Sikh To Death, a War nerd's tribute to Sikh warriors

[ps80]

Let me openly say that, There was nothing logical in demand of Punjab Suba. Sikhs from both (partitioned) the punjab wants a separate state only to have their specific reason to have majority of Sikhs in State. Isn't it flawed logic to have only less area for your whole community? isn't it only for political profit of few people?
QUOTE]

Sikhs were not a majority in the then united Punjab (before 1947). Muslims+Hindus+others population was greater than the Sikh population. Moreover, the demand was for a creation of a Punjabi Suba (the Punjab state), based on the main language of people living in the area, and not for a Sikh majority state or a nation within a nation as you are implying in your posts. Even the Anandpur Pact that the Akalis came up with later in the seventies did not demand for a separate nation with a nation.

 

[Gabbar]

Let me openly say that, There was nothing logical in demand of Punjab Suba. Sikhs from both (partitioned) the punjab wants a separate state only to have their specific reason to have majority of Sikhs in State. Isn't it flawed logic to have only less area for your whole community? isn't it only for political profit of few people?
QUOTE]

Sikhs were not a majority in the then united Punjab (before 1947). Muslims+Hindus+others population was greater than the Sikh population. Moreover, the demand was for a creation of a Punjabi Suba (the Punjab state), based on the main language of people living in the area, and not for a Sikh majority state or a nation within a nation as you are implying in your posts. Even the Anandpur Pact that the Akalis came up with later in the seventies did not demand for a separate nation with a nation.

You are correct, Sikhs never wanted thier seperate homeland. All they wanted was autonomus region within India, as it was promisted by Gandhi and Nehru. This problem could of been solved very easily it then Congress's leader ship been more open. Remember Sikhs made only 2% of the population but made close to 90% of the sacrifices for the independence.

 

[Pride]

Let me openly say that, There was nothing logical in demand of Punjab Suba. Sikhs from both (partitioned) the punjab wants a separate state only to have their specific reason to have majority of Sikhs in State. Isn't it flawed logic to have only less area for your whole community? isn't it only for political profit of few people?
QUOTE]

Sikhs were not a majority in the then united Punjab (before 1947). Muslims+Hindus+others population was greater than the Sikh population. Moreover, the demand was for a creation of a Punjabi Suba (the Punjab state), based on the main language of people living in the area, and not for a Sikh majority state or a nation within a nation as you are implying in your posts. Even the Anandpur Pact that the Akalis came up with later in the seventies did not demand for a separate nation with a nation.

PS80, I am presenting the figures of 1941 census in Punjab as per religion wise:
Muslim: 53.2%
Hindu: 29.1%
Sikh: 14.9%
Christian: 1.9%
others : 1.3%
Reference: http://www.global.ucsb.edu/punjab/journal_11_1/6_krishan.pdf

Hence total population of other religions was greater than Muslim population was wrong.
In 1966, Punjab was having Hindu population as 63.7% for which it has been broken to 3 states while many region in Haryana and Himachal speak Punjabi (or even today) or its dialect. So No, language was not the main reason but religion was main reason. Scond point, why I say this was flawed to ask for separate Punjabi Suba was because migration of Punjab brought Refugee Punjabis in New Delhi as max as Punjab. Hence the language role may play in capital city as per this logic.

Regarding Ananadpur Pact, Please read resolution here:-

The Resolution outlines seven objectives.

1.The transfer of the federally administered city of Chandigarh to Punjab.
2.The transfer of Punjabi speaking and contiguous areas to Punjab.
3.Decentralisation of states under the existing constitution, limiting the central government’s role.
4.The call for land reforms and industrialisation of Punjab, along with safeguarding the rights of the weaker sections of the population.
5.The enactment of an all-India gurdwara (Sikh house of worship) act.
6.Protection for minorities residing outside Punjab, but within India.
7.Revision of government’s recruitment quota restricting the number of Sikhs in armed forces.

Now try to read the hidden agenda in this resolution especially 2 and 3.

 

[Pride]

You are correct, Sikhs never wanted thier seperate homeland. All they wanted was autonomus region within India, as it was promisted by Gandhi and Nehru. This problem could of been solved very easily it then Congress's leader ship been more open. Remember Sikhs made only 2% of the population but made close to 90% of the sacrifices for the independence.

The Autonomus region was a big issue at that time. Remember the Sikh leaders demanded the similar kind of demand which Muslim League was demanding which led to partition. They were asking for multiple autonomous regions for Muslim majority within India which Congress rejected and led to partition. Nations within nations always gives a threat to soverignity of the State.

We, as a whole nation, irrespective of religions and regions have always a big impact of Bhagat Singh's martyrdom. For me, he was the first revolutionist with his theories. Apart from my feelings, Don't you think it is responsibility of these martyr's and their loved one's to look for whole nation for which they fought and not for some state.
Asking for being nationalist is not a big thing right?

 

[ranveer]

The Autonomus region was a big issue at that time. Remember the Sikh leaders demanded the similar kind of demand which Muslim League was demanding which led to partition. They were asking for multiple autonomous regions for Muslim majority within India which Congress rejected and led to partition. Nations within nations always gives a threat to soverignity of the State.

We, as a whole nation, irrespective of religions and regions have always a big impact of Bhagat Singh's martyrdom. For me, he was the first revolutionist with his theories. Apart from my feelings, Don't you think it is responsibility of these martyr's and their loved one's to look for whole nation for which they fought and not for some state.
Asking for being nationalist is not a big thing right?

well pride this was the only reason that sikhs took word of Gandhijee and Nehru and joined India rather than being an independent nation but were letter back stabbed to deny the autonomous state/government within india..... and as you say so much so just agree that the indian government and congress leaders and father of nation all back stabbed the sikhs for their legitimate rights promised..

 

[Pride]

well pride this was the only reason that sikhs took word of Gandhijee and Nehru and joined India rather than being an independent nation but were letter back stabbed to deny the autonomous state/government within india..... and as you say so much so just agree that the indian government and congress leaders and father of nation all back stabbed the sikhs for their legitimate rights promised..

Ranveer, What we are discussing here is nation above to religion? Could you please show me anyone of Freedom fighter's statement who were demanding or fighting for independent Sikh land? They all fought for one united India. The backstabbing was for few political leaders who were taking out profit from then situation. Nothing against to Sikhs.. only nationalistic point of view..

 

[brain_dead]

im proud of our sikh brothers.
sikhs have made so much of sacrifices to safeguard our motherland.

jo bole so nihal..... sat sri akal....

(im a hindu)

 

[Gabbar]

The Autonomus region was a big issue at that time. Remember the Sikh leaders demanded the similar kind of demand which Muslim League was demanding which led to partition. They were asking for multiple autonomous regions for Muslim majority within India which Congress rejected and led to partition. Nations within nations always gives a threat to soverignity of the State.

We, as a whole nation, irrespective of religions and regions have always a big impact of Bhagat Singh's martyrdom. For me, he was the first revolutionist with his theories. Apart from my feelings, Don't you think it is responsibility of these martyr's and their loved one's to look for whole nation for which they fought and not for some state.
Asking for being nationalist is not a big thing right?

There is a big flaw in your logic, autonomy has levels. Sikhs were happy to be part of India but all they wanted was a piece of land where they can practice thier religion freely and protect thier language and culture, not much to ask when are at the forfront of the freedom struggle. And remember GOI "promised" to Sikhs and GOI then backed down after signing papers. Jinah offered the same thing, should of listned to him, but Sikhs though Hindu leaders are more closer to Sikhs. I live in Canada, all of the provinces have autonomy here, what excellent rule where states control their resources, you can have referendom if you have enough support. By the way, Canada have remained one country even though they have "autonomus" regions. They do have different kind people dominating different regions of the country, ex. French in Quebec, English in Ontario and western Canada and Natives in Northern areas.

 

[LaBong]

There is a big flaw in your logic, autonomy has levels. Sikhs were happy to be part of India but all they wanted was a piece of land where they can practice thier religion freely and protect thier language and culture, not much to ask when are at the forfront of the freedom struggle. And remember GOI "promised" to Sikhs and GOI then backed down after signing papers. Jinah offered the same thing, should of listned to him, but Sikhs though Hindu leaders are more closer to Sikhs. I live in Canada, all of the provinces have autonomy here, what excellent rule where states control their resources, you can have referendom if you have enough support. By the way, Canada have remained one country even though they have "autonomus" regions. They do have different kind people dominating different regions of the country, ex. French in Quebec, English in Ontario and western Canada and Natives in Northern areas.

Regarding the boldest parts, this is really a sorry post coming from you, seems it's true what they say about sikhs living in Canada.

1. This is the first time I have heard from someone that sikhs are not allowed or facing issues practising their religion. I'm not sure you're familiar with ground realities in India living in Canada and all, but sikhs are the most well off community in India with most key military and political positions in their hand. Also what's with 'we brought freedom to India' syndrome? You even claimed 90% of sacrifices are made by Sikhs, where did you get that statistics? With all my respect to Sikhs, don't you think you're degrading the contribution of Bengalis and Marathis and mostly people from everywhere in India to independence? Do you even know how many of them died and what was their losses? Ask anyone in south and east India, he/she will tell you after independence for most of the years GoI spent all his resource for well-keeping of north and north west India leaving the south and east states to feel deserted, and here you're ranting about sikhs not getting their due. Stop being a supremacist, not suitable for a multi-ethnic nation.

2. About the second point, it's better to let a patriotic Sikh to reply you than me. Everyone knows how much they are respected in India, if they still feel grudge or want some kinda special status for them, what we in East and South should really do? Shoot the northies and blow up movie halls showing Hindi movies which typically portrays Bengalis and Tamils as comic relief! Gosh, and you all throw your tantrum to thakray clan when they beat up people from other states!

 

[ps80]

PS80, I am presenting the figures of 1941 census in Punjab as per religion wise:
Muslim: 53.2%
Hindu: 29.1%
Sikh: 14.9%
Christian: 1.9%
others : 1.3%
Reference: http://www.global.ucsb.edu/punjab/journal_11_1/6_krishan.pdf

Hence total population of other religions was greater than Muslim population was wrong.
In 1966, Punjab was having Hindu population as 63.7% for which it has been broken to 3 states while many region in Haryana and Himachal speak Punjabi (or even today) or its dialect. So No, language was not the main reason but religion was main reason. Scond point, why I say this was flawed to ask for separate Punjabi Suba was because migration of Punjab brought Refugee Punjabis in New Delhi as max as Punjab. Hence the language role may play in capital city as per this logic.

Regarding Ananadpur Pact, Please read resolution here:-

The Resolution outlines seven objectives.

1.The transfer of the federally administered city of Chandigarh to Punjab.
2.The transfer of Punjabi speaking and contiguous areas to Punjab.
3.Decentralisation of states under the existing constitution, limiting the central government’s role.
4.The call for land reforms and industrialisation of Punjab, along with safeguarding the rights of the weaker sections of the population.
5.The enactment of an all-India gurdwara (Sikh house of worship) act.
6.Protection for minorities residing outside Punjab, but within India.
7.Revision of government’s recruitment quota restricting the number of Sikhs in armed forces.

Now try to read the hidden agenda in this resolution especially 2 and 3.

1. I think you are factually wrong in saying that religion was the main reason (or one of the main reasons) for the demand of a Punjabi suba. If that was the case, the India Punjab would not have been a part of India. If religion was an issue between Sikhs and others, then Maharaja Ranjit Singh's rule would never have been mostly secular and peaceful.

2. where is the hidden agenda in the Anandpur Pact that you are implying. W.r.t to the second point of the Pact, these were some border areas in Rajasthan and Haryana that were not given to Punjab, even though the majority of people living in those areas disclosed their main language as Punjabi. W.r.t. the third point, read the bold part "under the existing constitution".

 

[Pride]

1. I think you are factually wrong in saying that religion was the main reason (or one of the main reasons) for the demand of a Punjabi suba. If that was the case, the India Punjab would not have been a part of India. If religion was an issue between Sikhs and others, then Maharaja Ranjit Singh's rule would never have been mostly secular and peaceful.

Could you please explain the reasons for Punjabi Suba, if that was not for religion biased? My knowledge says only few Sikh leader wants autonomy for the state only to practise their faith. Even in '66 the decision for trifurcation of Punjab was done to increase % of Sikhs in existing Punjab.

Maharaja Ranjit Singh was great warrior, king and leader irrespective of religions and there were other Sikh warriors as well. We are not discussing about them. We are discussing here to understand what kind of mistakes happened from both side which we never repeat again future.

2. where is the hidden agenda in the Anandpur Pact that you are implying. W.r.t to the second point of the Pact, these were some border areas in Rajasthan and Haryana that were not given to Punjab, even though the majority of people living in those areas disclosed their main language as Punjabi. W.r.t. the third point, read the bold part "under the existing constitution".

These border areas many times get exchanged and some times remain bone of contention. Belgaum is one of those disputed area even today between Karnataka and Maharashtra. So should this be taken again against Marathi pride??

The point is that border area exchange normally done on the basis of mutual understanding of state governments and then approval of Central government. Kerala and TN did, TN and AP did while MH and KA still have so no one sided injustice here.

Regarding "under existing constitution", Migration of Punjabi speaking people from other area is ill-logical anf wrong on Human ground basis.
According to this theory, Many Punjabi expeaking people who migrated from other side of Pakistan to settle in capital in '47 should be migrated again to Punjab in 1973 leaving all their home and business. Do you expect people do it after so many years??

 

[RobbieS]

Could you please explain the reasons for Punjabi Suba, if that was not for religion biased? My knowledge says only few Sikh leader wants autonomy for the state only to practise their faith. Even in '66 the decision for trifurcation of Punjab was done to increase % of Sikhs in existing Punjab.

Usually I don't like to reply t posts that arent addressed to me, but I would like to reply to your inquiry around the demand for Punjabi Suba.

You see, there was no communal element to the demand for Punjabi Suba. States were organized on the basis of languages and all the Punjabis wanted was a similar political entity recognizing Punjabi. Instead they had to live with a loose amalgamation of erstwhile princely estates for 20 years. The Punjabi Suba movement was made to look communal but certain sections that were, how shall I put it, inimical to the Akalis. You can count Jan Sangh as one of these groups and Congress too, initially. As the Akalis were generally at the forefront of the movement Congress and Jan Sangh tried to pull away Punjbai Hindus for political mileage. But what could have made the Congress wait for 20 years to carve a state for Punjabis beats me.

If Sikhs had wanted a state based on religion, they could have always used the K-word, but that didnt happen untill Bhindrawala rose in prominence in the 70's.

I would recommend a very good book that I am currently reading for you to delve more into the matter. Its called - "Identity and Survival - Sikh Militancy in India '75-89" by Kirpal Dhillon. The guy was the DGP of Punjab Police for 2 years after Op Bluestar and preceded Jules Ribeiro. As an IPS officer, he had access to certainly more info and insight than any of us here and he does provide a lot of details about the issue. My views above regarding the Punjabi Suba are largely drawn from his insights.

 

[Pride]

There is a big flaw in your logic, autonomy has levels. Sikhs were happy to be part of India but all they wanted was a piece of land where they can practice thier religion freely and protect thier language and culture, not much to ask when are at the forfront of the freedom struggle. And remember GOI "promised" to Sikhs and GOI then backed down after signing papers. Jinah offered the same thing, should of listned to him, but Sikhs though Hindu leaders are more closer to Sikhs. I live in Canada, all of the provinces have autonomy here, what excellent rule where states control their resources, you can have referendom if you have enough support. By the way, Canada have remained one country even though they have "autonomus" regions. They do have different kind people dominating different regions of the country, ex. French in Quebec, English in Ontario and western Canada and Natives in Northern areas.

Gabbar, You are sincere post but here you are getting sentimental in this post. Nobody here has anything wrong about Sikhs, their history and their sacrifices. What we want to discuss is that what is our 1% misunderstanding due to some black days of history.

Why do you think that GoI was wrong and against about Sikhs or Punjabis? Please check how many Punjabis settled from other side of Pakistan. Do you think GoI allow to settle so many people in the national capital if they have some grudges against some ethnic group? GoI did what was the best for a soverign nation at that time. There could not be only you who have some grudges but for 526 kingdoms' king as well but if you see from nationalistic view then you wont find any logical issue in that.

Regarding Bold part it is sad to see your comment. Not because you were advocating Sikhs to be part of Pakistan but you are somewhat degrading the sacrifice of sikh freedom fighters.

Autonomy is not a unique thing and hence from 1948 till 1960s Kahmir have same when it has been turned down for National Integrity. China has TAR and XAR as well. The point is Autonomy was a big deal at that time as if you read history then Muslim league asked the same thing before partition. When it was analyzed by Congress then found it was dangerous for soverignity as it creates "Nations with in nation". There would be many Lesothos in South Africa.

 

[Pride]

Usually I don't like to reply t posts that arent addressed to me, but I would like to reply to your inquiry around the demand for Punjabi Suba.

No probs buddy you are always welcome, This was my post so I am going to reply.

You see, there was no communal element to the demand for Punjabi Suba. States were organized on the basis of languages and all the Punjabis wanted was a similar political entity recognizing Punjabi. Instead they had to live with a loose amalgamation of erstwhile princely estates for 20 years. The Punjabi Suba movement was made to look communal but certain sections that were, how shall I put it, inimical to the Akalis. You can count Jan Sangh as one of these groups and Congress too, initially. As the Akalis were generally at the forefront of the movement Congress and Jan Sangh tried to pull away Punjbai Hindus for political mileage. But what could have made the Congress wait for 20 years to carve a state for Punjabis beats me.

If Sikhs had wanted a state based on religion, they could have always used the K-word, but that didnt happen untill Bhindrawala rose in prominence in the 70's.

Sorry buddy but still I am not clear what you actually point out here. States name was Punjab, 37-38% people were Sikhs including other Punjabi speaking people. There were milions of Punjabi who settled in
Punjab and in Delhi. What was the issue or problem to split it and just increase the % of some special ethnic group. I know politics would have been involved so I am not going there. K movement started when Bhindrawala saw profit into that and he got support from neighbours so before that K word was not there but Anandpur resolution was starting point there.

I would recommend a very good book that I am currently reading for you to delve more into the matter. Its called - "Identity and Survival - Sikh Militancy in India '75-89" by Kirpal Dhillon. The guy was the DGP of Punjab Police for 2 years after Op Bluestar and preceded Jules Ribeiro. As an IPS officer, he had access to certainly more info and insight than any of us here and he does provide a lot of details about the issue. My views above regarding the Punjabi Suba are largely drawn from his insights.

Sure, I will try to read his book. If you have ebook then please share with me.

 

[RobbieS]

Sorry buddy but still I am not clear what you actually point out here. States name was Punjab, 37-38% people were Sikhs including other Punjabi speaking people. There were milions of Punjabi who settled in
Punjab and in Delhi. What was the issue or problem to split it and just increase the % of some special ethnic group. I know politics would have been involved so I am not going there. K movement started when Bhindrawala saw profit into that and he got support from neighbours so before that K word was not there but Anandpur resolution was starting point there.

See the thing is that the Punjab from '47-'66 was just about 50% Punjabi. It included regions of now Haryana and HP. Punjabis wanted a state that correctly identified with this issue. Whats the harm in asking your state's boundaries to be correctly demarcated? Tamils had a state out of Madras and so did many others, but why not a Punjab just for the speakers of the language? Add to this the fact that Nehru promised a greater autonomic region and you had a dissatisfied lot.

Sure, I will try to read his book. If you have ebook then please share with me.

I dont have an e-book, man. The book's fairly recent. So i am not sure if an e-book exists.