Was it possible for Britishers?

kds1980 · #1 (**permalink**) 04-Dec-2009, 19:47 PM

AS I Said in another thread I am reading it again and again That britishers wanted to give sikhs a poltical feet but sikhs themselves refused it.But to be honest was It really possible for them to give sikhs some districts of Punjab when the truth is that there was not even a sikh majority district in Punjab
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/history-of-sikhism/28402-was-it-possible-for-britishers.html
Land in this era is distribuited solely on the basis of numbers and not on History or anything else,so if someone uses common sense then he/she can easily come to conclusion That It was possible for Britishers to give any area to sikhs because sikhs were not at all in majority
*

Sinister · #2 (**permalink**) 05-Dec-2009, 04:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kanwardeep Singh

AS I Said in another thread I am reading it again and again That britishers wanted to give sikhs a poltical feet but sikhs themselves refused it.But to be honest was It really possible for them to give sikhs some districts of Punjab when the truth is that there was not even a sikh majority district in Punjab
Land in this era is distribuited solely on the basis of numbers and not on History or anything else,so if someone uses common sense then he/she can easily come to conclusion That It was possible for Britishers to give any area to sikhs because sikhs were not at all in majority

Palestine which is modern day Israel was given to a minority jewish community at the time. The mufti of Jeurasalem at the time was a Nazi Sympathizer.

so modern land in this era is not solely distributed on the basis of numbers, but also political affiliations.

Also in Iraq it was the Sunni population represented and supported by Ba'athist party members that took control of Iraq despite the fact Shiites out numbered them.

It is about loyalities, numbers do play a role, but it has to do more with political-and-economic prowess of a community.

for example; the states of Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) and South-Africa stayed under the control of the minority White communties for centuries...until the black population became more economically powerful, and were allowed to become politically active.

the sikh community (Jatt Sikh Community...which was the largest and most concentrated population) was never economically as powerful as the other communities back then...nor was it very well organized on a political level. the akali dal and SGPC came to existence in 1920...it was still very young compared to the indian national congress and the all india muslim league.

kds1980 · #3 (**permalink**) 05-Dec-2009, 12:39 PM

Sinister ji

There are some exceptions But still if you leave the case of israel in your examples.The power eventually fell to Majority.

Quote:

Palestine which is modern day Israel was given to a minority jewish community at the time.

There was extreme sympathy all over the world after genocide of Jews by Hitler

Quote:

Also in Iraq it was the Sunni population represented and supported by Ba'athist party members that took control of Iraq despite the fact Shiites out numbered them.

A case of dictatorship not democracy

Quote:

It is about loyalities, numbers do play a role, but it has to do more with political-and-economic prowess of a community.

Unfortunately Britishers Did not look at economic angle.The Hindu's and sikhs of west punjab were much more economically powerful than muslims in many districts and even in cities like Lahore too .But economic point was totally ignored and Hindu's and sikhs emerged as losers in that case and numbers of muslims became winners.

Quote:

for example; the states of Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) and South-Africa stayed under the control of the minority White communties for centuries...until the black population became more economically powerful, and were allowed to become politically active.

An example of colonial era.Yes its true That white's did lot of progress in many countries
You can even say it that It was Britishers that united India and left it with much stronger Army.But again the result was same the power fell to majority

Quote:

the sikh community (Jatt Sikh Community...which was the largest and most concentrated population) was never economically as powerful as the other communities back then...nor was it very well organized on a political level. the akali dal and SGPC came to existence in 1920...it was still very young compared to the indian national congress and the all india muslim league.

The caste difference's among sikhs especially upper caste were not as severe as it is now.
BTW was Maharaj Ranjit singh not a Jatt?

Sinister · #4 (**permalink**) 05-Dec-2009, 13:18 PM

the british could have done a little somethin somethin for the sikhs..with a pickle on the side of a great sandwich... all im saying is if the sikhs had better leadership they probably could have gotten a bigger state with perhaps more autonomy.

... but then again the birtish were never that skilled at carving up countries in the first place. this is the same country that partitioned pakistan into a east and west state a 1000 miles apart from each other with a sea of hindus between them...lol ...you cant help but laugh.

kds1980 · #5 (**permalink**) 06-Dec-2009, 02:49 AM

Its true that Britishers could have done something,But it was quite Clear that Britishers were in too much hurry to leave India and congress and muslim league desperately wanted power,so a tiny minority like sikhs suffered because there was no one to hear their case.

Secondly sikhs themselves were responsible for not having better leadership.Muslim leader Jinnah ,congress leaders were Highly educated Advocate's and Jinnah was even hardly a practising muslim but still muslims choose him as undisputed leader because he was the best suited for job.Sikhs always first look at how much practicing a person is.So against these highly clever educated leaders of muslim league and congress, sikhs did not have much chance.

AusDesi · #6 (**permalink**) 06-Dec-2009, 05:28 AM

You can give any examples you like but the fact is Punjab was divided by the radcliffe line. Infact, even some areas which had Hindu-Sikh majority were given to Pakistan and the opposite was also true.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=28402

Lahore and Layalpur had a Hindu-Sikh Majority while Gurdaspur had a Muslim majority. If Sikhs had gone their separate way then at the most their state would have comprised of Patiala, Jind and Nabha. Muslim would have been the single biggest majority everywhere.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=28402

Only a threatening of war could have got the Sikhs a bigger state than Patiala, Jind and Nabha.

AusDesi · #7 (**permalink**) 06-Dec-2009, 05:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sinister

... but then again the birtish were never that skilled at carving up countries in the first place. this is the same country that partitioned pakistan into a east and west state a 1000 miles apart from each other with a sea of hindus between them...lol ...you cant help but laugh.

Ye but that wasn't Britishers fault. That was the case with the muslim population, it was spread out weird but Muslims still wanted all muslims to be part of Pakistan.

kds1980 · #8 (**permalink**) 06-Dec-2009, 13:11 PM

Quote:

Lahore and Layalpur had a Hindu-Sikh Majority while Gurdaspur had a Muslim majority

Lyalpur was not Hindu sikh majority district and lahore too had majority population of Hindu sikhs in City.overall district of Lahore had muslim majority.Infact what I remember that I read is that some areas of Muslim majority was merged with Lahore district in early 40s or late 30s.That did the trictk and Lahore as a whole district went to pakistan

AusDesi · #9 (**permalink**) 06-Dec-2009, 13:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kanwardeep Singh

Lyalpur was not Hindu sikh majority district and lahore too had majority population of Hindu sikhs in City.overall district of Lahore had muslim majority.Infact what I remember that I read is that some areas of Muslim majority was merged with Lahore district in early 40s or late 30s.That did the trictk and Lahore as a whole district went to pakistan

Sorry I was wrong about Layalpur but yes I was talking about Lahore City.