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

    • Today we have a major issue with Sikh youth walking into university classes like sociology and walking out extremist.  Whether that be feminist extremist or LGBTQ extremist or atheist.  When it comes to Gurbani these groups and people look for lines or a line of Gurbani and take it out of context to support their extremist LGBTQ beliefs on marriage,  gender being same or new thing no gender or infinite gender.  Like we had the ignorant couple from the states who got married by having his wife walk along with him.  The point being they dont follow Guru Sahib.   They attain 'knowledge' else where and want to force it on Sikhi.   The Sikh youth laugh at the Sikhs who bow at a fake baba's feet.  But, the irony is the Gurmukhs are shaking their head at both of them.  One is bowing to a fake baba and the other is bowing their mind by accepting secular knowledge that will always be in the trial phase.  Neither are better than the other.  The youth of today, and it's been done by a few old farts, attain masters or doctorate in fields like chemistry,  sociology or another field and then say we have a doctorate in Sikhi.  They write articles on what they want Sikhi to be and in their name they put "dr.".  Such deception is being done by these old farts.  Sikhi is about honesty, yet they start their article with deception.    If you want to be a Sikh, then Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji is the teacher and classroom.  Not your sociology professor who tells you abortion of a 37 week baby is a women birth right choice, but dont kill that cow because imeat industry  is killing the environment,  go vegan.   In short,  dont be the monkey with the wrench. 
    • When it comes to other religious scriptures why did Guru Sahib say to read them? Was it to understand how to be moral? Gurbani provides us with spiritual wisdom and morals of the highest kind. It would be counterproductive to look else where for morals. Guru sahib says, give me your head (completely and only focus on the shabad) when you come on the Gurmat path. Guru Sahib tells sikhs to read other religious scriptures because when a Gurmukh has fully attuned his mind with Gurbani he can see naam everywhere. So when reading other religious scripture the Gurmukh can pick up on the naam that is there and serve the humans that are lost in the vedas, gita, bible, Koran, Torah, etc. Also Gurbani makes references on other religious scriptures concepts so we can achieve a total picture of their concepts when reading their scriptures. But many lose sight of the goal and start collecting merchandise (intellectual knowledge and maya)from these scriptures. But Guru Sahib says all merchandise can be achieved from Gurbani. Anand Sahib says this path is sharper than a double edged sword and finer than a hair.  The path of Gurmat can be simple if we follow the instructions of Gurbani or life can be made difficult by losing the purpose in life as Gurbani describes it.
    • I try to read it once a year. There's a lot to be learned from a human perspective in terms of the morals and the arguments it raises. A person doesn't have to be a Hindophile to glean something meaningful from the text.
    • U r right brother, Raam failed.Infact Gurbani says Vishnu and his avatars r subject to jamm/ kaal.
    • Iv never read mahabharat, iv got it on kindle.  It definitely sounds more interesting.  
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use