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

[proactive]

WLS,

What you have done is to present the experience of your family in 1947 with regard to the massacre of Muslims in Doaba as the experience of the entire Sikh community. This is similar to how Khushwant Singh has presented the Hindu-Sikh intermarriages that occurred in his family pre-1947 as the normative experience of the whole Sikh community. There is no doubt massacres of Muslims took place in East Punjab committed by Sikhs and the contemporary witnesses note the particular ferocity of these acts of violence. You appear to want the whole Panth to beat themselves over the actions of that generation without placing their actions in perspective. Note the background at the time the violence took place.

1. 40% of the community had suddenly become refugees, and moved to an area over which they still did not have political control.

2. If we accept that about one million were killed, 500,000 Muslims, 250,000 Sikhs and 250,000 Hindus. This meant that even though a lower number of Sikhs had died than Muslims, in terms of percentage 4.5% of Sikh population had been killed compared to 2.5% of Muslims and 2.6% of Hindus. For a small community losing such numbers would have been devastating.

3. There was a belief that the Muslims would choose to stay in East Punjab and the Sikh population numbers would be diluted and they would not be a majority in any of the East Punjab districts. Not only would the Muslims were staying put but they were also attacking Sikh refugees in areas where they should have been safe (East Punjab). The cities of Jalandhar as well as Ludhiana were being used as bases to attack neighbouring Sikh villages similar to the way the Bosnian Muslim enclave of Srebenica was used to attack Serb villages.

4. The Sikh Jathas replicated the exact same violence on the Muslims of East Punjab that the Muslims had visited on the Sikhs of Hazara in 1946. The Muslim leadership believed that the Sikhs had lost their martial nature due to decades of economic success they had enjoyed. In essence the Muslim league plan in Punjab was to use violence in Hazara to beat the rest of the Punjab's Sikhs into submission. As they Sikhs did not retaliate after Hazara this convinced the Muslim league that their plan had worked. This is why the violence after partition in East Punjab came as such a shock to the Muslim league. This is the reason that the Pakistani representative at the UN wanted a resolution passed blaming the Sikhs for the violence!

[13Mirch]

Sad, very sad. If only we had a Sikhistan.

[jashb]

My assessment of the situation with regards the abject failure of the Sikhs to protect their own interests in the years leading up to the transfer of power and corresponding massacre...

Is that the Sikhs at the time were always on a hiding to nothing from the moment they had the fallacy to imagine that their comparitively recently acquired economic power/wealth would automatically translate to the safeguarding of their own interests. (our ancestors weren't always so wealthy and had only really experienced wealth on a mass scale since around 1800)

In summary, they, and their leaders, were simply waaay too over confident.

They placed too much faith on others.

Firstly, on the British, to honour their wealth, social status and history of service to the empire. (like they really cared)

Secondly, on Gundhi & Nehru, the two of whom they miserably failed to understand, and the Hindus at large.

Thirdly, you could add, on their erstwhile friends, companions and neighbours, the Muslims, whom they hadn't expected to take advantage of the hapless minority Sardar in the most indecent and cruel manner.

In short, they trusted just about everyone except themselves and each other! Similar story eh.

I'm quite sure that the proud recent ruler status of the minority Sikh nation could not have played less than a significant part in motivating all three of the above to some extent or other in successfully attempting to gain comeuppance at the expense of their former rulers by betraying the Sikhs so callously.

What the Sikhs at the time really failed to realise... (unlike their not distant ancestors)... is that during times of political, social, economic turmoil... when a man doesn't know what is about to happen next let alone in 5, 10, 20 years time...

Wealth and social status (in any form other than ability to acquire manpower and weapons) counts for SWEET F A.

That's why they got battered before, during, and after 1947, except for the two weeks from the latter half of August 1947, when, with the not unconsiderable incitement, provocation, assistance and motivation of the Hindu RSS (I ain't about to pretend it ain't so), they managed to save some sort of face for the humiliating and quite unprecedented comprehensive loss they had suffered.

Unfortunately, the Sikhs, on a massive scale, failed to learn from this hopeless episode.

The saying goes "you've decided where to make your bed... so now lie in it."

Therefore, they have continued, on the whole, to maintain the acquisition, retention, and creation of wealth, the major, if not, sole objective of their existence.

They have mostly discarded the pursuit of halemi khalsa raaj for a mere survival existence founded on compliance and sometimes downright collaboration with the natural enemies of the path revealed by the SatGuru, whom they claim to follow.

So SatGuru Maharaj has given them what they have asked for. I.e. Wealth. Not Justice.

Which is quite fine. Because Maharaj has given them what they asked for. So everyone's happy. Right?

Just one problem.

That the natural consequence involved with this mentality, i.e. excessively materialistic behaviour and blind pursuit of wealth, is that, quite inevitably, they are consigning themselves to repeat the same mistake over and over again. Refer the jewish nation.

Successful nations are those that learn and re-learn, and apply, and adapt to the changing situation accordingly. Those nations that fail to do this disappear off the map. This is evolution put into practice. Survival of the fittest.

Anyway, it seems that the Sikh nation learnt nothing out of their holocaust in 1947. They have continued on the same track, making the same mistake, and I'm sure they will continue to. Which is a real shame, as it bears no relation to their ancestors that I read about.

What happened to the businesses and vast landownings they lost in 1947. Did Maharaj feel pity on them and give it back? No, but they went all out to recover it all the same.

There are so many obscenely rich Sikh millionaires with so much property but how many of them are bearing the best arms or even educating themselves or their children about their heritage and path?

Sant jee woke up the Quom. Many elders still feel the loss of the leadership that he provided because it has never been replaced. He reminded us of our path and he spelt out for us how to put it into practice. Not slogans, not words. Actions, and deeds.

However, whether the Sikhs will finally accept the 52 Hukamnamay of The Tenth King, which the great Sant Jee held so dear, is a matter I will leave for another day.

[chatanga]

Is that the Sikhs at the time were always on a hiding to nothing from the moment they had the fallacy to imagine that their comparitively recently acquired economic power/wealth would automatically translate to the safeguarding of their own interests. (our ancestors weren't always so wealthy and had only really experienced wealth on a mass scale since around 1800)

Wealth and social status (in any form other than ability to acquire manpower and weapons) counts for SWEET F A.

a very informative post. Some excellent observations. The british had already said to the Sikhs that the division would be made on head count, not financial status. But even at that time the Sikhs still pressed the idea that money counts. I think reading about those timers, that there was a general fear amongst the Sikhs that they would end up under muslim rule, that they went to any length to make sure they didnt end up so.

[proactive]

The British also put into the terms of reference 'Other Factors' which the Sikhs believed meant Religious Shrines and Economic ties. As one of the Sikh leaders said, basing partition on head count would mean taking the land off the landowners and giving it to the tenants. I believe that had Churchill or another Conservative been Prime Minister, they would have taken more time over the handover and possibly placed more emphasis on the land ownership than the Socialist Labour Party leaders did. Muslims who were tenants suddenly became the landowners. The Sikhs owned the majority of the land in the central Punjab and yet most of that area went to Pakistan. Even after the Sikhs had left the Muslims on the border areas were still nervous that the Sikh plan had been a tactical withdrawal and that they would return to reclaim their lands. This can only happen if the Muslims knew that they had suddenly been given lands which belonged to someone else.

As for Sikhistan, the major mistake made by the Sikh leadership was not to make more of the Sikh States such as Patiala, Nabha and others. Whenever a Sikhistan is mentioned in recent works about the partition, the first fact mentioned is that the Sikhs were not a majority in any of the Punjab districts. This so-called fact can easily be negated when we find that the Sikh states who had a separate agreement with the British as the paramount power had a land area of over 25,000 sq km about half the size of present Punjab and a population of 3.5 million. They should have formed a nucleus of Sikhistan. The Sikhistan scheme should have been presented as an expansion of the Sikh states. Rather than the states joining the British districts, it would have been the British districts becoming a part of the States and then an amalgamation of that States into a Sikhistan. The geography of the Sikh states also precluded any attempt at India claiming the central Punjab districts as the only land route through to these districts was through the Northern Tehsils of Rupar and Kharar in Ambala district which were Sikh dominated.

The present districts of Punjab which all had a majority non-Muslim population could then have been claimed for Sikhistan as the alternative was for them to go to Pakistan which would have been impossible.

[chatanga]

As for Sikhistan, the major mistake made by the Sikh leadership was not to make more of the Sikh States such as Patiala, Nabha and others. Whenever a Sikhistan is mentioned in recent works about the partition, the first fact mentioned is that the Sikhs were not a majority in any of the Punjab districts. This so-called fact can easily be negated when we find that the Sikh states who had a separate agreement with the British as the paramount power had a land area of over 25,000 sq km about half the size of present Punjab and a population of 3.5 million. They should have formed a nucleus of Sikhistan. The Sikhistan scheme should have been presented as an expansion of the Sikh states. Rather than the states joining the British districts, it would have been the British districts becoming a part of the States and then an amalgamation of that States into a Sikhistan. The geography of the Sikh states also precluded any attempt at India claiming the central Punjab districts as the only land route through to these districts was through the Northern Tehsils of Rupar and Kharar in Ambala district which were Sikh dominated.

certainly a very interestng idea, but Kapurthala, a Sikh state had 56% muslim population, but the cis sutlej states had less muslim population. It was the Maharaja of Patiala, who greatly supported the jathas with war materials.

[Jonny101]

certainly a very interestng idea, but Kapurthala, a Sikh state had 56% muslim population, but the cis sutlej states had less muslim population. It was the Maharaja of Patiala, who greatly supported the jathas with war materials.

Yadvinder Singh was unworthy to be the king of Patiala. In comparison, his father Bhupinder Singh was a much more shrewd and ambitious man who was well aware of the world around him. If Bhupinder Singh was alive in 47 I doubt he would have acceded to India as his son did. Yadwinder was way too mild. He probably had no idea of the power he had at the time. The Patiala army was the most powerful of all the princely state armies of India. It was the Patiala Sikh army which initially saved Kashmir from being over run by the tribal Pakistani army combine while the Dogra army was running for it's life.

[chatanga]

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ymgOAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=diamond&f=false

pg 281 an interesting write-up on the kohinoor, and Maharaja Ranjit Singh.