British should have granted "Khalistan" to Sikhs in '47!

[Spring Onion]

Enlighten Yourself with the terms Independent Baluchistan & Pakhtunistan

what does Pakhtunistan stand for. geeeeeeez i am so scared you are breaking us

 

[globall]

Dont say nobody can divide India! The same could be said for Soviet Union in the late 80's and it disintegrated in 15 states. India can also disintegrate if you the hindus keep on discriminating the Sikhs and try to destroy their religion and culture. Dont say Manmohan Singh (Mona, his childhood nick name) is also a Sikh and is the prime minister of India. He has no real powers and is a puppet in hindu hands. As for the partition in '47, Gurdaspur and Firozepur were muslim majority areas and should have been given to Pakistan. Also the muslim majority princely states could have the option to either join Pakistan or stay independent and so the hindu majority princely states. That made sense. About Khalistan, the present Punjab state of India was the ideal boundary for the Sikh nation. As Haryana and Himacha Pradesh were carved out of the East Punjab of '47, Punjabi speaking areas of Haryana and Himachal Pradesh as well as the Ganganagar district of Rajasthan which is also Punjabi speaking could have been made as the Punjab state of Hindus in India, which could become a true Hindu country with Hinduvta as its ideology.

 

[ek_indian]

India can also disintegrate if you the hindus keep on discriminating the Sikhs and try to destroy their religion and culture.

Hindus descriminating sikhs!!.....new theory. I am impressed with your knowledge about India. BTW, you again forgot a sikh is PM of India.
PM is having no real power. I am curious to know who has.

As for the partition in '47, Gurdaspur and Firozepur were muslim majority areas and should have been given to Pakistan. Also the muslim majority princely states could have the option to either join Pakistan or stay independent and so the hindu majority princely states.

Offtopic and pure rant.

That made sense. About Khalistan, the present Punjab state of India was the ideal boundary for the Sikh nation. As Haryana and Himacha Pradesh were carved out of the East Punjab of '47, Punjabi speaking areas of Haryana and Himachal Pradesh as well as the Ganganagar district of Rajasthan which is also Punjabi speaking could have been made as the Punjab state of Hindus in India, which could become a true Hindu country with Hinduvta as its ideology.

Presiceely India is not based on solely religion my friend.
Oops...India is not a true Hindu country either. And everyone else is already declared decrimnated.

If you have nothing to contribute except flame, please stay away.

 

[araz]

In 1947, the British should also have granted Khalistan as a homeland for the Sikh people as they granted Pakistan to the muslims. But the British did not finish their job completely and in haste they finished the job half done. This created a South Asia which has been in unrest and wars till today. This was also partly the fault of the Sikhs since most of them did not demand an independent homeland of their own and threw their lot with the Hindus. They saw the result of this in 1984 with thousands of Sikhs were killed by Indian forces and their most sacred place was invaded by the army. The Sikhs would always remember this and its a wound which would not heal with time. I think if the partition of South Asia had been done properly by the British like asking the muslim majority princely states to join Pakistan and Hindu majority princely states to join India, created Khalistan and also created a Christian homeland at the north east of present India and created proper borders without errors, South Asia would have been living in peace since then and instead of fighting with each other and spending large sums of money on military there would have been total peace and a lot of progress by the people of South Asia. There would have been no reason for tensions as Hindustan would have been a homeland for the Hindus, Pakistan for muslims, some Christian homeland and Khalistan for the Sikhs.

This thread is meaningless. There was no demand for Khalistan in 47, so why even consider it? Secondly, what the British did; including the fiasco of Kashmir was entirely intended and planned in my view, to keep the two nations at loggerhead with each other.Now instead of spending billions on social uplift programmes ,we are spending it on the up keep of our respective armies, and to keep them armed we are going back to the west.The Goose that laid the golden egg for the British is still doing it for the West
Araz

 

[globall]

India can also disintegrate if you the hindus keep on discriminating the Sikhs and try to destroy their religion and culture.

Hindus descriminating sikhs!!.....new theory. I am impressed with your knowledge about India. BTW, you again forgot a sikh is PM of India.
PM is having no real power. I am curious to know who has.

As for the partition in '47, Gurdaspur and Firozepur were muslim majority areas and should have been given to Pakistan. Also the muslim majority princely states could have the option to either join Pakistan or stay independent and so the hindu majority princely states.

Offtopic and pure rant.

That made sense. About Khalistan, the present Punjab state of India was the ideal boundary for the Sikh nation. As Haryana and Himacha Pradesh were carved out of the East Punjab of '47, Punjabi speaking areas of Haryana and Himachal Pradesh as well as the Ganganagar district of Rajasthan which is also Punjabi speaking could have been made as the Punjab state of Hindus in India, which could become a true Hindu country with Hinduvta as its ideology.

Presiceely India is not based on solely religion my friend.
Oops...India is not a true Hindu country either. And everyone else is already declared decrimnated.

If you have nothing to contribute except flame, please stay away.

Come on. Discrimination against non-hindus and even hindus of low castes is widespread in India. The hindu culture dont even spare their own hindu brothers who are of low castes, what to talk of other religious minorities. Actually its the Brahmins who are ruling India. Its the Brahmin raj in India. At one time you say Sikhism is no religion, they are Hindus and at the other you discriminate against them. Discrimination in India is common. Making Manmohan Singh as prime minister of India is just to fool the Sikhs. Its not Manmonhan Singh its the Brahmin elite who decides everything. Also Gurdaspur and Firozepur were muslim majority regions and its a fact though mentioned many times. A fact is a fact. Also if India is not a hindu country why muslims can not buy property in some post areas of Mumbai? And where your secularism was when the Gujrat massacre occured? If the British had not collaborated with the hindus and properly divided South Asia as I mentioned there would not have been any more problems in South Asia after '47 as everyone would have been leading their lives without any discrimination in their own respective countries and there would have been no dispute between any South Asian country, thus normal military spendings and betterment of the masses.

 

[ek_indian]

Come on. Discrimination against non-hindus and even hindus of low castes is widespread in India. The hindu culture dont even spare their own hindu brothers who are of low castes, what to talk of other religious minorities.

Accepted. However you are trying to put all anti-India sentiments into this thread. This is not the point thread is created for.
There are laws in place to protect. And there is a growing awareness among people. Youth in India don't give a sh!t about cast. In one or two generation, we would see significant changes.

Actually its the Brahmins who are ruling India. Its the Brahmin raj in India.

You should do some google how much percentage of Brahmins are in India. You are completely uninformed.

At one time you say Sikhism is no religion, they are Hindus and at the other you discriminate against them.

When did I say Sikhism is no religion. Please do not post nonsense.

Discrimination in India is common. Making Manmohan Singh as prime minister of India is just to fool the Sikhs. Its not Manmonhan Singh its the Brahmin elite who decides everything.

My response is

Also Gurdaspur and Firozepur were muslim majority regions and its a fact though mentioned many times. A fact is a fact.

Do I need to repeat again these are now part of India. You are beating the dead horse.

Also if India is not a hindu country why muslims can not buy property in some post areas of Mumbai?

Offtopic. And please post some link in support of your statement.

And where your secularism was when the Gujrat massacre occured?

This is indeed a blot in India. However this is out of context here. We need to fucus on Khalistan which actually is a non-issue today.

If the British had not collaborated with the hindus and properly divided South Asia as I mentioned there would not have been any more problems in South Asia after '47 as everyone would have been leading their lives without any discrimination in their own respective countries and there would have been no dispute between any South Asian country, thus normal military spendings and betterment of the masses.

Whatever happened is done, Now try to absorb is reality.
British collaborated with Hindus, your history is as weak as your gk.

Lastly, are you on India-bashing mission. There are separate thread for other issues. Since Khalistan issue has been refuted, I do not know what else is to discuss here.

 

[Bhushan]

Come on. Discrimination against non-hindus and even hindus of low castes is widespread in India. The hindu culture dont even spare their own hindu brothers who are of low castes, what to talk of other religious minorities. Actually its the Brahmins who are ruling India. Its the Brahmin raj in India. At one time you say Sikhism is no religion, they are Hindus and at the other you discriminate against them. Discrimination in India is common. Making Manmohan Singh as prime minister of India is just to fool the Sikhs. Its not Manmonhan Singh its the Brahmin elite who decides everything. Also Gurdaspur and Firozepur were muslim majority regions and its a fact though mentioned many times. A fact is a fact. Also if India is not a hindu country why muslims can not buy property in some post areas of Mumbai? And where your secularism was when the Gujrat massacre occured? If the British had not collaborated with the hindus and properly divided South Asia as I mentioned there would not have been any more problems in South Asia after '47 as everyone would have been leading their lives without any discrimination in their own respective countries and there would have been no dispute between any South Asian country, thus normal military spendings and betterment of the masses.

"Chota Zaid Hamid" on this forum.

 

[tadka]

))) Are sure NOBODY CAN DIVIDE YOU ????


anyway i dont want to get into flaming.

BD is today still a Muslim country and for keeping tab on Bangldeshis for own agenda India had to spend alot on proxies even today.


before creating Karachi, Balochistan and so on you should first concentrate on your North East and over two dozen insurgencies.

whats the use of being a muslim nation. Look at saudi.. the king is a vassal of america. first he bows to white house and then at kaaba, otherwise its the end of the house of saud. look at any other muslim nation. Filled with angry people, people very frustrated because of their inability to counter strength.

 

[Icarus]

There wasn't a demand for a seperate Sikh homeland back in 47, so why would the British establish one ?

 

[tadka]

There wasn't a demand for a seperate Sikh homeland back in 47, so why would the British establish one ?

whats the use of having a homeland. Imagine for a minute, that kashmir is a separate country and so is khalistan, and any other state of india you would like to split. what will happen, these will be rules by some tyrannical despot or will become an islamic wasteland. Now the very people who say respect the majority people, will say that people will have to bow to the will of god or tyrant later on. ultimately the aam aabad are the ones to suffer. So best is, study, get a job, work, marry , have kids and propsper.

 

[Icarus]

whats the use of being a muslim nation. Look at saudi.. the king is a vassal of america. first he bows to white house and then at kaaba, otherwise its the end of the house of saud. look at any other muslim nation. Filled with angry people, people very frustrated because of their impotence to counter strength. Thanks god that i am not in a muslim country.

Israel is full of angry people, America, Greece, etc.
These are not muslim countries, wherever there is a nation, there will always be an unsatisfied lobby, your argument is full of sh**.
Cheers

 

[Icarus]

whats the use of having a homeland. Imagine for a minute, that kashmir is a separate country and so is khalistan, and any other state of india you would like to split. what will happen, these will be rules by some tyrannical despot or will become an islamic wasteland. Now the very people who say respect the majority people, will say that people will have to bow to the will of god or tyrant later on. ultimately the aam aabad are the ones to suffer. So best is, study, get a job, work, marry , have kids and propsper.

That is why these people want a homeland:
I don't need to say much about the Kashmir conflict.
As for the Sikhs:
Operation Blue Star - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[tadka]

That is why these people want a homeland:
I don't need to say much about the Kashmir conflict.
As for the Sikhs:
Operation Blue Star - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

what will the saudi govt do, if osama is sitting inside the Kaaba and has stored weapons and men there, and is conducting terrorist operatinos from there?
I DO NOT mean to insult anyone, this is just an analogy. Just for a moment let us assume the saudi king is non-muslim. this is exactly the situation of india (saudi king) and bindranwala (osama)
kashmir lets not talk , pakistan has 40% , india has 45% and china has 15% of the territory. this is beyond scope of this discussion.

 

[Barrett]

what will the saudi govt do, if osama is sitting inside the Kaaba and has stored weapons and men there, and is conducting terrorist operatinos from there?
I DO NOT mean to insult anyone, this is just an analogy.

I request you and other members to do some research first before posting your comments and not to venture into unknown territories.

An incident of similar nature took place in 1979 when Abdullah Hamid Mohammed Al-Qahtani and his group tried to do the same and were executed.

I hope you got your answer.

Cheers

 

[tadka]

Also, a lot of people here want to split india into many pieces. May I ask what is the advantage to Pakistan if that happens?
If that happens there will be some of those small countries which will be more propsperous that it is now because they are more progressive minded (Like the southern states and maharashtra,gujarat and punjab) and some will become wasteland like Uttar pradesh, bihar and madhya pradesh because there is more communalism and casteism in these states. So what is the benefit to anyone if that happens. travel within the subcontinent will become more difficult. It will be dangerous for pakistan and china, because if one of these countries let say, maharashtra in west or bengal in east allows US to setup military base as a matter of foreign policy.
What is the benefit, please tell me.