Jump to content
superkaur

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

Recommended Posts

YOYO29    52
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
YOYO29    52
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
proactive    1,309

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
chatanga    1,068
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.

 

Edited by chatanga

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
akaltaksal    52
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.

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

    • 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.
    • I do not believe in an absolute morality, dharam is not the same for each and every individual. This is not to say that dharam does not exist, only that it doesn't exist in a monolithic form.  This concept is reflected very well in the life of the Mahapurakh Sant Baba Thakur Singh, 14th jathedar of Damdami Taksaal. Babaji was a strict vegetarian like all members of Taksaal, so for him eating meat was a great sin. However when he visited the chaunis (encampments) of Nihang Singhs around Chowk Mehta he would often bring offerings of goats to be jhatkaa'd by the nihangs and later consumed. Because eating meat was not a great paap for them as it was for babaji, rather it was their tradition and he respected that the role they were given by the Almighty was different from his own.  Satguru's Hukam affects each person differently.  Eastern dharams tend not to impose moral codes on the whole of humankind, as though such codes apply to everybody. Yes there are certain basic guiding principles of human morality - don't murder, don't rape, but most sane people don't really need to be told not to do these things by a religion because they feel an inherent revulsion towards them. However beyond this things can get quite flexible. Some people are meant to be householders and provide for a family, whilst others are meant to be celibates and devote their lives and all their energy to Akaal Purakh and Seva of the Panth. If God creates someone with the intention that they will become a warrior, battle becomes dharam for this person, a righteous deed. If however God creates a man and by his hukam determines that this man is to be peaceful saint, battle is adharam for him, not righteous. This is why different sampardas/jathebandiaan exist in Sikhi. Guru Ji is not/was not anti-samparda or anti-jathebandi, if they were, they wouldn't have created or blessed so many of them themselves. I don't know if what I'm saying is right, but this is the conclusion I have arrived at from my study of Sikhi. Others will have arrived at different conclusions, and good thing too -  Sikhi is a garden full of many diverse flowers.  I do not believe Guru Ji aspired to make all Sikhs, or all people,  identical in their religious outlook and practice. 
    • So you think that Sikhs and Muslims need to remain bitter enemies for as long as this world exists?   And because of 84 do we also need to become eternal enemies of the Hindus forever and ever?   Yesterday Hindus were our friends but they ended up knifing us in the back. And Yesterday's enemies can become strategic allies of today. Try to see the bigger picture.
    • This one statement just proves you should know before commenting on such complex topics.
×