Does India Owe Reparations To The Sikhs.

[Ranjeet01 1,524]

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.

[Jonny101 4,066]

The British did a great deal of harm to the Sikhs by conquering Punjab. After the Sikh defeat, the Sikhs became soldiers of the empire and fought for them faithfully. In 1947 when they left the subcontinent, they should have restored the Sikh nation, instead they gave the country to Hindus and Muslims to be divided amongst them. Sikhs got nothing. After the so called independence our situation became from bad to worse. Why should Hindus ask for reparations? they have become rulers of the whole of India minus Pakistan and Bangladesh.

[Koi 275]

India owes India to the Sikhs

[TheFancyBanana 747]

India owes India to the Sikhs

Well we best spend money and effort on doing parchar in India, rather than waste money on <banned word filter activated> projects.

Like spending 2.5 million rupees on painting all the buildings at Anandpur Sahib white.

What a waste of money, not only are we destroying our history, defacing historic buildings, but that money could be used for something to benefit the panth. Think of the drug deaddiction centres, schools, parchaar, seva of poor Sikhs that could be done with that money.

[StarStriker 1,062]

The British did a great deal of harm to the Sikhs by conquering Punjab. After the Sikh defeat, the Sikhs became soldiers of the empire and fought for them faithfully. In 1947 when they left the subcontinent, they should have restored the Sikh nation, instead they gave the country to Hindus and Muslims to be divided amongst them. Sikhs got nothing. After the so called independence our situation became from bad to worse. Why should Hindus ask for reparations? they have become rulers of the whole of India minus Pakistan and Bangladesh.

U say that british did a great deal of harm, which is true on all aspects. However, wen it came to partition, our sellout short sighted "leaders" at the time WERE OFFERED a sikh homeland by the british, which would of included e.panjab/80% of haryana, nankana sahib, parts of montgomery and large parts of himachal. But our stupid idiotic leaders at the time chose to side with the now enemies. If we'd had any of the sikh shaheed/leaders frm the 80s (sant jarnail singh, manochahal, sukhdev babbar, avtar singh brahma, gurjant singh, even simranjeet mann), they wud have snatched the brits hands off, and we wud have been a worldwide power 2day, of that im absolutley sure. Not havin a homeland means, nobody even knows who sikhs are internationaly.

[Jonny101 4,066]

U say that british did a great deal of harm, which is true on all aspects. However, wen it came to partition, our sellout short sighted "leaders" at the time WERE OFFERED a sikh homeland by the british, which would of included e.panjab/80% of haryana, nankana sahib, parts of montgomery and large parts of himachal. But our stupid idiotic leaders at the time chose to side with the now enemies. If we'd had any of the sikh shaheed/leaders frm the 80s (sant jarnail singh, manochahal, sukhdev babbar, avtar singh brahma, gurjant singh, even simranjeet mann), they wud have snatched the brits hands off, and we wud have been a worldwide power 2day, of that im absolutley sure. Not havin a homeland means, nobody even knows who sikhs are internationaly.

I used to think the same thing because that's what I read from Saachi Saakhi. But from further research you come to the conclusions that the British really didn't care for what happened to the Sikhs. They weren't really serious about a Sikh state. They gave the choice to Sikhs to either join the Muslims or the Hindus. Had Sikhs joined the Muslims, then Pakistan would have been much larger because the Sikh-Muslim population combined was the majority well into Haryana. But the Sikhs joined with the Hindus so Pakistan only ended up till Attari border. And because the Sikh district of Gurdaspur ended up in India, as a result J&K also ended up in India because at the time the only way to Kashmir was through Gurdaspur. So India has a lot to be thankful for Sikhs joining India instead of Pakistan in 1947. But these thankless people break Punjabi speaking areas of Punjab and give it to Himachal, Haryana and separate Chandigarh and also carry out the Sikh genocide. Within a hundred years (1849 to 1947) Sikhs were reduced from rulers to slaves. Literally ਅਰਸ਼ to ਫ਼ਰਸ਼

[jkvlondon 4,972]

I used to think the same thing because that's what I read from Saachi Saakhi. But from further research you come to the conclusions that the British really didn't care for what happened to the Sikhs. They weren't really serious about a Sikh state. They gave the choice to Sikhs to either join the Muslims or the Hindus. Had Sikhs joined the Muslims, then Pakistan would have been much larger because the Sikh-Muslim population combined was the majority well into Haryana. But the Sikhs joined with the Hindus so Pakistan only ended up till Attari border. And because the Sikh district of Gurdaspur ended up in India, as a result J&K also ended up in India because at the time the only way to Kashmir was through Gurdaspur. So India has a lot to be thankful for Sikhs joining India instead of Pakistan in 1947. But these thankless people break Punjabi speaking areas of Punjab and give it to Himachal, Haryana and separate Chandigarh and also carry out the Sikh genocide. Within a hundred years (1849 to 1947) Sikhs were reduced from rulers to slaves. Literally ਅਰਸ਼ to ਫ਼ਰਸ਼

The British were hand in hand with the Bahmins from the get go , who do you think the mahants were and who put them there? Who armed the Mahant at Nanakana Sahib and provided the required lack of intervention ? Whose chapalan were Gandhi and Nehru chutting? to what end? Our stupidity was to believe the Anglicanised version of Sikhi (turning the other cheek)and not getting majority of Dalits onto Nanak Naam Jahaz along with Ambedkar ....still not too late look at whats happening under Modi Dalits are getting raped , beaten like the old days before British raj ...latest I read high caste women runs from home so they took revenge on dalit women by forced naked march through town.

What NRI sikhs should be doing is setting up co-op bank structure and supporting organic farming techniques as advocated by Bhagat Puran Singh ,by lending money on no-interest basis first , setting up mobile ghar parchaar units which are independent of any other dodgy institutions and help the villagers get help for their addicts , support in learning bani/Gurmukhi, locating clean water or setting up water purification plants for toxic areas . If they have expertise in the sciences especially relating to environmental clean-up they should create an action group for this No one is going to OK this and No one is like us for doing it but it needs to be done .

Want to laugh? latest Hinduvta joke is that Kohinoor should be given to India because Maharaja Ranjit SIngh had promised it to the hindu pandits....greedy bandars

[Akalifauj 900]

edit

[Balkaar 1,332]

I find it perplexing that a people who take immoderate delight insisting they are the world's future superpower can do this whilst simultaneously demanding reparations. The Indians have sent their countrymen into space, they've developed nuclear weapons. What do they need reparations for? To help their poor whom they are incapable of feeding themselves?The wretched poverty of India has nothing to do with the fallout of Empire, it has everything to do with casteism (still extant), Brahmin corruption and the consummate backwardness of the denizens of the subcontinent. How can you expect a country to progress in development when the majority of its population is given to the observance of the most ridiculous superstitions? A country where people marry dogs, defile dalit women, worship deformed children as avatars, and drink the urine of cows in the belief that it is spiritually efficacious?

What gall. If these Indians have to nerve to demand reparations of the British, who in spite of all their maltreatment of the Indians never attempted their genocide and actually made India better in some respects by modernizing it and by bridling the backwardness of the Hindus (outlawing sati, for instance), then what do they themselves owe to the people whose women they systematically raped, whose holiest shrines they defiled, and whose children they butchered with every indication of relish? Nothing less than a homeland.

They will never concede monetary reparations, so we shall have to claim reparations of a different sort, and take them for ourselves. Send our Parchaaraks to the areas of Himachal and Haryana claimed for Khalistan, make Sikhi the prevailing faith in these areas. Greater Punjab will be restored in all but name.

[Ranjeet01 1,524]

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.

[Quantavius 142]

India would have been much, much better off under British rule as opposed to Indian rule today. Just compare any major city in India eg. Delhi to say Bangkok or Ho Chin Minh city, all 3 are poor nations but the difference in living standards and general happiness/well being so startling.

[Ranjeet01 1,524]

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.

[Quantavius 142]

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.

All former colonies actually gained and not lost with the British. You are right. Ignorant people always like to say the colonials powers gained with colonial rule. Ask how and they'll say they 'took our gold, iron....resources'. But were these ;resources' free and magically appeared in the British hands?

Lets take rubber as an example. The British brought the rubber seed from S. America and then cultivated it in Asia. It took huge amounts of resources to clear the jungle and plant the seeds and then seeing the end result of profit. The final price of rubber in the market is inclusive of the cost of cultivating it and not something free that magically given free to them by indigenous people whom they colonized. Many Indians gained by obtaining employment in rubber plantations under the British.

Perhaps the British should counter sue India and ask the Indian government to pay for creating a country called India and handing it to them on a platter. They should also sue for all the institutions ie road, bridges, universities, hospitals, police stations, court system....all given free to India.

If colonial rule is so bad, why did Hong Kong proper so much under British rule? This is all nonsense and propaganda.

The truth is that the British and to a larger extent western people knew how to create wealth and all those losers who hate them just despised them. OTOH the Asians like the Japanese were smarter and instead chose a different destiny and chose to work and learn from them and know they enjoy the fruits.

[Kira 1,405]

Most people ignore the good the British did, they industrialized India and Indians are still using that machinery and methods the British left them. They even outlawed things such as Sati and did promote education somewhat. They built infrastructure that India still uses.

Yet the British were demons who terrorized india and did nothing for them says most Indians.

[MisterrSingh 3,335]

Most people ignore the good the British did, they industrialized India and Indians are still using that machinery and methods the British left them. They even outlawed things such as Sati and did promote education somewhat. They built infrastructure that India still uses.

Yet the British were demons who terrorized india and did nothing for them says most Indians.

It's the spineless Gandhi propaganda the Indian masses cream themselves silly remembering.

Let's not forget the barbarity of the British (Jaliawala Bagh to name one instance) and their devious divide and conquer tactics which meant us losing portions of our lands and our precious religious asthaans in partition. However the way Indians behave is as if the British left India in a worse state than they found it.