Welcome to SPN

Register and Join the most happening forum of Sikh community & intellectuals from around the world.

Sign Up Now!

Was it possible for Britishers?

Discussion in 'History of Sikhism' started by kds1980, Dec 4, 2009.

Tags:
  1. kds1980

    kds1980 India
    Expand Collapse
    SPNer

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,504
    Likes Received:
    2,738
    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
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Loading...


  3. Sinister

    Sinister
    Expand Collapse
    SPNer Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2006
    Messages:
    907
    Likes Received:
    394
    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.
     
  4. kds1980

    kds1980 India
    Expand Collapse
    SPNer

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,504
    Likes Received:
    2,738
    Sinister ji

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

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

    A case of dictatorship not democracy

    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.

    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

    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?
     
  5. Sinister

    Sinister
    Expand Collapse
    SPNer Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2006
    Messages:
    907
    Likes Received:
    394
    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.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. kds1980

    kds1980 India
    Expand Collapse
    SPNer

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,504
    Likes Received:
    2,738
    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.
     
  7. AusDesi

    AusDesi
    Expand Collapse
    SPNer

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2009
    Messages:
    347
    Likes Received:
    211
    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.

    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.

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

    AusDesi
    Expand Collapse
    SPNer

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2009
    Messages:
    347
    Likes Received:
    211
    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.
     
  9. kds1980

    kds1980 India
    Expand Collapse
    SPNer

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,504
    Likes Received:
    2,738
    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
     
  10. AusDesi

    AusDesi
    Expand Collapse
    SPNer

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2009
    Messages:
    347
    Likes Received:
    211
    Sorry I was wrong about Layalpur but yes I was talking about Lahore City.
     
  11. kds1980

    kds1980 India
    Expand Collapse
    SPNer

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,504
    Likes Received:
    2,738
    Actually it was muslims who upto this day cry that injustice was done to them.
    India-Pakistan Partition 1947
    The Indian Independence Act, a bill providing independence to India, was introduced in the House of Commons on 4 July, 1947, and was passed on 15 July, 1947. On 16 July 1947, it was passed by the House of Lords and received the Royal assent on 18 July, 1947. The Boundary Commission appointed under the Indian Independence Act 1947, submitted its report, commonly known as the Radcliffe Award, on August 12, 1947. The Boundary Commission awarded to India parts of several districts of Punjab in which the population was predominantly Muslim. Under the Award, the Muslim majority areas of Gurdaspur, Batala, Ferozepur, and Jullundhar were given to India.

    Sir Cyril Radcliffe, the Chairman of the Boundary Commission on India and Pakistan, had handed over the Muslim majority districts of Gurdaspur and Kapurthala to India. Radcliffe decided to allot three-fourth of the Muslim majority district of Gurdaspur to India, giving India access to the State of Jammu and Kashmir. Without Gurdaspur India had no claim whatsoever to Kashmir. As the events unfolded, later it was revealed that this crude violation of the June 3 Partition Plan might have been deliberatly undertaken to afford India a corridor and access to the valley of Kashmir. The Muslims with marginal majority in these two districts of the Punjab were taken aback when they learnt on 15 August 1947, four days after the declaration of independence, that they were in India and not in Pakistan. Simultaneously, the Hindus and Sikhs, aided by militias and partisan elements of soldiery from Bikaner, Kapurthala and Patiala states started a down-right massacre of Muslims in East Punjab. In a matter of a few weeks hundreds of thousands of Muslims who were not killed were thrown out of the borders.
     
  12. AusDesi

    AusDesi
    Expand Collapse
    SPNer

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2009
    Messages:
    347
    Likes Received:
    211
    Thats true but Radcliffe took into account the geography and swapping of populations. Those districts would have been isolated or had some other problems.

    Plus Im not sure whether Sindh was a princely state but there are parts of Sindh which even today have a 40% plus hindu population. Surely they would have had a Hindu majority in 1940s.
     
  13. kds1980

    kds1980 India
    Expand Collapse
    SPNer

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2005
    Messages:
    4,504
    Likes Received:
    2,738
    Sindh was not princely State and that was stupidity of Sindhi leaders that they did not demanded partition of Sindh.Muslim league was definately eyeing entire Punjab But because of aggressive opposition by sikhs the punjab was saved.
     
  14. AusDesi

    AusDesi
    Expand Collapse
    SPNer

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2009
    Messages:
    347
    Likes Received:
    211
    oh ye I didn't know about the ground situation of Sindh but I know that districts of Tharparkar, Umerkot and Mirpur Khas in Sindh have a hindu population between 35 - 47% today. I would say that in 1947 they would have been a majority.
     

Share This Page