Is khalsa aid wasting sangats resources on muslim rohingya?

[YOYO29]

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.

[proactive]

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. 

 

[YOYO29]

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. 

[YOYO29]

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

[chatanga]

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

 

 

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?

[YOYO29]

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.

[proactive]

8 hours ago, Sikhi4Ever said:

Weird that I read this topic. As I was conversing with my sibling-

 

 

They had just under £ 2.5 Million in the bank as of the end of financial year 2016. They haven't submitted their accounts for year ending 2017 but considering they had 1.6 Million in the bank at the end of FY 2015 and 2.5 Million at the end of FY 2016 then it makes sense that they would have more than £ 2.5 Million in the bank at the end of FY 2017. 

That Ravi Singh guy doesn't take too kindly to people pulling him up on why he doesn't do more for Sikhs. He always responds ..Khalsa Aid did this and that ...what have you done? Well I don't have £ 2.5 Million in the bank and I don't get £ 33,000 each year to work full time for the charity as he does. 

If anyone does want to donate for Sikh causes through Khalsa Aid then I would ask that they make sure that you have an assurance that your donation will go to that particular cause and not be used for their other appeals such as Rohingyas etc.

 

[proactive]

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. 

[proactive]

5 hours ago, YOYO29 said:

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. 

Britain has in fact awarded majority population areas to minorities before. One of the counties in Northern Ireland had a catholic majority and yet it kept out of the Irish republic and given to Northern Ireland. Economic factors were actually used to award the Chittagong Hill Tracts to East Pakistan by Radcliffe even though the Muslims was only 3% in population there. This would have been akin to awarding Rawalpindi to India even though the Sikhs and Hindus were more than the 3% Muslims in CHTs. Such was the belief that the CHTs would go to India that the local tribes had raised Indian flags on govt buildings and these were only torn down by Pakistani troops from Chtiiagong port a few weeks afterwards. 

True to form the Bangladesh govt has settled Muslims there and they have been oppressing the Buddhists tribes there for decades and many of these tribes have migrated to India. 

https://www.amnesty.org.uk/groups/wirksworth-and-district/hidden-bangladesh-violence-and-brutality-chittagong-hill-tracts

It's a guess whether Muslims would have fought back if Radcliffe had awarded all of the Lahore division and canal colonies to East Punjab. Given the fact that the Indian army was undergoing division itself the only fighters in this war would have been the common people. Jinnah and his deputies would have made a big show of being betrayed by the British but both Jinnah and Nehru was lawyers and such had great respect for the law and would have accepted Radcliffe's ruling. Nehru accepted the loss of the CHTs and Jinnah would in the end have accepted the loss of a slice of Punjab to East Punjab. 

 

[YOYO29]

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