Jump to content

Did Winston Churchill & British Establishment deliberately want partition and deadly violence in punjab


superkaur
 Share

Recommended Posts

The 1941 census cannot really be relied up for a number of reasons. 

1. It was held during the war and as such a number of soldiers would have been posted abroad and not counted in the census.

2. The Congress had been against the British war effort and as such there were places where a boycott of the census had taken place.

3. The Unionist govt although a united govt of all communities still had a majority of Muslims in charge of various departments and such the census figures were liable to be fiddled with to increase the Muslim majority.

4. No tabulation of castes and tribes was made during the 1941 census in Punjab.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, YOYO29 said:

If you take into consideration princely states , most of them were in East Punjab. Including princely states in East Punjab our share reduces to 58.97 % . And your land is fertile whereas we have two big deserts in Punjab and one plateau. Have a look at these stats.

 

Bro, you keep barking up that tree! Forget Princely states, there is no discussion there in terms of fairness, democracy, etc. The Kings were the only ones who could make that choice.

 

Now coming onto fertile land, the canal colonies were the best and most productive land in Panjab. It's no wonder the Sikhs were reluctant to leave these. After this the best land are the Jalandhar doab but that is small compared to the bars.

 

11 hours ago, akaltaksal said:

They don't believe in Sri Dasam Granth Sahib and kautak/Chamatkaars. They haven't cursed or insulted their any of the 10 Patshahees. That may be an insult to us, But not from a non-partisan persepective. Turkrreya di Haami ehna toh behatar ja faidemand nahi. Turkus have no qualms with insulting our Gurus, in any manner. Missionaries are more favorable than Musalmaans, As objectionable as they be.

 

Has this "turk" insulted our Gurus? No, so just leave him alone. He is only sharing info and learning new things as well. And it's all historic anyway. I would rather have him on than these missionary dogs who claim that the Gurus were ordinary people like ourselves. They have insulted the Gurus through their distorion of history.

Listen to this dog dhapali:

https://www.facebook.com/nirmaljitsingh.nimma/videos/636750243194518/

 

and this dog dhundlu:

 

https://www.facebook.com/nirmaljitsingh.nimma/videos/637304313139111/

and then listen to this:

https://www.facebook.com/nirmaljitsingh.nimma/videos/636750553194487/

 

You would rather have these dogs on here ?

 

4 hours ago, YOYO29 said:

Clearly they were wrong to believe that.There was no such precedent in recent history where such factors were taken into consideration for division of land.If you have gotten all the areas which congress and sikhs claimed then we would have left with nothing but chankana.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, chatanga said:

 

Has this "turk" insulted our Gurus? No, so just leave him alone. He is only sharing info and learning new things as well. And it's all historic anyway. I would rather have him on than these missionary dogs who claim that the Gurus were ordinary people like ourselves. They have insulted the Gurus through their distorion of history.

Listen to this dog dhapali:

https://www.facebook.com/nirmaljitsingh.nimma/videos/636750243194518/

 

and this dog dhundlu:

 

https://www.facebook.com/nirmaljitsingh.nimma/videos/637304313139111/

 

and then listen to this:

https://www.facebook.com/nirmaljitsingh.nimma/videos/636750553194487/

 

You would rather have these dogs on here ?

 

 

Heretic or a Turk. Both are repulsive. The heretic is an internal threat where as the Turk is external. Whether or not he's insulted the Gurus (as of yet), is not the issue. It's the fact that he's Turk-Beeraj.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, akaltaksal said:

Heretic or a Turk. Both are repulsive. The heretic is an internal threat where as the Turk is external. Whether or not he's insulted the Gurus (as of yet), is not the issue. It's the fact that he's Turk-Beeraj.

Quit it already. Guru Sahibs or Sikhs of the old didn't detest every Muslim, nor do we need too. You're coming off as try hard. Are you just scared of debate??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, KhoonKaBadlaKhoon said:

Quit it already. Guru Sahibs or Sikhs of the old didn't detest every Muslim, nor do we need too. You're coming off as try hard. Are you just scared of debate??

What debate? Half of all you people talk as if the last book you read was in primary school (I guess someone's gotta keep the Kathavachiks in Business). 

I'm here mostly to discuss, learn, give info, and correct. 

And I just don't like people that push the pro-Pakistani narrative, or those who really have no business here, faith wise. ??‍♂️ 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In regards to the Kashmir issue. Pakistan claims the ENTIRETY of Kashmir, as does India. Which is faulty. 

Pakistan's claim was that it's a Muslim majority province and thus should be acceded to Pakistan. However, with that being true, one fact has to noted: There is a Hindu/Buddhist/Sikh Majority in the Jammu and Ladakh region, with significant minorities in Kargil (Southern Kargil is majority non-Muslim) and Doda.

If anything, it would have to be partitioned like The Panjab and the Bengal. And that wouldn't solve Pakistan's water insecurity. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, akaltaksal said:

What debate? Half of all you people talk as if the last book you read was in primary school (I guess someone's gotta keep the Kathavachiks in Business). 

I'm here mostly to discuss, learn, give info, and correct. 

And I just don't like people that push the pro-Pakistani narrative, or those who really have no business here, faith wise. ??‍♂️ 

But haven't you seen me and Chatanga and others challenge his pro-Pakistan narrative? You would have a point if we just allowed such views to go unchallenged. As for faith, unless he has written anything against the Gurus or Guru Granth Sahib then he can stay. If he wants to criticise Sikhs for any reason then if it is based on fact then he can but you can bet he will be challenged on this. Let him stay and let him learn. he wants to reform Islam which in my view cannot be reformed but let him learn that there are religions such as Sikhi which does not need any reform and in which no reasonable person can find anything in its moral code to object to. 

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