MI5 felt ‘Sikhistan’ imminent as Nehru was too weak -Deccan Chronicle

[JasSinghKhalsa]

I think you missed the gist of my post. Being "hardened" as you call it was not the point I made here. I merely wrote down the situation of the Sikh people in 1947 and what could have been if we only had the right leader to take advantage of the situation. Even MI5 at the time seems to have thought that a Sikh national state was imminent. But Sikhs were too trusting of Nehru and gandhi.

Of course no one wants to suffer a genocide. But look at it this way, the fact that Sikhs did not take advantage of the situation of 1947, the result is we suffered the catastrophic genocide of 1984 and after.

Do you think we learnt from 1947 / 1984?

[chatanga]

But Sikhs were too trusting of Nehru and gandhi.

Of course no one wants to suffer a genocide. But look at it this way, the fact that Sikhs did not take advantage of the situation of 1947, the result is we suffered the catastrophic genocide of 1984 and after.

I wouldnt say they were trusting of nehru and gandhi, i beleive that they were driven down that path by baldev singh, who singularly trusted nehru.

1947 and the decade before that left the Sikh nation exhausted, and bewildered, and they were outmanouevred by the pakistanis, and indians, which is why i think they failed to take advantage.

Yes I find this difficult to understand why the Sikhs at the time did not even obtain any safeguards for themselves. At least Sikhs should have obtained a Vatican like status for Nanakna Sahib where say a zone of 20 miles could have been kept in Sikhs hands. The British or UN could have ensured a treaty to allow Sikhs safe passage there.

They did not even ensure security was in place before declaring India and Pakistan, 1 million people died for no reason. The British, Indian , Pakistani leaders bare the blame, but the Sikhs should have thought about protection for themselves especially when massacres had started a year before.

there was no un safeguards like what we see today, it was essentially every man for himself. most Sikhs i have spoken to about this, said the first thing was to save themselves and their families.

The Sikhs did a lot of preparation but only in east Panjab, in west panjab, they were a total minority 5% here, 10% there, and they were essentially a frightened community in west panjab in those days.

The fear amongst the Pakistan leadership was that the Sikh migration from West Punjab was a tactical withdrawal after which the Sikhs would invade and occupy Lahore, Lyallpur and other West Punjab areas.

im not so sure about that, i would have thought they were thoroughly pleased with themselves about what they had acheived and what they had done to the Sikhs as a by-product. It is an interesting concept though, you have any reading matyerial on this, you can share?

[West London Singh]

The only thing we need to learn from 1947 is that the Hindustanis are an inherently dishonest people without the concepts of honour and truth. Jinnah made his promise to the Sikhs, and they were good promises. To counter these promises Nehru, at the All India Congress in Calcutta July 1946, made a promise of his own hoping the Sikhs would choose India and so the whole of Punjab would not go to Pakistan. At that conference he promised the Sikhs of Punjab that they would enjoy a semi-autonomous Punjab with a glow a freedom much akin to the Khalsa raj of Maharaja Ranjit Singh.

Oh but if we knew then what we know now. If we knew then how the Hindustanis are a people without shame, honour, self-respect. A totaly besharm nation that blatantly lies and then blames the victims of its lies.

Sure we should have could have gone our own way in '47 but our biggest mistake was choosing the deceitful liars over the muslims. Lets just take the fact that 99% of Pakistani Sikhs live in the tribal Pathan mountains of Pakistan. This is because in 1947, whilst the Punjab was burning, the pathan muslims were duty bound under their code of honour : Pakhtoonwali, to protect with their lives the lives of their Sikh neighbours. We chose the wrong people. Both made promises but we chose the besharm over the honourable.

[DilchaspSingh]

the pathan muslims were duty bound under their code of honour : Pakhtoonwali, to protect with their lives the lives of their Sikh neighbours.

So while we remember the victims of 1984, we conveniently choose to forget the number of Sikhs massacred in 1947? Pathaans are no doubt men of honor, and in fact brave men who would give up their life before breaking promises.

However...

http://www.gurmatbibek.com/contents.php?id=5856

http://www.panthic.org/articles/3485

http://www.sikhiwiki..._at_Thoa_Khalsa

[JasSinghKhalsa]

The only thing we need to learn from 1947 is that the Hindustanis are an inherently dishonest people without the concepts of honour and truth. Jinnah made his promise to the Sikhs, and they were good promises. To counter these promises Nehru, at the All India Congress in Calcutta July 1946, made a promise of his own hoping the Sikhs would choose India and so the whole of Punjab would not go to Pakistan. At that conference he promised the Sikhs of Punjab that they would enjoy a semi-autonomous Punjab with a glow a freedom much akin to the Khalsa raj of Maharaja Ranjit Singh.

Oh but if we knew then what we know now. If we knew then how the Hindustanis are a people without shame, honour, self-respect. A totaly besharm nation that blatantly lies and then blames the victims of its lies.

Sure we should have could have gone our own way in '47 but our biggest mistake was choosing the deceitful liars over the muslims. Lets just take the fact that 99% of Pakistani Sikhs live in the tribal Pathan mountains of Pakistan. This is because in 1947, whilst the Punjab was burning, the pathan muslims were duty bound under their code of honour : Pakhtoonwali, to protect with their lives the lives of their Sikh neighbours. We chose the wrong people. Both made promises but we chose the besharm over the honourable.

and what we learn from 1984 and post 1984?

[West London Singh]

So while we remember the victims of 1984, we conveniently choose to forget the number of Sikhs massacred in 1947?

The question about 'convenience' is one you should address to yourself. We Sikhs remember all innocent deaths. We don't place one innocent life as more valuable than the other. On that note, both official and unofficial records state that more Muslims were massacred in 1947 Punjab than the total number of Sikhs and Hindus added together. In other words, as unimaginably bad as the 1947 massacre of Sikhs was, imagine if it happened again the following year and then again the year after that. Only then would we reach the number of muslims killed in Punjab during those few weeks. Why do you find it so 'convenient' to forget them ? Were they not somebody's son...somebody's mother....somebody's daughter or brother ?

[HSD2]

The question about 'convenience' is one you should address to yourself. We Sikhs remember all innocent deaths. We don't place one innocent life as more valuable than the other. On that note, both official and unofficial records state that more Muslims were massacred in 1947 Punjab than the total number of Sikhs and Hindus added together. In other words, as unimaginably bad as the 1947 massacre of Sikhs was, imagine if it happened again the following year and then again the year after that. Only then would we reach the number of muslims killed in Punjab during those few weeks. Why do you find it so 'convenient' to forget them ? Were they not somebody's son...somebody's mother....somebody's daughter or brother ?

They werent my son, my mother, my daughter or brother.

Seeing as they got a nice big country out of it, one they have pretty much ruined, I'm not sure why your so sympathetic. You dont hear the musis being as sympathetic to Khalistan as Sikhs are for Palestine. The only ones who are, are those who want to kick India in the nuts.

[DilchaspSingh]

Why do you find it so 'convenient' to forget them ? Were they not somebody's son...somebody's mother....somebody's daughter or brother ?

That is exactly what the Hindus whom you hate so much say when we talk about the genocide of Sikhs in India. They question the killings of Hindus in Punjab and how they were pulled off buses and shot dead. I am nowhere close to vouching for the slaughter of those innocent Muslims in 1947, but what is your response to the innocent Hindus killed in Punjab? Are you "convenient" with their deaths?

May be I am reading a history different to what you are reading, but it was the Sikhs who bore the maximum brunt in 1947. Its sad that so many people died, but guess what, Hindus and Muslims got a country of their own, we didn't. The links I posted are not hearsay, those are real accounts. There were also instances of Sikhs killing their own womenfolk to save them from the brutality of getting dishonored by Muslims.

[chatanga]

In other words, as unimaginably bad as the 1947 massacre of Sikhs was, imagine if it happened again the following year and then again the year after that. Only then would we reach the number of muslims killed in Punjab during those few weeks.

thats a bit melodramatic.

the figures for deaths was roughly the same, the difference being the timespan of the murders, whereas the muslims were killing Sikhs from December 1946 all the way upto partition and after, the Sikhs only starting killing muslims after partition, so it seemed like the Sikhs were killing/had killed loads more muslims, but if you look at the actual time period, starting from the Muslim massacre of Sikhs in Hazara in december 1946, then you get a more accurate picture.

[californiasardar1]

The question about 'convenience' is one you should address to yourself. We Sikhs remember all innocent deaths. We don't place one innocent life as more valuable than the other. On that note, both official and unofficial records state that more Muslims were massacred in 1947 Punjab than the total number of Sikhs and Hindus added together. In other words, as unimaginably bad as the 1947 massacre of Sikhs was, imagine if it happened again the following year and then again the year after that. Only then would we reach the number of muslims killed in Punjab during those few weeks. Why do you find it so 'convenient' to forget them ? Were they not somebody's son...somebody's mother....somebody's daughter or brother ?

Your suggestion that we chose the "besharm" over the "honourable" in 1947 is VERY problematic.

I do not think it is right that hundreds of thousand of innocent Muslims were killed in 1947. But please note that the massacring was started by the Muslims in Rawalpindi (as others have pointed out in their links). That was before all of the bloodshed in East Punjab that virtually wiped out its Muslim population. That doesn't excuse the retaliation in East Punjab, but the timing of the events goes a long way towards explaining why the Sikhs had so many misgivings about joining Pakistan.

So, considering the killing, looting and raping that began in West Punjab (long before any similar activity took place on a large scale in East Punjab), was there any basis to believe that choosing to join Pakistan would be choosing an "honourable" side? It was the Rawalpindi killings and the disturbances that followed that made the Sikhs so reluctant to join Pakistan.

I am not disputing your suggestion that we cast our lot with besharms in joining in India. But it's not like there was any reason to believe that we'd be joining an "honourable" side in Pakistan.

It was a lose-lose situation.

Having said that, I do think the Sikh leadership could have come up with a better solution if they were more competent. Facilitating a bloody population transfer in which your community ends up concentrated in a tiny, truncated province is not exactly a brilliant idea.