Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Ranjeet01

Does India Owe Reparations To The Sikhs.

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
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...
Sign in to follow this  



  • Topics

  • Posts

    • It was probably me not reading your posts thoroughly.    Two things come to mind with regard to what your saying. First thing is a vaar from Bhai Gurdas (I'm pretty sure?) where he says words to the effect of: If one falls out of a tree and manages to hit the ground unscathed somehow, it doesn't mean it is then okay to start jumping out of trees.   The other is a sakhi when one of our Guru sahiban (can't remember which, might have been Guru Angad dev ji or Guru Amar Das ji? ) is walking past a flimsy looking wall with some SIkhs and he tells them all to hurry past it. When they are queried as to why someone of their stature is concerned about being injured, he tells them live should be preserved and not toyed with. 
    • Can anyone good resources either books, or YouTube or movies that one can learn a lot of wisdom or to be more streetwise from?
    • True. It's certainly six of one, half a dozen of the other, but it's quite telling the arrival and gradual promotion of this narrative at a time when the world is most vulnerable to latch onto any explanation, no matter whether its valid or not, to explain our current predicament. It reminds me of: "Afghanistan is harbouring Bin Laden, the mastermind of 9/11. Let's bomb Afghanistan to smithereens!" Osama's hiding in Pakistan. "Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction that can reach western lands in 45 minutes. Let's invade and destroy Iraq!" Iraq had no such weapons. "The Arab Spring is a beautiful moment and opportunity for freedom and democracy to reign in those lands." Millions who should be involved in rebuilding their lands after the "expulsion" of dictators and oppressive regimes, leave their countries to come to the West. I'm not suggesting the Chinese are the victims in all of this, not by any means, but it's become a rule of mine to listen to what the Western press is so vehement in wanting me to believe, and then through a process of filtering, realise the opposite argument they aren't promoting or even wishing to shed a light upon is where the objective truth is to be found. There's only so many times a person can observe the same fundamental phenomena, and then try to silence that voice at that back of their head screaming out that there's a strange pattern emerging that shouldn't be ignored. I'm done trying to silence my conscience. 
    • Maybe I'm wrong, but have you  noticed that every decade or two there is a new bemari. I think back in the days it was hiv/aids, then we've had cancer for about a decade   and now I'm seeing a growing numbe of people with alzheimers.  Cancer seems to be fading.     Cancer made them millions $$$    now I think nxt alzheimer's is gnna replace cancer,  they "dont know the cure" for it  so will make a lot of $$$ 
    • No bro  she was a fraud!  The whole image of white woman cradling a dark malnourished child is a very popular image in the media which they have been using for a very long time. She was nothing but a cash cow for the Vatican, a poster girl.  She made millions through charity and it's a well know fact that all the money went to the pope/vatican.  She didnt use a single penny on the kids in her orphanage. All the kids in her orphanage used to sleep on the concrete floors and her nurses used the same needles on all the kids. She had this strange obsession with death and the dead like a lot of Catholics do and she didnt use any modern treatment on the kids. Disease spread a lot in her orphanage,  all of this despite receiving millions through charity. The hypocrisy is that when she needed treatment herself she would fly off to America for modern western treatment in a jet.   While her kids were sleeping on concrete floors with no treatment she herlself would fly off to America when she was sick. Does that sound like a saint to you? She made the Vatican millions in her lifetime,  and after she died the Vatican decided to make her into a saint. She was a fraud.  Vatican is one of the richest institutions in the world  yet rome Is full of homeless people.  A lot of Christian's see the Vatican as satanic. 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use