Jump to content
superkaur

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

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, S1ngh said:

Punjab land was driven to small size - Took HP, HR and huge chunk of lands away from Punjab.

Haryana and Himchal are not Punjabi speaking areas. Districts of Gurgaon,Rohtak and Hissar were not part of punjab.These district were added to Punjab after 1857 war of Independence. Himachal and Haryana people have  weird accent,dialect (more closer to hindi) and they can't be classified as Punjabi.And without carving out haryna and himachal from East Punjab there would have been no Sikh majority.

Edited by YOYO29
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, YOYO29 said:

You forgot to add sikhray in your list of bootlickers. Sikhs were as much bootlickers of Britishers as any other community in Punjab this is evident from the fact the Sikh were disproportionatels y represented in British Indian army and fought their wars.Today's Sikh often keep harping on this fact that how they fought for british and in return britishers did nothing for them.

Even those soldier who shot at unarmed people in Jallianwala Bagh included Sikh soldiers along with Baloch,Gurkha and pathan soldiers.When it comes to boot licking every community is in the same boat. 

sikhray weren't put at the head of anything except in front line positions against tough opponents like the Chinese ... in Punjab it was the big two faiths  running things  , the few government positions held by sikhs were vacated by the brahmin/musley on independence and laws supporting sikh seperateness like the Anand Karaj Act were removed fron statute books. The British weren't stupid they always adopted the toughest fighters for their armies and the sikhs were prepared to go above and beyond because of their philosophy so were almost 'supersoldiers' in that respect. 

The problem with sikhs is that they think naively that the rest of the faiths/countrghalsies have the same imaan and approach to matters as them i.e. total honesty ...why is it Guru Pita ji insisted that we shouldn't trust ANYONE who gives Oaths or Promises on their deity...to study the rajneeti of the brahmin Chankaya?  He was trying to avoid wide-eyed innocence become the downfall of his children. Studying history of war and conquests across the world is necessary, as is study of other faiths to understand the mindset and not fall victim to their underhandedness. 

This past fortnight (two weeks for USA peeps) i've been in Ireland  and reading /listening to techniques used against the Gaelic speaking Irish to control and subdue them is simply a listing of the playbook used across the globe including Punjab. We have been subjected to methods pefected over two centuries in ireland, Wales and Scotland . They are fighting back by reinstating their languages and cultures, we need to do the same .

Churchill hated the Hindus for their subservient obsequiousness... he knew they were cowards and manipulators, he admired sikhs for their courage on the battlefield but he had the hots for Muslims especially the Mughals he fancied himself as a type of Pasha and often dressed up that way . My feeling is he was about power and its acquisition, born in aristo circles so admired absolutely powerful figures with delusions brought on by orientalist tomes i.e. that there was a golden age brought by Islam 

Edited by jkvlondon
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jkvlondon said:

sikhray weren't put at the head of anything except in front line positions against tough opponents like the Chinese ... in Punjab it was the big two faiths  running things  , the few government positions held by sikhs were vacated by the brahmin/musley on independence and laws supporting sikh seperateness like the Anand Karaj Act were removed fron statute books. The British weren't stupid they always adopted the toughest fighters for their armies and the sikhs were prepared to go above and beyond because of their philosophy so were almost 'supersoldiers' in that respect. 

The problem with sikhs is that they think naively that the rest of the faiths/countrghalsies have the same imaan and approach to matters as them i.e. total honesty ...why is it Guru Pita ji insisted that we shouldn't trust ANYONE who gives Oaths or Promises on their deity...to study the rajneeti of the brahmin Chankaya?  He was trying to avoid wide-eyed innocence become the downfall of his children. Studying history of war and conquests across the world is necessary, as is study of other faiths to understand the mindset and not fall victim to their underhandedness. 

This past fortnight (two weeks for USA peeps) i've been in Ireland  and reading /listening to techniques used against the Gaelic speaking Irish to control and subdue them is simply a listing of the playbook used across the globe including Punjab. We have been subjected to methods pefected over two centuries in ireland, Wales and Scotland . They are fighting back by reinstating their languages and cultures, we need to do the same .

Churchill hated the Hindus for their subservient obsequiousness... he knew they were cowards and manipulators, he admired sikhs for their courage on the battlefield but he had the hots for Muslims especially the Mughals he fancied himself as a type of Pasha and often dressed up that way . My feeling is he was about power and its acquisition, born in aristo circles so admired absolutely powerful figures with delusions brought on by orientalist tomes i.e. that there was a golden age brought by Islam 

Not' 'supersoldiers' they were just naïve 'slavesoldiers' who were used by British.

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
  • Confused 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, JSinghnz said:

Not' 'supersoldiers' they were just naïve 'slavesoldiers' who were used by British.

 

'Supersoldiers' as in ultimate military ideal  - fights like anything despite being paid less, given lesser equipment, smaller widow pensions then regular soldiers and dies without questioning anything often using their example to entrap further generations by quoting pyrrhic victories .

 

  • Confused 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, jkvlondon said:

why is it Guru Pita ji insisted that we shouldn't trust ANYONE who gives Oaths or Promises on their deity...

This was due to his bad experience with Mughals.But I don't believe in generalizing people by the actions of few.I know some people who,when asked to prove their innocence by swearing on Quran they refused to do so even though they were right.Here in Punjab ,people don't swear on quran even if they are right.I have known such people.They fear that we will receive divine retribution for involving Quran in their petty worldly disputes.This is one view and on the other hand i have heard about people taking false oath on Quran. So when your guru says not to trust people who takes oath on his scripture,he is saying this because of his own bad experience with Mughals.This is his own opinion and not eternal truth. Though it is binding on his followers.

1 hour ago, jkvlondon said:

there was a golden age brought by Islam 

Indeed there was golden age of Islam when science flourished in Islamic lands whereas Europe was still a feudal society.But those Muslim scientists were secular  and liberal and some of them even criticized Muhammad and claimed that there is no such thing as angles and life after death.Jews fleeing Europe found refuge in Muslim World.Such were those days.And now a days we can't even tolerate a muslim of different sect let alone giving refuge to a non Muslim.

Back on bootlicking i think anyone looking at british history of India can see that every community in Punjab served british but if u don't want to accept it it is upto you.

I think this discussion has diverted a lot.PLz stick to the topic.

  • Like 2
  • Confused 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, YOYO29 said:

This was due to his bad experience with Mughals.But I don't believe in generalizing people by the actions of few.I know some people who,when asked to prove their innocence by swearing on Quran they refused to do so even though they were right.Here in Punjab ,people don't swear on quran even if they are right.I have known such people.They fear that we will receive divine retribution for involving Quran in their petty worldly disputes.This is one view and on the other hand i have heard about people taking false oath on Quran. So when your guru says not to trust people who takes oath on his scripture,he is saying this because of his own bad experience with Mughals.This is his own opinion and not eternal truth. Though it is binding on his followers.

Indeed there was golden age of Islam when science flourished in Islamic lands whereas Europe was still a feudal society.But those Muslim scientists were secular  and liberal and some of them even criticized Muhammad and claimed that there is no such thing as angles and life after death.Jews fleeing Europe found refuge in Muslim World.Such were those days.And now a days we can't even tolerate a muslim of different sect let alone giving refuge to a non Muslim.

Back on bootlicking i think anyone looking at british history of India can see that every community in Punjab served british but if u don't want to accept it it is upto you.

I think this discussion has diverted a lot.PLz stick to the topic.

also hill rajas went against their saugand too ...this is conveniently forgotten  by most and the actual words of Guru Pita ji covers all Oaths , and look  at history when we trusted the Promises and oaths of anyone what happened ? fall of Sikh Raj , abandonment of treaties, rejection of our rights in the new republic...the list goes on.

Edited by jkvlondon
  • Confused 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indian is a swear word used by the British to describe the people of Hind.

And yes they did have the hots for Muslims.

Edited by Dsinghdp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jacfsing2
4 minutes ago, YOYO29 said:

because it is politically in correct to say anything which is remotely anti Hindu.It always amazes when i see some people here who remember mughal atrocities (which should be remembered as mughals committed horrible atrocities on sikhs,no denying that) while ignoring the role of some hindu who betrayed sikh gurus i.e Lahore's finance minister chandoo shah who very pissed when Guru Arjan Devji refused to wed his son to his daughter.And from that moment he made his mission to take revenge of this humiliation from Guru.I don't advocate that all hindus should be held accountable for this.But I do say that we should not cherry pick history.Speak truth always

Sikhs already know about Chandu Shah, Sujja Nand, Lakhpat Rai, the Hill Rajas, and many others. We also know the RSS and other advocates against Sikhi. But we won't be saying that the Mughals and Aurangzeb with Jahanghir were innocent souls, when they also did wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Jacfsing2 said:

But we won't be saying that the Mughals and Aurangzeb with Jahanghir were innocent souls, when they also did wrong.

And neither should you.May be you NRI Sikhs know about that bur i doubt if majority of Indian Sikhs know about that.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jacfsing2
2 minutes ago, YOYO29 said:

And neither should you.May be you NRI Sikhs know about that bur i doubt if majority of Indian Sikhs know about that.

I'm sure more Sikhs in India can list the names of the Mughal emperors better than they can remember the 11 Gurus names.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, S1ngh said:

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. 

The success of Gurgaon is a very recent phenomenon. 

Only 30 years ago, it was an extremely backward area.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, S1ngh said:

So, your point is to separate and divide the land based on language ? The whole world is burning based on this ideology. Oh, separate culture/religion/caste/language, dissect it.. Crazy philosophy.

I don't think that was his point at all. But that we can't really complain about losing lands that aren't Punjabi or weren't conquered/ruled by us. Weren't ours to begin with. The lands lost during Punjabi Suba movement that are Punjabi speaking, or historically Sikh ruled indeed should have remained ours.

We gave up a large Punjabi speaking area in exchange for a smaller Sikh dominated area to become a majority for once. I'd say it's worth it. 

  • Thanks 1

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/
×