Does India Owe Reparations To The Sikhs.

[jkvlondon]

The bahmins throughout history have always adapted a survival strategy to cosy up to whoever was in power at the time. They will absorb new techniques and tactics and utilise them to their advantage.

Being historically more learned and literate than the other communities in the Subcontinent they always being more able to capitalise on this.

hmm well keeping over two thirds of society unaware and illiterate will give you the advantadge somewhat but Guru ji didn't create no fools , our sin was not to follow up by keeping the literacy higher both in the spiritual and temporal sense .

[JSinghnz]

The British also handed over techniques to carry on diluting and transforming Sikhi to suit the Bahmins , this is their true legacy ...

Who told you this? What dilution and Bahmin transforming techniques did British hand over to Sikhs?

Don't just make comments without evidence.

[proactive]

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

I agree, the story of the offer of a Sikh state is at best a myth because there is no concrete evidence of any offer made by the British. The only offer that was made was by Jinnah of East Punjab upto Karnal being made into an equal unit with the rest of the provinces in Pakistan like Sindh, West Punjab and Balochistan. That offer was rejected by the Sikh leaders because they distrusted Jinnah and they did not want to live under Muslim rule.

Sikhs need to get real and shed their angophilia because the British apart from being the ones who bought the Sikh empire to an end also used Sikhs as cannon fodder for their colonial wars and in the end left with just a straight choice between being slaves of the Muslims or the Hindus. Had the British wanted a Sikh state could easily have been created because both the Hindus and the Muslims needed the Sikhs to agree to either a partition or union with Pakistan. The Sikhs had more clout than their numbers would indicate. The Sikh ownership of lands in the central districts was enough of a basis to award these to the Sikh state. An area about half the size of present day Punjab was already ruled by the Sikh maharajas and this could have be joined to the districts where the Sikhs owned the majority of the land and a Sikh state could have been created. The British did not think anything of betraying the Sikh interests because it suited their purposes to leave the Muslims and HIndus in charge of their respective states. If the above seems had to beleive than just think of how easily Thatcher found it to assist the Indians in planning Bluestar which would have had a great impact on over 2 lakh British citizens who were Sikhs.

[jkvlondon]

Who told you this? What dilution and Bahmin transforming techniques did British hand over to Sikhs?

Don't just make comments without evidence.

so Gurmat sangeet wasn't altered and damaged by introduction of harmonium ... the mudslinging of british commentators on Our banis wasn't imitated and taken to more subtle levels by the more knowledgeable bahmins ? who taught Bahmins divide and conquer through subterfuge , misdirection and not honouring treaties made ? That the nihangs were removed from their central roles in sikh affairs which the British had brought to pass something that Hindus hadn't managed successfully until that point. I could be wrong so enlighten me

[Quantavius]

You make a very valid point how the British did hand everything to the Indians on a platter from the railways to the parliament building and the use of English. Everything was left intact, the elite in India for over 50 years did nothing to improve or enhance the infrastructure.

Even when the USA got independence from UK, they created their own political system and constitution. These were White Brits who fought and defeated other White Brits.

It proves one thing, the Anglophile Indian elite never really wanted freedom for India, they wanted power for themselves.

Have you ever read the book title "Animal Farm" by George Orwell? Very good book on human nature.

[Ranjeet01]

I agree, the story of the offer of a Sikh state is at best a myth because there is no concrete evidence of any offer made by the British. The only offer that was made was by Jinnah of East Punjab upto Karnal being made into an equal unit with the rest of the provinces in Pakistan like Sindh, West Punjab and Balochistan. That offer was rejected by the Sikh leaders because they distrusted Jinnah and they did not want to live under Muslim rule.

Sikhs need to get real and shed their angophilia because the British apart from being the ones who bought the Sikh empire to an end also used Sikhs as cannon fodder for their colonial wars and in the end left with just a straight choice between being slaves of the Muslims or the Hindus. Had the British wanted a Sikh state could easily have been created because both the Hindus and the Muslims needed the Sikhs to agree to either a partition or union with Pakistan. The Sikhs had more clout than their numbers would indicate. The Sikh ownership of lands in the central districts was enough of a basis to award these to the Sikh state. An area about half the size of present day Punjab was already ruled by the Sikh maharajas and this could have be joined to the districts where the Sikhs owned the majority of the land and a Sikh state could have been created. The British did not think anything of betraying the Sikh interests because it suited their purposes to leave the Muslims and HIndus in charge of their respective states. If the above seems had to beleive than just think of how easily Thatcher found it to assist the Indians in planning Bluestar which would have had a great impact on over 2 lakh British citizens who were Sikhs.

It is quite ironic that the EIC troops from UP and Bihar were used to bring down the Sikh Empire, yet barely a decade later the British used the Sikhs to quell the 1857 rebellion.

The mutineers wanted to bring back the Mughal empire and I guess Sikhs at the time wanted revenge and there was no way they would want a Mughal resurgence.

One of the reasons the British did not carve a Sikh state is even though we owned large tracts of land, they went by demographics. We simply did not have the numbers, we simply did not have the clear majorities in a lot of the districts. Another reason is that person brought in to carve British India was brought in very late (a certain Mr Radcliffe) and he did not understand the geography, which in a way is lucky because we could have lost Gurdaspur as well.

Funny thing is we were screw*d over by the British for the Muslims and hindus and then the hindus were screw*d over with the carving of a muslim state.

Perfidious Albion indeed.

[Ranjeet01]

Have you ever read the book title "Animal Farm" by George Orwell? Very good book on human nature.

I have read 1984.

[JSinghnz]

so Gurmat sangeet wasn't altered and damaged by introduction of harmonium ... the mudslinging of british commentators on Our banis wasn't imitated and taken to more subtle levels by the more knowledgeable bahmins ? who taught Bahmins divide and conquer through subterfuge , misdirection and not honouring treaties made ? That the nihangs were removed from their central roles in sikh affairs which the British had brought to pass something that Hindus hadn't managed successfully until that point. I could be wrong so enlighten me

Do you realize that the Sikhs were the rulers and were defeated by the British. They then became their slaves and cannon fodder. Hindus were no where in the picture.The Sikhs themselves were to be blamed for their plight.

But the Singh Sabha movement stopped British interference in our religious affairs and also brought back Gurdwaras back in Sikhs control and also threw out the British backed Mahants.

What I cannot still not quite understand is why the Sikhs who for decades fought the evil Moguls and eventually became rulers did not launch a sustained armed rebellion against the British and kick them out.

I also blame Maharaja Ranjit Singh for not finishing off the British during his life time instead in of just going into peace treaties with them giving latter the time to rout the Sikh rule.

[JSinghnz]

It is quite ironic that the EIC troops from UP and Bihar were used to bring down the Sikh Empire, yet barely a decade later the British used the Sikhs to quell the 1857 rebellion.

The mutineers wanted to bring back the Mughal empire and I guess Sikhs at the time wanted revenge and there was no way they would want a Mughal resurgence.

One of the reasons the British did not carve a Sikh state is even though we owned large tracts of land, they went by demographics. We simply did not have the numbers, we simply did not have the clear majorities in a lot of the districts. Another reason is that person brought in to carve British India was brought in very late (a certain Mr Radcliffe) and he did not understand the geography, which in a way is lucky because we could have lost Gurdaspur as well.

Funny thing is we were screw*d over by the British for the Muslims and hindus and then the hindus were screw*d over with the carving of a muslim state.

Perfidious Albion indeed.

Did we have numbers when were rulers.

The fact of the matter is after getting defeated Sikhs lost the will to fight

the British and became their most loyal slaves apart from a handful of Sikhs

who gave their lives for Indian independence and not for getting back their

Kingdom.

[Ranjeet01]

Did we have numbers when were rulers.

The fact of the matter is after getting defeated Sikhs lost the will to fight

the British and became their most loyal slaves apart from a handful of Sikhs

who gave their lives for Indian independence and not for getting back their

Kingdom.

In 1947 we did not rule, the British did and they carved territory on the basis of numbers.