Jump to content
superkaur

Is khalsa aid wasting sangats resources on muslim rohingya?

Recommended Posts

YOYO29    53
1 hour ago, chatanga said:

eg in Amritsar Muslims were 47%. They were the majority community but not the majority. Same with Jallandhar and Hoshiarpur. So that map is not accurate in terms of outright majority

This map is on Tehsil basis not on District basis. Yes,you are right Muslims were not outright majority , they were single largest group in Jalandhar,Amritsar and Firozpore. I think you are being confused seeing Jalandhar painted green in map.It is Kapurthala state spreading in Jalandhar district.One part of Kapurthala state was surrounded by Jalandhar dsitrict from all sides. This state was ruled by Sikh but had Muslim majority of 56 % . 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.

Edited by YOYO29
Spelling mistake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
proactive    1,371
8 hours ago, Sikhi4Ever said:

Weird that I read this topic. As I was conversing with my sibling-

 

6D7927D4-F7FA-4639-9DB1-437BEC743541.jpeg

 

They had just under £ 2.5 Million in the bank as of the end of financial year 2016. They haven't submitted their accounts for year ending 2017 but considering they had 1.6 Million in the bank at the end of FY 2015 and 2.5 Million at the end of FY 2016 then it makes sense that they would have more than £ 2.5 Million in the bank at the end of FY 2017. 

That Ravi Singh guy doesn't take too kindly to people pulling him up on why he doesn't do more for Sikhs. He always responds ..Khalsa Aid did this and that ...what have you done? Well I don't have £ 2.5 Million in the bank and I don't get £ 33,000 each year to work full time for the charity as he does. 

If anyone does want to donate for Sikh causes through Khalsa Aid then I would ask that they make sure that you have an assurance that your donation will go to that particular cause and not be used for their other appeals such as Rohingyas etc.

 

Edited by proactive
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
proactive    1,371
44 minutes ago, YOYO29 said:

This map is on Tehsil basis not on District basis. Yes,you are right Muslims were not outright majority , they were single largest group in Jalandhar,Amritsar and Firozpore. I think you are being confused seeing Jalandhar painted green in map.It is Kapurthala state spreading in Jalandhar district.One part of Kapurthala state was surrounded by Jalandhar dsitrict from all sides. This state was ruled by Sikh but had Muslim majority of 56 % . 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.

Are you including in the total number the Muslims from the princely states? The Sikhs and Hindus from Bhawalpur state and the Muslims from the East Punjab states should not be included in the totals as partition was only of the British area of Punjab.

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. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
proactive    1,371
5 hours ago, YOYO29 said:

I have no doubt UN screwed over Muslims in Palestine but the fact remains by the time partition of India was announced there was no such precedent.This precedent was set in November 1947 by then Punjab has been partitioned. And clearly you have seen how that decision has turned out.There is still fight going on for this land by Palestinians. What Sikhs were demanding was not possible. If britian had awarded those heavily Muslim areas to India, Muslim league would not have accepted the award and war would have started over Punjab.And today Punjab would have been an Internationally disputed area. 

Britain has in fact awarded majority population areas to minorities before. One of the counties in Northern Ireland had a catholic majority and yet it kept out of the Irish republic and given to Northern Ireland. Economic factors were actually used to award the Chittagong Hill Tracts to East Pakistan by Radcliffe even though the Muslims was only 3% in population there. This would have been akin to awarding Rawalpindi to India even though the Sikhs and Hindus were more than the 3% Muslims in CHTs. Such was the belief that the CHTs would go to India that the local tribes had raised Indian flags on govt buildings and these were only torn down by Pakistani troops from Chtiiagong port a few weeks afterwards. 

True to form the Bangladesh govt has settled Muslims there and they have been oppressing the Buddhists tribes there for decades and many of these tribes have migrated to India. 

https://www.amnesty.org.uk/groups/wirksworth-and-district/hidden-bangladesh-violence-and-brutality-chittagong-hill-tracts

It's a guess whether Muslims would have fought back if Radcliffe had awarded all of the Lahore division and canal colonies to East Punjab. Given the fact that the Indian army was undergoing division itself the only fighters in this war would have been the common people. Jinnah and his deputies would have made a big show of being betrayed by the British but both Jinnah and Nehru was lawyers and such had great respect for the law and would have accepted Radcliffe's ruling. Nehru accepted the loss of the CHTs and Jinnah would in the end have accepted the loss of a slice of Punjab to East Punjab. 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
YOYO29    53
1 hour 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.

 

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

Edited by YOYO29

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
YOYO29    53
7 minutes ago, proactive said:

. Nehru accepted the loss of the CHTs

Indeed he accepted. Because they received a Muslim majority district Murshadabad, and three other Muslim district Malda,Nadia and dinajpur.This was a good deal for India.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
YOYO29    53
9 minutes ago, proactive said:

It's a guess whether Muslims would have fought back if Radcliffe had awarded all of the Lahore division and canal colonies to East Punjab.

hmm yes it is a guess

10 minutes ago, proactive said:

oth Jinnah and Nehru was lawyers and such had great respect for the law and would have accepted Radcliffe's ruling.

so is this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
YOYO29    53
45 minutes ago, proactive said:

Are you including in the total number the Muslims from the princely states? The Sikhs and Hindus from Bhawalpur state and the Muslims from the East Punjab states should not be included in the totals as partition was only of the British area of Punjab.

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

Edited by YOYO29

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
YOYO29    53
25 minutes ago, YOYO29 said:

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.

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 % .

Edited by YOYO29

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
proactive    1,371
5 minutes 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 % .

Size and population does not mean anything. The Maharaja had signed the instrument of accession  to India and land should have been freed up for the Sikh and Hindu refugees of West Punjab. If 5 Million Sikhs and Hindus could be driven out of the lands they held for generations then why not 2 Million extra Muslims being sent to Pakistan. The Kashmir dispute would definitely have been solved before it even began. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
YOYO29    53
38 minutes ago, proactive said:

Britain has in fact awarded majority population areas to minorities before. One of the counties in Northern Ireland had a catholic majority and yet it kept out of the Irish republic and given to Northern Ireland

Just one county ?? Name of that county ?? Anyways they did that in Punjab too by awarding Muslim majority Gurdaspur to India.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
YOYO29    53
13 minutes ago, proactive said:

Size and population does not mean anything. The Maharaja had signed the instrument of accession  to India and land should have been freed up for the Sikh and Hindu refugees of West Punjab

It does matter.It was near impossible to completely wipe out an entire ethnic group.Driving out a minority from a few districts is one thing but driving out a whole ethnic group is whole other level.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.

13 minutes ago, proactive said:

If 5 Million Sikhs and Hindus could be driven out of the lands they held for generations

Please get your facts right.3.6 million hindu n sikhs migrated from west punjab as against 5.4 million Muslims from east Punjab.

Edited by YOYO29

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
YOYO29    53
8 minutes ago, proactive said:

then why not 2 Million extra Muslims being sent to Pakistan.

you already did that in East Punjab. Kashmir's Muslim population was more than 3 million. Muslims were wiped out by Hindu majority in eastern district of jammu province.And Muslim in Western Jammu (Today's Azad Kashmir) did the same with hindus in their majority districts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jonny101    4,080

Usually I agree but the Rohingya issue is different. Their situation is almost as bad as the Yazidis. Their women are being gang raped by soldiers, children(even babies) are being burned alive. Barely any Muslim country is helping them with the exception of Turkey. They don't even have clean water to drink which we all get for granted.

 

 

Helping them I have noticed two things.

#1 it is annoying the hell out of Hindus. They cannot digest the fact that their so called "sword arm" (Sikhs) are helping their biggest enemy i.e. Muslims. They don't like that Sikhs are overstepping the boundaries they have imposed on us and taking an independent course of action by helping these Rohingya.

 

#2 This move by Sikhs will forge closer relations with the Muslims of South Asia(Indo-Pak-Bangla). We need to see this from the geo political perspective too and what effects it will have in future. I know that's how Sikh organizations like Dal Khalsa are seeing it. 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jacfsing2   
Guest Jacfsing2
11 minutes ago, Jonny101 said:

Usually I agree but the Rohingya issue is different. Their situation is almost as bad as the Yazidis. Their women are being gang raped by soldiers, children(even babies) are being burned alive. Barely any Muslim country is helping them with the exception of Turkey. They don't even have clean water to drink which we all get for granted.

 

 

Helping them I have noticed two things.

#1 it is annoying the hell out of Hindus. They cannot digest the fact that their so called "sword arm" (Sikhs) are helping their biggest enemy i.e. Muslims. They don't like that Sikhs are overstepping the boundaries they have imposed on us and taking an independent course of action by helping these Rohingya.

 

#2 This move by Sikhs will forge closer relations with the Muslims of South Asia(Indo-Pak-Bangla). We need to see this from the geo political perspective too and what effects it will have in future. I know that's how Sikh organizations like Dal Khalsa are seeing it. 

How are Muslims going to help us establish Khalistan?

Siding with a group who wants you dead is stupidity. https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/violence.aspx

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


×