Jump to content

Why Do Some Sikhs Dismiss The Sikh Call For Independence From India


wakeupUK
 Share

Recommended Posts

Sikhs who say having weapons at Akal Takht was wrong do not know what they are talking about!

When Guru Hargobind Sahib ji, our emperor, sat on his throne Akal Takht Sahib, he ordered the sangat to donate Horses and weapons! From that day weapons have always been kept at Akal Takht Sahib. Even back then some Sikh found it shocking and they went complaining to Mata Ganga ji, but since then weapons have always been there.

During the misl period the Bhangi Sardars built a fort outside Amritsar with a cannon in it! it was called Bhangian da Qila and the cannon was captured by the Bhangis from the muslims and they called Bhangian di tope. The purpose of the fort was to protect Amritsar/Harmandir Sahib. Later M Ranjit Singh further fortified the Qila. The Ramgharia Bungas had weapons all around the base and at the top of the towers to fire at invaders.

Weapons have always been at Harmandir Sahib. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, ChardikalaUK said:

It's true, they are now a military superpower, they have nuclear weapons and a very good navy.

Even the Tamil Tigers couldn't defeat the Sri Lankan military who are a lot weaker than India's and much smaller in size.

1947 was a fantastic opportunity, all we had to do was ask.

Ask and you shall receive, we didn't even ask!

Silly Mr 'Village teacher' Malhotra.

What I do find interesting is how there's a tentative "shaming" of India under Modi, in terms of the Muslim issue in India. If India continues on its current course, I expect that dissent from the West to grow louder in a way that nobody does with sincere gusto with places like Saudi Arabia and China, i.e. countries the West can't afford to pee off despite their questionable records on how they treat certain sections of their respective societies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, KhoonKaBadlaKhoon2 said:

We had no choice in 1947. Our "leaders" quickly realized that British wouldn't give Sikhs a home land due to demographics, and hence chose the Indians. The British wanted out asap, they didn't want to further complicate the Punjab issue with a 3-way split. 

I wonder the same. Maybe there was no chance of it to begin with. Unless we became adamant and vocal about it, something could have come about still. Maybe semi-autonomy for some malwa districts perhaps, anything to keep an armed force alive. But knowing our leaders, they would have merged it within a decade or two under some nehru-treaty!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, MisterrSingh said:

What I do find interesting is how there's a tentative "shaming" of India under Modi, in terms of the Muslim issue in India. If India continues on its current course, I expect that dissent from the West to grow louder in a way that nobody does with sincere gusto with places like Saudi Arabia and China, i.e. countries the West can't afford to pee off despite their questionable records on how they treat certain sections of their respective societies.

Have you seen those videos of China where they have built those brainwashing camps for the muslims!  theres like 100,000 muslims in those camps and they make them sing and dance! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, MisterrSingh said:

What I do find interesting is how there's a tentative "shaming" of India under Modi, in terms of the Muslim issue in India. If India continues on its current course, I expect that dissent from the West to grow louder in a way that nobody does with sincere gusto with places like Saudi Arabia and China, i.e. countries the West can't afford to pee off despite their questionable records on how they treat certain sections of their respective societies.

This shaming stuff happens to Russia, Iran, North Korea in the media all of the time and nothing happens to those countries.

Once you have the kind of military India does no one will mess with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ChardikalaUK said:

This shaming stuff happens to Russia, Iran, North Korea in the media all of the time and nothing happens to those countries.

Once you have the kind of military India does no one will mess with you.

Funny how none of the aforementioned 3 countries have a Central Bank owned by the Rothschilds. The three countries we're constantly told by the media are a threat to peace. Must be a coincidence... ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ChardikalaUK said:

It's true, they are now a military superpower, they have nuclear weapons and a very good navy.

Even the Tamil Tigers couldn't defeat the Sri Lankan military who are a lot weaker than India's and much smaller in size.

1947 was a fantastic opportunity, all we had to do was ask.

Ask and you shall receive, we didn't even ask!

Silly Mr 'Village teacher' Malhotra.

1940s before 1947 was a beautiful time to get sikh raj back. Various Sikh princely state rulers could have banded together and formed khalistan easily even without dr abedkar's consideration of 100 million+ dalits joining sikhism to boost our demographics numbers to qualify for a huge country. But instead the various sikh groups were divided between themselves, they couldnt come together and fight for the national sikh interest. Too many selfish Sikh egotistcal clowns wanted to protect their own seats in political power play that was going on.

As for the tigers well reason for the defeat of hindu tamil tigers was the various countries implementing terrorism legislation's from year 2000 that proscribed them and cut their funding from the west. Another big dent to tamil tigers aspirations was when congress party ruling the indian establishment's betrayal. First they created and covertly supported the tamil tigers via the R&AW to leverage power of tamils against Sinhalese buddhist sri lankan govt then they betrayed them backstabbing and removed all funding and training and arms which left the tamil tigers to fend for themselves on the arms dealing black market for survival. The indian army even was sent in to "peace keeping" troops to try ensure the peace between buddhist and hindu tamil area's  These troops ended up committing brutality against the restless tamils there, so the tigers feeling betrayed hit back and blew rajiv gandhi up before the Sikh militants could get him for his role in anti-sikh genocide.

So we come to 2009 and the sri lankan government was better armed, had intelligence and weapons help from china and pakistan. It was no contest really and only matter of time before the sri lankan tamil hindu genocide happened there was protests in london while the sri lankan president was being courted by the british queen and government. The british establishment didnt give two f*ucks about the genocide of tamil hindus in sri lankan just as they didnt do the same of sikhs of punjab 80s/90s. They were signing arms deals with the sri lankan govt just as they did with india in 1980s before operation blue star.

Sadly this is ground reality of real politics of the world. the rich and powerful only give aid to each other to oppress and persecute the minorities when it doesn't suit their geo-political strategic economic interests.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, genie said:

1940s before 1947 was a beautiful time to get sikh raj back. Various Sikh princely state rulers could have banded together and formed khalistan easily even without dr abedkar's consideration of 100 million+ dalits joining sikhism to boost our demographics numbers to qualify for a huge country. But instead the various sikh groups were divided between themselves, they couldnt come together and fight for the national sikh interest. Too many selfish Sikh egotistcal clowns wanted to protect their own seats in political power play that was going on.

As for the tigers well reason for the defeat of hindu tamil tigers was the various countries implementing terrorism legislation's from year 2000 that proscribed them and cut their funding from the west. Another big dent to tamil tigers aspirations was when congress party ruling the indian establishment's betrayal. First they created and covertly supported the tamil tigers via the R&AW to leverage power of tamils against Sinhalese buddhist sri lankan govt then they betrayed them backstabbing and removed all funding and training and arms which left the tamil tigers to fend for themselves on the arms dealing black market for survival. The indian army even was sent in to "peace keeping" troops to try ensure the peace between buddhist and hindu tamil area's  These troops ended up committing brutality against the restless tamils there, so the tigers feeling betrayed hit back and blew rajiv gandhi up before the Sikh militants could get him for his role in anti-sikh genocide.

So we come to 2009 and the sri lankan government was better armed, had intelligence and weapons help from china and pakistan. It was no contest really and only matter of time before the sri lankan tamil hindu genocide happened there was protests in london while the sri lankan president was being courted by the british queen and government. The british establishment didnt give two f*ucks about the genocide of tamil hindus in sri lankan just as they didnt do the same of sikhs of punjab 80s/90s. They were signing arms deals with the sri lankan govt just as they did with india in 1980s before operation blue star.

Sadly this is ground reality of real politics of the world. the rich and powerful only give aid to each other to oppress and persecute the minorities when it doesn't suit their geo-political strategic economic interests.

Militant groups just have no chance against bigger powers. At best they can be a nuisance like the IRA but they can never achieve their end goal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, ChardikalaUK said:

Militant groups just have no chance against bigger powers. At best they can be a nuisance like the IRA but they can never achieve their end goal.

I would agree in todays world they don't have a chance. However if we were in the 80s and 90s the IRA had real chance of defeating the british army because you gotta remember gaddafi was funding them, the arab league members were funding them covertly like saddams iraq. The USA ex-pat irish community nord was funding them.

The only way militant groups will succeed in todays world in todays political scene is if a super power aids them or smashed into another world power to release trapped nations of the bigger nations out. So when we look at the case of USSR after its fall because of the west's thousand cuts policy then all those former soviet countries broke free because there wasnt the manpower to fight any armed uprising by cash strapped soviet govt in moscow. However russia has regrouped and was able to aid pro-russian seperatist militants in ukraine establish their own rule and in abzakia from georgian territory.

If we look at serbia and its clash in kosovo that was part of its land after it had taken it during the balkan wars. The west aided the jihadi KLA militant group to cause clashes with serbian forces when serbia retaliated then nato got involved and salved albanian muslim asses just as they did in balkan wars. So kosovo seperatists declared independence from serbia thanks to NATO western military help.

So it is still possible for militant groups of independance wanting groups to reach objectives militaerily but only if alot of world powers or a super power aids and recognizes their legitimacy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, genie said:

I would agree in todays world they don't have a chance. However if we were in the 80s and 90s the IRA had real chance of defeating the british army because you gotta remember gaddafi was funding them, the arab league members were funding them covertly like saddams iraq. The USA ex-pat irish community nord was funding them.

The only way militant groups will succeed in todays world in todays political scene is if a super power aids them or smashed into another world power to release trapped nations of the bigger nations out. So when we look at the case of USSR after its fall because of the west's thousand cuts policy then all those former soviet countries broke free because there wasnt the manpower to fight any armed uprising by cash strapped soviet govt in moscow. However russia has regrouped and was able to aid pro-russian seperatist militants in ukraine establish their own rule and in abzakia from georgian territory.

If we look at serbia and its clash in kosovo that was part of its land after it had taken it during the balkan wars. The west aided the jihadi KLA militant group to cause clashes with serbian forces when serbia retaliated then nato got involved and salved albanian muslim asses just as they did in balkan wars. So kosovo seperatists declared independence from serbia thanks to NATO western military help.

So it is still possible for militant groups of independance wanting groups to reach objectives militaerily but only if alot of world powers or a super power aids and recognizes their legitimacy. 

Yes the only way is if an even bigger power helps the militant group but India is not the same nation it was back in the 80s. Nukes change things big time. No country will do this against India.

Economically India is doing ok so it isn't going to collapse like the USSR.

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