Jump to content

Is khalsa aid wasting sangats resources on muslim rohingya?


superkaur
 Share

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, chatanga said:

It wasn't just the Kashmiris who boosted muslim numbers in Panjab. It was Pathans as well. Kasur was a major Pathan stronghold. Anyone who knows anything about Jalandhar will know that there were 12 pathan bastis surrounding Jalandhar city. This and Kasur's area had a great Pathan population.

Interesting subject you have brought it up.May I know how you got so much information about this ? From gazetteers or from books ? Pardon my ignorance about this.I have always focused on 1941 census and so i don't know what was the situation before 1941 census took place.It would be good if u can suggest some good books on this migration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interestingly enough the Sikh representation to the boundary commission laid great stress on fact that the Muslim community included a large number of tribes and castes that were no tied to land whereas the Sikhs were not only tied to the land by land ownership but also were the ones who were the most progressive in land cultivation/development. In the UN partition plan for Israel the same argument of land development was used to award the Jews over 56% of the land area of Palestine while they only owned 6% of the total land area!  Even the population factor mattered little to the UN as the Jewish population was only 33% of Palestine at that time. The Negev desert was awarded to the Jews as it was felt that they would be best able to develop it. Now compare this with what happened to the Sikhs. The Sikhs owned 27.7% of the total land in Punjab and had been the ones who had developed some of the canal colonies of Punjab. Yet these very areas were awarded to Pakistan. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, proactive said:

Jews over 56% of the land area of Palestine while they only owned 6% of the total land area!  Even the population factor mattered little to the UN as the Jewish population was only 33% of Palestine at that time. The Negev desert was awarded to the Jews as it was felt that they would be best able to develop it. Now compare this with what happened to the Sikhs. The Sikhs owned 27.7% of the total land in Punjab

I have no doubt UN screwed over Muslims in Palestine but the fact remains by the time partition of India was announced there was no such precedent.This precedent was set in November 1947 by then Punjab has been partitioned. And clearly you have seen how that decision has turned out.There is still fight going on for this land by Palestinians. What Sikhs were demanding was not possible. If britian had awarded those heavily Muslim areas to India, Muslim league would not have accepted the award and war would have started over Punjab.And today Punjab would have been an Internationally disputed area. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, proactive said:

The Sikhs owned 27.7% of the total land in Punjab and had been the ones who had developed some of the canal colonies of Punjab. Yet these very areas were awarded to Pakistan. 

See the ares claimed by Sikhs/Congress and Muslim league.You will have no difficulty knowing who was being unreasonable here.If you have been granted all areas which you have asked. fer saday kol ki reh jana c ? see the map

Territorial Claims.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, YOYO29 said:

Interesting subject you have brought it up.May I know how you got so much information about this ? From gazetteers or from books ? Pardon my ignorance about this.I have always focused on 1941 census and so i don't know what was the situation before 1941 census took place.It would be good if u can suggest some good books on this migration.

 

Sikh and local (Jalandhar) history.

 

2 hours ago, YOYO29 said:

See the ares claimed by Sikhs/Congress and Muslim league.You will have no difficulty knowing who was being unreasonable here.If you have been granted all areas which you have asked. fer saday kol ki reh jana c ? see the map

Territorial Claims.png

 

 

Yes from it is clear that the Sikh demand was unreasonable. What the Sikhs were looking for in that map was to keep the majority of our religiously historic shrines and the canal colony lands as much as possible.

 

But one thing I want to tell you about that map, it shows the majority community, not if the community was in an outright majority itslef.

 

eg in Amritsar Muslims were 47%. They were the majority community but not the majority. Same with Jallandhar and Hoshiarpur. So that map is not accurate in terms of outright majority but only of majority community. Mi fehmi?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, chatanga said:

eg in Amritsar Muslims were 47%. They were the majority community but not the majority. Same with Jallandhar and Hoshiarpur. So that map is not accurate in terms of outright majority

This map is on Tehsil basis not on District basis. Yes,you are right Muslims were not outright majority , they were single largest group in Jalandhar,Amritsar and Firozpore. I think you are being confused seeing Jalandhar painted green in map.It is Kapurthala state spreading in Jalandhar district.One part of Kapurthala state was surrounded by Jalandhar dsitrict from all sides. This state was ruled by Sikh but had Muslim majority of 56 % . There is another factor ; 5.4 million Muslims found themselves on Indian side whereas there were only 3.6 million HIndus and Sikhs on Pakistani side who had  to move. 30.27 % of Muslims found themselves on Indian side compared to 26.90 % Sikhs in West Punjab and 22.39 %Hindus who found themselves in West Punjab.  Bottom line is , since we have more muslims on east side hence we lost more people than hindus and sikhs. So we lost more people and you lost more property. This factor is often ignored by many people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, YOYO29 said:

This map is on Tehsil basis not on District basis. Yes,you are right Muslims were not outright majority , they were single largest group in Jalandhar,Amritsar and Firozpore. I think you are being confused seeing Jalandhar painted green in map.It is Kapurthala state spreading in Jalandhar district.One part of Kapurthala state was surrounded by Jalandhar dsitrict from all sides. This state was ruled by Sikh but had Muslim majority of 56 % . There is another factor ; 5.4 million Muslims found themselves on Indian side whereas there were only 3.6 million HIndus and Sikhs on Pakistani side who had  to move. 30.27 % of Muslims found themselves on Indian side compared to 26.90 % Sikhs in West Punjab and 22.39 %Hindus who found themselves in West Punjab.  Bottom line is , since we have more muslims on east side hence we lost more people than hindus and sikhs. So we lost more people and you lost more property. This factor is often ignored by many people.

Are you including in the total number the Muslims from the princely states? The Sikhs and Hindus from Bhawalpur state and the Muslims from the East Punjab states should not be included in the totals as partition was only of the British area of Punjab.

Once the migrations had begun, the GOI should have made all Muslims move to Pakistan. In that case the Muslims would have been the losers out of partition as Muslims would have lost more land than Sikhs and Hindus and gained less land than they were entitled according to their population. The lands of the Muslims in UP who would have been forced to leave India could have been used to compensate the Sikhs and Hindus from West Punjab. These refugees could also have settled in Jammu and Kashmir as that state should have been treated the same as Kapurthala state in Punjab where the Muslim majority was forced to leave because the Maharaja was a non-Muslim. The refugees from West Punjab would have got the same amount of land as they lost in Pakistan and the commercial classes would have got Muslim commercial establishments.

As it was Muslim still managed to keep their land and properties intact in many areas of East Punjab such as Malerkotla and Gurgaon. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, proactive said:

Once the migrations had begun, the GOI should have made all Muslims move to Pakistan. In that case the Muslims would have been the losers out of partition as Muslims would have lost more land than Sikhs and Hindus and gained less land than they were entitled according to their population. The lands of the Muslims in UP who would have been forced to leave India could have been used to compensate the Sikhs and Hindus from West Punjab. These refugees could also have settled in Jammu and Kashmir as that state should have been treated the same as Kapurthala state in Punjab where the Muslim majority was forced to leave because the Maharaja was a non-Muslim. The refugees from West Punjab would have got the same amount of land as they lost in Pakistan and the commercial classes would have got Muslim commercial establishments.

 

Perhaps Nehru was not wise man like you. If ruler's religion was to be held a criteria then there were many muslim ruled states in India.Bhopal in central India ,Hyderbad the largest state in India was also ruled by Muslim.All these muslims states should have been given the same choice then.This would have created a whole other mess in India.Muslim states in every corner of India lolzz

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