Ranjeet01

It is quite ironic that the EIC troops from UP and Bihar were used to bring down the Sikh Empire, yet barely a decade later the British used the Sikhs to quell the 1857 rebellion. The mutineers wanted to bring back the Mughal empire and I guess Sikhs at the time wanted revenge and there was no way they would want a Mughal resurgence. One of the reasons the British did not carve a Sikh state is even though we owned large tracts of land, they went by demographics. We simply did not have the numbers, we simply did not have the clear majorities in a lot of the districts. Another reason is that person brought in to carve British India was brought in very late (a certain Mr Radcliffe) and he did not understand the geography, which in a way is lucky because we could have lost Gurdaspur as well. Funny thing is we were screw*d over by the British for the Muslims and hindus and then the hindus were screw*d over with the carving of a muslim state. Perfidious Albion indeed.

The bahmins throughout history have always adapted a survival strategy to cosy up to whoever was in power at the time. They will absorb new techniques and tactics and utilise them to their advantage. Being historically more learned and literate than the other communities in the Subcontinent they always being more able to capitalise on this.

You make a very valid point how the British did hand everything to the Indians on a platter from the railways to the parliament building and the use of English. Everything was left intact, the elite in India for over 50 years did nothing to improve or enhance the infrastructure. Even when the USA got independence from UK, they created their own political system and constitution. These were White Brits who fought and defeated other White Brits. It proves one thing, the Anglophile Indian elite never really wanted freedom for India, they wanted power for themselves.

+1 I think there are several factors to consider: There was no consolidation of the Sikh population, we were probably only 10 percent.There should have been more Parchaar to increase the demographic advantage. We should also have absorbed and digested the art of statesmanship and military strategic and placed into the hands of our own Sikhs. We outsourced/ delegated the decision making to non Sikhs which would make it a more dangerous proposition.

The battle for independence was never between the average Indian and the British, it was between the Anglophile Indian Brown Sahib babu elite who benefitted from kissing up to the British, helped them takeover and maintain the empire and the British. I do not think that it even mattered for the average aam janta who was in control as it would not made an iota of difference.

Magmanimous is a big word, I had to look it up in the dictionary We Sikhs are over - generous to the detriment of our selves and it allows others to take advantage. Need to give credit where credit is due for Maharaj Ranjit Singh.He managed to balance things and was keen to adopt new ideas and skills for the kingdom. However, from what I recall Hari Singh Nalwa tried to persuade him to give power to the Panj Pyare.

Speaking of Sikhs and Maoris, I wonder if this is SinghNz https://youtu.be/o8XZkIs5mYY

Another myth I see thrown around is that the British as a whole got rich from exploiting India. A small elite of British got rich. At the height of the British Empire during Victoria's reign, most British people were living in overcrowded slums and in absolute dire poverty. Children were thrown up into chimneys. I do not think the living standards of the average Brit and average Indian was that large during the British Empire's rule. The living standards of the average Brit only started to rise during the 20th century or at least after WW2.

I am not the most orthodox thinking of people, I sometimes see things differently from normal people. The British Empire does what most empires have done which is exploit, what probably makes the British stand out is how they have done this exploitation. But I have seen so many Indians blame the British for everything that is wrong with India without looking at themselves. India as a region has been constantly colonised and invaded for thousands of years, at least since that Macedonian Alexander came trouncing in. India has a particular nasty cultural trait which is backstabbing and treachery and this is something that came well before the British. Whenever someone from outside from India comes to invade there is always someone on the inside who will side with the outsider. This could be said of the likes of Porus, Jai Chand,Dogras as well as many others. One thing that you notice about the British is that their takeover of India was from the East via Bengal whereas traditionally India was invaded via the North West which explains why Punjab was one of the last areas to be taken by the British. The British or should I say East India Company were able to control large swathes of India via Indian troops (largely from Bihar and UP) and then in 1857 revolted because pork and beef fat was used in the bullet cartridges. This is known as India ' s first fight of independence, but hold on WHO AIDED THE BRITISH IN THE FIRST PLACE?? The elites of India have always been hand in glove with the invaders and colonisers. Tata one of India ' s large conglomerates made their money in the Opium trade with the British to destabilise China. The Brahmins and others from brown - nosing the Mughals shifted their allegiance to the British and were quick to Anglicise themselves into the British Education system and in a way ran India administratively on behalf of the British. This is where the likes of the Gandhi and Nehru stem from.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=f7CW7S0zxv4&feature=share This is an Oxford Union debate on whether the British owe India and other colonies reparations regarding the things done in the British Empire. The speaker here is Shashi Tharoor, an Indian MP (as McCaulyite as one can get). We have had posters on here before who have mentioned that India was better under the British. Please watch this video and give me your thoughts. We have not really had a discussion or an in depth one regarding the British Empire and it's impact on Sikhs and within the Subcontinent. A lot of the posters may feel reparations would be owed to the Sikhs by the Indian state.

The thing is Sikhs have this reputation for being tall and physically imposing but I cannot see this in a lot of contemporary Sikhs. Looking at the average UK Sikh male,I would say the average height is 5' 8'' and it makes me disappointed because you are kind of led to believe otherwise. However, I feel relieved (Nasha taking aside) when I go back to Punjab and I see some solid 6'2"" Sikh lads. Just wondering what it could be. Could it be that the majority of UK Sikhs are from doaba and perhaps they are smaller than those from Malwa and Majha. But then there are a lot of Doaba in Canada and they are bigger than the UK Doaba. One thing I have noticed is that countries where there is a smaller population with lower population density you have people who are larger and stronger in size such as Afrikaaners of South Africa, Scandinavians or the Pacific Islanders such as the Samoans and Tongans whereas those from higher dense population areas such as India, China, Japan are generally shorter. Obviously diet plays a large part and I think that Punjab diet is largely a wheat (roti) and dairy based makes a big impact whereas the majority of India is rice based.

What about the sexual fluidity of some women who when they reach a certain age and have not found themselves a man become lesbian?

It's the only language they understand!

Whilst the weather is good in the UK, what about Cornwall & Devon?

Your commentary here has been mentioned on Sunny Hundal's twitter page. https://twitter.com/sunny_hundal/status/618156547101716480

I think one of the previous posters hit the nail on the head, there is government funding that is involved so it is in the interests that these groups like Aikh Saath and individuals like Sunny Hundal try to exploit these things in order to get publicity and funding. Sunny Hundal in fact sits on the board of Aikh Saath. Domestic abuse of Punjabi/Sikh women by Punjabi/Sikh men is by and large fuelled by alcohol. Punjabi women and women in general have always had their female support networks, men (Punjabi men)have a lot of pressures and strains which they keep bottled up and when the inhibitions are lost when consumed by alcohol combined with some incessant nagging, they lose it. For all the complaints by Punjabi women, there is a bigger problem of alcohol related deaths within Punjabi men which is not being addressed. Whenever I go to the Gurdwara, and there is a funeral announcement and I see quite a few men in their 40s and 50s passing away and I look at their pictures and I think to myself , "what kind of personal hell have you been going through for you to lose your zest for life in your prime". Now I cannot claim to know the cause of their death but seeing many other Punjabi men in the same age group pass away due to alcohol - related issues you can guesstimate.

The reason why these Punjabi women speak in punjabi is because they do not want you to know any juicy bit of gossip. I uses to have a white colleague who used to complain of the same thing which is eavesdrop on two Punjabi women speaking in English and when it got to the good part switch to Punjabi.

If you follow his tweets, he is changing his tact and position from his traditional point of view. Being from the left, he is beginning to critique a lot of leftists. Now I do not know his justification for this, it could be that he is changing his perspective or he is looking where the wind is blowing and being opportunistic. My opinion is of the latter. I am of the opinion that the white mainstream media has a favourable opinion on the Sikh community from across all spectrums and he cannot garner the attention-wh*r*ing that he craves from trying portray Sikhs as sexist patriarchs.

The particular mindset of these types of "journalists" is to whitewash things done in the Pakistani community and become apologists for them and amplify any perceived things in their own community. However the problem with these types is that they get very defensive when someone in the white community critiques something in their own community. An example I can give is Sunny likes to portray Sikh males in being mysogynst and that Sikh males being oppressors of Sikh women. However on twitter, some white twitter user commented that women must be oppressed because the Gurdwara sangat is segregated by gender. Suddenly Sunny leapt into the defence of Sikhs to explain that it is not inequality because they sit at the same level.

The problem with Islam as I see it is that seems to be more of a political ideology rather than unifying humanity with the one creator (were we ever disunited in the first place?). It sees itself as a way of life, where there are rules and regulations on everything, how to eat, how to dress, which hand to clean your backside with. They use too much terminology and where this is interpreted by one particular and one school and another interpretation by another scholar. These imams are more like lawyers than anything else because it is a system rather than a force for connecting to the creator. Sufism as I understand it does away with all this Sharia, Hadiths, Islamic jurisprudence and gets on with connecting with the creator without all the hassle of consulting an Imam. Whether a Sufism really is Islam, I cannot really say because they seemed to evolve outside the Islamic system or even outgrown the Islamic system, which is probably why they are seen as heretics.

Isn't music and singing a sin in Islam?

What have to realise is that the British muslims are Subcontinental muslims. They have an inferiority complex when it comes Arabs, Turks and Persians. For them moving to this Caliphate is a step up Islamically.

It's like Maslow's hierarchy of needs. They are still at the bottom of the pyramid. Like they say ,"You can the man out of the ghetto but you cannot get the ghetto out of the man" but replace ghetto with pind.

I have something that has been puzzling me for the last couple of days. Sikhs/Punjabi's and other peoples of subcontinental origins have lived in the UK for over half a century and yet there is this niggling question as to why there are so few Asian sportsmen. Most Asians are football fans in the UK and yet we see so few that make it professionally. There are a few reasons we usually here such as parents want their children to follow education or the ugly head of racism. The other reason is that Asians generally are not strong enough, physical enough or athletic enough to keep up with the other races. Now I can see that maybe overall, the Subcontinent is probably generally smaller and less physical but there is an anomaly to this the Sikh or Punjabi's in general. We are physically larger and stronger than the vast majority in India but the question is are we as strong and physical as the European man. Now this is what we are told by UK Football Establishment. But what we have seen with Satnam Singh and Sim Bhullar in the NBA tells us this is complete hogwash. If Punjabi's in the UK are not good enough to play against average sized white men and black men in professional football, how is it that two Punjabi's albeit one from Canada and one of India have made to the NBA where they have to play with and against the most athletically, physically developed people in the African American male. Your thoughts please.

I think this show was bigger in the mainstream than within the Asian subculture. But there were some funny bits in it because a lot of stereotypes are true. For example, Mr India you have in these attachments. This show did go down well in the Asian community because it does take the pi** out of the community as it is rather than some kind of hidden agenda. There really are people from the Indian subcontinent who think everything comes from India.