What's new

Sikh Movie about Indian govt atrocities released : Sadda Haq

Like the member DESERT FIGHTER said his great great source grandpa had explained his bundle full of exaggerated emotions in a nutshell.


It was hugely traumatic for families in that period. Family members killed, properties looted, communities torn apart. So DF shared his grandpa's views from that traumatic times.

Like anyone going through severe trauma, facts can get jumbled.

We should not joke about it.

However DF and others should not just live with the traumatic recount of events. And instead strive for more information.


It is unfortunate that Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs each have traumatic experience at the same time,

and still

refuse to see what happened to those who did not follow the same faith.

so everyone is living with their own story, which is just one third of truth (simply dividing the story among three main groups).


It is time that everyone accounted for the other 2/3 rd of their story to complete it.


It is not good to know only 1/3rd. Not good at all.


peace
 
The claim that sikhs betrayed religiously driven parochial muslims in 1947 is the most perveted thing I have heard from these brainwashed people.

Why do Pakistanis think Sikhs would have supported them for creating a Muslim homeland. :cheesy:

All historians agree that more Muslims died in Partition then Hindus and Sikhs combined. Punjab's partition was the bloodiest one with one Sikh leader raising his Kirpal and promising to cleanse Punjab of Muslims (I forgot his name, he was the same one who asked Nehru to represent Sikh interests in meetings with Britishers).

In-fact Sikhs today are a living testament to Jinnah's foresight. Had Muslims not struggled for Pakistan today they would have been the 'Sikhs' of India. Nehru not only backtracked on his promises of autonomy to Punjab he also tagged Sikhs as a danger and it was the continuity of his policy that congress later broke Punjab into three parts and deliberately provided no protection to Punjabi language. Hinduvta from those times started on the mission to Hindufy Sikhism and today Sikhism is essentially treated as one expression of Hinduism. Indian Sikhs are completely oblivious to their own history, most think that 1984 was a result of Sikh attack on Indra, how many know that Khalistan movement only came into being when Sikh demand of autonomy was denied time and again (whole Khalistan thing is treated as an ISI staged phenomenon). What are Sikhs today? a sorry shadow of their earlier self, Red Indians of subcontinent. They have become irrelevant, serves these back-stabbers right. Muslims in Punjab had no issues with Sikhs, you had to become the Rottweiler of Nehru. Well guess what Nehru had the Rottweiler neutered soon after the partition duty. Now die happily knowing that Hindu police will **** on Sikhs turban, Hindu boys will cut Sikh boys hair and Sikh women will routinely be raped by Hindu mobs all that as a prize of partition duty. Rest assured you bloody hyenas, we will come back to avenge the honor of our women. Hndu have only castrated you but the killing blow will come from Muslims.

Most of the points you raised here are complete nonsense.
 
Sikhs are incapable of statehood, as a culture they have no ability to fabricate a state of their own nor the ability of self rule.
I don't know what to call your 2 cents about Sikhs in general, immature one liner or intentional bourgeois mentality. In case you are not a Punjabi do read about Maharaja Ranjit Singh's state called Punjab which stretched west to though out current Pakistan.
 
Why do Pakistani think Sikh would have supported them for creating a Muslim homeland. :cheesy:

That's the typical view of UPites and Bihari Hindus.

When they view Sikhs, and Hindus and Muslims from Punjab. They make sure they never unite.

The reality is different though.

Back in 40s, Sardar Baldev Singh, Giyani Kartar Singh and many Sikh leaders from big cities like Lahore and Pindi were struggling for their piece of action in the post 1948 period.

There were two choices. Stay in Pakistan, or move to E. Punjab.


It was not easy. E. Punjab was backwater rural area compared to major trading hubs like Lahore and Pindi.

So not only the Sikh faith but Sikh trade was in danger of losing if they would move out of W. Punjab.


However Punjabi Hindus had no such issues. This is why Punjabi Hindus were at the forefront of dividing Punjab.

Punjabi Hindus were first for the partition
Punjabi Muslims were the second

And

Punjabi Sikhs were the last. They would have stayed if Punjabi Muslim leadership was not as clueless as they turned out to be.

Please keep the whole story in mind and not spread ignorance.


thank you
 
That's the typical view of UPites and Bihari Hindus.

When they view Sikhs, and Hindus and Muslims from Punjab. They make sure they never unite.

The reality is different though.

Back in 40s, Sardar Baldev Singh, Giyani Kartar Singh and many Sikh leaders from big cities like Lahore and Pindi were struggling for their piece of action in the post 1948 period.

There were two choices. Stay in Pakistan, or move to E. Punjab.


It was not easy. E. Punjab was backwater rural area compared to major trading hubs like Lahore and Pindi.

So not only the Sikh faith but Sikh trade was in danger of losing if they would move out of W. Punjab.


However Punjabi Hindus had no such issues. This is why Punjabi Hindus were at the forefront of dividing Punjab.

Punjabi Hindus were first for the partition
Punjabi Muslims were the second

And

Punjabi Sikhs were the last. They would have stayed if Punjabi Muslim leadership was not as clueless as they turned out to be.

Please keep the whole story in mind and not spread ignorance.


thank you

Most of businesses in Punjab and Sindh were owned by Hindu traders, landlords were mostly Muslims. So, I really don't agree with your blaming Hindus. You think Sikhs would have supported a exclusively Muslim homeland where they gain nothing.
 
I don't know what to call your 2 cents about Sikhs in general, immature one liner or intentional bourgeois mentality. In case you are not a Punjabi do read about Maharaja Ranjit Singh's state called Punjab which stretched west to though out current Pakistan.


Ranjit is a singular example of a General and cannot be regarded as a 'culture'. Sikhs have lost,the right to self determination by being weak towards self governance. They are much better as a part of the Indian state. They should take part in India's development and remain loyal to India, it will work better for them instead of aspiring for a delusion.
 
Most of businesses in Punjab and Sindh were owned by Hindu traders, landlords were mostly Muslims. So, I really don't agree with your blaming Hindus. You think Sikhs would have supported a exclusively Muslim homeland where they gain nothing.

Sindh yes - But not in Punjab and Sikh still are minority in India unless you consider them variant of Hinduism - Undivided Punjab (Fully in Pakistan, In India or Independent) would have been better for this region - because in that case bloodshed of that scale and dispute of Kashmir wouldn't have happened.
 
Like the member DESERT FIGHTER said his great great source grandpa had explained his bundle full of exaggerated emotions in a nutshell.

I shared what my elders saw... i also admitted tht sikhs faced similiar treatment at the hands of muslim in Pak punjab... but it was the muslims who suffered much more than sikhs... dont twist my post.
 
DF,

I agree with the first part.



However the second part is largely a myth. The first train did not carry East Punjabi Muslims.

Instead it was carrying Sarkari Baboos (government officials) and army officers from Delhi who had opted to serve in Pakistani government. I can perhaps dig out the exact name and number of the train. It may take some time though. This train was attacked in a bad attempt to deprive Pakistan of the government workers. The planners of this attack (I'll point a bit later) were $tupidly hoping that such an action will lead to collapse of the nascent state of Pakistan. I say $tupid, because Pakistan later showed that it can produce the same amount of cr@ppy baboos indian style in a year or so.

This train was not intended for "migration of Muslims" at all the way so many myths about partition say.

Civilian migration trains and caravans started a bit later and slowly increased in their ferocity and zulm.

Indians who are pointing out Rawalpindi riots, are not entirely wrong. However the exact location was not Pindi, but a major Sikh-dominated market outside Pindi.

However the number of sikhs killed in these riots was rather small. But the impact on Sikh population was huge.

There were other incidents in that dark period like the Masjid Shaheed Ganj that I call Masjis $tupid ganj. Even Iqbal was disgusted when he wrote,

-- Masjid to bana di shab bhar main Iman ke hararat walon nain
-- Man upna purana paapi hai, berson main namazi bun na saka

people can build a mosque in one night, but they are unable to be honest abe even after years of prostration.




However this is all nitpicking. it pails in comparison to what was about to happen. And sadly everyone knew about it.

For example, Jinnah calls upon Governor Jenkins of Punjab, and says, my dear governor, mobs are getting ready please post army at major areas to make sure things do not get out of hands.

Police on the other hand was under the control of home minister Sardar Patel. he had already refused to do anything for Punjab.

Gov. Jenkins only promised small contingent of army for a vast state like Punjab (both East and West). Gen. Ayub and one Hindu Punjabi officer (forgetting his name) were put in charge of this under-powered under-manned army contingent.

Why?

I don't know.

None of the papers in "transfer of power" explains the reasons why British did not post large numbers of army jawans to protect life and limb during the partition.

One can only theorize.

Even though Jinnah, and Giyani Kartar Singh, and Sardar Baldev Singh (minister in Delhi Gov) tried to figure out a way, but none had the actual power on the ground to stop it.

Akali Sikhs like Tara Singh, and Muslim leagures like Shaukat the black faced were too much into blood bath.

and so was Sardar Wilubh bhai patel (the home minister).


The holocaust of Punjab that followed August 1947 was unmatchable by any other part of India.


Partition impacted mostly one state in the whole of British India. And that state was Punjab.

Before partition
-- East Punjab (Indian side) had 55-65% Muslim Punjabis. (depending on city/village)
-- West Punjab (Pak side) had 35-45% non-Muslim Punjabis (depending on city/village)

After partition
--- Indian Punjab had 0% Muslim punjabis (totally annihilated by Indian mobs)
-- Pak Punjab had 0% non-Muslim punjabis (totally annihilated by Pak mobs)
--- few exceptions were tiny Muslim population in Malir kotla, and tiny sikh population around holy shrines such as: Nankana sahib and Punja sahib


nowhere else in India or Pak, the ethnic cleansing was so absolute so comprehensive.

Around 1947 there were few riots and some uprooting around Delhi area and tiny bit in Kolkatta etc.


So partition should be blamed for the killings and rapes and ethnic cleansing in Punjab only.


And such blame is more on Punjabi Muslims as they were in majority and to lesser extent on other groups because they were in minority.


peace


p.s. this is an honest opinion. I am not trying to take sides on this.

Hey your knowledge is good about the Punjab Partition, but it's very restricted in case of Bengal Partition.It's nowhere tiny rather u can say the toll of life and atrocities in the East are at the same level with West. In fact Partition riots started in India with the Direct Action day riots in Calcutta on Aug 1946. At least 5000 were killed in that and many became homeless. Next in November 46, Hindu genocide started in Noakhali, East Bengal, at least 10,000 were killed in that and Hundreds and Thousands were homeless. Girls were raped and many were converted. In retaliation to Noakhali, large scale massacre of Muslims occurred in Bihar and United Provinces at the beginning of 47. Overall Millions suffered. Riots in Punjab started on March 47 with the Pindi massacre. No question that Punjab suffered a lot after that. But just wanted to throw some more light on the Eastern Front as well. You will get a lot of details in Net on Bengal Partition.
 
Most of businesses in Punjab and Sindh were owned by Hindu traders, landlords were mostly Muslims. So, I really don't agree with your blaming Hindus. You think Sikhs would have supported a exclusively Muslim homeland where they gain nothing.


Sikhs had best of the both world in W. Punjab. You gotta study a bit.

Thanks.
 
Hey your knowledge is good about the Punjab Partition, but it's very restricted in case of Bengal Partition.It's nowhere tiny rather u can say the toll of life and atrocities in the East are at the same level with West. In fact Partition riots started in India with the Direct Action day riots in Calcutta on Aug 1946. At least 5000 were killed in that and many became homeless. Next in November 46, Hindu genocide started in Noakhali, East Bengal, at least 10,000 were killed in that and Hundreds and Thousands were homeless. Girls were raped and many were converted. In retaliation to Noakhali, large scale massacre of Muslims occurred in Bihar and United Provinces at the beginning of 47. Overall Millions suffered. Riots in Punjab started on March 47 with the Pindi massacre. No question that Punjab suffered a lot after that. But just wanted to throw some more light on the Eastern Front as well. You will get a lot of details in Net on Bengal Partition.


Hindu Muslim militancy started way back when Gandhi encouraged Mullahs under the banner of Khilafat movement. Jinnah opposed the movement by the way.

So we can pick any year from 1920s and find some kind of riot or famine in the then British India.



Partition happened in August 1947, so we have to be careful and not associate any riots that happened months or year before it.


This is to say that I am not in any way ignoring or lessening the plight of Bengali Hindus or Muslims during 1946.

It is just that back in 1946 ordinary folks had no idea about partition. So the riots were pretty much "usual business for politicians" sadly.


Hope this clarifies.

Thank you
 
DF,

I agree with the first part.



However the second part is largely a myth. The first train did not carry East Punjabi Muslims.

Instead it was carrying Sarkari Baboos (government officials) and army officers from Delhi who had opted to serve in Pakistani government. I can perhaps dig out the exact name and number of the train. It may take some time though. This train was attacked in a bad attempt to deprive Pakistan of the government workers. The planners of this attack (I'll point a bit later) were $tupidly hoping that such an action will lead to collapse of the nascent state of Pakistan. I say $tupid, because Pakistan later showed that it can produce the same amount of cr@ppy baboos indian style in a year or so.

This train was not intended for "migration of Muslims" at all the way so many myths about partition say.

Civilian migration trains and caravans started a bit later and slowly increased in their ferocity and zulm.

Indians who are pointing out Rawalpindi riots, are not entirely wrong. However the exact location was not Pindi, but a major Sikh-dominated market outside Pindi.

However the number of sikhs killed in these riots was rather small. But the impact on Sikh population was huge.

There were other incidents in that dark period like the Masjid Shaheed Ganj that I call Masjis $tupid ganj. Even Iqbal was disgusted when he wrote,

-- Masjid to bana di shab bhar main Iman ke hararat walon nain
-- Man upna purana paapi hai, berson main namazi bun na saka

people can build a mosque in one night, but they are unable to be honest abe even after years of prostration.




However this is all nitpicking. it pails in comparison to what was about to happen. And sadly everyone knew about it.

For example, Jinnah calls upon Governor Jenkins of Punjab, and says, my dear governor, mobs are getting ready please post army at major areas to make sure things do not get out of hands.

Police on the other hand was under the control of home minister Sardar Patel. he had already refused to do anything for Punjab.

Gov. Jenkins only promised small contingent of army for a vast state like Punjab (both East and West). Gen. Ayub and one Hindu Punjabi officer (forgetting his name) were put in charge of this under-powered under-manned army contingent.

Why?

I don't know.

None of the papers in "transfer of power" explains the reasons why British did not post large numbers of army jawans to protect life and limb during the partition.

One can only theorize.

Even though Jinnah, and Giyani Kartar Singh, and Sardar Baldev Singh (minister in Delhi Gov) tried to figure out a way, but none had the actual power on the ground to stop it.

Akali Sikhs like Tara Singh, and Muslim leagures like Shaukat the black faced were too much into blood bath.

and so was Sardar Wilubh bhai patel (the home minister).


The holocaust of Punjab that followed August 1947 was unmatchable by any other part of India.


Partition impacted mostly one state in the whole of British India. And that state was Punjab.

Before partition
-- East Punjab (Indian side) had 55-65% Muslim Punjabis. (depending on city/village)
-- West Punjab (Pak side) had 35-45% non-Muslim Punjabis (depending on city/village)

After partition
--- Indian Punjab had 0% Muslim punjabis (totally annihilated by Indian mobs)
-- Pak Punjab had 0% non-Muslim punjabis (totally annihilated by Pak mobs)
--- few exceptions were tiny Muslim population in Malir kotla, and tiny sikh population around holy shrines such as: Nankana sahib and Punja sahib


nowhere else in India or Pak, the ethnic cleansing was so absolute so comprehensive.

Around 1947 there were few riots and some uprooting around Delhi area and tiny bit in Kolkatta etc.


So partition should be blamed for the killings and rapes and ethnic cleansing in Punjab only.


And such blame is more on Punjabi Muslims as they were in majority and to lesser extent on other groups because they were in minority.


peace


p.s. this is an honest opinion. I am not trying to take sides on this.

Fauji: I would like to know more about the stories you have written about and the sources. Especially the first train to Pakistan adn the conspiracy theory against Pakistan you mention.

I also appreciate your honesty here. Most Pakistanis, even the ones taken away from Pakistan by generations, I mean people like Shazia Mirza complain that more muslims were killed during partition than Hindus and Sikhs. As if they have taken a headcount. The reasons they have is some anecdotes their forefather told them. But they completely ignore that the other side will also have similar stories.

Time to remember as an event of horror and move on.
 
Hindu Muslim militancy started way back when Gandhi encouraged Mullahs under the banner of Khilafat movement. Jinnah opposed the movement by the way.

So we can pick any year from 1920s and find some kind of riot or famine in the then British India.



Partition happened in August 1947, so we have to be careful and not associate any riots that happened months or year before it.


This is to say that I am not in any way ignoring or lessening the plight of Bengali Hindus or Muslims during 1946.

It is just that back in 1946 ordinary folks had no idea about partition. So the riots were pretty much "usual business for politicians" sadly.


Hope this clarifies.

Thank you

Well the Partition of India doesn't mean only 1947. It's not a time but a period. The Direct Action Day call by Muhammad Ali Jinnah was in support of a new nation for Muslims called Pakistan. This is the base of Partition. It's is supposedly said that the 'Great Calcutta Killings' were the last nail on the coffin of an undivided India. So Partition of India will comprise the whole thing, you may say separate Chapters. I'll provide a small excerpt for you.

In 1946, the Indian independence movement against the British Raj had reached a pivotal stage when the British Prime Minister Clement Attlee sent a three member Cabinet Mission to India aimed at discussing and finalising plans for the transfer of power from the British Raj to the Indian leadership, providing India with independence under Dominion status in the Commonwealth of Nations.[7] After holding talks with the representatives of the Indian National Congress and the All India Muslim League—the two largest political parties in the Constituent Assembly of India—on 16 May 1946, the Mission proposed initial plans of composition of the new Dominion of India and its government.[10][11] On 16 June, under pressure from the Muslim League headed by Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the Mission proposed an alternative plan to arrange for India to be divided into Hindu-majority India and a Muslim-majority Pakistan.[12] The princely states of India would be permitted to accede to either dominion or attain independence.
Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the one time Congressman and Indian Nationalist, and now the leader of the Muslim League, had accepted the Cabinet Mission Plan of 16 June whereas the Congress rejected it outright.[10][13] On 10 July, Jawaharlal Nehru held a press conference in Bombay declaring that the Congress had agreed only to participate in the Constituent Assembly and regarded itself free to change or modify the Cabinet Mission Plan as it thought best.[13] Fearing Hindu Domination[14] in the Constituent Assembly, Jinnah denounced the British Cabinet Mission and decided to boycott the Constituent Assembly to try to put pressure on Congress and the British, by resorting to "Direct Action".[5] In July 1946, Jinnah held a press conference at his home in Bombay where he declared his intent to create Pakistan. Jinnah proclaimed that the Muslim league was "preparing to launch a struggle" and that they "have chalked a plan".[5] He had decided to boycott the Constituent Assembly. He rejected the British plan for transfer of power to an interim government which would combine both the Muslim League and the Indian National Congress. He said that if the Muslims were not granted Pakistan then he would launch "Direct Action".[5] When asked to specify Jinnah retorted: "Go to the Congress and ask them their plans. When they take you into their confidence I will take you into mine. Why do you expect me alone to sit with folded hands? I also am going to make trouble."[5]
On the next day, Jinnah announced 16 August 1946 would be "Direct Action Day" for the purpose of winning the separate Muslim state. [5] Muslim League Council Meeting held during the period 27–29 July 1946 passed a resolution on recommendation of Raghib Ahsan, declaring the Direct Action Day was intended to unfold “direct action for the achievement of Pakistan.” Raghib Ahsan in fact gave leadership to the historic “Direct Action Day” in Calcutta on 16 August 1946 to forge and demonstrate the support of Indian Muslims for creation of Pakistan.


Direct Action Day - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Even if I take your figures than still Muslim Population is about 50% not 20% and rest of your post is twisted story

I think you forgot how to calculate the percentage. Let me help you

Total Population: 4505000 + 7060000 + 2600000 = 1,416,5000

Muslim Population = 4505000

% of Muslims in total population: (4505000/14165000) x 100 = 31%

That is still a minority and less than 1/3 of population.
 
Back
Top Bottom