Why aren't British Sikhs as active/engaged as their Canadian counterparts in politics?

[chatanga1]

52 minutes ago, YOYO29 said:

I was talking about the scale of violence in Bengal at partition time like in Punjab.

As I said the low scale of violence during Aug-Sep was because of gandhi reining the hindus in.

 

47 minutes ago, YOYO29 said:

if that was the case then just like Nehru who did away with feudalism in India same thing could have been done

Oh come bro! Don't you know that there are many more Muslim feudal Lords in Pakistan and were there before partition?  These same people were the ones who bankrolled the ML. How could the ML relieve them of their land and power?

I have a friend from Gujrat (Pak) who told me that 6 feudal lords control the entire district.

 

48 minutes ago, YOYO29 said:

same thing could have been done to rich sikh and hindu land lords who have grabbed the land during ranjit sing's and British times at the expanse of Muslims

What do you mean by "grabbed the land?"

Which land exactly are you refering to?

48 minutes ago, YOYO29 said:

There was no need for all the bloodshed.

Of course there wasn't. But guess who said that "we will use constitutional and non-constitutional methods to acheive our aim?"

I'm sure you'll know. And when it said as well.

 

[chatanga1]

10 hours ago, YOYO29 said:

These riots were limited to rawalindi.

No they weren't Rawalpindi was the main centre of it, but there was violence In Multan, Gujranwala, Jalandhar, Campbellpur and Amritsar.

 

9 hours ago, YOYO29 said:

We all know the violence between Nirankaris and Bhindrawale people in 1980s when central govt gave some leeway in Punjab.

The conflict between nirankaris and Taksal had been going on since 1969. For many years it never spilled into violence until one day, with the support of the Panjab administration the nirankairs attacked the Sikhs. Its a very different pictire to the one you are trying to paint.

 

8 hours ago, YOYO29 said:

Nah man I don't think for a second that even without Rawalpindi massacre Sikhs would have happily accepted to be permanently cut into two halves in both countries.With or without rawalpindi riots east punjab muslims were destined to be doomed.

The vote to divide Panjab came in June 1947. Rawalpindi happened in March 1947. At that time, in June 1947, even jinah tried to coax the Sikhs into not asking for the division of Panjab. partition happened on August 14th with the decision to divide having been made on the 29th June.  So upto that point there was no debate on division but whether Panjab, as a whole should be included in India, or Pakistan.

[proactive]

7 hours ago, YOYO29 said:

well muslims who know about isil do condemn ISIL because most muslims are of the view that what ISIL does is against Islam.Some don't know anything on ISIL even I got to know about ISIL very late and that too when i was debating with an indian on facebook.I had no idea that isil is terrorist organization.I thought he was talking about our spy agency ISI lolz

Stop lying. The only Muslims who condemn ISIS are the ones who suffer because of ISIS i.e. the Shias, the Kurds and the Alawites. Vast majority of Sunnis support ISIS. 

[proactive]

1 hour ago, YOYO29 said:

If that was the case then just like Nehru who did away with feudalism in India same thing could have been done to rich sikh and hindu land lords who have grabbed the land during ranjit sing's and British times at the expanse of Muslims.This land could have been given to the tenants. All it required was legislation by newly parliament.There was no need for all the bloodshed.

Apart from Lyallpur and Montgomery districts where the land had been allocated to ex-soldiers by the British,  the lands that the Sikhs held were their own ancestral lands. It seems that you cannot handle the fact that Sikhs owned 27.7% of the land while only being 14% of the Punjab population. This is because Sikhism held a great attraction to the farming castes such as Jat, Kamboh, Saini etc. 

[proactive]

8 hours ago, YOYO29 said:

Were there any nirankaris during sikh raj period ?

 

No but there were other hetrodox as well as anti-Sikh groups such as Dhirmalias etc. The Sikhs can socially boycott them but there has never been a call to kill them for being who they are and what they believe in. Rather than try and project the murderous tendency of your religion onto Sikhism why don't you be honest and accept that Islam kills and Muslims are the worst victims of Islam. 

[YOYO29]

3 hours ago, jkvlondon said:

look the point is if we take the message that division based on birth is harsh and unnecessary and we develop compassion both for those people and refuse to play the demeaning game society will progress on both sides of the border . The reason progress is wanting in both countries is the lack of expectation of good coming from the poor downtrodden masses.

I would encourage Muslims and Sikhs  to understand that if people believe in the Creator  or not is not our job to judge or punish if you respect Waheguru/Allah/God's will . It is Allah's Raza that creation is diverse and beautiful , full of potential it our job as Humans to manifest the love Waheguru has for us to all creation by fair and complete justice to all, dignity of honest work and support when times are hard from all of us . This rancour serves the Hindu majority most just as it did in 47 , they stirred the pot and we paid the price. Leave their crappy caste mentality and encourage people to drop their mental limitations and strive hard for a better society.

a very sensible comment so far on this thread.Could not disagree with you

[YOYO29]

2 hours ago, proactive said:

Vast majority of Sunnis support ISIS. 

Are you kidding me ? where did you hear this ? Sunnis who are influenced by wahabism may have joined isil.As you see in places like western europe.An average Sunni living in Indonesia ,bangladesh or north africa does give two hoots about ISIL.My FB wall is filled with my muslim friends posts condemning ISIL and describing their actions un islamic.

 

[YOYO29]

3 hours ago, chatanga1 said:

 I have a friend from Gujrat (Pak) who told me that 6 feudal lords control the entire district.

 

I don't think that's true.If he had sad this about South Punjab or rural sindh I would have believed him.If my memory works fine there is only one feudal Gujjar family in Gujarat.Can u ask him to provide other five ?

[YOYO29]

2 hours ago, proactive said:

No but there were other hetrodox as well as anti-Sikh groups such as Dhirmalias etc.

I don't know about these sects so maybe difference between these sikh sects were not that big to attract wrath by mainstream sikhs.The only serious difference i can see is between nirankaris who believe in living gurus and mainstream sikhs.Nirankaris situation is like Ahmadi Muslims who believe that Mirza Ghuam Ahmad sahib is mehdi after Prophet.

[proactive]

38 minutes ago, YOYO29 said:

I don't know about these sects so maybe difference between these sikh sects were not that big to attract wrath by mainstream sikhs.The only serious difference i can see is between nirankaris who believe in living gurus and mainstream sikhs.Nirankaris situation is like Ahmadi Muslims who believe that Mirza Ghuam Ahmad sahib is mehdi after Prophet.

The Dhirmalias had their own Gurus so they were like the Sant Nirankaris of modern times. So this demolishes your argument.