Jump to content

The British Raj: Remember You Are Not Indian


JagsawSingh
 Share

Recommended Posts

Following on from the thread about Sikh soldiers of the British Army and the discussion that took place there in which some Sikhs seem to have a view about the British Raj as if they are Hindus from Calcutta or Bombay. I've got some things to say about this subject because most of all I think it is a sad indictment of the way that Hindu India has got inside the minds of Sikhs and sub-consciously made the Sikhs identify with, put themselves in the shoes of and ultimately imagine they and the 'Indians' are one of the same.

There's alot I could say in this opening message but time is not on my side at the moment so I really can't afford to give it too much time in terms of structure and quality. Please forgive me for that.

Let me start off then by talking briefly about the psyche of we, the Sikhs. It must not be forgotten that we Sikhs were empire builders too. At the time of the British Raj we too had an empire and thus we too had that empire mindset. Just as the Sikhs living in Canada for 150 years for example will surely have different traits in terms of character and outlook than a Sikh newly arrived in Italy, our life experience as rulers and empire builders shaped our psyche to be totally different to that of the Hindu masses of India. So we had that right from the onset. Right from the onset we felt no affiliation for the Indians because right from the onset they were as foreign to us as the British were. It’s also worth noting the importance of perception vs reality when it comes to empire. For example, our Sikh rule in places other than Punjab was seen as harsh by those subjects. Indeed, even to this day the Pashtu word for 'Cruel Rule' is sikha shahi (Sikh rule). But you see the thing is, taking over people's countries is now considered very wrong but that’s only because there have, since then, been so many interrelated academic ideas about the natural rights of people to rule themselves and these natural rights have now been accepted as the norm. But we have to remember that in those days empire was accepted as the norm and 'natural'. Experience too played a part in that initial period. For example there is no doubt why the Indians should see the Raj as evil when one considers how places such the Bengal were decimated to abject poverty once it's cloth trade relocated to places like Lancashire in England but a Sikh from the Punjab should not for one minute see himself as that Indian.

So, given that we too, like the British, saw ourselves as men of power and empire, it’s probably worth having a slight amount of relief that it was Britain and not France that colonised us. At that time, of course, the Khalsa Kingdom and Punjab had developed unbelievably close ties with France. So much so that French became the Khalsa army's official language of war. This of course is still evident today in the way that some of our most common names, such as Jarnail and Karnail, were taken from French army ranks. Given the plethora of French generals in the Khalsa army and their regular documented correspondence with King Louis in Paris, I have no doubt that France saw Punjab as the key to winning the 'Great Game' with Russia and Britain and we would have seen the Franco-Sikh War rather than the anglo-sikh ones. I say be thankful for that because history and the present have shown us that France left all its colonies in far worse economic shape than the British did. That of course is demonstrated in the way that so many francophone African countries wish join the British Commonwealth even though they were never previously British colonies. The French habitually left dire institutions, structure and economies wherever they went.

So, we're up to the point we're Britain ruled the Punjab. I'm not going to go into detail about how Britain went back on its treaty promises and shouldn't have ruled in the first place etc. because that is well documented and this is about what was, not what should have been.

Within 2 years of the British in Punjab they started building roads (such as the GT Road), the magnificent railways and educational institutions such as Punjab's first ever University. The biggest cost was of course the railways and all of that was paid for by British investors because all of this was, ultimately a commercial enterprise that the British government had to reluctantly take over from the east India Company when the whole thing got bigger than they could manage.

But when it comes to we Sikhs, there is no doubt that some people use the 'Agricultural land' situation as the example of how the British used 'divide and conquer' and 'caste'. There is no doubt whatsoever that the Jatt Sikhs, like myself, were the biggest winners from the British Raj. Heavily favoured, getting vast tracts of land and positions of power etc. it is of course natural to assume this was a divide and conquer tactic. There's nothing new there as even the Mughals, just before the Khalsa Raj did exactly the same thing. For example, the vast majority of the early jatt Sikh settlers in the UK, Canada and California all belonged to the tiny stretch of land in District Jalandhar from Phillaur to Nakodar. This tiny area, where my own family is also from, is called the 'Manjki Tract' and the inhabitants are called the Manjki Jatts. It was in this area that the Dhaliwal Misl that invaded Delhi and raised the Nishan Sahib over the Red Fort were settled. Rather than go to war with them the Mughals sought to placate them by earmarking the Manjki Tract as a Jagir, i.e a tract where the Sikhs would not be bothered by the Mughals and no taxes would be collected etc. So these types of things are nothing new. But I don't think Sikhs should see this whole thing in the way a Hindu should, and there are 2 reasons for this:

Firstly, contrary to popular belief among non-jatt Sikhs, the Punjab Land Acts were actually designed to stop the encroachment of urban Hindu moneylenders into rural Punjab. In British India (outside of Punjab) a common problem was beginning to develop, and that problem was that the agriculturalists were getting themselves into debt and the urban Hindu moneylenders were foreclosing the rural farms. This benefited nobody, especially as the country needed farmers producing goods. It was to prevent this from happening in Punjab that the Land Acts were passed, ensuring only Jatt Sikhs could own land.

Secondly, the system of Law the British set up in Punjab might give the non-jatt Sikh the impression that it was designed to be against all non-jatts but we need to have a little understanding of history here. Essentially, after the Anglo-Sikh Wars, the British kept the same system we Sikhs had in place during our Khalsa Raj. It’s well documented how the Iranian language Farsi was the language of the Courts in the Sikh Kingdom but essentially there was no Law as such. Sikhs, throughout our empire, used 2 systems of Law, and we can pretty much conclude that one was specifically for the pathan tribal areas into Afghanistan and the other was for all other parts of our empire. The first was called 'wajib-ul-arz' and this means 'Tribal Custom' and the second is 'riwaj -i-am', i.e aam rawaj, and this of course refers to the local customs and laws of the pends. And this is quite interesting really because it shows how we Sikhs were developing a common customs based law in Punjab at the same time the English were developing their Common Law. This was very different to what there was before the Sikhs because the Mughals pretty much had islamic shariat law in place. So, when the British took Punjab they introduced the 'Customary Laws' specifically for the Punjab and they used as their template the exact same system we Sikhs had in place in our empire. This was then given extra legitimacy with the enaction of the Punjab Law Act of 1872. This system which, as I just stated, was a continuation of our Sikh way of governance during our Sikh raj, basically involved having a Sikh Kardar (The Sikh raj introduced the concept of having a 'Kardar' as well as that of 'Sardar' and the Kardar performed judicial duties based on customary traditions which in the pends of Punjab meant Sikh traditions). This was not a bad thing at all as one of the benefits of this system the British embraced, evil non-sikh 'traditions' such as widow burning and female infanticide became against the Law for the first time). The British embraced this system mostly in order to benefit the Sikhs and disenfranchise the Hindus (because it has to be remembered that Sikhs were mostly rural whereas Hindus were mostly urban). The sad side effect of all of it was that the very few Sikhs that were urban were also disenfranchised along with the Hindu targets and thats one of the reasons many Sikhs have misguidingly embraced the urban Hindu position regarding the Raj.

In conclusion then, since the British left in 1947, Hindu India officially denies we even exist, massacres us regularly, stops our children from attending classes with kirpans, sarkar steals the land, Punjab has gone from the richest state to number 11 on the list. This Hindu Raj we're under now is the real enemy of the Sikhs of Punjab. So when it comes to the British Raj do NOT look at it from the eyes of a Hindu Indian. You are neither. If your'e an urban Sikh then no doubt you were in a sense disenfranchised too but understand that you were not the actual target of those British policies. The British position was to ensure Sikhism remains seperate from Hinduism and as the Sikhs were rural and the Hindus were urban in Punjab, this policy manifested itself as a rural friendly policy. Understand the bigger picture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, at least it has given some of you pause for thought and not too readily take the position of the 'Indian'. That can only be a good thing because they (the Indians) have planted that seed (idea) in your heads for too long now. Part of the process to self-determination is not only seeing the future without those that enslave you but also seeing the past differently by understanding that your past is not the same as their past. That requires a deeper knowledge and understanding of history per se and once we have that we wil surely be free.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would the british try to favour Sikhs? They either did it to appease us so we would not revolt against their raj. Which is a not so bad reason, as they are trying to be nice to their subjects. But it has a ulterior evil motive to keep us complacent so we would not want to fight for our raj.

Also the british took our raj with the most reprehensible treachery and trickery. I would almost prefer the mughal invaders outright raiding than british trickery, however mughal invasions caused more pain to the subjects/innocent people. But you have to admit the Khalsa spirit was much stronger and Sikh ideals much purer during the Mughal invasions than during British raj even though they encouraged sikhs to practice sikhi( like making it mandatory to be an amritdhari fauji). Of course this dhil could be attributed to our depravity during sikh raj.

You tell us not to think like an indian. However up to that point, and later due to ghadar lehar, sikhs had made it their goal to protect their homeland, Punjab and by extension India from invaders. And now ur telling us we never had any similarities with the indian? Yes we had our own seperate empire, but we considered ourselves south asian rather than central asian. That is why we stood up against any invader from central asia. We also invaded central asia and not south india because we considered it, not foreign,at the very least.

The british at first did everything to suppress sikhs. They kicked out nihangs from punjab. They confiscated all weapons especially 3 ft kirpans from all sikhs. Many sikhs became dakus, highway robbers during this time hence u get the movies jagga daku etc. Because they refused to give up weapons or their sovereignty to the british. Also because sikhs had a soldier profession for a long time and could not get a replacement job. Also when british finally allowed sikhs to join their army again, they tried to make sikhs wear helmets. Sikhs were beaten up daily n tortured but they refused. In the end the advent of World war 1 made the british give up. Then soon after the british changed their mind and wanted to make all faujis be amritdhari. Probably due to the fact that sikhs especially amritdharis fought and died brilliantly on the battlefield. So they wanted a person they knew could not turntail on the battlefield cuz sikhs in those days thought fighting bravely in battle equivalent to a religious act and probably a religious contract as per the shabad deh shiva bar mohe....so they enforced the amritdhari rule not as a favor to sikhs but to themselves and it sort of worked. When kartar singh sarabha and others were trying to recruit faujis to their cause...sikhs felt it would be a religious violation or at least going back on their word as sikhs. The british also tried to change sikhi to make sikhs accept them. They commisioned many people to study and write about sikh history. But when writing they would twist things. As mccaughliff points out about trump.

Also sao sakhi was repressed during this time.and when it reappeared we dont know if it is the original or not. These tricks by the british does not even include their treachery to dalip singh, cruelty to rani jinda, breaking contract with raja ranjit singh, jallianwalla baag, countless people shipped to kalan pani, countless hangings, treatment of political prisoners, racism in punjab in peoples own homeland, exploitation, siding with mahants, favoring ppl who were useful to them, amd most importantly creating an inferiority complex within the punjabi, sikh, and south asian community by enslaving us for a centuary. I think south asians have gotten rid of their inferiority complex but we havent. Many people still want fair colored children and applaud and reminisce the british raj when our forefathers gave blood n other sacrifices to get rid of these scheming invaders.

But yes, i concede they were better than the hindu raj that we are shackled in now. They also had humanity or like to keep appearances of being humane so protests sometimes worked with them. And they did favor and think highly of the sikhs. But not because they were generous but because we sikhs worked hard and poured blood n sweat to accomplish things which begrudgingly win their admiration. And like i said the british did favor those useful to them. So they gave us some rights, let us settle in some countries. But this too was part of their divide n rule strategy. Alienate some and embrace some. The favors that we think the british did bestowed to us were fairly earned by our hardwork and bravery. we do not owe them any gratitude. Though if one happens to live in their land, uk, it is right to acknowledge their hospitality(figurative) n respect them n not be noon <banned word filter activated> up to a certain point.

Also u are right that by forgetting that we were a seperate empire, we got shackled with the hindus and are paying the consequences of letting another faith rule over us which the tenth guru warned us against. But we probably forgot that we were sovereign n had our own empire due to the british. In whose best interest it would have been if sikh forgot that and learned to live under their rule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most reasonable people would argue that neither the Indians or the British were our friends, the slight caveat being that the British gave the impression they favoured us for the sole purpose of achieving their own ends through our co-operation. They did help us in quite a few ways, not because they liked us or our religion, but because it served their purposes to manipulate us into situations where we'd comply with their instructions.

There were no benevolent acts of favouritism on the part of the British. It was cold, hard politics. And it worked.

So, any benefits for Sikhs as a result of the British Raj were a result of Realpolitik, as opposed to their encouragement for us stemming from moral, ethical, and ideological reasons.

I won't speak for others, but I wasn't arguing for my Indian credentials. I just wasn't willing to hitch my ride to the incorrect view that the British were a wholly positive force for us. Being mistrustful and downright disdainful of British manoeuvring doesn't make me a dhoti-wearing Brahmin. Both parties are just as culpable for the miseries heaped upon us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What people do not realise is that the British were excellent record keepers.

They did their homework on every community, their behaviour, their attitudes, their social standing, their relation to other communities, their religious practices. It was done in a very meticulous way.

They knew where the societies fissures were and how to exploit them. They figured out what makes every community tick when to big them up and when to put them down.

This was done in a very co-ordinated and calculated way. In one way you got give them credit.

They were also able to learn from Indian society, digest what they needed and then use it against the host society.

This was no overnight thing either, this was done decades or even a century before they came into Punjab.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Jacfsing2

What people do not realise is that the British were excellent record keepers.

They did their homework on every community, their behaviour, their attitudes, their social standing, their relation to other communities, their religious practices. It was done in a very meticulous way.

They knew where the societies fissures were and how to exploit them. They figured out what makes every community tick when to big them up and when to put them down.

This was done in a very co-ordinated and calculated way. In one way you got give them credit.

They were also able to learn from Indian society, digest what they needed and then use it against the host society.

This was no overnight thing either, this was done decades or even a century before they came into Punjab.

by the time they were studying, the foreign culture could've changed by that time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What people do not realise is that the British were excellent record keepers.

They did their homework on every community, their behaviour, their attitudes, their social standing, their relation to other communities, their religious practices. It was done in a very meticulous way.

They knew where the societies fissures were and how to exploit them. They figured out what makes every community tick when to big them up and when to put them down.

This was done in a very co-ordinated and calculated way. In one way you got give them credit.

They were also able to learn from Indian society, digest what they needed and then use it against the host society.

This was no overnight thing either, this was done decades or even a century before they came into Punjab.

Well, we know this is true because of the reports and spies they sent to Panjab in the 60/70 odds years before they made up a pretext to invade. We also know that they had linguists working on translating key texts like parts of Dasam Granth and Prem Sumarag from Fort Williams (in British occupied Bengal) WAY before any major contact between the two groups. We also know that they used networks they had formed to infiltrate Panjab with dubious prophecies of our Gurus predicting their inevitable rule over Sikhs. So the game against us was very sophisticated and for us simple minded Panjabis, devious to a level without precedent.

They studied us and out societies structure like rats in a lab and then manipulated what they knew to their own advantage. Central; to this was an understanding of jat egocentrism.

Certain farmers today make me laugh with their assertions too; like the British were benevolent.

What they essentially did after their illegal 'annexation' was to appropriate all previously given jagirs, and confiscate the lands of anyone who upheld Sikh sovereignty (against them), and then redistribute it to their loyal chumchay. The people who who we find singing gora sahib's praises the most these days are usually the loyalists descendants.

They simply redistributed land and resources they snatched off one group of Sikhs/Panjabis and gave it to another lot who they could control. Often, the people they patronised in this way where instructed (or at least understood) that they were to become PR men for the British and their rule to the rest of the Sikh masses. And some of you think this is some act of benevolence....lol

Talk about ghulaam mentality.

In the end, whatever happened in the past, whatever pressure our forefathers faced, we have to start thinking and acting more prudently and independently.

Link to comment
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...
 Share

  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • yeh it's true, we shouldn't be lazy and need to learn jhatka shikaar. It doesn't help some of grew up in surrounding areas like Slough and Southall where everyone thought it was super bad for amrit dharis to eat meat, and they were following Sant babas and jathas, and instead the Singhs should have been normalising jhatka just like the recent world war soldiers did. We are trying to rectifiy this and khalsa should learn jhatka.  But I am just writing about bhog for those that are still learning rehit. As I explained, there are all these negative influences in the panth that talk against rehit, but this shouldn't deter us from taking khanda pahul, no matter what level of rehit we are!
    • How is it going to help? The link is of a Sikh hunter. Fine, but what good does that do the lazy Sikh who ate khulla maas in a restaurant? By the way, for the OP, yes, it's against rehit to eat khulla maas.
    • Yeah, Sikhs should do bhog of food they eat. But the point of bhog is to only do bhog of food which is fit to be presented to Maharaj. It's not maryada to do bhog of khulla maas and pretend it's OK to eat. It's not. Come on, bro, you should know better than to bring this Sakhi into it. Is this Sikh in the restaurant accompanied by Guru Gobind Singh ji? Is he fighting a dharam yudh? Or is he merely filling his belly with the nearest restaurant?  Please don't make a mockery of our puratan Singhs' sacrifices by comparing them to lazy Sikhs who eat khulla maas.
    • Seriously?? The Dhadi is trying to be cute. For those who didn't get it, he said: "Some say Maharaj killed bakras (goats). Some say he cut the heads of the Panj Piyaras. The truth is that they weren't goats. It was she-goats (ਬਕਰੀਆਂ). He jhatka'd she-goats. Not he-goats." Wow. This is possibly the stupidest thing I've ever heard in relation to Sikhi.
    • Instead of a 9 inch or larger kirpan, take a smaller kirpan and put it (without gatra) inside your smaller turban and tie the turban tightly. This keeps a kirpan on your person without interfering with the massage or alarming the masseuse. I'm not talking about a trinket but rather an actual small kirpan that fits in a sheath (you'll have to search to find one). As for ahem, "problems", you could get a male masseuse. I don't know where you are, but in most places there are professional masseuses who actually know what they are doing and can really relieve your muscle pains.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use