Jump to content
genie

Laurence Fox claimed Sikh soldier in Sam Mendes war epic 1917 is ‘forcing diversity’

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, dallysingh101 said:

I found a short video from my pindh on youtube. I'm exiled from it after my parents separated, and all the usual land dispute stuff. I learnt a few things from the vid. I'm gonna post it on sikhawareness.com soon. Was interesting. 

do you wanna share the video i wouldn't mind watching it 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ranjeet01 said:

It all kicked off in Rawalpindi. 

Sikhs in those areas were predominantly Urban Sikhs rather than rural ones. 

i think that whole potohar and azad kashmir area had the worst killing of sikhs and hindus.   just read about the mirpur massacre in November 1947  and in that alone around 20,000 sikhs/hindus were killed     i wonder why so many stayed behind after the partition apparently 10,000s of sikhs/hindus from the azad kashmir region stayed behind after the partition.   

its these same muslims from these regions that are here in the UK 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, puzzled said:

i think that whole potohar and azad kashmir area had the worst killing of sikhs and hindus.   just read about the mirpur massacre in November 1947  and in that alone around 20,000 sikhs/hindus were killed     i wonder why so many stayed behind after the partition apparently 10,000s of sikhs/hindus from the azad kashmir region stayed behind after the partition.   

its these same muslims from these regions that are here in the UK 

I met some kashmiris from Pakistan they are pretty aggressive and rude

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, puzzled said:

i think that whole potohar and azad kashmir area had the worst killing of sikhs and hindus.   just read about the mirpur massacre in November 1947  and in that alone around 20,000 sikhs/hindus were killed     i wonder why so many stayed behind after the partition apparently 10,000s of sikhs/hindus from the azad kashmir region stayed behind after the partition.   

its these same muslims from these regions that are here in the UK 

I don't know they call it Azad Kashmir,  they are not even Kashmiris. 

A more correct term would be Punjabi speaking areas adjacent to Jammu. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ranjeet01 said:

I don't know they call it Azad Kashmir,  they are not even Kashmiris. 

A more correct term would be Punjabi speaking areas adjacent to Jammu. 

Their just basically pahari punjabis.  

Jammu in india too is like a pahari extension of pubjab!  Same with haryana though not pahari. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Harditsingh said:

I met some kashmiris from Pakistan they are pretty aggressive and rude

Their not kashmiris   their basically punjabis from the pahari areas.    Real kashmiris are from the valley of kashmir which is in india. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, puzzled said:

do you wanna share the video i wouldn't mind watching it 

I'll stick it on sa later today (because it will take forever for admin to clear the post here). I want to watch it again myself. The farmers in the pind seem to be doing well (as is much of my family apparently), so people might be able to pick up some tips. A lot of the village elders seem to be ex-military. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they hadn't served the british army in both world wars. What would have been the likely outcomes for punjab/india and europe/uk?

Any predictions or assessments?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, genie said:

If they hadn't served the british army in both world wars. What would have been the likely outcomes for punjab/india and europe/uk?

Any predictions or assessments?

Well, one question to ask is what would have happened if apnay fought (as in war) to re-establish their own independence in Panjab itself. I think it would have only taken a fraction of the number of those who fought in the foreign wars to have gained a victory in Panjab. Plus, strategically, it would have made sense in terms of attacking an occupier when they themselves are being attacked elsewhere. This would have starved the occupiers of both manpower and financial resources, as well as opening up another front - which I believe would have made them leave Panjab because of being overstretched with dealing with the Germans. I think one of the possible long term consequences of this would've possibly been a closer relationship with Russia and Sikhs?

 

Europe would have looked very different to now. There would probably have been no Hitler and ww2 either. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, dallysingh101 said:

Well, one question to ask is what would have happened if apnay fought (as in war) to re-establish their own independence in Panjab itself. I think it would have only taken a fraction of the number of those who fought in the foreign wars to have gained a victory in Panjab. Plus, strategically, it would have made sense in terms of attacking an occupier when they themselves are being attacked elsewhere. This would have starved the occupiers of both manpower and financial resources, as well as opening up another front - which I believe would have made them leave Panjab because of being overstretched with dealing with the Germans. I think one of the possible long term consequences of this would've possibly been a closer relationship with Russia and Sikhs?

 

Europe would have looked very different to now. There would probably have been no Hitler and ww2 either. 

Ideally yes that would have been best for all concerned. Sikhs would have had their nation sovereign state in all probability. Only problem was the Sikh princely states (patiala, jind, faridkot, nabha) which were under the British protectorate, were allied with the British imperialist occupiers and thus lent their Sikh soldier manpower to the British empire's war efforts in Europe. Had they collectively rebelled against the british in occupying punjab they would have had their freedom back to rule as they wish and safeguarded the Sikh kaum's future so no partition of punjab sikh homeland and no sikh genocide in 1947.

With the lack of manpower supplied to the british war efforts in europe then the british allied forces would have lost key divisive battles against the opposition german allied forces and overrun and invaded by them. England would be under german occupation either by the german kaiser imperial forces during ww1 or hitler's nazi foot-soldiers had world war 2 have to have been played out.

The British white historians and establishment down play the role of the Sikh and foreign commonwealth soldiers in both world wars they do not want to acknowledge the supreme sacrifices these men made for someone else's war because it doesn't suit their narrative.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, genie said:

If they hadn't served the british army in both world wars. What would have been the likely outcomes for punjab/india and europe/uk?

Any predictions or assessments?

Problem you have is that Sikhs have been serving the British Army since at least the 1857 mutiny. 

The other thing is that the Indian troops were largely voluntarily, they weren't drafted like the British were in the World Wars. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Ranjeet01 said:

Problem you have is that Sikhs have been serving the British Army since at least the 1857 mutiny. 

The other thing is that the Indian troops were largely voluntarily, they weren't drafted like the British were in the World Wars. 

 

It was good pay, revenge, mistrust and hatred for the arch enemy mughuls in which the Sikh soldiers sided with and loyally served the british imperialists rather than the combined muslim and hindu rebel soldiers. Had they rebelled too and served the indian rebel army them no doubt the british invaders would have been massacred and thrown out of india and yes perhaps they would have had an earlier opportunity to regain their sovereignty and expand their rule into other territories but maybe there could have foreseen other dangers to which why they didn't change the course of history the way it played out?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, genie said:

It was good pay, revenge, mistrust and hatred for the arch enemy mughuls in which the Sikh soldiers sided with and loyally served the british imperialists rather than the combined muslim and hindu rebel soldiers. Had they rebelled too and served the indian rebel army them no doubt the british invaders would have been massacred and thrown out of india and yes perhaps they would have had an earlier opportunity to regain their sovereignty and expand their rule into other territories but maybe there could have foreseen other dangers to which why they didn't change the course of history the way it played out?

Problem you have is the Dogras as well as the betrayal by some of those monarchs on the other side of Sutlej river.

By 1857, there was no longer any effective leader.

When it came to a choice between return to Mughal rule and the Brits we Sikhs chose the Brits. 

It was those rebel Hindu and Muslim soldiers that allowed the Brits to get foothold in the first place. 

If Indian Unity was so important, Brits would never been able to get a foothold. 

Context is everything. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the 1857 mutiny, would we want to be known as participants of the Rioting, looting, and mistreatment of british ladies that went on?

Yeah war always has casualties, but like maskeen ji said about 84. It better to be bhola (innocent, victim) then a dhokeddar(cheater, aggressor). 

And in ww1, we or at least i think the indian Congress party did ask for concessions from Britain that helping in ww1, will result in independence. So lots of indians volunteered. 

In ww2, we would have been known as Japanese and Hitler sympathizers if we had pulled out like the faujis who followed Bose I think.

Ofc its dumb to care about labels when it's our independence at risk. But having the narrative of being the good guy helps alot for the future generations. Look at how hard the muslims struggle to explain their religion and terrorists. 

And one of kartar singh sarabhas jobs was to recruit faujis to the gaddar movement. So having faujis is a possible benefit, you just have to wrest control off of them from the enemy.

But to be honest, most Sikhs were probably just trying to make a living and had despaired of sikh independence and rule after the infighting between ranjit singhs heirs and between the diff rajas. To convince them to actually put their future into revolutaries hands was asking a bit much. Esp against the most powerful kingdom. 

It's like now. Most sikhs care abt going to the west. Instead of staying and fighting for panjab. And the sikhs in the west could pool their resources to solve most problems in panjab. And ppl are too tired from the kharkhoo times to take referendum 2020 seriously. And no sikh trusts that we can run a successful country all due t ok nour baises towards gurdwara committees. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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...



  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Ardaas 1 and  rabb da radio 1  are really gd movies  both on youtube     about social issues     qissa, tale of a lonely ghost is one of the strangest movies iv ever seen! surprised that some punjabi made it, its about a man who wants a son but his wife gives birth to a girl but he doesnt wanna accept it so he raises it as a boy! he even marrys her of to a girl!  strange movie     i dont really watch hindi movies but i liked padmavaati and haider.  i think its just show off tbh       
    • Oh, so they didn't even get that right. I find a lot of Indian 'culture' is super camp. Especially the movies these days (judging by the few seconds I have seen of them before I turn my head away in disgust). I tried watching some modern Panjabi film with social issues recently (called Gelo) but straight away they assaulted my senses with some couple prancing about in some musical number, so I had to switch it off. It takes like a year for me (at least!) to get over these types of things before I can summon the strength to try and watch it again.  I hear you!  It often looks like the people with these lavish, ostentatious events are seriously trying to cover up for some deeply rooted inadequacies with all the fancy, overblown events? 
    • its very camp and over the top. everything is gay about it the belly dancers arent all that, skinny and plain lol  even if i had that much money i would still have just a simple anand karaj and thats it. i dont like being center of attention
    • Guest Jack
      Hello. I'm a white guy, born and raised in the USA, baptized and confirmed Catholic, however I never really could accept what Catholicism/Christianity teaches. I always felt like I was reaching for something "out there" to understand know God. I've read about/researched other faiths, such as Wicca, Islam, Hinduism, other secs of Christianity, and for a while I studied Buddhism. But again, these always left me wanting more. They spoke about God, "The Divine", creator, etc, but they always spoke of different ways to identify with God, spoke about all these rituals to get closer to God, but those things feel inadequate to me. Reading the Guru Granth Sahib pulls something deep inside of me. At least, for me, it explains God in terms that I'm able to understand and connect with, and Sikhism, from what I've read, shares the same moral/ethical/world views that I do. My only worry/concern is appropriating the culture of Sikhs. While I very much admire the ten Gurus and the immense struggle they and the people who lived during there time (and of course the struggle that Sikhs, and black/brown people and other people of color, still go through today), I will never be able to identify with that struggle because of my racial position in life, which I accept, but does that mean I'm not able to follow the words of the Gurus? I'm a solitary person, so I don't think I would go to Gurdwara, and I don't think I would ever be baptized/ take the 5 K's. I enjoy being a lay person, appreciating what the Guru Granth Sahib says, and experiencing/knowing God. I just want to have a relationship with God, and I know that means more than just reading from the Guru Granth Sahib, and I'm hoping with time I'll be able to do more with my faith. I guess I'm posting this to get an idea if there's any white people on this forum who are Sikh, or if any black/brown or other people of color on here have had experiences with white people in the Gurdwara and if those experiences were satisfactory or cringe worthy?
    • Sounds like a gays man's wet dream?  I ain't watching it - f**k that. lol The only thing that sounded even remotely interesting in the above list was the belly dancers. 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use