:

What kind of Sikh insults their own Guru?

They don't believe in Sri Dasam Granth Sahib and kautak/Chamatkaars. They haven't cursed or insulted their any of the 10 Patshahees. That may be an insult to us, But not from a non-partisan persepective. Turkrreya di Haami ehna toh behatar ja faidemand nahi. Turkus have no qualms with insulting our Gurus, in any manner. Missionaries are more favorable than Musalmaans, As objectionable as they be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, chatanga said:

What the Sikhs were led to beleive was that religious and economic factors would play a part in the division of Panjab. The new border came as a very shock to the Sikh political leadership as they had never thought that Sri Nankana Sahib, Lahore and the canal Colonies would be in Pakistan.

Clearly they were wrong to believe that.There was no such precedent in recent history where such factors were taken into consideration for division of land.If you have gotten all the areas which congress and sikhs claimed then we would have left with nothing but chankana.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, chatanga said:

What I have always said that it was unfair for the Muslims to recieve 61% of the land mass when they were around 55% of the population.

If you take into consideration princely states , most of them were in East Punjab. Including princely states in East Punjab our share reduces to 58.97 % . And your land is fertile whereas we have two big deserts in Punjab and one plateau. Have a look at these stats.

Punjab Partition - Area and Population.PNG

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