First Singh To Guard Buckingham Palace

[DailyMail]

Very good point!

[HSD2]

Unbreakable

"They won, we lost"

You and I have been reading the wrong history books old chap. What did "they" win and what did we "lose" exactly? There are many martial races throughout the world, but no one mentions them today because none of them fought in every campaign and theatre of war during the two world wars as the Sikhs did. That is why today Sikhs are spread from Hong Kong to London, Vancouver to Auckland and Borneo to Perth. That is why today, Sikhs are regarded as the most loyal of men because they didn't partake in the so-called 'Indian Mutiny' of 1857. That is why the Houses of Parliament, Sir Winston Churchill said :

"...British people are highly indebted and obliged to Sikhs for a long time. I know that within this century we needed their help twice and they did help us very well. As a result of their timely help, we are today able to live with honour, dignity, and independence. In the war, they fought and died for us, wearing the turbans. At that time we were not adamant that they should wear safety helmets because we knew that they are not going to wear them anyways and we would be deprived of their help. At that time due to our miserable and poor situation, we did not force it on them to wear safety helmets, why should we force it now? Rather, we should now respect their traditions and by granting this legitimate concession, win their applaud."

That was of course in relation to the motorcycle helmet debate. If we were to say that it was a "master and slave relationship", as you suggest, then the British could have well said no to the amendment of the motorcycle crash helmet law and insisted upon the Sikhs to wear the helmet rather than the turban. Afterall, the wars were over by that stage and the need to recruit Sikhs has ceased. Furthermore, public opinion at the time had swayed with the notion that "when in Rome, do as the Romans do". Politically, it was far more sensible to go with the public concensus. I don't believe for one second that it was a "master and slave relationship" at all.

The British didn't hesitate to court martial any Sikh who so much as clipped their beards when in the army. Taking amrit was a pre-requisite to enlist. We can thank them for upholding such high ideals and taking them across the seven seas so that mankind can be aware of the valour and gallantry of such fine men.

Master and Slave? A soldier's soldier more like.

They had their reasons for doing those things, most of which had nothing to do with mutual respect but more to do with discipline, cohesion and how others would view them. In all of this Sikh's were just useful id*ots, like any other group. Loyalty didnt get Sikhs their own homeland - that is why you find Sikhs all over the place. Havent you ever heard those 'I've been here since Partition' jokes that Sikhs tell? That's why we are all over the world - because the British couldnt abide by the Treaty of Lahore. For a people who big themselves up as being honest and gentlemanly, the British have a catalogue of dishonours towards Sikhs.

[Guest]

That was probably whilst he was in battle, so that a blow to the head by a sword, dagger, or even an incoming arrow would be blocked.

However, did Akali Phoola Singh wear an helmet?

I do not know if akaali phoola Singh wore a helmet.

[DailyMail]

HSD2.

So it had nothing to do with Baldev Singh being entirely outgunned and outclassed by by Oxford educated lawyers at the Round table conferences in London then?

The point being, the Sikhs didn't fight alongside the British because the the British had promised them a seperate nation in return. That was never the case. In addition, that was never my point.

The point here, is the Brits have always defended the Sikh identity when others fail to do so. They defended it in the past, they are defending it as we speak (MoD has supported Mr Bhullar) and I'm confident they will defend it in the future should the need arise.

With regards to Sikh's not being given a seperate homeland; if a failure or weakness on the part of the Sikhs, or I should say, Sikh leadership, prevented them from successfully negotiating a seperate settlement in the 1930's, when such a settlement was indeed on offer, then why continue to blame the British?

As convinient as it may be to blame others, and I take your point about the Treaty of Lahore because that is a valid point indeed, but to blame the British for everything is absurd. Weak Sikh leadership contributed as much if not more to the downfall in the demand for a seperate Sikh-dominated country. We may not like to admit it, but it's absolutely true.

[HSD2]

Baldev Singh was hoodwinked in much the same way Sikhs had been tricked by the British. Promises of a brighter future always have a habit of making Sikhs lose their senses.

The Sikhs were promised in the Treaty of Lahore that if they laid down their arms the British would return Punjab to the Sikh Imperial Family once they left West Punjab. Sikh Royals were alive during Partition but the British made no attempt at giving any of them the chance to have their country back. This is one reason Sikhs fought for the British - we thought it was in the interests of our own Maharajah as he was in England and his future was tied to the fortunes of the British.

The other reason was due to British twisting a 'prophecy' and using it to make it appear as if the Khalsa and Britannia were meant to rule hand in hand. The fact that Sikhs werent allowed to emigrate to large parts of the British Empire (Komagata Maru anyone?) and that the Second World War sunk the British Empire should have been enough for us now to see how stupid it all was, but obviously not.

Finally, many East Punjabis were part of the British Empire from day one as thats what the Sikh Rajahs sided with. Malwa for example was a major opium growing area, killing millions of East Asians and turning many more into drug addicts. Malwa also provided the first Sikh regiment to the British, which actually fought in the Opium Wars and against the Sikh Empire during the Anglo-Sikh wars! Not a heritage to be proud of is it? At least the English find Chinese vases worth millions in their attics from when their ancestors were raping and looting their way through Beijing. What do Sikhs have to show for all this warmongering? Surely we must have got something out of it.

As per your point about defending our identity, were they defending it when they invaded our country? When they took Gurudwaras over? When they wiped out the Akalis? When they stole countless documents and granths? The truth is they are using Sikh identity. Bad PR does them no good, especially when they are actively looking for recruits in our community.

Sikh leadership reflects on the people. Have you ever heard the saying, 'People get the leaders they deserve,'? Well if Sikhs stopped believing that the world is full of rainbows and candy floss and saw through people's lies, we might end up with leaders capable of doing something for us. But it we keep holding ourselves down, why should we expect any different from our leaders?

[Unbreakable]

Unbreakable

"They won, we lost"

You and I have been reading the wrong history books old chap. What did "they" win and what did we "lose" exactly? There are many martial races throughout the world, but no one mentions them today because none of them fought in every campaign and theatre of war during the two world wars as the Sikhs did. That is why today Sikhs are spread from Hong Kong to London, Vancouver to Auckland and Borneo to Perth. That is why today, Sikhs are regarded as the most loyal of men because they didn't partake in the so-called 'Indian Mutiny' of 1857. That is why the Houses of Parliament, Sir Winston Churchill said :

"...British people are highly indebted and obliged to Sikhs for a long time. I know that within this century we needed their help twice and they did help us very well. As a result of their timely help, we are today able to live with honour, dignity, and independence. In the war, they fought and died for us, wearing the turbans. At that time we were not adamant that they should wear safety helmets because we knew that they are not going to wear them anyways and we would be deprived of their help. At that time due to our miserable and poor situation, we did not force it on them to wear safety helmets, why should we force it now? Rather, we should now respect their traditions and by granting this legitimate concession, win their applaud."

That was of course in relation to the motorcycle helmet debate. If we were to say that it was a "master and slave relationship", as you suggest, then the British could have well said no to the amendment of the motorcycle crash helmet law and insisted upon the Sikhs to wear the helmet rather than the turban. Afterall, the wars were over by that stage and the need to recruit Sikhs has ceased. Furthermore, public opinion at the time had swayed with the notion that "when in Rome, do as the Romans do". Politically, it was far more sensible to go with the public concensus. I don't believe for one second that it was a "master and slave relationship" at all.

The British didn't hesitate to court martial any Sikh who so much as clipped their beards when in the army. Taking amrit was a pre-requisite to enlist. We can thank them for upholding such high ideals and taking them across the seven seas so that mankind can be aware of the valour and gallantry of such fine men.

Master and Slave? A soldier's soldier more like.

There were reasons why they court martialed any Sikh who cut their hair.

No, you might have been reading the wrong books. I don't form my opinions quotes from racist PM's

When did the bulldog give that speech?

When did he die?

When was the Turban Helmet debate discussed in parliment?

okay okay, they so loved the Sikhs for their loyalty, that they presented them with partition in 1947.

The British (not the normal people) are opportunists, you are severely misguided if you think they liked the Sikhs.

they were small incidents where officers did praise and respect the Sikhs for their discipline and some cases were they donned a turban too. In this case you can say, a soldiers soldier.

However in the grand scheme of things, they were the ruling party and they called the shots. which made the sikhs, who needed a livelyhood to feed their families, salves in the colonial sense.

Yes, They won, we lost, this is a Fact. First anglo Sikh wars, we won that, they called it a draw. Second, we were betrayed, we lost and now we are forever licking their boots by quoting them...."oh look the PM said this about us, they like us a alot, this reaffirms my faith, etc etc etc".

maybe I have this all wrong..please correct me, I am open to change.

[Unbreakable]

Just because he had the strength to insist upon guru jis dastar when weaker singhs would wear a helmet don't criticise or ask him to wear a humiliating helmet. Did the Singhs fighting in the first world war wear helmets?

The Sikh is not loved... The Sikh's rehit is.

Really.....weaker singhs.....Is that why he was wearing what looks like a blue plastic hard hat ontop of his patka...

Its not humiliating, its centuries of tradition (which I agree with and aplaud them for keeping), something which the Sikhs nowadays over look when it suits them, instead they follow some made up tradition preached by evil individuals who pass themselves as "sants".

The Sikhs who fought in the world wars, did not fight out of choice. Over 2.5 million Indians were promised to the british by the indian establishment. Did they have a choice.

Soldiers don't have choices, they have orders.

We as Sikhs don't follow orders from our SatGuru, we choose which one suits us, which one is AKJ approved, which one is Santmat approved, and so on and so forth...We hear one katha and take it as Gods word...yet we never cross check it with Gurbani.

We my friend have become weak. I am in the same boat.

[PAL 07]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2245110/Look-bearskin-Pictured-uniform-time-Sikh-Guardsman-allowed-wear-turban-Palace.html

[singh135]

Really.....weaker singhs.....Is that why he was wearing what looks like a blue plastic hard hat ontop of his patka...

Its not humiliating, its centuries of tradition (which I agree with and aplaud them for keeping), something which the Sikhs nowadays over look when it suits them, instead they follow some made up tradition preached by evil individuals who pass themselves as "sants".

The Sikhs who fought in the world wars, did not fight out of choice. Over 2.5 million Indians were promised to the british by the indian establishment. Did they have a choice.

Soldiers don't have choices, they have orders.

We as Sikhs don't follow orders from our SatGuru, we choose which one suits us, which one is AKJ approved, which one is Santmat approved, and so on and so forth...We hear one katha and take it as Gods word...yet we never cross check it with Gurbani.

We my friend have become weak. I am in the same boat.

erm... a few conflicting points...in summary are you for or against him being accepted into the guards?

[Unbreakable]

erm... a few conflicting points...in summary are you for or against him being accepted into the guards?

let me know the conflicting points, I'll give you my summary...simples