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

[YOYO29]

7 hours ago, chatanga said:

Panjabi Muslims controlled a lot of their own areas in the Moghal times, but they weren't the rulers.

exactly.Answerable to some dude in DELHI

[YOYO29]

7 hours ago, chatanga said:

But the HIndu and Muslim communities have moved on better than the Sikhs.

I would not say that.Hindu have lost too much.Unlike Bengali Hindus who got their state.Punjab Hindus were not that lucky.

[proactive]

The 1941 census cannot really be relied up for a number of reasons. 

1. It was held during the war and as such a number of soldiers would have been posted abroad and not counted in the census.

2. The Congress had been against the British war effort and as such there were places where a boycott of the census had taken place.

3. The Unionist govt although a united govt of all communities still had a majority of Muslims in charge of various departments and such the census figures were liable to be fiddled with to increase the Muslim majority.

4. No tabulation of castes and tribes was made during the 1941 census in Punjab.

[chatanga]

4 hours ago, YOYO29 said:

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.

 

Bro, you keep barking up that tree! Forget Princely states, there is no discussion there in terms of fairness, democracy, etc. The Kings were the only ones who could make that choice.

 

Now coming onto fertile land, the canal colonies were the best and most productive land in Panjab. It's no wonder the Sikhs were reluctant to leave these. After this the best land are the Jalandhar doab but that is small compared to the bars.

 

11 hours ago, akaltaksal said:

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.

 

Has this "turk" insulted our Gurus? No, so just leave him alone. He is only sharing info and learning new things as well. And it's all historic anyway. I would rather have him on than these missionary dogs who claim that the Gurus were ordinary people like ourselves. They have insulted the Gurus through their distorion of history.

Listen to this dog dhapali:

https://www.facebook.com/nirmaljitsingh.nimma/videos/636750243194518/

 

and this dog dhundlu:

 

https://www.facebook.com/nirmaljitsingh.nimma/videos/637304313139111/

and then listen to this:

https://www.facebook.com/nirmaljitsingh.nimma/videos/636750553194487/

 

You would rather have these dogs on here ?

 

4 hours ago, YOYO29 said:

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.

 

[akaltaksal]

8 hours ago, chatanga said:

 

Has this "turk" insulted our Gurus? No, so just leave him alone. He is only sharing info and learning new things as well. And it's all historic anyway. I would rather have him on than these missionary dogs who claim that the Gurus were ordinary people like ourselves. They have insulted the Gurus through their distorion of history.

Listen to this dog dhapali:

https://www.facebook.com/nirmaljitsingh.nimma/videos/636750243194518/

 

and this dog dhundlu:

 

https://www.facebook.com/nirmaljitsingh.nimma/videos/637304313139111/

 

and then listen to this:

https://www.facebook.com/nirmaljitsingh.nimma/videos/636750553194487/

 

You would rather have these dogs on here ?

 

 

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.

[KhoonKaBadlaKhoon]

7 hours ago, akaltaksal said:

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.

Quit it already. Guru Sahibs or Sikhs of the old didn't detest every Muslim, nor do we need too. You're coming off as try hard. Are you just scared of debate??

[akaltaksal]

20 hours ago, KhoonKaBadlaKhoon said:

Quit it already. Guru Sahibs or Sikhs of the old didn't detest every Muslim, nor do we need too. You're coming off as try hard. Are you just scared of debate??

What debate? Half of all you people talk as if the last book you read was in primary school (I guess someone's gotta keep the Kathavachiks in Business). 

I'm here mostly to discuss, learn, give info, and correct. 

And I just don't like people that push the pro-Pakistani narrative, or those who really have no business here, faith wise. ??‍♂️ 

[akaltaksal]

In regards to the Kashmir issue. Pakistan claims the ENTIRETY of Kashmir, as does India. Which is faulty. 

Pakistan's claim was that it's a Muslim majority province and thus should be acceded to Pakistan. However, with that being true, one fact has to noted: There is a Hindu/Buddhist/Sikh Majority in the Jammu and Ladakh region, with significant minorities in Kargil (Southern Kargil is majority non-Muslim) and Doda.

If anything, it would have to be partitioned like The Panjab and the Bengal. And that wouldn't solve Pakistan's water insecurity. 

[proactive]

15 hours ago, akaltaksal said:

What debate? Half of all you people talk as if the last book you read was in primary school (I guess someone's gotta keep the Kathavachiks in Business). 

I'm here mostly to discuss, learn, give info, and correct. 

And I just don't like people that push the pro-Pakistani narrative, or those who really have no business here, faith wise. ??‍♂️ 

But haven't you seen me and Chatanga and others challenge his pro-Pakistan narrative? You would have a point if we just allowed such views to go unchallenged. As for faith, unless he has written anything against the Gurus or Guru Granth Sahib then he can stay. If he wants to criticise Sikhs for any reason then if it is based on fact then he can but you can bet he will be challenged on this. Let him stay and let him learn. he wants to reform Islam which in my view cannot be reformed but let him learn that there are religions such as Sikhi which does not need any reform and in which no reasonable person can find anything in its moral code to object to. 

[proactive]

15 hours ago, akaltaksal said:

In regards to the Kashmir issue. Pakistan claims the ENTIRETY of Kashmir, as does India. Which is faulty. 

Pakistan's claim was that it's a Muslim majority province and thus should be acceded to Pakistan. However, with that being true, one fact has to noted: There is a Hindu/Buddhist/Sikh Majority in the Jammu and Ladakh region, with significant minorities in Kargil (Southern Kargil is majority non-Muslim) and Doda.

If anything, it would have to be partitioned like The Panjab and the Bengal. And that wouldn't solve Pakistan's water insecurity. 

Kashmir was not different to other states where the Maharaja was of a different faith than the majority of its inhabitants. The Maharajas were given the choice of either joining Pakistan or India. Hyderabad which was a Muslim state but with a Hindu majority should have gone to Pakistan but what complicated the issue was that it was surrounded on all sides by British India and Hindu states. If it had a outlet to the sea then it would have been able to join Pakistan without and problems but then Pakistan would have had to accept Kashmir joining India. 

Pakistan really has not right in demanding Kashmir as the Maharaja signed the instrument of accession. It uses some discrepancy over when it was signed as a way for asserting it's right to Kashmir. Nehru made a major error in putting forward the case for a referendum if Pakistan vacates so-called Azad Kashmir. Pakistan claims should have been rejected as illegitimate as they run counter to the partition agreement.