Jump to content
superkaur

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

Recommended Posts

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.

 

  • Confused 3

Share this post


Link to post
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.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
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.

  • Like 2
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 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.

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. 

  • Like 4
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
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). 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Edited by YOYO29
  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
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 ?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Bhai Jaita's 'Gur Katha,' Sainapati's 'Gur Sobha,' the works of Bhai Band Lal, 'Gurbilas' all refute Caste and its Vedic roots. Prior to Baba Gurbachan Singh Ji, Gyani Bhagwan Singh, Akali Giana Singh, Phula Singh, Baba Sahib Singh Bedi all administered Amrit to mazhbis from same bata. Tragic to see you implying that the tenth master was a Casteist when himself burnt Bhai Alam Shah's Janeu. The Nihangs of today, with a few exceptions, are all nangs. This saakhi is prior to 1700s. Chibber calls himself a child when this transpired. He chronologically contradicts himself on these points.
    • What is the Punjabi equivalent word for Shaheed(martyr) ? I think word shaheed is used for someone who sacrifices his life in the way of Allah.
    • Interesting to say the least, cause this sakhi is pretty similar to sikhs of that time. In reality up until sant gurbachan singh ji’s time mazhabhis werent allowed to take amrit in the same bata amd this is still happenening in nihang dals as well.  So what do we make of the 1699 amrit samchar? If this sakhi happened in the 1700s etc then that means that what happened in 1699 was different and we interpreted it differently.
    • What about Gurbani? I never said we should change Gurbani, because we can’t. But we can remove Perso-Arabic influences from our vernacular.  And when did I say that we should all begin to speak Hindi and Sanskrit, no that’s a terrible idea. We need to revise Punjabi, and you can call me whatever you like, but I firmly stand by that. Have you forgotten that the very tyrants that killed our Gurus, the Sahibzaades, slaughtered our men, our women, and children, sold our ancestors as slaves, pillaged our land for centuries imposed Perso-Arabic influences onto our language. If we have any ounce of self respect, we should purge those influences from our language.  How am I demoting Punjabi? How am I saying we should stray away from Gurmukhi? In fact if you read any of my other threads you will realize I advocate further development of Gurmukhi and Punjabi. Why are you accusing me of things that I am opposed against in the first place?
    • The Saroop is only similar externally, ideologically there is a world of difference: https://tisarpanthdotcom.wordpress.com/2017/04/01/panj/
×