Jump to content

Heated Debate: Should We Hand Back The Crown Jewels? | Good Morning Britain


Recommended Posts

On 2/24/2023 at 2:13 PM, dallysingh101 said:

Good to see a mouthy apnee taking on goray for a change....lol

But wait, the Koh-i-Noor was taken from the Sikh Kingdom. So what is India's claim on the diamond?

Props to Narendar Kaur for mentioning that it was taken by Brits from the 10 year old Dalip Singh under the Treaty of Lahore.

Ironically, the white lady also made a good point in mentioning the Sikhs and the Lahore kingdom (so Pakistanis/Punjabis would have a claim too).
 

If Sikhs had any sense, they would make a deal with the UK "granting" a 999-year lease on the diamond in exchange for the crown "giving" the Sikh Raj territories "back" to the Sikhs so it establishes a de jure claim on those lands (including Kashmir).

Who cares about the diamond? The lands are much more useful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, BhForce said:

But wait, the Koh-i-Noor was taken from the Sikh Kingdom. So what is India's claim on the diamond?

Props to Narendar Kaur for mentioning that it was taken by Brits from the 10 year old Dalip Singh under the Treaty of Lahore.

Ironically, the white lady also made a good point in mentioning the Sikhs and the Lahore kingdom (so Pakistanis/Punjabis would have a claim too).
 

If Sikhs had any sense, they would make a deal with the UK "granting" a 999-year lease on the diamond in exchange for the crown "giving" the Sikh Raj territories "back" to the Sikhs so it establishes a de jure claim on those lands (including Kashmir).

Who cares about the diamond? The lands are much more useful.

Mate be realistic, that's not happening. If nothing else, at least some ignorant Sikhs watching might get an inkling of what happened to our recent ancestors under colonialism. 

Plus it serves to let others know that no, not all was hunky dory when brits came to Panjab. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/24/2023 at 10:13 PM, dallysingh101 said:

Good to see a mouthy apnee taking on goray for a change....lol

 

 

Let's be honest, she's just a big mouth and typically knows eff all about the history. The only claim that the British can entertain is from the descendants of Maharaja Dalip Singh or his closest relatives. They do exist in Punjab. Giving the diamond back to a country that did not exist until 100 after the diamond was taken shows how idiotic the claim from the Indian state is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/1/2023 at 5:00 PM, proactive said:

Let's be honest, she's just a big mouth and typically knows eff all about the history. The only claim that the British can entertain is from the descendants of Maharaja Dalip Singh or his closest relatives. They do exist in Punjab. Giving the diamond back to a country that did not exist until 100 after the diamond was taken shows how idiotic the claim from the Indian state is. 

This is all a moot point to me. I don't think (given our current state) getting the diamond back would give any real, wider, significant benefit to the panth as a collective. But what it could do (and maybe really powerfully), is help put a focus on recent Sikh history and achievement and geo-political events that could connect lost apnay and apneean on the periphery of the the panth a bit closer and make them a bit more knowledgeable, and broads like this perfectly exemplifiy this.   That's no small thing in my opinion.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/26/2023 at 7:37 AM, dallysingh101 said:

Mate be realistic, that's not happening.

You're right, it's not, because Sikhs aren't that smart.

The white man is, however.

The white man uses scribblings on pieces of paper to gain power.

Such as:

This 500-year-old Catholic decree encouraged colonization. Will the pope revoke it?

The papal Doctrine of Discovery was used to justify colonization in the name of Christianity—and eventually became embedded in U.S and international law.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/doctrine-of-discovery-how-the-centuries-old-catholic-decree-encouraged-colonization

 

 

You don't need to fight a bloody war and get your family members rap ed and killed. You get international institutions to declare countries occupying Sarkar-e-Khalsa lands to be in violation, and then make it difficult for them to access the international financial system (IMF, World Bank, SWIFT, etc).

The Jews got the British to "give" them land in the Balfour Declaration much prior to them actually getting physical custody of the land of Israel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, californiasardar1 said:

Who gives a <banned word filter activated> about a bunch of rocks.

Bro, you're totally right as far as "a bunch of rocks".

But it's what they represent which is the issue.

The Sikhs took the Peacock throne from Delhi. Sure, "who cares about some yellow metal". But it represents sovereignty. "Khalsa Badshah"

Guru Hargobind ji fought a war for some hawks. Sure, "just a bunch of birds". But they represented the sovereignty of the Sikhs.

These are the crown jewels of the Sarkar-e-Khalsa. (I don't see that India has a claim on them.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, BhForce said:

Bro, you're totally right as far as "a bunch of rocks".

But it's what they represent which is the issue.

The Sikhs took the Peacock throne from Delhi. Sure, "who cares about some yellow metal". But it represents sovereignty. "Khalsa Badshah"

Guru Hargobind ji fought a war for some hawks. Sure, "just a bunch of birds". But they represented the sovereignty of the Sikhs.

These are the crown jewels of the Sarkar-e-Khalsa. (I don't see that India has a claim on them.)

 

Sikhs need to stop looking back at Ranjit Singh's empire and making it out to be something that it wasn't.

As for "sovereignty," Ranjit Singh's empire began when he robbed other Sikh misaldars of their sovereignty. Was that fighting something that was happening according to Khalsa principals? Or was it just another instance of rulers fighting over land and power (which has been happening since the beginning of time)?

 

 

Did Ranjit Singh's empire have a significant impact on the preservation and spread of Sikhi? It doesn't seem like it.

In more detail: roughly half the "long term" Sikh population of the time lived outside the borders of Ranjit Singh's empire. Was there a dramatic difference between the preservation and spread of Sikhi, development of Sikh institutions, free practice of Sikhi etc. within Ranjit Singh's empire vs. outside of Ranjit Singh's empire? It doesn't seem like it.

 

It is puzzling why people portray Ranjit Singh's empire as having been so important to the Sikh cause. This portrayal does not seem to be grounded in facts, but rather sentimental revisionism.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/2/2023 at 10:11 PM, BhForce said:

You don't need to fight a bloody war and get your family members rap ed and killed. You get international institutions to declare countries occupying Sarkar-e-Khalsa lands to be in violation, and then make it difficult for them to access the international financial system (IMF, World Bank, SWIFT, etc).

What planet are you on bro? We wasted decade upon decade going to Human Rights groups, UN, various governments, countless marches - haven't you learned that these things are useless yet? Jews are white too, and we should all know (by now!) how deeply rooted white supremacist racism plays a central part in western european politics. 

You seriously think any org would push for sanctions against India? And that too, for our mostly pendu, minor economical status community.  I don't think so. 

 

When people post things like you have above, it makes me wonder just how politically clueless apnay are - even after all this time. Sorry, it's not a personal attack but I'm just exasperated by it at this point. 

Link to comment
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...
 Share

  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • yeh it's true, we shouldn't be lazy and need to learn jhatka shikaar. It doesn't help some of grew up in surrounding areas like Slough and Southall where everyone thought it was super bad for amrit dharis to eat meat, and they were following Sant babas and jathas, and instead the Singhs should have been normalising jhatka just like the recent world war soldiers did. We are trying to rectifiy this and khalsa should learn jhatka.  But I am just writing about bhog for those that are still learning rehit. As I explained, there are all these negative influences in the panth that talk against rehit, but this shouldn't deter us from taking khanda pahul, no matter what level of rehit we are!
    • How is it going to help? The link is of a Sikh hunter. Fine, but what good does that do the lazy Sikh who ate khulla maas in a restaurant? By the way, for the OP, yes, it's against rehit to eat khulla maas.
    • Yeah, Sikhs should do bhog of food they eat. But the point of bhog is to only do bhog of food which is fit to be presented to Maharaj. It's not maryada to do bhog of khulla maas and pretend it's OK to eat. It's not. Come on, bro, you should know better than to bring this Sakhi into it. Is this Sikh in the restaurant accompanied by Guru Gobind Singh ji? Is he fighting a dharam yudh? Or is he merely filling his belly with the nearest restaurant?  Please don't make a mockery of our puratan Singhs' sacrifices by comparing them to lazy Sikhs who eat khulla maas.
    • Seriously?? The Dhadi is trying to be cute. For those who didn't get it, he said: "Some say Maharaj killed bakras (goats). Some say he cut the heads of the Panj Piyaras. The truth is that they weren't goats. It was she-goats (ਬਕਰੀਆਂ). He jhatka'd she-goats. Not he-goats." Wow. This is possibly the stupidest thing I've ever heard in relation to Sikhi.
    • Instead of a 9 inch or larger kirpan, take a smaller kirpan and put it (without gatra) inside your smaller turban and tie the turban tightly. This keeps a kirpan on your person without interfering with the massage or alarming the masseuse. I'm not talking about a trinket but rather an actual small kirpan that fits in a sheath (you'll have to search to find one). As for ahem, "problems", you could get a male masseuse. I don't know where you are, but in most places there are professional masseuses who actually know what they are doing and can really relieve your muscle pains.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use