Jump to content

Is khalsa aid wasting sangats resources on muslim rohingya?


superkaur
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, YOYO29 said:

. I think you are being confused seeing Jalandhar painted green in map.It is Kapurthala state spreading in Jalandhar district.

 

No bro, I'm not confused thanks.I have read tariq's work before and shared some discussions with him via email. Kapurthala was princely state. I have stated 3 or 4 times now, that the Princely states decision came down to one person: The tuler. Why you keep on going back to the princely states I don't know. The common man had no input there, nor did the British.Please tell me at the fourth time of reading you have understood this.

 

3 hours ago, YOYO29 said:

 This state was ruled by Sikh but had Muslim majority of 56 % .

 

Quite similair to Kashmir, non-muslim ruler with majority muslim subjects. But in the partition it still didn't mean a thing.

 

3 hours ago, YOYO29 said:

 There is another factor ; 5.4 million Muslims found themselves on Indian side whereas there were only 3.6 million HIndus and Sikhs on Pakistani side who had  to move. 30.27 % of Muslims found themselves on Indian side compared to 26.90 % Sikhs in West Punjab and 22.39 %Hindus who found themselves in West Punjab.  Bottom line is , since we have more muslims on east side hence we lost more people than hindus and sikhs. So we lost more people and you lost more property. This factor is often ignored by many people.

 

Those figures do not seem correct. The movement of Panjabi muslims from east to west was slightly higher than non-muslims from west to east. The figures if can remember correctly were around 3.5 from west to east and 3.25. But this was only Panjab. It was not counting the Muslims from Delhi or other provinces.

 

2 hours ago, proactive said:

Once the migrations had begun, the GOI should have made all Muslims move to Pakistan. In that case the Muslims would have been the losers out of partition as Muslims would have lost more land than Sikhs and Hindus and gained less land than they were entitled according to their population. The lands of the Muslims in UP who would have been forced to leave India could have been used to compensate the Sikhs and Hindus from West Punjab. These refugees could also have settled in Jammu and Kashmir as that state should have been treated the same as Kapurthala state in Punjab where the Muslim majority was forced to leave because the Maharaja was a non-Muslim. The refugees from West Punjab would have got the same amount of land as they lost in Pakistan and the commercial classes would have got Muslim commercial establishments.

As it was Muslim still managed to keep their land and properties intact in many areas of East Punjab such as Malerkotla and Gurgaon. 

 

Yes the Muslims all should have made to move, but not for just those points. The fact is that jinnah stood by his two-nation theory only in word and not in practice. It was a successful tool in pushing the british to give pakistan. But then nehru wanted the muslims to stay in India to prove the two nation wrong.

 

Over 90% of muslims voted for the muslim league for the formation of Pakistan. So they were responsible for the creation of Pakistan and they should have been told to live in Pakistan. Whats is so funny is that once the Muslims started turning up in Pakistan, a country they voted for, they were told by the Pak govt to stay in India. The natives of pakistan didnt want them there either. Isn't that so incredible? You build your country on the dreams and votes of these people but yet won't let them live there.

 

Jinnah himself said it would be unfair for either Hindus or Muslims to live in each others countries as a minority. "we are different in religion, dress, food , language etc...so we shold have a seperate country." What a disappointment this man turned out to be for his voters.

 

Even today the mohajirs are a despised people.

 

2 hours ago, YOYO29 said:

Perhaps Nehru was not wise man like you. If ruler's religion was to be held a criteria then there were many muslim ruled states in India.Bhopal in central India ,Hyderbad the largest state in India was also ruled by Muslim.All these muslims states should have been given the same choice then.This would have created a whole other mess in India.Muslim states in every corner of India lolzz

 

If any of these states shared a border with Pakistan, then it obviously they could have joined Pakistan. These states deep inside India knew that there was only one viable option.

 

2 hours ago, YOYO29 said:

Why should not they be included ? They suffered the same fate as people living in British territory

 

Dont' make me repeat myslef bro.

 

1 hour ago, YOYO29 said:

No comparison between Kapurthala and Jammau and Kashmir. Kapurthala was a tiny stae whose muslims population was barely over 2 hundred thousand. Jamm and Kashmir was a larger stae. Here Muslims were dominat in most regions. Like valley had more than 90 % population and still does. Gilgit and Baltistan area was also entirely muslims very few non muslims. In Jammu divison , there were Hindu dominated district in eastern side.Here Muslim minority was expelled and hindu and sikhs from west punjab were settled. Jammu district's muslim population was reduced from 36 percent to just 2 % .

 

The thing in common is that they were princely states. No matter what statistics you bring, the fact remains.

 

1 hour ago, YOYO29 said:

.Also,Nehru was on good terms with Sheikh Abdullah.He knew he can count on Abdullah to keep Kashmirs in India that's why he even offered referendum in Kashmir.

 

Nehru offered a referendum on Kashmir because of the international pressure on india through the UN. But the UN recognised the legailty of the instrument of accession and accepted that pakistan must return to Indian control that part under its occupation. Pakistan should have obliged and then the referendum could have decided. Personally  beleive this is the way to go. States in India like Kashmir, and Panjab should be able to have a referendum to see whether they wasnt an independent state. So should Pakistan with Balochistan and NWF. Bringing too many different ethnicities together under one umbrella was never going to work.

 

The Bengalis recognised that fact pretty soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Jacfsing2
1 minute ago, Jonny101 said:

Nothing wrong with forging relation with an enemy of an enemy. There is absolutely no wisdom in Sikhs making enemies out of Hindus and Muslims at the same time. 

Ask that to some Sikhs from 1947 who lived in Pakistan and left. You really think the Jihadis have your best interests at heart? Don't be delusional.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, chatanga said:

I have stated 3 or 4 times now, that the Princely states decision came down to one person: The tuler. Why you keep on going back to the princely states I don't know. The common man had no input there, nor did the British.Please tell me at the fourth time of reading you have understood this.

I understand that.Actually , This discussion has moved from injustice of partition award to who suffered more losses.As proactive and you highlighted land ownership stuff and I tried to counter it by the fact that more muslims became homeless than hindus and sikhs put together. 

1 hour ago, chatanga said:

Those figures do not seem correct. The movement of Panjabi muslims from east to west was slightly higher than non-muslims from west to east. The figures if can remember correctly were around 3.5 from west to east and 3.25. But this was only Panjab.

These figures are absolutely right.You can check Tariq's work and also see Ishtiaq Ahmed's book. If we count Migration from UP and other Indian provinces then it goes further higher close to 7.6 million.

1 hour ago, chatanga said:

Bringing too many different ethnicities together under one umbrella was never going to work.

So far it has worked in India and to some extent in Pakistan too. Only in Kashmir there is some struggle but there is religion factor in it.If Kashmiris had been Hindu,India would have no need to deploy 7 lac army to keep Kashmir with India. Same with Indian Punjab too. These two states have some section of their population who want independence but that is because of religion. Most Indian Sikhs I have encountered on Facebook are very patriotic. Very few Khalistan supporter. This fact amazes me. India , despite desecrating holiest Sikh temple has managed to win back the trust of Sikhs. Something which we need to learn from our Hindu cousins and pacify our Baloch citizens.
NRI Sikhs also have two different tendencies in regards to creation of Sikh state but Khalistani supporter have dominant voice in the diaspora.For them 1984 memory is still fresh and they have not moved on.

To sum up . Religion is big issue in sub continent than ethnicity.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Jacfsing2 said:

Ask that to some Sikhs from 1947 who lived in Pakistan and left. You really think the Jihadis have your best interests at heart? Don't be delusional.

Man , you are generalizing whole bunch of people. It is very rare to find a person in Pakistan who does not want Sikhs to have their own sate. Sometimes people even forget all the Muslim massacre in East Punjab. Such is anti Indian mindset of our people who want to avenge the humiliation of 1971 war. And the thing you posted about Quranic verses. Such kind of hateful verses can be found in every Abrahamic religion. If you ask an average Muslim how he thinks of these verse ; you would be surprised to know how many Muslims don't even know such verses even exist. Only time when Quran is used in our family it is some wedding or when some one dies.
Having said that I don't claim that there are not any Muslims who believe in Quran word by word.Such people don't have the backing of entire Muslim population.Heck our people think 9/11 was inside job,Daesh,Al qaeda are Jewish conspiracy. LOL because they can't digest the fact that a Muslim can do such thing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Jacfsing2
4 hours ago, Jonny101 said:

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.

I want Sikhs to stop sucking-up to everyone else. The western nations used to trust the MUSLIM known as Saddam Hussein, and what did that guy do? He killed a bunch of innocent people in his country, and he was brought to justice. The West also trusted them in other scenarios as well, and each time the Muslims showed them what they'd do if anyone trusts them too much. We Sikhs need to start thinking for ourselves. Those who made Shaheedi of our Gurus should never be forgiven, and we shouldn't be sympathetic towards them either, as you claim to be thinking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Jonny101 said:

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.

Very true, Sikhs need to read their actual history rather than imbibing Indian Government propaganda which endlessly regurgitates the trope that Sikhs are the predestined enemies of Musalman.  

Puraatan Sikhs and Maharaj themselves did not keep grudges forever and ever. Jahangir was ultimately responsible for the execution of Guru Arjan Dev, and yet he and Guru Hargobind Sahib eventually became friends.  Guru Tegh Bahadur was executed by Aurangzeb, Guru Gobind Singh Ji could've embarked upon some blood feud against all Musalman and the entire Mughal dynasty after this but he actually supported Bahadur Shah's bid to become emperor. The Sikh Misls also formed periodic alliances with the Afghans, who had earlier wronged them on so many occasions. 

You are right, Sikhs are not and must never become the enemies of Hindus or the enemies of Muslims, this is a perversion of Dashmesh Pitaa's vision for us. We are supposed to be the enemies of the oppressors, that is all. 

 

8 hours ago, Jacfsing2 said:

We Sikhs need to start thinking for ourselves. 

I agree. But when has any group of our meager size ever risen to prominence without allies? Sikh Raj didn't just fall out of the Sikhs' rear ends, it's emergence was enabled by the constant shifting of alliances which Johnny has alluded to - sometimes with Marathas, sometimes with Kashmiris, sometimes with Rohillas and sometimes with Afghans. There aren't enough of us for us to go it alone, not yet anyway I hope. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sikhs need to wise up & realise the world ain't all lovey dovey.... Muslims especially will never have the best interests of sikhs or any non Muslims at heart.... it goes against their beliefs... it's a part of their religion to wage jihad against all kafirs.

If the sangat, like me is not happy with Khalsa Aid spending money on helping Muslims then the solution is simple.... stop your donations!

In my opinion Ravi Singh has become a fame chaser... helping sikhs in Punjab only draws limited attention if any..... going to places that are all over the news etc has bought him attention from the BBC & other media outlets.... he knows what he's doing... jumping on the bandwagon of media 'hot' incidents to get more exposure

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