Jump to content

Is this True or Just Victim Cards By pakis


Recommended Posts

On 4/17/2021 at 8:56 PM, puzzled said:

I think it depended on the area. Some people got on very well, while others did not. People from cities have always looked down at people from pinds, they still do. 

My nani grew up in Haryana and she went to school before partition and she said that the granthi Singh used to teach girls how to write Gurmukhi in the Gurdwara, while the moulvi used to teach how to write and read Urdu at the madrasa. 

I've seen a lot of videos of the elders who witnessed the partition and they said everyone got on very well. But then I've seen videos of some saying that everyone kept to to their own religion. 

It seems like there was always an undercurrent of division but relative peace was possible. The division was seemingly exacerbated opportunistically by both Muslim elite and the British, to the point of extreme violence and to the point now where co-existence seems impossible. 70 years in the partitioned nations has radically changed the ideology of South Asian Muslims, whereas before there was some religious fluidity, now they are vehemently opposed to all Sikh or Hindu tradition.

I now frequently wonder what it would take just to reach that previous state of relative peace. A lot of the discussion on this post, especially regarding the economic effects of partition reminds of this article en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_reunification which asserts the diversion of economic spending and of each country's social consciousness to issues at the borders keeps India in a dormant and weakened state. 

After all, the Sikh empire existed in a pre-partitioned India with religious pluralism, and I don't think it would be crazy to assert that a unified India is better for Sikh/Punjabi independence than being positioned right between two nuclear powers with westernized governments.  In a unified state with less militaristic conflict, Khalistanis, Dravidian-separatists, or Bengali language activists cannot so easily be dismissed as national-security threats or as agents of Pakistan, and can therefore achieve more cultural independence for their region of India.  I acknowledge this maybe idealistic, but I still think its worth thinking about.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 39
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Yeah, Muslims started the violence both in Bengal and Punjab, this is well documented in the records of that time.  Yeah Doabe wale were brutal with Muslims, my family are from Nawanshahr. Muslim

Muslims started it. They first started it in Bengal. Gandhi was against the partition and he went around protesting against it. Bengali muslims(who a few years later were killed and raped in their mil

South Asia was partitioned because the elite Muslims from places like UP demanded it. British had been planning to leave India for a while and the Muslim elite were worried about their position in an

Posted Images

On 4/17/2021 at 4:34 PM, JSinghnz said:

The British were solely responsible for this genocide as they were in power at that time.

If they could use machine guns to kill innocent protesters in Jalianwala Bagh why did they not shoot the Muslim rioters who attacked the Sikhs.

They decided to divide the country and they should have managed the partition in a orderly manner instead of letting the blood shed happen.

 

Amen bro. Totally intentional. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/18/2021 at 12:21 PM, ChardikalaUK said:

Partition was brutal but in the end it was good for Sikhs.

We at least have a state where we are the slight majority, we get to learn Gurmukhi Punjabi instead of Urdu, no need to worry about Muslims harassing Sikh women.

If there was no partition there would just be constant warring between the different religions in Punjab and the rest of India.

I can't stand the people who wished it never happened. The only things I would change is that it should have been properly organised over a longer period of time (this would have reduced the violence) and that all of the Muslims from India should have been forced to go to Pakistan and Bangladesh. Kashmir should also have been divided along religions lines, give Kashmir to the Muslims and Jammu and Ladakh to India.

Well. I mean the pommies could have handed the entire lot back to Singhs. 

Or at least carved it up three or more ways. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an interesting topic. The thing that we forget is that even though the Muslims had their Nawabs and Badshahs, the vast majority of Muslims were very poor and lived a bare existence. The Muslims to the west had lands but most were very poor and with the rise of the Misls, these lands were taken over by our people especially in the border areas between the Muslim Jat and the Sikh Jats in districts like Gujranwala. The vast majority of the Muslim landholders in Punjab were of Rajput origin and even the British noted that as time went by these Rajputs were mortgaging and losing their lands to both the Hindu banias and the Sikh Jats. The Muslim Rajput tended to be idle and not hardworking so they were quickly losing their lands. Also during the Misl period whenever there was a period of unrest the Muslim population which tended to not be tied to the land upped sticks and moved away and the Sikhs who were more tied to the land then took over these lands. This was the case in Gujrat district when the Muslim Jats moved away due to unrest in the area and the Sikh Lobanas moved in and took over their land. These Lobanas then resisted the Muslim attempt to take back the land. With the British the Muslim landholders tended to be able to keep their land but with the increase in population and with Sikh Jats buying up more land with each passing decade the Muslims were being left behind by both the Sikhs and the Hindus. So the Pakistan idea was sold to the Muslims as a way in which they could take over the lands of the Sikhs and the factories and businesses of the Hindus. In Punjab especially the threat was that the Muslims would be under the control of the Hindus and the Sikhs. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/20/2021 at 4:18 PM, GurjantGnostic said:

Well. I mean the pommies could have handed the entire lot back to Singhs. 

Or at least carved it up three or more ways. 

Look demographics is the way of the world. Why would Sikhs get back a piece of land in which we were outnumbered by Muslims and Hindus, a land which we only ruled for 50 years. 

Live in the real world.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/17/2021 at 8:56 PM, puzzled said:

I think it depended on the area. Some people got on very well, while others did not. People from cities have always looked down at people from pinds, they still do. 

My nani grew up in Haryana and she went to school before partition and she said that the granthi Singh used to teach girls how to write Gurmukhi in the Gurdwara, while the moulvi used to teach how to write and read Urdu at the madrasa. 

I've seen a lot of videos of the elders who witnessed the partition and they said everyone got on very well. But then I've seen videos of some saying that everyone kept to to their own religion. 

It seems like there was always an undercurrent of division but relative peace was possible. The division was seemingly exacerbated opportunistically by both Muslim elite and the British, to the point of extreme violence and to the point now where co-existence seems impossible. 70 years in the partitioned nations has radically changed the ideology of South Asian Muslims, whereas before there was some religious fluidity, now they are vehemently opposed to all Sikh or Hindu tradition.

I now frequently wonder what it would take just to reach that previous state of relative peace. A lot of the discussion on this post, especially regarding the economic effects of partition reminds of this article en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_reunification which asserts the diversion of economic spending and of each country's social consciousness to issues at the borders keeps India in a dormant and weakened state. 

After all, the Sikh empire existed in a pre-partitioned India with religious pluralism, and I don't think it would be crazy to assert that a unified India is better for Sikh/Punjabi independence than being positioned right between two nuclear powers with westernized governments.  In a unified state with less militaristic conflict, Khalistanis, Dravidian-separatists, or Bengali language activists cannot so easily be dismissed as national-security threats or as agents of Pakistan, and can therefore achieve more cultural independence for their region of India.  I acknowledge this maybe idealistic, but I still think its worth thinking about.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, ChardikalaUK said:

Look demographics is the way of the world. Why would Sikhs get back a piece of land in which we were outnumbered by Muslims and Hindus, a land which we only ruled for 50 years. 

Live in the real world.

Yes how dare I suggest an imperial power return rule of a land to it's last known rulers. Especially ones who had treated them so well. Or dare think splitting the area three ways would have been more humane. 

I mean. Sikhs only fought in two world wars and put down some rebllions. 

Live in the real world he says..bro..

Like the partition had anything to do with demographics or fairness. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/20/2021 at 8:58 AM, proactive said:

This is an interesting topic. The thing that we forget is that even though the Muslims had their Nawabs and Badshahs, the vast majority of Muslims were very poor and lived a bare existence. The Muslims to the west had lands but most were very poor and with the rise of the Misls, these lands were taken over by our people especially in the border areas between the Muslim Jat and the Sikh Jats in districts like Gujranwala. The vast majority of the Muslim landholders in Punjab were of Rajput origin and even the British noted that as time went by these Rajputs were mortgaging and losing their lands to both the Hindu banias and the Sikh Jats. The Muslim Rajput tended to be idle and not hardworking so they were quickly losing their lands. Also during the Misl period whenever there was a period of unrest the Muslim population which tended to not be tied to the land upped sticks and moved away and the Sikhs who were more tied to the land then took over these lands. This was the case in Gujrat district when the Muslim Jats moved away due to unrest in the area and the Sikh Lobanas moved in and took over their land. These Lobanas then resisted the Muslim attempt to take back the land. With the British the Muslim landholders tended to be able to keep their land but with the increase in population and with Sikh Jats buying up more land with each passing decade the Muslims were being left behind by both the Sikhs and the Hindus. So the Pakistan idea was sold to the Muslims as a way in which they could take over the lands of the Sikhs and the factories and businesses of the Hindus. In Punjab especially the threat was that the Muslims would be under the control of the Hindus and the Sikhs. 

I've wondered what effect the huge loss of land had on our demographics. The Muslims inherited most of the fertile and irrigated canal land, and had land available for more generations to sustainably divide up. We were left with such little land that only one generation of high birth rate could be sustained. We hit the ceiling quickly and started immigrating out. We should have launched our own offensive to reclaim up to chenab, regardless of what demographics suggest. Even the muslims were surprised we didn't bother coming back for lahore. I've read they feared an attack for many years.

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...

  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use