Jump to content

Interesting photo and story -Jamadar Arjan Singh


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 36
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

It was the lived experience of millions of Sikhs. I would venture that Arjan Singh was a more articulate, sophisticated and adventurous person than someone like you who gets triggered at any mention o

Here you go with you colonial era shyte. 

Thank you for rationalising and explaining in a far better way Daily's view than possibly he could have done and especially without the use of the derogatory 'pendu' and 'illiterate' pejoratives. Tryi

Posted Images

  • S1ngh featured this topic

Jewish opression lasted the span of wwII, the opression of Jews goes back to babylon and continues to this day. This is why you can't emulate jewish people or israel. They're imperials in Jacobite clothing. You have to re assess everything about them from the point of view of them being a very prominent, not entirely liked, community within the world wide white supremacy network, with ties back to the original invasion. They know a lot about Jews, they've been persecuting them for thousands of years. If they can extinct the real Jews then they think they inherit Jacobs gifts from Issac back as well as keep Essaus. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, proactive said:

Thank you for rationalising and explaining in a far better way Daily's view than possibly he could have done and especially without the use of the derogatory 'pendu' and 'illiterate' pejoratives. Trying to judge the actions of those especially those separated from us by by over a 100 years without understanding the factors at play in the lives of those people is not very fair. This is especially true of Daily as he has virtually no understanding of rural Punjab even today when he could easily get on an aeroplane and go there is under 9 hours so expecting him to understand rural Punjab of 100 years ago would be a big stretch. 

Let's accept Daily's characterisation of those Sikhs of 100 years ago as 'pendus' 'illiterate' and even 'slaves' as he never tires of describing them. Let's instead look at your own people, the Irish. One could excuse the 200,000 Irish men and women who fought in the first world war for the British as enslaved people forced by their circumstances to join and fight in the army of their colonial masters. But what would then explain the over 70,000 Irish men and women from the Irish republic who fought for the British in WW2? This far surpassed the 35,000 volunteers from 'loyalist'  Northern Ireland. While Punjab during both world wars was under British colonial control, the Irish republic was free from the 1920s so why would the Irish fight for their former colonial masters especially as there was an Irish army available for them to join or even opportunities to migrate to America or Canada at that time if the main reason for joining the British army was just economic reasons. Similar to the way that these Sikhs joined the army in the first and second world wars, these youths had a sense of adventure, they wanted to see the world, they wanted to improve the economic circumstances of their families.

The difference between the Irish and Sikhs was that while the Irish were never a minority in Ireland, the Sikhs were a small minority in Punjab and as such they had to compete with the two other communities i for government jobs and allocation of educational institutions in their areas. As a small minority the Sikhs had to punch above their weight otherwise they would be subsumed by the other two communities. Part of the punching above their weight had to do with providing recruits in number far greater than their population warranted. 

 

Let's cut to the chase. 'Sikhs' fighting for other people's wars, for their own pockets. Who didn't have the foresight or vision (or intelligence?) to grasp what was brewing under their nose, in their own 'beloved' homeland, that led to the greatest holocaust of Sikhs to date (as well as mass rapes and kidnappings). 

Bravo. Let's have more of these types of mercenary 'soldiers', who protect foreigners better than their own. Maybe next time they could do even better and have a million of us killed/raped? 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/21/2022 at 5:17 AM, proactive said:

Thank you for rationalising and explaining in a far better way Daily's view than possibly he could have done and especially without the use of the derogatory 'pendu' and 'illiterate' pejoratives. Trying to judge the actions of those especially those separated from us by by over a 100 years without understanding the factors at play in the lives of those people is not very fair. This is especially true of Daily as he has virtually no understanding of rural Punjab even today when he could easily get on an aeroplane and go there is under 9 hours so expecting him to understand rural Punjab of 100 years ago would be a big stretch. 

Let's accept Daily's characterisation of those Sikhs of 100 years ago as 'pendus' 'illiterate' and even 'slaves' as he never tires of describing them. Let's instead look at your own people, the Irish. One could excuse the 200,000 Irish men and women who fought in the first world war for the British as enslaved people forced by their circumstances to join and fight in the army of their colonial masters. But what would then explain the over 70,000 Irish men and women from the Irish republic who fought for the British in WW2? This far surpassed the 35,000 volunteers from 'loyalist'  Northern Ireland. While Punjab during both world wars was under British colonial control, the Irish republic was free from the 1920s so why would the Irish fight for their former colonial masters especially as there was an Irish army available for them to join or even opportunities to migrate to America or Canada at that time if the main reason for joining the British army was just economic reasons. Similar to the way that these Sikhs joined the army in the first and second world wars, these youths had a sense of adventure, they wanted to see the world, they wanted to improve the economic circumstances of their families.

The difference between the Irish and Sikhs was that while the Irish were never a minority in Ireland, the Sikhs were a small minority in Punjab and as such they had to compete with the two other communities i for government jobs and allocation of educational institutions in their areas. As a small minority the Sikhs had to punch above their weight otherwise they would be subsumed by the other two communities. Part of the punching above their weight had to do with providing recruits in number far greater than their population warranted. 

 

You are right that it was a different era and people had different values then.

If you think about it many people volunteered to fight in wars such as the Spanish Civil War. 

In our culture, martyrdom (even in whatever guise even if it is misguided) is seen as a badge of honour and not fighting was seen as cowardice. 

 

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

In our culture, martyrdom (even in whatever guise even if it is misguided) is seen as a badge of honour and not fighting was seen as cowardice. 

Dying for a foreign sovereign, whose armies had invaded your land and subjugated your people, is not shaheedi, however people might try and twist it.

Look, the fact is, between Sikh males, what's now more apparent than ever, is that when we mess up strategically/tactically/socially/militarily, it's our own women folk that suffer the most, and that too in horrendous ways. We might die, they get horrific, abusive treatment, sometimes over sustained periods of time that most can't protect themselves from. This is a complete failure on our part as men. 

There were always counter-colonial movements amongst our own, the Ghadr party being a relatively well known one, so some of our people were fighting for their own freedom, as opposed to fighting for foreign invaders. If people wanted to 'prove' their bravery, they could've fought for these types of movements, and be true shaheeds. 

In the end, what we have to say is that the precarious position we found ourselves in, with the mass rapes, kidnappings and murders (that'll numerically make what's happening in ukraine right now seem tame - and I'm pretty sure the same could be said about a lot of recent, more prominent conflicts), can never be repeated by our community because we've got hordes of apnay whose minds, bodies and souls are elsewhere, chasing some outsider concept of 'valour' -  it's a complete failure on our part. I'd say it was the most disastrous path ever followed by our people, and boy did we pay for it! 

You talk about people not fighting being seen as cowards - well, I disagree. We know loads of press-ganging was going on. We know alleviating poverty was more of a factor in decisions than what you are saying. Besides, look at the example of Muhhamad Ali - he never fought in the Vietnam war and gave cogent, intelligent and morally upright reasons for this. That was braver than being herded into another people's conflict - and we can see how grateful the people fought for were, by how they left us to our own devices to be murdered and slaughtered, and then didn't even bother to the give the sepoys who fought in ww2 a pension in the end.   

Seems like high level stupid decisions on our people's part, that we need to acknowledge and confront, lest some <banned word filter activated> tries to lead us up this route again in future.  These aren't remotely intelligent policies or strategies. We can't afford to be doing this.  

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dallysingh101 said:

Dying for a foreign sovereign, whose armies had invaded your land and subjugated your people, is not shaheedi, however people might try and twist it.

Look, the fact is, between Sikh males, what's now more apparent than ever, is that when we mess up strategically/tactically/socially/militarily, it's our own women folk that suffer the most, and that too in horrendous ways. We might die, they get horrific, abusive treatment, sometimes over sustained periods of time that most can't protect themselves from. This is a complete failure on our part as men. 

There were always counter-colonial movements amongst our own, the Ghadr party being a relatively well known one, so some of our people were fighting for their own freedom, as opposed to fighting for foreign invaders. If people wanted to 'prove' their bravery, they could've fought for these types of movements, and be true shaheeds. 

In the end, what we have to say is that the precarious position we found ourselves in, with the mass rapes, kidnappings and murders (that'll numerically make what's happening in ukraine right now seem tame - and I'm pretty sure the same could be said about a lot of recent, more prominent conflicts), can never be repeated by our community because we've got hordes of apnay whose minds, bodies and souls are elsewhere, chasing some outsider concept of 'valour' -  it's a complete failure on our part. I'd say it was the most disastrous path ever followed by our people, and boy did we pay for it! 

You talk about people not fighting being seen as cowards - well, I disagree. We know loads of press-ganging was going on. We know alleviating poverty was more of a factor in decisions than what you are saying. Besides, look at the example of Muhhamad Ali - he never fought in the Vietnam war and gave cogent, intelligent and morally upright reasons for this. That was braver than being herded into another people's conflict - and we can see how grateful the people fought for were, by how they left us to our own devices to be murdered and slaughtered, and then didn't even bother to the give the sepoys who fought in ww2 a pension in the end.   

Seems like high level stupid decisions on our people's part, that we need to acknowledge and confront, lest some <banned word filter activated> tries to lead us up this route again in future.  These aren't remotely intelligent policies or strategies. We can't afford to be doing this.  

 

Dally

People during that time may have seen things very differently. 

Their values were very different, what you find unacceptable they would see as normal and vica versa. 

They do not have the benefit of hindsight. 

They aren't geo-political strategists.

What has been done cannot be undone. 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

If I understand what my great grandfather went through. Looking at it contextually.

He fought in WW1 in the trenches and threw his medals in the river, probably through some bitterness.

WW1 trench warfare was not the same kind of warfare they had previously which probably charging with bayonets, cavalry, cannons. WW1 brought trench warfare, chemical warfare  (gas masks were introduced then) and air attacks.

He was born in 1896, so he was about 18 years old when WW1 broke out in 1914 and coming from the environment he did and the fact we do have a martial history and with all his friends wanting to fight as well.

If you understand contextually that means 40 years before it would have been the 1850s which wasn't a very long time when there was a Khalsa Empire. 

So things would have been fresher in their minds of what transpired post Maharaj Ranjit Singh.

I think that the Sikhs of the late 1800's probably hated the Purbias,Dogras  and other Indians for their betrayal more so than the British.

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

Dally

People during that time may have seen things very differently. 

Their values were very different, what you find unacceptable they would see as normal and vica versa. 

They do not have the benefit of hindsight. 

They aren't geo-political strategists.

What has been done cannot be undone. 

 

I get that bro. 

Important lessons have to be learnt. We don't EVER want to be in that (avoidable in my opinion) position of mass genocide ever again. We HAVE TO expect much better leadership and foresight - and in the absence of this, as ground level Sikh men, dig our heals in and derail attempts to use our community like this ever again. It's a given now that our 'leaders' are likely to be compromised, or genuinely stupid and malleable - we as ground level Sikhs have to ensure no one ever uses us like that again, and that we never walking into a death trap like that half-blind.

It's about growth and evolution of Sikh consciousness too. Being more politically and socially astute than our ancestors were (and I'm not saying they didn't have lots of good qualities).  We have global experiences now. We have to open these types of topics up. 

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

If I understand what my great grandfather went through. Looking at it contextually.

He fought in WW1 in the trenches and threw his medals in the river, probably through some bitterness.

WW1 trench warfare was not the same kind of warfare they had previously which probably charging with bayonets, cavalry, cannons. WW1 brought trench warfare, chemical warfare  (gas masks were introduced then) and air attacks.

He was born in 1896, so he was about 18 years old when WW1 broke out in 1914 and coming from the environment he did and the fact we do have a martial history and with all his friends wanting to fight as well.

If you understand contextually that means 40 years before it would have been the 1850s which wasn't a very long time when there was a Khalsa Empire. 

So things would have been fresher in their minds of what transpired post Maharaj Ranjit Singh.

I think that the Sikhs of the late 1800's probably hated the Purbias,Dogras  and other Indians for their betrayal more so than the British.

Your family history is the history of the majority of our people. My grandfather's younger brother also fought in the trenches of northern France. Unfortunately his didn't survive the war and became Shaheed in 1915. We have a matti in our village to commemorate him. His name is written at the Indian war memorial at Neuve Chapelle.

Neuve-Chapelle Memorial (CWGC) - WW1 Cemeteries.com - A photographic guide  to over 4000 military cemeteries and memorials

 

Before Corona we used to visit that memorial every year on his death anniversary. There is a visitors book there and there were so many comments by apnay whose ancestors fought in the battle and  have visited the memorial from  countries like UK, Canada and USA. 

http://www.radcliffeontrentww1.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Sikhs.png

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