Punjab as a whole was never Sikh majority, it's only after partition that the Sikh population got concentrated in the Indian part of Punjab following mass migrations and became demographically majority in that part of Punjab.
its' deeper than that. the historical \-cultural region of punjab (on the indian side) includes parts of what are haryana and himachal (and arguable bits of RJ). so the modern indian state of punjab is not representative of indian punjab. due to sikh party politics, at the time of state reorganisation, they shaved off as many Hindu majority areas as possible, to have an unchallenged Sikh majority state to rule over.
@@anonymouslyopinionated656 the Union government of India was also responsible and actually played a major role in organising Sikh majoritarian politics, the whole separatist movement was initially supported by the then ruling party of India until it eventually backfired Delhi.
In college I had a professor who is a Jain originally from Mumbai. Even though he taught business courses he'd occasionally discuss the partition of India. I learned so much about India that I still wish to visit there some day.
@@friendlyatheist9589 He was one of the friendliest professors I ever had. Even when students were being rude af to him. He'd be stern but not angry and say something like, "I've always treated you with respect and I expect the same in return. If you can't do that leave this class."
@@RinzSach yes bro Pakistan is highly developed and Modern country than india pakistan is super power who give loans to us Indian they are not dependent on other countries financially like us because Pakistan have one of the most visionary and non corrupt leaders like Shahbaz Sharif Nawaz Sharif ashif zaradai even Europeans come to Pakistan for having a better life no pollution in Pakistan no terrorism and radicalism Pakistan is an inspiration of world
@@Singh54321 bcz Muslims were adamant on being separated....Hindus and Sikhs didnt wanted the ocountry to break !!! but what can u do when they keep on crying and fighting for it
5:09 huge inaccuracy, Muslim league only got support of most Muslims during the 40s especially after 1942 when the British arrested the entire congress top leadership over the Quit India movement (incidentally the Congress president during that whole period was Maulana Azad, a muslim). Before that in the 1937 elections they struggled to even gain seats in muslim majority provinces with their support base being largely restricted to elite urdu speaking muslims in northern India, while the muslims in muslim majority provinces like Punjab, Bengal, and NWFP backed the local parties or the Congress (in the case of NWFP). Most muslim organisations supported the nationalist movement for most of the colonial period, with even the Muslim league being a Congress ally till their proposal for a coalition government in UP got denied, Jinnah himself was once a major nationalist leader.
The Punjab unionist party basically swept all of Punjab province and almost won as many seats as the Muslim League did in the 1937 elections despite the fact they only contested elections in Punjab province. 😂 Khizar Hayat Tiwana, Chhotu Ram, and Tara Singh were the big reasons as to why the unionist party had such strong support from Punjabi Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs.
Wrong, in 1936 elections congress didn’t win many Muslim seats. It was the regional parties which were also allies of congress who got Muslim seats for congress. Congress never had support of Muslims, even maulana azad was a self proclaimed atheist in the 20s or 30s which decimated his popularity within the Muslims and it was only after partition that the Muslims of india went to him due to lack of options
@@msr7373 Congress won 26 of the 58 muslim reserved seats it contested, better strike rate than the league. Elections happened in 1937 not 1936. I haven't seen any sources mention Azad's alleged atheism.
Sir as a Sikh form Indian Punjab I would say that from what I have experienced growing up in Punjab is that Punjab is a state of Punjabis that means Hindu Muslim Sikh Christians of Punjab are culturally very connected to each other and I would say that taking out any part of this community would greatly affect the present Punjab. In Punjab many Sikhs believe in Muslim gurus as well as Hindu gurus and in turn some Sikh gurus also greatly affect religious knowledges of Muslims and Hindus of Punjab ; fundamentally Sikhism is religion which doesn't want conversion but the cooperation of other communities for peace and prosperity (ਸਰਬੱਤ ਦਾ ਭਲਾ Sarbat da bhala may everyone prosper , its one of the teachings we say in our prayers) that means Sikhs have no authority for forced conversion of people to believe in the ideas and thoughts that we believe are correct. The king Maharaja Ranjit Singh was known for his unbiased stance towards any religion in his judgement. And I think Guru Nanak dev ji our first guru's teaching is something everyone would agree on and it is like the fundamental correct according to all religions and his teachings is one of many factors which kept the Punjabi community together even today. here's some of his teachings : 1. Vaand Chhako - with the grace of the Lord, whatever you have received, share it with the needy and then consume. 2. Kirat Karo - One should not exploit others to enjoy self-happiness. Earning without fraud and working diligently is what he preached 3. Naam Japo: Chant the name of 'True God'. Sri Guru Nanak Dev emphasized meditating on God's name to gain control over five evils- kama, krodh, lobh, moh, ahankar means lust, anger, greed, attachment and ego 4. Sarbat daa bhalaa: Ask Lord for everyone's happiness. Sri Guru Nanak dev ji emphasized the concept of universal brotherhood. 5. Speak the truth without any fear. and one more thing Punjabis don't want things like Khalistan it is all the just the outcome of bad governance of our India's dark periods we are happy to be a small part of India's wheel of progress. The problem is that in our country religion is politicized a lot and unwanted factors of outer forces also influenced this dark period greatly. If people understand that our political parties exploiting us on the basis of religion then India would have progressed at a faster rate.
Islam has no connectivity with Hinduism whatsoever. Sikhism took some ideas of Islam. But many Sikhs leaving paxtan to come to hindu majority India because Islam = disease
@@jannatibiryani1991 😒😒 - Koi gall hoyi ethe Khalistan di jeda tu khoteyan wngu gallan krda pya. Utte ohne aap mannya ya ki Sanu Khalistan nai chaida.... Fer v lggya hoya ya tu
Sindh as a whole was about 27% Hindu based on the last census before partition (1941). The cities were mostly Hindu majority but they were small at the time. There were also a few rural districts in the east that were Hindu majority, but otherwise the province was Muslim majority.
By this logic why weren’t UP Bihar Madras etc partitioned? Why not even a single Muslim ruled but non Muslim majority state was allowed to accede to Pakistan but multiple non Muslim ruled (and even some Muslim ruled) Muslim majority states like Kashmir Kapurthala and Bantva given to india? All these areas had pockets of Muslim majoirty , Sindh only had 1.3 million Hindus compared to 9 million Muslims in UP, 5 million in Bihar, 5 million in Madras and states, 2 million in Bombay and states, 1.5 million in CP and central india Etc. So if Sindhi Hindus wanted a state for themselves then the Muslims of all these regions had a right to ask for a portion of their native state as well. Why only majority be allowed to make decisions for minority as well ?
I never comment on videos, but as a Sikh, I want to thank you for making this video. Understandably, the partition focuses on the immense impact and upheavel that was inflicted on to the Hindu and Muslim communities. But, it is much appreciated that you have also mentioned the Sikh perspective, and how we were de facto stateless after the end of the British Raj.
As a Sikh who's heavily researched this topic for years, I don't fully agree with many of the points made in this video. However, I do appreciate you raising awareness on this subject matter.
@@theoldbanyan5227 You cant trust anything, history is messed up a whole country was stolen and now everyone is trying to rehash a new narrative to keep the status quo but failing miserably it like trying to polish a terd, like this video.
@@jannatibiryani1991 why don't you Sikhs take back Sindh and Lahore then . We Indians are with you . You can change your capital from Amritsar to Lahore 😊😊
Really enjoyed this video, although I knew about the subject matter beforehand, most RUclipsrs don't really cover this--awesome that you did. I'd love to see more.
@@darkjudge8786 People have watched this video and more people are going to keep watching it. I enjoyed it and I'm sure many others did. So people do care. Also why should he be expected to make his own content about a subject, not everyone is a RUclipsr. Just let him be happy about the fact that a niche topic is covered.
I don't understand why u guys don't just create an identity based on culture and language instead of religion, by using Sikh as an identity you're really making urself the minority even in your own country, if khalistan's identity isn't based on Sikhism you'd actually get a majority of people with "punjabi/Khalistani" identity
@@Jerry-n9pthat would mean them being forced to assimilate into the wider muslim population that forms most of punjab, and it never really went well whenever sikhs lived with muslims.
sikhs have always been a important part of indian society and it's case with every indian religion that we coexisted peacefully respecting and participating in each others culture and religious activities which is true to this day, this partition thing has no supporting base in the context of indian religions
In 1710 after several battles sikhs led by banda singh bahadur killed mughal governor wazir khan in battle of chappar chiri and became de facto rulers of punjab . After that sikhs formed 12 principalities called Misls . These 12 misls controlled vast territories fast forward to 1799 five of these joined together to form what we called sikh empire but actually there was also a second sikh empire. Phulkian misl which was part of dal khalsa (army of all sikhs) and fought against mughals and abdali and aslo one of 7 who don't join Maharaja Ranjit Singh was strongest of all controlled region of malwa of present day punjab. They raised punjab regiment which is second oldest regiment of india they formed an alliance with british fearing the might of ranjit singh's empire after defeat of sikh empire these states still ruled by sikh rulers which british called princely states or native States.Phulkian misls are now into four division nabha state ,patiala state,jind state, faridkot state. Patiala state was the largest with around 15,495 km sq of land and population of 2 million of which 50 percent were sikhs and faridkot state was also sikh majority with 58 percent population. There were several british administered districts in which sikhs were majority such as moga (64%) tarn taran (51%) jagroan (50%) and few more . Before partition these states were given option to join either pakistan India or stay neutral. King of patiala state was offered by jinnah to join pakistan.jinnah even sign blank paper and give it to ruler of patiala for demands he declined. There were several reasons why King of patiala joined india even sikhs had huge percentage in indian army could fight anybody. 1. He don't want the sikh state to become a puppet state between India and Pakistan. 2. Punjab naturally had no recourses such as ( coal ,iron etc) to sustain prosperous future. 3. Sikhs are actually more closer to Hindus rather than muslims. 4.he figured that even if someday hindu nationalist succeeded in making india Hindu rastra (hindu nations) sikhs will enjoy some freedom as compared to pakistan shria law etc . He came to conclude this because prominent hindu nationalist such as swami vivekananda and veer savarkar were admirer of sikhs and even sarvarkar once stated that there should seperate sikh nation in 1929. All in all , sikh states joined india formed union called PEPSU ( Patiala and east punjab union ) . Which had area of around 26000 km sq had sikh majority and after partition sikhs and hindus became majority in several districts after muslims were gone ultimately the present day punjab became sikh majority. There is a fact that the doaba region of Punjab was always a hindu majority even before partition and its still hindu majority and malwa region was always sikh majority even in pre partition era and its still is . According to 1941 census the present day punjab was sikh majority st 51 percent. I also want to mention the fact that sikhs are majority in those districts that were founded by them such as tarn taran ,moga,bathinda ,barnala ,patiala , sangrur etc . Jalandhar were historically ruled by hindus and even today its hindu majority likewise all these districts mentioned remained majority to those whom they were founded by .
For those who want a beautiful reality check of those hogwash comment, I would suggest searching “1984 Sikh Genocide”. 30,000 Sikhs were hunted down and murdered by the Indian state in 1984. And these people still call it a “riot” to this day.
@Alexios I Komnenos to be fair, Hinduism is so vast you could conceive of it as both. To conceive of Hinduism as a single is to conceive the west largely practiced a single faith called Abrahamism that shares 95% of its doctrine but has several sects based on disagreements over some relatively minor doctrinal grounds. When you flip it around to the western conception of religion, then yeah it seems better to think of India as having several distinct faith traditions, but I think there are merits to both views. The people in india seemed to have few issues considering Buddhism and Jainism as weird sects of aesthetics at least.l, and from the outside it does look a lot like Sikhism is an attempt to bridge the gap between Hinduism and Islam in an area where many practices both religions.
@Alexios I Komnenos tbh Muslims hindus and Sikhs weren't different in Punjab. All celebrated all festivals. So, only considering that sikhs also celebrated hindu festivals will obviously bring impressions that Sikhs are hindu sect but we should also look that More Hindus and Muslims celebrated Sikh Festivals. Sikhi was already a different religion in 1699, when Guru Gobind Singh ji created the Khalsa. If you Consider Sikhi as a sect of Hinduism then definition of Religion is non existent, then Christianity is a sect of Judaism and Islam is a sect of Christianity.
Very simple reason, they weren't in majority in the Punjab state. Only 14% Punjabis were Sikhs. How could a Sikh state can be formed in a state where Sikhs are in minority. They were possibilities of an independent united Punjab, which wasn't possible due to Hindu Muslim hatred. Jinnah, father of Pakistan had offered Sikhs to join Pakistan with united Punjab but it was unacceptable for Punjabi Hindus who were 34% of the state's population.. There were many other problems too, like how could it survive as a land-locked state but the above reason was the prime one.
@Mughal Nationalist My friend this was 1940 not 1400 If one side invaded the other one would react immediately and again sikh were Martial race so they couldve still hold Their ground for few years and Indians/Pakistani who were unorganised after independence
@@kkkk25yearsago79 Lol, Sikh aren't considered as a martial race but Punjabis, both Hindu Muslims and Sikhs. Even in that jatt Hindus, jatt Muslims and jatt Sikhs were considered more martial. Infact even if Sikh state Punjab was independent, within years it would have been invaded by India and Pakistan and its fate would have been worse than Poland.
@@jerry18741 They tried to form and tasted dust. And anyway, today in Punjab state, 44% are Hindus. There is no way a religion based sikh state can be formed.
I’ve always wondered this is 🇬🇧British Partitioned off 🇲🇲Myanmar (then the Burma province) as well as 🇵🇰Pakistan & 🇧🇩Bangladesh as the World’s 3rd Largest ☸️Buddhist country alongside the World’s 2nd & 3rd Largest ☪️Islamic countries from the 🕉Hindu-majority India, so I thought it was logical to think why the Brits didn’t think to Partition a ☬Sikh country at the same time. (it’s fun the realise how the World’s ☪️2nd, 🕉3rd, ☸️4th & ☬ 5th Largest Religions coexist in this subcontinent!)
@@kkkk25yearsago79 I mean technically you can count all Mother Tongue languages as ‘Ethnic Groups’ in the country (eg. Tamilians, Telugus, Bengalis, Hindis, Urdus) - but we rarely ever use words like ‘Ethnicity’ & ‘Race’ in our country. In fact, our decadal Census don’t have Ethnicity & Race labels either, instead they use Caste, Tribe, Religion & Mother Tongue to classify people.
Hello Hilbert. I grew up among children with parents from all over the old British India in Bradford. I also had been told that the family had Indian army ancestry and I could be part Indian myself. It is always interesting to see your videos on such topics. One of the most amusing experiences I had was to go on a stag night with a load of Sikh lads to Bernard Manning's club in Manchester. They loved it.
@@daniel-cc7bn My Muslim friend's uncle thought I was a Muslim when I did not drink alcohol as he bought a round of beers in Frankfurt, back when things were not so strictly interpreted and folk seemed to me to make their own judgments more often. My Sikh friends back then seemed to enjoy a drink more often than not.
In 1710 after several battles sikhs led by banda singh bahadur killed mughal governor wazir khan in battle of chappar chiri and became de facto rulers of punjab . After that sikhs formed 12 principalities called Misls . These 12 misls controlled vast territories fast forward to 1799 five of these joined together to form what we called sikh empire but actually there was also a second sikh empire. Phulkian misl which was part of dal khalsa (army of all sikhs) and fought against mughals and abdali and aslo one of 7 who don't join Maharaja Ranjit Singh was strongest of all controlled region of malwa of present day punjab. They raised punjab regiment which is second oldest regiment of india they formed an alliance with british fearing the might of ranjit singh's empire after defeat of sikh empire these states still ruled by sikh rulers which british called princely states or native States.Phulkian misls are now into four division nabha state ,patiala state,jind state, faridkot state. Patiala state was the largest with around 15,495 km sq of land and population of 2 million of which 50 percent were sikhs and faridkot state was also sikh majority with 58 percent population. There were several british administered districts in which sikhs were majority such as moga (64%) tarn taran (51%) jagroan (50%) and few more . Before partition these states were given option to join either pakistan India or stay neutral. King of patiala state was offered by jinnah to join pakistan.jinnah even sign blank paper and give it to ruler of patiala for demands he declined. There were several reasons why King of patiala joined india even sikhs had huge percentage in indian army could fight anybody. 1. He don't want the sikh state to become a puppet state between India and Pakistan. 2. Punjab naturally had no recourses such as ( coal ,iron etc) to sustain prosperous future. 3. Sikhs are actually more closer to Hindus rather than muslims. 4.he figured that even if someday hindu nationalist succeeded in making india Hindu rastra (hindu nations) sikhs will enjoy some freedom as compared to pakistan shria law etc . He came to conclude this because prominent hindu nationalist such as swami vivekananda and veer savarkar were admirer of sikhs and even sarvarkar once stated that there should seperate sikh nation in 1929. All in all , sikh states joined india formed union called PEPSU ( Patiala and east punjab union ) . Which had area of around 26000 km sq had sikh majority and after partition sikhs and hindus became majority in several districts after muslims were gone ultimately the present day punjab became sikh majority. There is a fact that the doaba region of Punjab was always a hindu majority even before partition and its still hindu majority and malwa region was always sikh majority even in pre partition era and its still is . According to 1941 census the present day punjab was sikh majority st 51 percent. I also want to mention the fact that sikhs are majority in those districts that were founded by them such as tarn taran ,moga,bathinda ,barnala ,patiala , sangrur etc . Jalandhar were historically ruled by hindus and even today its hindu majority likewise all these districts mentioned remained majority to those whom they were founded by .
The bigger question is why was there no Hindu country after partition when partition was done on basis of religion? If you get the answer of this question you will automatically get the answer of your next question that why there was no separate nation for Sikhs?
That’s because india didn’t just have Hindus and Muslims. You still have millions of sikhs Buddhist Jains Parsis Animists Christians Etc and none of them asked for partition. So it’s not for the Muslims but because of these communities that india had to remain secular
@@msr7373 why did the Muslims need their own country in the first place? They thought they were better than everyone else and deserved their own country. They didn't want to live with anyone else. That type of thinking is whats wrong in the world
@@msr7373 then why create seprate muslim nation, so that india become isolate in asia by bangladesh and oakistan from both side and india dont get acces to major trade route
India isn't one state country it does not have a single majority language like Bangladesh do 98% people are Bengali majority . The country i India itself is Continent
I don’t mean to come off as insensitive or dismissive of peoples, but I’m becoming more and more convinced that the Partition was a mistake. Even if those who wanted it were well-intentioned.
Sikhs defeated the british in wars.. Learn about Battle of Chillianwala(worst defeat of british) It was hindu dogras that betrayed the Sikh Empire to get revenge against Maharaja Ranjit Singh(killed Mian Dido) and Hari Singh Nalwa(conquered dogra rajputs) Sikhs were betrayed by hindu dogras. Then british kidnapped the Sikh King.. Maharaja Duleep Singh who they also killed as we gonna bring Khalsa army to UK.
@Alexios I Komnenos it's not the entire thing because he only reached a little into the 1970s, and the khalistan movement was most active during the 80s and 90s
Very interesting. I was under the impression there was a much larger percentage of Sikhs in the area during that time. I thought they were more closely allies with the Hindus so didn't push for an independent state during the partition.
@@karanvarma4843 It’s not hard to open the 1931 and 1941 census of Punjab. Maybe if WhatsApp University taught you to look for facts instead of making them up, people would take you folks more seriously.
Its the same as asking "why there isn't any hindu country after partition". Only muslims wanted a different country, so they got it. Others just wanted independence.
It seems as some kind of oddity, that partition brought immense suffering to sikhs but not a state. Like Kurds, sikhs have suffered at the hands of history.Some fault can be attributed to Maharaja Ranjit Singh. He could have made Punjab predominently Sikh. But he treated all his subjects fairly & equally. Here lies the paradox. When Sikhs are in power, they treat others with tolerance. But when out of power, sikhs have to face suppression & barbarity.
I think you're forgetting a Historical fact. Most Sikhs back then and some even today are related to Hindus and Muslims. In order to convert Punjab to Sikh majorty, he'd have to turn brothers and cousins against each other.
how could he have made it Sikh, when they were less than 20%, without 4/5 of the population you lose most of your taxes Sikhs need to stop playing victim, they are highest earners in India, so much for oppression
@hello all by that logic why not give it all to the British they ruled a bigger region for longer period. MRS ruled for 40 years, Punjab has been around for 5000 years, Sikh religion has only been around for 500 years
@hello all Sikhs are not from India most of the places they are from are in Pakistan, they are not special they don't get more rights than other people of the Punjab. They also sold out to the British for a lower tax rate. Now many of them have ran away to Britain and Canada.
Sikhs are an integral part of India even before the British came in. They played a crucial role in the Independence and even today they make up a huge percentage of power throughout India. People should understand that when Gurunanak founded Sikhi to fight the oppressions against the Mughal Islamic rulers (these were the times of Bhakti Movement in the Hindu communities), the first people to join Sikhism were the people from the Hindu families. They treated it as a revolution within the Hindu communities in that region to join the Khalsa and fight against the Mughal rulers. Sikhs will always be a part of India, similar to other cultures and states.
India this is bharat continental heare tamil,telugu,malayalam,kannada,marathi,gujarati,bengali.all community partner's call us bharat continental of world peace nation's
1:20 "Hindus got the state of India". Then would you be ok with the muslims being deported/converted. First you say that India is just Hindu version of porxtan. Then you want independence of porxtan exclusively for muslims as well as let them have 'equality' in India. Then you also want our motherland to be divided between Hindu and sikh brothers who can never stay independent without each other.
@@harleenkaur1408 how exactly. The so called East Punjab was again partitioned into Himachal Pradesh & Haryana. What is left of Punjab is also 40% Hindu, while Sikhs are 57%. Not sure how there will be an independent state with a minority that big, unless you want violent civil war & unnecessary bloodshed. Plus a major part of original Punjab now lies in Pakistan.
@@harleenkaur1408 India was a country even before the British were a thing. Even before the Romans reached Britain, India was a thriving empire. And Punjab was a part of it.
@@harleenkaur1408 Megasthenes, a scholar from ancient Greece has even written about India in his book 'indica'. So has Huang Tsang. India is also mentioned in the book 'journey to the west'.
@@harleenkaur1408 Pakistan's name was formed in Britain. Who is a British construct now? All of you khalistanis keep talking about independence of Punjab. But none of you has the guts to challenge pakistan controlled Punjab. Why such hypocrisy?
for viewers kind of Information, there is no country with national religion Hindu or Jain or sikh in the world so we can't say that India is a Hindu national country we are people who love to live in harmony and in root bases not even recognize each other as different religions
According to the regulations of Indian and Pakistani independence, landlocked stated had no choice other than to join the country they were surrounded with. And also, a plebiscite was also done, on which people voted for India. So it doesn't count.
After losing the war from british Punjab or we can say sikh were brought in British empire after 100 year where as rest of the india was already under british raj for 100 years. And when leaving the british tied both horses and donkey with the sams rope. Sikhs are still struggling for there freedom.
In 1710 after several battles sikhs led by banda singh bahadur killed mughal governor wazir khan in battle of chappar chiri and became de facto rulers of punjab . After that sikhs formed 12 principalities called Misls . These 12 misls controlled vast territories fast forward to 1799 five of these joined together to form what we called sikh empire but actually there was also a second sikh empire. Phulkian misl which was part of dal khalsa (army of all sikhs) and fought against mughals and abdali and aslo one of 7 who don't join Maharaja Ranjit Singh was strongest of all controlled region of malwa of present day punjab. They raised punjab regiment which is second oldest regiment of india they formed an alliance with british fearing the might of ranjit singh's empire after defeat of sikh empire these states still ruled by sikh rulers which british called princely states or native States.Phulkian misls are now into four division nabha state ,patiala state,jind state, faridkot state. Patiala state was the largest with around 15,495 km sq of land and population of 2 million of which 50 percent were sikhs and faridkot state was also sikh majority with 58 percent population. There were several british administered districts in which sikhs were majority such as moga (64%) tarn taran (51%) jagroan (50%) and few more . Before partition these states were given option to join either pakistan India or stay neutral. King of patiala state was offered by jinnah to join pakistan.jinnah even sign blank paper and give it to ruler of patiala for demands he declined. There were several reasons why King of patiala joined india even sikhs had huge percentage in indian army could fight anybody. 1. He don't want the sikh state to become a puppet state between India and Pakistan. 2. Punjab naturally had no recourses such as ( coal ,iron etc) to sustain prosperous future. 3. Sikhs are actually more closer to Hindus rather than muslims. 4.he figured that even if someday hindu nationalist succeeded in making india Hindu rastra (hindu nations) sikhs will enjoy some freedom as compared to pakistan shria law etc . He came to conclude this because prominent hindu nationalist such as swami vivekananda and veer savarkar were admirer of sikhs and even sarvarkar once stated that there should seperate sikh nation in 1929. All in all , sikh states joined india formed union called PEPSU ( Patiala and east punjab union ) . Which had area of around 26000 km sq had sikh majority and after partition sikhs and hindus became majority in several districts after muslims were gone ultimately the present day punjab became sikh majority. There is a fact that the doaba region of Punjab was always a hindu majority even before partition and its still hindu majority and malwa region was always sikh majority even in pre partition era and its still is . According to 1941 census the present day punjab was sikh majority st 51 percent. I also want to mention the fact that sikhs are majority in those districts that were founded by them such as tarn taran ,moga,bathinda ,barnala ,patiala , sangrur etc . Jalandhar were historically ruled by hindus and even today its hindu majority likewise all these districts mentioned remained majority to those whom they were founded by .
then please give us our country back that we faught for if you support us :) Lahore was the capital of empire of Maharaja Ranjit Singh@@MuhammadThakur-si9ot
No this is wrong, you see Panjab was its own country before the annexation of the British in 1849 but after independence the first Prime Minister of India promised Panjab its own country (Khalistan) , in fact the first Prime Minister of India fooled Panjabi's that Panjab is part of Hindustan ( India ) when it wasn't.
All these stories are fine...But the real question is -- when and from where will we Sikhs get the courage to accept our true history? When will we remove the cloth over our eyes to see and accept the historic proof that our real home is Lahore in Pakistan, and not Indian Punjab? Our Lahore is the kingdom of Maharaja Ranjit Singhand his ROOH still is in Lahore. Our Nankana is the birthplace of Guru Nanak, the founder of Sikhism. Can we forget Janam Asthan? This is Historic Proof that our real home is Lahore in Pakistan, and not Indian Punjab. This is whar Deep Sidhu was telling us in his song ( ruclips.net/video/8N6c0czogxw/видео.html) Sikhs own Lahore. Nobody can change that. Just as Jews own Israel, Sikhs own Lahore. For how long will we call India our homeland and ignore our real homeland that keeps on calling us? Come on brave brothers let us move back home to our Lahore. Forget India. Lets go OUR REAL, HISTORICAL, GURU-GRANTED HOME: LAHORE-PAKISTAN. Only in Lahore can we can say “RAJ KAREGA KHALSA”. I repeat, brave Sikh brothers, let us never forget that the real home of Sikhs granted by our Guru and is Lahore and not India. Indian Punjab belongs to Punjabi, Bihari, Madrasi, Bhaiyya, and all other Indians, but Lahore belongs to Sikhs alone. How did we forget it?
In 1710 after several battles sikhs led by banda singh bahadur killed mughal governor wazir khan in battle of chappar chiri and became de facto rulers of punjab . After that sikhs formed 12 principalities called Misls . These 12 misls controlled vast territories fast forward to 1799 five of these joined together to form what we called sikh empire but actually there was also a second sikh empire. Phulkian misl which was part of dal khalsa (army of all sikhs) and fought against mughals and abdali and aslo one of 7 who don't join Maharaja Ranjit Singh was strongest of all controlled region of malwa of present day punjab. They raised punjab regiment which is second oldest regiment of india they formed an alliance with british fearing the might of ranjit singh's empire after defeat of sikh empire these states still ruled by sikh rulers which british called princely states or native States.Phulkian misls are now into four division nabha state ,patiala state,jind state, faridkot state. Patiala state was the largest with around 15,495 km sq of land and population of 2 million of which 50 percent were sikhs and faridkot state was also sikh majority with 58 percent population. There were several british administered districts in which sikhs were majority such as moga (64%) tarn taran (51%) jagroan (50%) and few more . Before partition these states were given option to join either pakistan India or stay neutral. King of patiala state was offered by jinnah to join pakistan.jinnah even sign blank paper and give it to ruler of patiala for demands he declined. There were several reasons why King of patiala joined india even sikhs had huge percentage in indian army could fight anybody. 1. He don't want the sikh state to become a puppet state between India and Pakistan. 2. Punjab naturally had no recourses such as ( coal ,iron etc) to sustain prosperous future. 3. Sikhs are actually more closer to Hindus rather than muslims. 4.he figured that even if someday hindu nationalist succeeded in making india Hindu rastra (hindu nations) sikhs will enjoy some freedom as compared to pakistan shria law etc . He came to conclude this because prominent hindu nationalist such as swami vivekananda and veer savarkar were admirer of sikhs and even sarvarkar once stated that there should seperate sikh nation in 1929. All in all , sikh states joined india formed union called PEPSU ( Patiala and east punjab union ) . Which had area of around 26000 km sq had sikh majority and after partition sikhs and hindus became majority in several districts after muslims were gone ultimately the present day punjab became sikh majority. There is a fact that the doaba region of Punjab was always a hindu majority even before partition and its still hindu majority and malwa region was always sikh majority even in pre partition era and its still is . According to 1941 census the present day punjab was sikh majority st 51 percent. I also want to mention the fact that sikhs are majority in those districts that were founded by them such as tarn taran ,moga,bathinda ,barnala ,patiala , sangrur etc . Jalandhar were historically ruled by hindus and even today its hindu majority likewise all these districts mentioned remained majority to those whom they were founded by .
Religious fuelled partition was only a factor for Muslims. Sikhs never had that separatist tendency. Christians are also large in number on the Malabar Coast but never demanded a separate state either. Minorities such as Sikhs, Christians never felt threatened or bothered by living in a democracy that was majority Hindu unlike many Muslims who prior to British rule were used to ruling over Hindus. That being said there has been a recent Sikh separatist movement exasperated by atrocities against them during the 1980s however it remains a small minority. Most Sikhs are patriotic and disproportionately serve in the army. Have been amongst freedom fighters calling for an independent India (not just Sikh India). We have also had a Sikh PM and are very proud of their contributions.
As far as I know, the partition was that Pakistan was for Muslims only and everybody else were to live in India: it was the Muslim League who instigated this.
Thank you for this video and speaking on the matter, it is very interesting. There is a long history here and I think once people fully understand what the Sikhs have been through under hindustan rule, it will come as no surprise why autonomy is wanted however what is interesting is that India seems to label any Sikh who utters the word Khalistan/sovereign state as an extremist/separatist/terrorist, these are terms they use interchangeably. It should be noted that this entire movement of self determination was in response to state oppression and the Sikh genocide. People have an inherent need to control their own destiny, make their own choices and determine their own future. Any attempt to suppress this feeling will only lead to resistance and further discontent. The desire for Sikh sovereignty is not a crime, they want a safe, secure homeland because they have been targeted. The Indian state silencing, ‘disappearing’ or jailing under fabrication of those with different ideological views, is a crime. It’s also important to understand that the Anandpur resolution put forward in the 70s was asking for Punjab’s state rights, for more autonomy, all requests were rejected by the central government. The movement of Khalistan came about fully in 1986 a few years after the 1984 Sikh state sanctioned genocide and followed by operation woodrose. Sikhs took up arms to defend themselves against mass killings and the Indian state massacring them, klf and such organizations who took up arms were born. Anytime Sikhs to this day speak of rights or sovereignty or fight the discrimination and draconian measures they are maligned, thrown in jail under false charges or executed. Such disappearance of Sikhs are not uncommon in India, these were the same tactics used in the 80s and 90s as they are currently doing (current call for Sikh state, led by Amritpal singh, who has since been targeted/silenced). It seems a new generation of Sikh youth has flourished and the Indian state are out to destroy it, again. It is widely known that the Indian state is grossly corrupt and seems to be on a trajectory towards ethnic cleansing with the current government, as Hindu extremism grows in size and are given free reign with impunity. *The 1984 Sikh genocide, sometimes labelled incorrectly as ‘anti-Sikh riots’, not even 40 years ago, our generation. It's important to mention as there is much trauma associated with it. Riots denote an act of spontaneity, these killings were orchestrated state sponsored violence, organised and aided by the Indian state, targeting innocent Sikhs. The then prime minister’s two Sikh bodyguards shot her dead, for her role in killing innocent Sikhs and desecrating the golden temple and 30 other Sikh temples during operation bluestar. Many innocents people were killed in addition to countless temples burnt. There have been independent objective reports from people at the scene that the Indian army had instructed regular civilians at the temple to come out, reassured them that they would be safe and proceeded to shoot them dead. Then prime minister indira ghandi claimed they were after an ‘extremist’ who was gathering weapons in the golden temple, although this has been a point of contention from the Sikh community and the question arises was he in all 30 of the temples they attacked. It should also be noted that weapons have always been a part of the Akal takht since guru gobind singh’s time, as a means for Sikhs to protect themselves and others, this is what they believe in. There is an interesting interview (on youtube) of ex politician subramanian swamy, a Hindu nationalist who spent some time with Sant Jirnail singh bhindranwale. What then ensued by the country was a state sanctioned Sikh genocide, the hunting down of innocent Sikhs. Congress released voting lists and school lists so they could identify Sikh families/houses across cities, mobs in the hundreds (sometimes thousands) comprised of all types of Hindu men surrounded Sikhs houses, buses, businesses, temples etc. Weapons and kerosene were distributed. Genocidal mobs were paid for every Sikh they killed, more for prominent Sikhs, they were told they could keep the loot, jewellery and cash of the houses and businesses they robbed before they burnt families alive and burnt the houses, businesses and places of worship to dust. Police were instructed to ignore any calls and cries for help and have been quoted from survivors telling them ‘don’t worry, it won’t be long now, you too will be burnt alive soon’. Women and children were gang raped and burnt alive, men and children were tortured and set alight, placing flammable tyres around their necks, babies as young as 1 month old burnt alive. Tens of thousands butchered, mainly burnt alive, and hundreds of thousands displaced, left with nothing. Refugee camps were set up, women were also dragged from these camps and raped. All layers of society, including high ranking government officials, politicians, police and regular citizens committed and aided in barbaric horrors against innocent Sikhs just going about their lives. Justice has never been served, instead they were protected and promoted by the Indian state. Alongside an ongoing economic genocide - water rights, farming, electricity etc. Begs the questions, are they truly safe in India, how do you overcome your government genociding you. *The Anandpur resolution. After peaceful measures failed (Punjabi Suba Movement), Sikhs decided to make a draft of all demands in 1973 and was given the name 'Anandpur Sahib Resolution'. Which mainly requests more autonomy for Punjab, some of the points were - reminded of the Federal structure for Punjab, that Punjab should have an autonomy to make its own decisions, as promised before the Independence. Return of Chandigarh as a part of Punjab, as it was inside Punjab and still was made a shared capital between Punjab and Haryana. Remove casteism from Punjab, to help the farmers by restricting the tax strategy, make Punjabi 1st language in Punjab and should be given importance in the neighbouring states. To recognize Sikhism as a separate faith in the Indian Constitution, to help Kashmiri migrants, to protect the interests of minorities from other states, to abolish excise duty from tractors so that the small scale farmers could easily buy and live their earning. To setup a system of reasonable minimum wages to the labourers, during those times the rights of Labour class were exploited so to ensure their living minimum wages which would invoke respectable income for the labourers. To establish a audio broadcast system for Sachkhand Harmander sahib to world for which *Khalsa* would pay. Amendments in Hindu succession act which stated a girl after the death of her husband could not claim on the property of in-laws, this point was included to protect the rights of women. To exempt the agricultural land totally from tax, as small scale farmers did not have adequate machinery for farming, leading to minimal savings. There should be *no reservation* in government jobs and other areas on basis of the caste in any state. Water dispute - 75% of the Punjab's water is already given to the other states without any permission of state and the SYL (Satluj Yamuna Link) would divide the rest water also, leading to scarcity of water in Punjab even after having 3 rivers. To establish 6 sugar mills and 4 textile mills in Punjab so that the farmer doesn't have to go to other states to sell his products. The Central government denied all the demands.
Punjab was an independent nation. There were multiple independent states pre British era. Winston Churchill's remarks in history are that before the British came, there was no Indian nation. “India is a geographical term". Imagine forcefully combining all of Europe....different cultures, languages, unique nations all under a rouge rule....cuvil war would break out over night.
Equation of Europe and Hindustan by someone can bring various conclusions including intellectual dishonesty, misunderstanding or ignorance. If purposeful, the intentions behind which can range to many such as an underlying goal of identity shift; engineering your own reality. Either way it is unhealthy for the Brain.
Only pakistan got divided from India on the basis of religion India was and still a secular states Only muslim wanted their seperate state and others So there was no point of creating Sikh state
India was never a 'secular' state. It is just a pluralist state. There is a difference, despite the word "secular" being thrown around in India politics, most Indians have no clue what it means.
@@anonymouslyopinionated656 lol Indians don't know what it means?? Mind u we Indians value our school education more than u Westerners who think dropping out of school is a fad. We have get to see daily newsroom debates on secularism(even though it's mostly garbage but still) .
india being ''secular'' on paper doesn't change that it prosecutes Muslims. its funny how ''islamic'' pakistan has hindus in parliment despite making less than 1% but ''secular'' India doesn't have a single Muslim in the current govt despite them being over 15% of the population. People who defend India are ridiculous. they just released rapists and murderers of a Muslim woman.
@@yolemae6580 ah yes, let's generalize all of India for the action of one right wing party, Oh by the way Abdul ur bias for Pakistan clearly is showing itself there.
Typical 'western' hypocritical narrative. Video starts with saying 'Hindus got India" when in fact all Indian religions including Hindus, Christians, Muslims, Parsis, Sikhs, Jews, Budhists, Jains etc were part of India as a secular state. Surprisingly this channel may never describe their nation as Christian even though most western nations are over 90% Christian
@@tanveercheema3802 that's a problem with your indoctrination coz you never learn or want to know the truth. Indian, Chinese, Egyptian & Mesopotamian are ancient civilizations and I'm not here to teach you that if you don't even know about your own places like Harappa or Mohenjodaro. Yes India got independence in 1947; unfortunately Pakistan was created then by the Imperialist British to cater to their geo political interests and to do their dirty work which Pakistan has been dutifully doing past seven decades for dollars
Fantastic video! Subbed. In my opinion, the move to religious division instead of splits along ethnic lines which was accelerated by the British was ultimately disastrous. In its post-partition aftermath, the problem is only getting worse as both India and Pakistan seek to destroy ethnonationalism and move towards religious nationalism to hold together artificial nation-states. Punjab was strongest as a unified Punjab, just as a unified Bengal was stronger before being split in twain. The fact that both Bengalis and Punjabis died in droves for the independence movement is certainly correlated with a major push to split their influence and power between "opposing" nations.
Sikhs dosent belong to India, India belongs to Sikhs, it belongs to everyone who identifies with this ancient civilisation, Sikhs, Jains, Hindus, Buddhists, and many others, are different, but we all live together, respect each other and call ourselves one, Its only the Christians, the Muslims and the Communists (not nessecerily the population, but the institutions) who can't coexist with anyone who is different from them.
@@Mirza7385 you are not even a Sikh what are you talking about, I am Sikh, I am proud of my country India, when anyone come to attack us they will find us on the border
Why??? Sikhs are great ppl. They led wars. Powerful ppl. They would make a good country too cause in present day India, they make up 1% and do the most for the country like half of the military is Sikhs. Olympics athletes are mostly Punjabis or harayana ppl. And most of the food stuff comes from punjab. I’d say India is relying of the 1% too much and Sikhs will be fine on their own. Plus they get almost no rights in India when the sacrificed the most.
If you believe in humanity then why not speak out after India attacked Sri Darbar Sahib, killed 100000 Sikhs, raped Sikh women and did Beadbi of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. India did not exist before 1947. Punjab has never been part of Bharat. We have always been independent. Guru Nanak Dev Ji blessed us with Paatshahi. Guru Gobind Singh Ji blessed us with Raj. Khalistan Zindabad
@@GuptSingh1469congress attacked...say like that Sikhs and Hindus were just victims of congress govt..before bhindranwale hindus and Sikhs lived happily...Sikhs from Pakistan who were getting butchered by Pakistani Sunni extremists also reached india lived happily in india.. congress did horrible things to hindus also.. congress was even silent when jihadis in kashmir were butchering kashmiri hindus...
There is a channel called "basics of sikhi". plus it is english. It teaches you about Sikhs and their history .....highly suggest you to check it out. They have a long playlist
So sad to see someone make a video about something which he has absolutely no clue about. Neither you know anything about who sikhs are nor do you have clue on the backgrounds on partition of the country. I am sure you won't have a clue about the imaginary Khalistan or is inception.
buddhism, jainism, sikhism and hinduism arent exactly religons!! They r dharma.. They have their disagreements for sure but that doesnt stop them from celebrating each other's festivals, visiting each other's temples and taking part in each other's rituals. They arent like abrhamics " oh you disagree so u have choosen death", Indian philosphy is an open source software, gurus come and start their own traditions, if they are able to attract no crowd then they fade away, if they r able to attract a moderate portion then they become a sect within hinduism and if they recieve potranage and get a significant following then they become their own dharma, seperating themselves from sanatana dharma ( hinduism) No one stops them .... Thats what makes hinduism so uniique it never undermines its child philosophies( sikhism buddhism and jainism) cus it believes nothing is perfect or permanent, "Changes are bound to happen as time passes" that keeps hinduism fluid and open for discussionn
@@jag6846 lol not sikhism just follows one of the school of thought of Sanatan dharma. All these dharmki religion came from there. Sikhism did not came from Hindusim. Hinduism is also an offspring of sanatan dharma as sikhism Jainism and Buddhism.
@@jag6846 you have to been illiterate to think sikhism is seperate religion. Sikhism is not even a religion. Hindusim jain Buddhist none of them are religion. Religion is an abrahimic concept
@@jag6846 You are very ignorant of your religion if that's what you think. Hindu epochs such as the Mahabharata and Ramayana are discussed in the Guru Grant Sahib. Hindu families would raise their first born son a Keshedhari Sikh during times of war, many of which relapsed back into Hinduism at later times. Basic philosophies are share - dharma, karma, moksha etc.
As a Indian Christian, I can never imagine my life in Pakistan or Bangladesh . Life could have been hell with persecution and discrimination. Sorry to say Islamic societies are most radicalized and unembracing of other religions in their majority dominated area. You are either subjugated, subordinated or converted by force any not live as equal citizen in their countries.
@@FatehSingh95 We are prosperous and thriving in India . You don't have the confidence to say that minorities thrive in Islamic societies because they don't.
Then why do 5 million Indians swim the ocean to work in 'islamic' societies in Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain etc etc Have you ever heard of an Arab Muslim willingly wanting to live in India? LMAO
@@jssapo303 No one seeks citizenship there and it's only about money . You are deflecting from what I m saying. It's like saying why muslims go to US and seek citizenship when they hate US for support to Israel. What I m saying is that Islamic societies don't treat non muslims are equal citizens. But you not able to say anything to that ...and ranting .
First fact :Sikhs are not Hindus, it's separately 2 different religion.. During the partion of Panjab Sikhs were cheated by the Congress party there was never a sikh leader called to participate during the partition... While master Tara Singh was not even a sikh leader... He was just pluck from a Delhi to blow the Hindu horn....
@@user-ty5vj5gf2w 10th guru was not bihar unka janam waha hua tha jese india ke rehne waala kal ko america chala jaye or waha uska bacha paida ho toh kya wo american ho gaya ? guru ji punajbi thhe unki ek bhi pankti bihari me nahi hai even koi bada sikh bihari origen ka nahi hua aaj tak or ha sikhs me kai log muslims se bhi sikh baane hai 😂
Just to clarify some things in this video: Before the British, the Sikh ruled Panjab under Maharaja Ranjit Singh where people of all faiths were treated equally and lived in peace. Under Ranjit Singh, the Sikhs were still a minority yet this is not an issue as Sikhs are warriors, they're lions (Singh's). Sheep always outnumber Lion's but 1 Lion can take care of a 1000 sheep. This shows that you don't have to be a majority to rule a state. The Sikh sided with the Congress whilst fighting for independence from the British under the impress they would be free and have political autonomy as a federal state just like the US system. This didn't not occur hence the fight for a separate Sikh state since the 50s. Key dates to prove this is the protests and subsequent raid of Harmandir Sahib in 1955, the Panjabi Suba movement resulting in a further partition of Panjab 1966 and of course the Dharam Yudh Morcha and Operation Bluestar in 1984 followed by the ongoing armed resistance til this day.
Go tell the Kashmiris of how lovely it was to live under sikh rule and how half their population starved to death under Sikhs discrimination against Muslims. The only Muslim that we’re treated ok were Punjabi Muslims
I would add that it’s gaining momentum again though it was always active. Indian state killed more than 20k Sikh youth in year following 1984 till 1992 and refuse to release the Sikh “political” prisoners who have served their sentences.
Why did anyone deserve a religious state? Hindus didn't get one. Jains didn't get one. Buddhists didn't get one. Why did Muslims get one and why do Sikhs think they deserve one?
@@Mirza7385 cus the muslim camp was itself divided into two: pro partition muslims led by jinnah and anti partition muslims lead by maulana abul kalam azad
Even NE region of india was forcefully emerged with india, that region were ruled by different kingdom and chieftains. Pls, make a video about NE region of india.
The current Republic of India = British India v2.0. Nothing really has changed. The British just transferred power over to their lapdogs (North Indian Brahmins) in 1947.
@@anujnautiyal8539 it's not about being patriotic or not. i simply said make a history about NE region which is mostly missing in mainland indian textbooks. people needs to know how NE was forced to emerge with india even if the truth hurts.
Sikhism is a mix of Islamic theology with dharmic concepts of the sub-continent. It jad adherents all the way up to Afghanistan which jad a vibrant population untill the Soviet in invasion. For many hindus like myself I find it easy to go to the golden temple and pray just like I would do at any of my other temples. Very accepting faith like Budhism.
@@RavenSingh3733 Sikhism is full of Bhakti and Sufi philosophy. No religion is pure for that matter. Not Hinduism nor islam. All are derivative of prior religions. You are probably too young and not gone through the scripture. Atleast listen to the kirtans being sung when you visit the Golden temple. They are a celebration of Indian culture and philosophy which is my favorite part of visiting the temple.
Sikhs will creat their own state very soon, but the question is these hindutavis indians had their own state before 1947 ??? How many hindutavis so called indians sacrificed their lives for india or Freedom, their mythology is bla bla bla 😂😂
This odd romanticism Indian nationalists have with BRITISH India is both funny and sad at the same time. Many of them can’t even wrap their heads around the fact that British India was a COLONY of Britain and not a country. Yet they constantly have this love affair about wanting to go back to a time when their great grandparents were considered second-class citizens. This is how weakly constructed Indian nationalism is. They are taught about how the “Muslim Invaders” are so wicked and horrible, yet the British Invaders are perfectly okay. What’s even more funnier is the fact the historic and true land of India is the Indus Valley, which would make PAKISTAN (yes Pakistan) the real India. The only reason the current “Republic of India” is even named India (and not Hindustan or Bharat) is because of….yes you guessed it….BRITISH COLONIALISM. The Republic of India is a successor state of British India, nothing more. I often like to compare it to the Macedonia naming dispute. So if the Republic of India is still operating like a colony, why are you surprised about uprisings in Kashmir or Punjab or Nagaland or now even southern India and the calls for an independent South India (Dravidanadu)? Sikh majority Punjab should become an independent nation. It only makes sense….the people of Punjab share more in culture and language with their neighbours in West Punjab (in Pakistan) than any Indian. Furthermore, Punjab would economically benefit from being reconnected back to the former Northwestern Railway network (now Pakistan Railways network) and having access to Karachi port, as Punjab from 1860 to 1947.
What about West Punjab? What about merging both parts of Punjab(Pak and Indian) into a single independent country? *"The Republic of India is a successor state of British India"* Yes, that's true, but so are Pakistan and Bangladesh, isn't it? *"The British invaders were perfectly okay."* No, they weren't. They were as brutal (if not worse) as their Islamic counterparts. *"This is how weakly constructed Indian nationalism is"* It might seem *weakly constructed* to you, but not for us. We have been united as an independent, sovereign nation for 75 years despite many challenges.
@@ArindamKumar_2002 1. Merging West Punjab and East Punjab would make Punjab another Muslim majority country. I’m sure you’d be thrilled by that. Furthermore, West Punjab are the majority in Pakistan, while East Punjab make up less than 2% of India’s population. West Punjab has access to its natural trade routes with Kashmir the Khyber Pass and to Sindh/Arabian Sea, while East Punjab is essentially landlocked (like Kashmir) and forced to use a port much farther away. Simply put, nobody in West Punjab is looking for independence because they attained it in 1947. It’s the people of East Punjab who made a blunder that they they’re actively trying to fix. 2. Pakistan and Bangladesh are not successor states of British India. Pakistan attained independence from Britain in 1947 and had to reapply to multiple other International bodies including the United Nations, International Olympic Association etc.. India however is a successor state of British India, since the British simply transferred its titles and powers over to the new government in Delhi. So essentially the Republic of India still operates as British India but under a new name. The fact your national anthem is a hymn praising King George and the Colony of British India should be the hint. 3. You saying that doesn’t change the fact Indian nationalists are confused. You claim to hate the British yet use the British installed puppet Maharaja of Kashmir as your excuse to occupy Kashmir? Who created the “Princely State of Kashmir & Jammu”? One of your mythical gods? Or have the British becomes your new gods? 4. Indian nationalism revolves around an unhealthy obsession with Pakistan. Everything from your federal elections to even World Cup cricket matches is based on Pakistan. Punjabi farmers are now ISI agents, Kashmiri students who cheer for another cricket team are arrested and slapped with sedition charges. And what’s with this need to play the national anthem in cinemas? Indian nationalism doesn’t exist that’s why. Your attempting to create a country out of a British invention. Kashmir and Punjab will lead the way towards freedom for billions of others…be it in Dravida, Nagaland or elsewhere.
@@ArindamKumar_2002 India’s national anthem does sing praises to King George and here is the evidence. Feel free to debunk any point I raise. 1. The hymn was composed in December 1911 at the precise time when King George V and Queen Mary were due to visit their colony British India. 2. The hymn does not indicate any love for the motherland. 3. The 'Adhinayak' (Lord or Ruler) is being hailed. Who was the ruler of India in 1911? It was the British, headed by their King-Emperor. 4. Who was the 'Bharat Bhagya Vidhata' (dispenser of India's destiny) at that time ? It was the British, since they were ruling India in 1911. 5. The hymn was sung for the first time in British India on the 2nd day of the Calcutta Conference of the Congress Party in December 1911. This conference was held specifically to give a loyal welcome to King George and to thank him for annulling the Partition of Bengal in 1905. 6. The agenda of the 2nd day of the Calcutta Conference, in which the song was sung, was specially reserved for giving a loyal welcome to King George, and a resolution was adopted unanimously that day welcoming and expressing loyalty to the emperor and empress. 7. It was only as late as in 1937, when he wanted to show himself as a patriot, that Tagore denied that he had written the song to honour the British king. The above facts almost conclusively prove that 'Jana Gana Mana' was composed and sung as an act of sycophancy to the British king. Thank you for your time.
“States”, borders, flags, democratic rule and nationalistic governance that we understand today are a completely different and foreign concept that we were never used to and very effective in division.
You seem to have misunderstood the concept of Sikhism. Sikhism and Hinduism are much more intertwined. Khalsa is a concept that emerged 300 years ago against Islamic oppression, but Punjabis as ethnic and linguistic group have existed for long. Infact, there has been a long tradition in Punjabi Hindus to make their eldest son a Sikh (Khalsa Warrior). That's because the knowledge of warfare and self defense was pretty much restricted to the Kshatriya Caste(Rajputs back then). But by becoming the part of Khalsa community, you could learn the art of combat to protect your family and village, given the fact the Punajb was the gateway to the subcontinent and first line of defense against invaders and was constantly at threat.
@@Mirza7385 Sure, I'll tell you why. It has more to do with the legal aspect eversince the Minority Commission Act of 1992 gave Sikhs a minority status in Constitution. Perhaps your exposure to Sikh sentiments come from politicians indulging in identity politics and few Khalistani Radical or Canada based NRIs, but speaking entirely from a social perspective - the Sikh and Punjabi Hindu community is very much fluid and marriages btw the two communities is very common. And it's obvious, because they essentially come from the same community. Bhatia, Chhadha, Walia, Sahney, Narula,Kohli,Malhotra to name some, you'll find in both Sikh and Hindu communities. Even within the same Punjabi family, you can find one line of brothers/cousins who are Sikh and other Hindus
Pak/Bangladesh is not a muslim majority state. They are Islamic state. They are governed as per Shariah. India is a pluralistic society which has Hindus as majority. So Hindus/Sikhs/Buddists/Jains no one got an exclusive country of their own. Only muslims got that. As per the decree of Gandhi (India's father of the nation) - Muslims need to be appeased, even at the cost of Hindu religion, culture or motherland which the Dharmic people consider as holy.
What kind of country a 14% minority can have ?? How large will be that country?? How large will be the parliament and other legislative system of that country?? Sikhs should take one of the two options to get a country : 1. Conversion of more people into Sikh religion and thus increasing the number. Or 2. Asking for state autonomy within india There are no alternative way of getting a country. My personal suggestion is option 1 because since in Punjab Sikh is minority they might not get state autonomy. So option 2 don't work for Sikhs. So they should convert more vigorously into Sikhism and thus increase the number. When they get magic number of 50% or more than they might get a country of their own.
In 1950's they went for autonomy as promised by congress nehru to sikh leadership before independence and they got betrayed and attacked even at the golden temple in 1955 when nehru sent the indian army in to stop the movement for Sikh punjab autonomy
Completely wrong. Everything you said was wrong, the reason why the Sikhs did not go for a separate country as advised by the British is because they were promised the “glow of freedom” if they stayed part of India by Nehru. He lied to them “the biggest betrayal in history”.
BJP bots out in full force here, with many claiming that Sikhs love being apart of India. If that was truly the case, then why didn't a single member of the Sikh delegation accept the Indian constitution? Why does Article 25 of the Indian Constitution, to this day, describes Sikhs as a "sect" of Hinduism? Despite being a miniscule minority, the Sikhs contributed immensely to the Indian independence movement. What was our reward? Another partition of Punjab, the loss of our old (Lahore) and new (Chandigarh) capital, having our holiest place of worship reduced to rubble, the suppression of our faith, language, history, and the massacre and rape of our people. We just want what was promised to us by Nehru and Mahatma Gandhi: an autonomous Sikh region within the Indian nation. BTW Oberoi's claims are easily debunked with just a quick glance through Sikh history. The Sri Akal Takht, the central authority of the faith and comparable in someway to the Vatican, was founded in Amritsar, Punjab(Majha) by the 6th Guru. Punjab has been religiously tied to the Sikh faith since Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji was born. If only Oberoi spent as much time researching the topics he talks about and less time defending his genocidal uncle's heinous actions, he would actually be able to make claims that are historically accurate. I mean, the first Sikh Guru wrote extensively about Punjab, it's landscapes and seasons in a religiously poetic way. These passages would then go on to be included in the central holy scripture of the faith. This isn't even mentioning the various brutal campaigns led by Sikhs to liberate Punjab from the Mughals, Afghans, and Persians. Two Sikh Guru's were executed by the Mughals, not one. Sri Guru Arjan Dev Ji (5th Guru) was tortured to death by Emperor Jahangir and Sri Guru Tegh Bahadur Ji (9th Guru) was beheaded by Emperor Aurangzeb. A few decades later, Aurangzeb would go on to arrest and execute the children of the 10th Guru. Revisionists do like to claim that Sri Guru Arjan Dev Ji was executed for "political reasons", despite the fact that in his own memoirs, Jahangir makes it explicitly clear that it was precisely due to his refusal to convert. On top of this, it was the execution of the 5th Guru which began the militarization period within the Sikh faith.
Okay so why did Punjab vote for Congress National government so many times? Why do millions of Sikh celebrate the fact that they're Indian. Why are Sikhs so proud of being Indian. You just think that you're better than everyone else. Why don't you hold any sympathy to the Kashmiri Pandits who faced 100x more atrocities than any other ethnic group in India.
@@dwarasamudra8889 Were Kashmiri Pandits raped and burned alive across India in a government sanctioned pogrom? The Kashmiri Pandit Exodus was horrible but Kashmir Files was a movie, not a documentary. As for the Congress comment, absolutely bonkers. Look at the percentage of Sikhs per election that voted for the Akali Dal. Congress heavily relies on the widespread support of the Urban Punjabi-Hindu population. I mean, if Sikhs love Congress, why would they come into conflict with Nehru, Indira, Rajiv, etc? Quit repeating the same script that every other BJP bot uses. Just because Sikhs have grievances with the constitution and policies pushed forth by the Indian government doesn't mean we hate India. Less than 2% of the population yet 70% of those that were hanged or imprisoned by the British during the Azaadi movement. The fact remains that Nehru and Mahatma Gandhi promised Sikhs autonomy and then reneged on that promise as soon as the dust settled.
@robin smith Sikh Regiment did a better job at calling out Pakistan than I could ever do. Shaheed Major General Shabeg Singh even drove them out of Bangladesh... only to be executed by the very nation he served.
@@amritrandhawa3509 we didnt cauae the partition of punjab.. We did what we could... Welcoming sikhs to the hindu side of punjab, made u army chiefs and even a freakin prime minister. Go and ask the world , is their any nation which votes for a candidate who belongs to a minority religion!?! twice to power. We r wholly commited to our respect to sikhs and sikhism if u r abrahamised brain still dont appreciate then we cant help
pretty sure the answer is that tiny religious minorities are generally not given their own states to run when much larger groups would like to use that land too.
@@japneetsingh5015 it was a Muslim majority state. Marathas Had their own state…but they seems to be happy with India and so did Rajputs who also lost their states and are doing absolutely fine in modern India. The Sikh empire was a a Muslim majority state. you really think it could have survived? Even if Hindus and Sikhs were counted together, they were never more than 35-40% of the population.
@@japneetsingh5015 and also In the Maratha empire, they were in actually in majority and also have acc as to sea ports and their empire was 5-6 times the Sikh empire. They seem to be happy with india though. Wonder why you have any issues? Your holy sites are spread all across India, you are willing to give them up for Khalistan?
“When there is incest, adultery, atheism, hatred of religion, no more dharma, and sin everywhere, the impossible Iron Age has come; in what way the world will be saved? For the helpless, the Lord Himself will manifest as the Supreme Purusha. He will be called the Kalki incarnation and will be glorious like a lion coming down from heaven.” ― Guru Gobind Singh
Why would Sikhs want to be in a land locked country when they have all of India for them. Plus they will have to defend their boundaries against Pakistan and still not have any of the old Sikh empire land that is now in Pakistan.
Only people who are hating sikh in comments are hindus for only reason that they can't digest the fact that sikh have right to east punjab and should be under their control. (Even in which kalistani doesn't even count himachal and harayana ). Are you serious people you have whole india on your name, it just greedy.
Why is it that Sikhs only have right to east Punjab and not west? Because that doens't suit the idealogy of Pakistan who can't fight India hand to hand & relies on propaganda to weaken us.
A Sikh state is required so Pakistan can create a buffer state between India & Pakistan, what will happen to the Christians, Hindus, Dalits, Muslims living in Punjab who do not want to live in a Sikh ruled nation🤔
@PropioniBacteriumShermanii and When Muslims got there nation and hindu there, the India leaders promised the sikh to have control over punjab region, as culture, language region will be protected by India and ,that never happened😑.
@@Tattvavitt and other things sikhism heavily really on punjabi culture as both have great amount of influence on each other. So, you say more fight for punjabi and punjab, punjabi hindu,Christian and Muslims who love punjabi support the whole thing.
If you are a real truth-seeker please make video on why there was no Hindu state after partition of India, as pakistan was entirely made on the line of religions. And this video also discusses new state based on religion. Thanks!
The main reason for participation was the extremism and bigotry against Muslims of the Indian subcontinent. Being a non Muslim I can see it everywhere. The hate, the venom Indians have for Muslims is disgusting. With the current pace I wouldn't be surprised if India broke again
@@harlowida Isn't it same for the Hindus as well? Let's be even handed regarding this. Don't try to potray as if only one community is to be blamed, and the other is innocent.
Punjab as a whole was never Sikh majority, it's only after partition that the Sikh population got concentrated in the Indian part of Punjab following mass migrations and became demographically majority in that part of Punjab.
its' deeper than that. the historical \-cultural region of punjab (on the indian side) includes parts of what are haryana and himachal (and arguable bits of RJ). so the modern indian state of punjab is not representative of indian punjab. due to sikh party politics, at the time of state reorganisation, they shaved off as many Hindu majority areas as possible, to have an unchallenged Sikh majority state to rule over.
@@anonymouslyopinionated656 the Union government of India was also responsible and actually played a major role in organising Sikh majoritarian politics, the whole separatist movement was initially supported by the then ruling party of India until it eventually backfired Delhi.
Kartik harit Sikh empire consisted on 10% Sikhs.
Why even after partition was not sikh majority till haryana was made and even today only 57% of punjab is sikh majority
He mentioned that fact in 4:04
In college I had a professor who is a Jain originally from Mumbai. Even though he taught business courses he'd occasionally discuss the partition of India. I learned so much about India that I still wish to visit there some day.
You are welcome bro.
Jains and parsi are one of the best people
@@friendlyatheist9589 He was one of the friendliest professors I ever had. Even when students were being rude af to him. He'd be stern but not angry and say something like, "I've always treated you with respect and I expect the same in return. If you can't do that leave this class."
Don't drink the water, or drinks made with tap water included lassi or anything like that.
@@RinzSach yes bro Pakistan is highly developed and Modern country than india pakistan is super power who give loans to us Indian they are not dependent on other countries financially like us because Pakistan have one of the most visionary and non corrupt leaders like Shahbaz Sharif Nawaz Sharif ashif zaradai even Europeans come to Pakistan for having a better life no pollution in Pakistan no terrorism and radicalism Pakistan is an inspiration of world
Many Sikh's came here to Scotland and have been an integral part of our communities for decades now. Amazing people.
They truly are an honourable bunch.
Sikhs in America also seem to be a noble and trustworthy people.
Do Scottish Sikhs eat haggis curry?
@@MrAllmightyCornholioz They make Haggis Pakora, yes. It's yummy. 👍
@@anneonymous4884 Their work ethic is second to none.
Bengal and Punjab are the worst sufferers of partition till this date.
Bc they were the only places partitioned
@@kk-gc1iiand they were the ones contributed most in the independence of India and suffered when they got it.
The government of India is going as far as Canada to take down the Sikhs. Gruesome.
@@Singh54321 1984 is not forgotten.
@@Singh54321 bcz Muslims were adamant on being separated....Hindus and Sikhs didnt wanted the ocountry to break !!! but what can u do when they keep on crying and fighting for it
5:09 huge inaccuracy, Muslim league only got support of most Muslims during the 40s especially after 1942 when the British arrested the entire congress top leadership over the Quit India movement (incidentally the Congress president during that whole period was Maulana Azad, a muslim). Before that in the 1937 elections they struggled to even gain seats in muslim majority provinces with their support base being largely restricted to elite urdu speaking muslims in northern India, while the muslims in muslim majority provinces like Punjab, Bengal, and NWFP backed the local parties or the Congress (in the case of NWFP). Most muslim organisations supported the nationalist movement for most of the colonial period, with even the Muslim league being a Congress ally till their proposal for a coalition government in UP got denied, Jinnah himself was once a major nationalist leader.
Yup it's Urdu Elites or Jaggirs who demanded a Seperate State
The Punjab unionist party basically swept all of Punjab province and almost won as many seats as the Muslim League did in the 1937 elections despite the fact they only contested elections in Punjab province. 😂
Khizar Hayat Tiwana, Chhotu Ram, and Tara Singh were the big reasons as to why the unionist party had such strong support from Punjabi Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs.
Wrong, in 1936 elections congress didn’t win many Muslim seats. It was the regional parties which were also allies of congress who got Muslim seats for congress. Congress never had support of Muslims, even maulana azad was a self proclaimed atheist in the 20s or 30s which decimated his popularity within the Muslims and it was only after partition that the Muslims of india went to him due to lack of options
@@rajeevparmar8844 yeah that tends to happen when your population is 5x as big
@@msr7373 Congress won 26 of the 58 muslim reserved seats it contested, better strike rate than the league. Elections happened in 1937 not 1936. I haven't seen any sources mention Azad's alleged atheism.
Sir as a Sikh form Indian Punjab I would say that from what I have experienced growing up in Punjab is that Punjab is a state of Punjabis that means Hindu Muslim Sikh Christians of Punjab are culturally very connected to each other and I would say that taking out any part of this community would greatly affect the present Punjab. In Punjab many Sikhs believe in Muslim gurus as well as Hindu gurus and in turn some Sikh gurus also greatly affect religious knowledges of Muslims and Hindus of Punjab ; fundamentally Sikhism is religion which doesn't want conversion but the cooperation of other communities for peace and prosperity (ਸਰਬੱਤ ਦਾ ਭਲਾ Sarbat da bhala may everyone prosper , its one of the teachings we say in our prayers) that means Sikhs have no authority for forced conversion of people to believe in the ideas and thoughts that we believe are correct. The king Maharaja Ranjit Singh was known for his unbiased stance towards any religion in his judgement. And I think Guru Nanak dev ji our first guru's teaching is something everyone would agree on and it is like the fundamental correct according to all religions and his teachings is one of many factors which kept the Punjabi community together even today.
here's some of his teachings :
1. Vaand Chhako - with the grace of the Lord, whatever you have received, share it with the needy and then consume.
2. Kirat Karo - One should not exploit others to enjoy self-happiness. Earning without fraud and working diligently is what he preached
3. Naam Japo: Chant the name of 'True God'. Sri Guru Nanak Dev emphasized meditating on God's name to gain control over five evils- kama, krodh, lobh, moh, ahankar means lust, anger, greed, attachment and ego
4. Sarbat daa bhalaa: Ask Lord for everyone's happiness. Sri Guru Nanak dev ji emphasized the concept of universal brotherhood.
5. Speak the truth without any fear.
and one more thing Punjabis don't want things like Khalistan it is all the just the outcome of bad governance of our India's dark periods
we are happy to be a small part of India's wheel of progress.
The problem is that in our country religion is politicized a lot and unwanted factors of outer forces also influenced this dark period greatly.
If people understand that our political parties exploiting us on the basis of religion then India would have progressed at a faster rate.
ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂ ਜੀ ਕਾ ਖਾਲਸਾ 🚩🚩
ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂ ਜੀ ਕੀ ਫਤਿਹ 🚩🚩
Well said.
Islam has no connectivity with Hinduism whatsoever. Sikhism took some ideas of Islam. But many Sikhs leaving paxtan to come to hindu majority India because Islam = disease
ਇਹ ਸਾਰੀਆਂ ਕਹਾਣੀਆਂ ਠੀਕ ਹਨ...ਪਰ ਅਸਲ ਸਵਾਲ ਇਹ ਹੈ ਕਿ ਅਸੀਂ ਸਿੱਖਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਆਪਣੇ ਸੱਚੇ ਇਤਿਹਾਸ ਨੂੰ ਸਵੀਕਾਰ ਕਰਨ ਦੀ ਹਿੰਮਤ ਕਦੋਂ ਅਤੇ ਕਿੱਥੋਂ ਮਿਲੇਗੀ? ਅਸੀਂ ਕਦੋਂ ਆਪਣੀਆਂ ਅੱਖਾਂ ਤੋਂ ਕੱਪੜਾ ਹਟਾ ਕੇ ਇਹ ਇਤਿਹਾਸਕ ਸਬੂਤ ਦੇਖਾਂਗੇ ਕਿ ਸਾਡਾ ਅਸਲ ਘਰ ਪਾਕਿਸਤਾਨ ਵਿਚ ਲਾਹੌਰ ਹੈ, ਨਾ ਕਿ ਭਾਰਤੀ ਪੰਜਾਬ?
ਸਾਡਾ ਲਾਹੌਰ ਮਹਾਰਾਜਾ ਰਣਜੀਤ ਸਿੰਘ ਦਾ ਰਾਜ ਹੈ ਅਤੇ ਉਸ ਦਾ ਰੋਹਬ ਅੱਜ ਵੀ ਲਾਹੌਰ ਵਿੱਚ ਹੈ। ਸਾਡਾ ਨਨਕਾਣਾ ਸਿੱਖ ਧਰਮ ਦੇ ਬਾਨੀ ਗੁਰੂ ਨਾਨਕ ਦੇਵ ਜੀ ਦਾ ਜਨਮ ਅਸਥਾਨ ਹੈ। ਕੀ ਅਸੀਂ ਜਨਮ ਅਸਥਾਨ ਨੂੰ ਭੁੱਲ ਸਕਦੇ ਹਾਂ?
ਇਹ ਇਤਿਹਾਸਕ ਸਬੂਤ ਹੈ ਕਿ ਸਾਡਾ ਅਸਲ ਘਰ ਪਾਕਿਸਤਾਨ ਵਿੱਚ ਲਾਹੌਰ ਹੈ, ਨਾ ਕਿ ਭਾਰਤੀ ਪੰਜਾਬ। ਇਹ ਉਹ ਹੈ ਜੋ ਦੀਪ ਸਿੱਧੂ ਸਾਨੂੰ ਆਪਣੇ ਗੀਤ ਵਿੱਚ ਦੱਸ ਰਿਹਾ ਸੀ ( ruclips.net/video/8N6c0czogxw/видео.html )
ਸਿੱਖਾਂ ਕੋਲ ਲਾਹੌਰ ਹੈ। ਇਸ ਨੂੰ ਕੋਈ ਨਹੀਂ ਬਦਲ ਸਕਦਾ। ਜਿਵੇਂ ਯਹੂਦੀ ਇਜ਼ਰਾਈਲ ਦੇ ਮਾਲਕ ਹਨ, ਸਿੱਖ ਲਾਹੌਰ ਦੇ ਮਾਲਕ ਹਨ।
ਅਸੀਂ ਕਦੋਂ ਤੱਕ ਭਾਰਤ ਨੂੰ ਆਪਣਾ ਵਤਨ ਕਹਾਂਗੇ ਅਤੇ ਆਪਣੀ ਅਸਲੀ ਮਾਤ ਭੂਮੀ ਨੂੰ ਨਜ਼ਰਅੰਦਾਜ਼ ਕਰਾਂਗੇ ਜੋ ਸਾਨੂੰ ਬੁਲਾਉਂਦੀ ਰਹਿੰਦੀ ਹੈ?
ਆਓ ਬਹਾਦਰ ਭਰਾਵੋ ਆਪਣੇ ਘਰ ਵਾਪਸ ਲਾਹੌਰ ਚੱਲੀਏ। ਭਾਰਤ ਨੂੰ ਭੁੱਲ ਜਾਓ। ਚਲੋ ਆਪਣੇ ਅਸਲੀ, ਇਤਿਹਾਸਕ, ਗੁਰੂ-ਪ੍ਰਦਾਨ ਘਰ: ਲਾਹੌਰ-ਪਾਕਿਸਤਾਨ ਨੂੰ ਚੱਲੀਏ।
ਸਿਰਫ਼ ਲਾਹੌਰ ਵਿੱਚ ਹੀ ਅਸੀਂ ਕਹਿ ਸਕਦੇ ਹਾਂ “ਰਾਜ ਕਰੇਗਾ ਖ਼ਾਲਸਾ”। ਮੈਂ ਦੁਹਰਾਉਂਦਾ ਹਾਂ, ਬਹਾਦਰ ਸਿੱਖ ਭਰਾਵੋ, ਆਓ ਇਹ ਕਦੇ ਨਾ ਭੁੱਲੀਏ ਕਿ ਸਾਡੇ ਗੁਰੂ ਦੁਆਰਾ ਬਖਸ਼ੇ ਸਿੱਖਾਂ ਦਾ ਅਸਲ ਘਰ ਲਾਹੌਰ ਹੈ, ਭਾਰਤ ਨਹੀਂ।
ਭਾਰਤੀ ਪੰਜਾਬ ਪੰਜਾਬੀ, ਬਿਹਾਰੀ, ਮਦਰਾਸੀ, ਭਈਆ ਅਤੇ ਹੋਰ ਸਾਰੇ ਭਾਰਤੀਆਂ ਦਾ ਹੈ, ਪਰ ਲਾਹੌਰ ਸਿਰਫ਼ ਸਿੱਖਾਂ ਦਾ ਹੈ।
ਅਸੀਂ ਇਸਨੂੰ ਕਿਵੇਂ ਭੁੱਲ ਗਏ?
@@jannatibiryani1991 😒😒 - Koi gall hoyi ethe Khalistan di jeda tu khoteyan wngu gallan krda pya.
Utte ohne aap mannya ya ki Sanu Khalistan nai chaida.... Fer v lggya hoya ya tu
last time I was this early, the Sikhs had their own country
lol
So never?
same bro
That's sikh
@@hsthast7183 there was one
Better video idea: why wasnt sindh partitioned ? Karachi was hindu majority before partition, sindh was 25% hindu at least but now its 7
@KaZee123 so why are there still sindhi hindus there today ?
25% makes it hindu majority?
@KaZee123 are you crazy or something.
eastern sindh was majority hindu
Sindh as a whole was about 27% Hindu based on the last census before partition (1941). The cities were mostly Hindu majority but they were small at the time. There were also a few rural districts in the east that were Hindu majority, but otherwise the province was Muslim majority.
By this logic why weren’t UP Bihar Madras etc partitioned? Why not even a single Muslim ruled but non Muslim majority state was allowed to accede to Pakistan but multiple non Muslim ruled (and even some Muslim ruled) Muslim majority states like Kashmir Kapurthala and Bantva given to india? All these areas had pockets of Muslim majoirty , Sindh only had 1.3 million Hindus compared to 9 million Muslims in UP, 5 million in Bihar, 5 million in Madras and states, 2 million in Bombay and states, 1.5 million in CP and central india Etc. So if Sindhi Hindus wanted a state for themselves then the Muslims of all these regions had a right to ask for a portion of their native state as well. Why only majority be allowed to make decisions for minority as well ?
I never comment on videos, but as a Sikh, I want to thank you for making this video. Understandably, the partition focuses on the immense impact and upheavel that was inflicted on to the Hindu and Muslim communities. But, it is much appreciated that you have also mentioned the Sikh perspective, and how we were de facto stateless after the end of the British Raj.
khalistani nonsense
the sikhs never had a state in the first place. even the sikh empire had a muslim majority.
Well forgot 1971 Pakistan Army themselves call Punjab as a Revenge for what happened in 1971
@@yolemae6580 but it was a Sikh state
not canada is ur state , enjoy.
As a Sikh who's heavily researched this topic for years, I don't fully agree with many of the points made in this video. However, I do appreciate you raising awareness on this subject matter.
true
Where do you disagree brother?
Hi mr Ranjit Sangha, i am really curious to understand Sikh history from origin till now. But i don't trust the material i see or watch. Pls suggest
Which part do you disagree with?
@@theoldbanyan5227
You cant trust anything, history is messed up a whole country was stolen and now everyone is trying to rehash a new narrative to keep the status quo but failing miserably it like trying to polish a terd, like this video.
Really interesting! Thanks for making this video!
They have their own country, it's called Canada
lol
Ek no bhai
lmao
@@jannatibiryani1991 why don't you Sikhs take back Sindh and Lahore then . We Indians are with you . You can change your capital from Amritsar to Lahore 😊😊
@@jannatibiryani1991 go and ask the question to British or pakistan and ur right Sindh should be for Sikh
Really enjoyed this video, although I knew about the subject matter beforehand, most RUclipsrs don't really cover this--awesome that you did. I'd love to see more.
No-one covers it because no-one cares. Make your own content
@@darkjudge8786 covering niche stuff is always nice. I'd rather see a new subject than something I've seen hundreds of times
@@darkjudge8786 People have watched this video and more people are going to keep watching it. I enjoyed it and I'm sure many others did. So people do care. Also why should he be expected to make his own content about a subject, not everyone is a RUclipsr. Just let him be happy about the fact that a niche topic is covered.
what was the british dark game behind partition is expained on this channel
ruclips.net/video/hBr_kZXeAsg/видео.html
Undivided punjab never had sikh majority
We want our own nation sikh 🙏
which part in indian as well as in pakistani punjab sikhs are minority
@@user-vh1gc1ct6z I’m from east punjab that where I want to
PUNJAB ❤@@user-vh1gc1ct6z
I don't understand why u guys don't just create an identity based on culture and language instead of religion, by using Sikh as an identity you're really making urself the minority even in your own country, if khalistan's identity isn't based on Sikhism you'd actually get a majority of people with "punjabi/Khalistani" identity
@@Jerry-n9pthat would mean them being forced to assimilate into the wider muslim population that forms most of punjab, and it never really went well whenever sikhs lived with muslims.
sikhs have always been a important part of indian society and it's case with every indian religion that we coexisted peacefully respecting and participating in each others culture and religious activities which is true to this day, this partition thing has no supporting base in the context of indian religions
In 1710 after several battles sikhs led by banda singh bahadur killed mughal governor wazir khan in battle of chappar chiri and became de facto rulers of punjab . After that sikhs formed 12 principalities called Misls . These 12 misls controlled vast territories fast forward to 1799 five of these joined together to form what we called sikh empire but actually there was also a second sikh empire. Phulkian misl which was part of dal khalsa (army of all sikhs) and fought against mughals and abdali and aslo one of 7 who don't join Maharaja Ranjit Singh was strongest of all controlled region of malwa of present day punjab. They raised punjab regiment which is second oldest regiment of india they formed an alliance with british fearing the might of ranjit singh's empire after defeat of sikh empire these states still ruled by sikh rulers which british called princely states or native States.Phulkian misls are now into four division nabha state ,patiala state,jind state, faridkot state. Patiala state was the largest with around 15,495 km sq of land and population of 2 million of which 50 percent were sikhs and faridkot state was also sikh majority with 58 percent population. There were several british administered districts in which sikhs were majority such as moga (64%) tarn taran (51%) jagroan (50%) and few more . Before partition these states were given option to join either pakistan India or stay neutral. King of patiala state was offered by jinnah to join pakistan.jinnah even sign blank paper and give it to ruler of patiala for demands he declined. There were several reasons why King of patiala joined india even sikhs had huge percentage in indian army could fight anybody.
1. He don't want the sikh state to become a puppet state between India and Pakistan.
2. Punjab naturally had no recourses such as ( coal ,iron etc) to sustain prosperous future.
3. Sikhs are actually more closer to Hindus rather than muslims.
4.he figured that even if someday hindu nationalist succeeded in making india Hindu rastra (hindu nations) sikhs will enjoy some freedom as compared to pakistan shria law etc . He came to conclude this because prominent hindu nationalist such as swami vivekananda and veer savarkar were admirer of sikhs and even sarvarkar once stated that there should seperate sikh nation in 1929.
All in all , sikh states joined india formed union called PEPSU ( Patiala and east punjab union ) . Which had area of around 26000 km sq had sikh majority and after partition sikhs and hindus became majority in several districts after muslims were gone ultimately the present day punjab became sikh majority. There is a fact that the doaba region of Punjab was always a hindu majority even before partition and its still hindu majority and malwa region was always sikh majority even in pre partition era and its still is . According to 1941 census the present day punjab was sikh majority st 51 percent.
I also want to mention the fact that sikhs are majority in those districts that were founded by them such as tarn taran ,moga,bathinda ,barnala ,patiala , sangrur etc . Jalandhar were historically ruled by hindus and even today its hindu majority likewise all these districts mentioned remained majority to those whom they were founded by .
For those who want a beautiful reality check of those hogwash comment, I would suggest searching “1984 Sikh Genocide”. 30,000 Sikhs were hunted down and murdered by the Indian state in 1984. And these people still call it a “riot” to this day.
@@Deepsingh-ok2eo very good information. Please suggest a book
Yea like massacre of 84 ? Bs
@@jazzmaan8714 it was unfortunate though none of the Indians wanted anything like that happen it just escalated to such level
I wish Sihki was more widely known. Such an interesting faith tradition.
Sikhs in America are known for being victims of anti-Muslim attack despite being non-Muslims.
You should convert to Sikhism
@Alexios I Komnenos to be fair, Hinduism is so vast you could conceive of it as both. To conceive of Hinduism as a single is to conceive the west largely practiced a single faith called Abrahamism that shares 95% of its doctrine but has several sects based on disagreements over some relatively minor doctrinal grounds. When you flip it around to the western conception of religion, then yeah it seems better to think of India as having several distinct faith traditions, but I think there are merits to both views. The people in india seemed to have few issues considering Buddhism and Jainism as weird sects of aesthetics at least.l, and from the outside it does look a lot like Sikhism is an attempt to bridge the gap between Hinduism and Islam in an area where many practices both religions.
@Alexios I Komnenos tbh Muslims hindus and Sikhs weren't different in Punjab. All celebrated all festivals. So, only considering that sikhs also celebrated hindu festivals will obviously bring impressions that Sikhs are hindu sect but we should also look that More Hindus and Muslims celebrated Sikh Festivals.
Sikhi was already a different religion in 1699, when Guru Gobind Singh ji created the Khalsa.
If you Consider Sikhi as a sect of Hinduism then definition of Religion is non existent, then Christianity is a sect of Judaism and Islam is a sect of Christianity.
@@gursimarsingh5505 yes that is exactly what I just says lol
And now we see a fun exchange between the people of the subcontinent and the occasional British guy.
Very simple reason, they weren't in majority in the Punjab state.
Only 14% Punjabis were Sikhs. How could a Sikh state can be formed in a state where Sikhs are in minority.
They were possibilities of an independent united Punjab, which wasn't possible due to Hindu Muslim hatred.
Jinnah, father of Pakistan had offered Sikhs to join Pakistan with united Punjab but it was unacceptable for Punjabi Hindus who were 34% of the state's population..
There were many other problems too, like how could it survive as a land-locked state but the above reason was the prime one.
@Mughal Nationalist My friend this was 1940 not 1400
If one side invaded the other one would react immediately and again sikh were Martial race so they couldve still hold Their ground for few years and Indians/Pakistani who were unorganised after independence
@Mughal Nationalist Yeah it'd be like Poland all over again
@@kkkk25yearsago79 Lol, Sikh aren't considered as a martial race but Punjabis, both Hindu Muslims and Sikhs.
Even in that jatt Hindus, jatt Muslims and jatt Sikhs were considered more martial.
Infact even if Sikh state Punjab was independent, within years it would have been invaded by India and Pakistan and its fate would have been worse than Poland.
KRISHNKANT It will be formed now. Modi will break up mata bharat. Vote for BJP.
@@jerry18741 They tried to form and tasted dust.
And anyway, today in Punjab state, 44% are Hindus. There is no way a religion based sikh state can be formed.
Many people refer to it as a partition of punjab not india
I’ve always wondered this is 🇬🇧British Partitioned off 🇲🇲Myanmar (then the Burma province) as well as 🇵🇰Pakistan & 🇧🇩Bangladesh as the World’s 3rd Largest ☸️Buddhist country alongside the World’s 2nd & 3rd Largest ☪️Islamic countries from the 🕉Hindu-majority India, so I thought it was logical to think why the Brits didn’t think to Partition a ☬Sikh country at the same time.
(it’s fun the realise how the World’s ☪️2nd, 🕉3rd, ☸️4th & ☬ 5th Largest Religions coexist in this subcontinent!)
Burma was not separated in the partition of India, but had become self-ruled in 1935, and was always to become its own country.
@Mr Wonder Adivasi means tribal whilst Tamil is a language தமிழ் - these are not Religions (what India was partitioned upon) 😂😂
@@AchyutChaudhary Isn't Tamil a ethnic group?
@@kkkk25yearsago79 I mean technically you can count all Mother Tongue languages as ‘Ethnic Groups’ in the country (eg. Tamilians, Telugus, Bengalis, Hindis, Urdus) - but we rarely ever use words like ‘Ethnicity’ & ‘Race’ in our country. In fact, our decadal Census don’t have Ethnicity & Race labels either, instead they use Caste, Tribe, Religion & Mother Tongue to classify people.
@@AchyutChaudhary What's the difference between tribe and ethnicity?
Hello Hilbert. I grew up among children with parents from all over the old British India in Bradford. I also had been told that the family had Indian army ancestry and I could be part Indian myself.
It is always interesting to see your videos on such topics.
One of the most amusing experiences I had was to go on a stag night with a load of Sikh lads to Bernard Manning's club in Manchester. They loved it.
Hilbert is the nerdiest name ever. I feel bad for him.
@@scintillam_dei It is Frisian and I think it distinctive. It goes right with his main study topic of old North Sea cultures.
they aren’t real Sikhs then. Sikhs are not allowed to drink alcohol
@@daniel-cc7bn My Muslim friend's uncle thought I was a Muslim when I did not drink alcohol as he bought a round of beers in Frankfurt, back when things were not so strictly interpreted and folk seemed to me to make their own judgments more often.
My Sikh friends back then seemed to enjoy a drink more often than not.
In 1710 after several battles sikhs led by banda singh bahadur killed mughal governor wazir khan in battle of chappar chiri and became de facto rulers of punjab . After that sikhs formed 12 principalities called Misls . These 12 misls controlled vast territories fast forward to 1799 five of these joined together to form what we called sikh empire but actually there was also a second sikh empire. Phulkian misl which was part of dal khalsa (army of all sikhs) and fought against mughals and abdali and aslo one of 7 who don't join Maharaja Ranjit Singh was strongest of all controlled region of malwa of present day punjab. They raised punjab regiment which is second oldest regiment of india they formed an alliance with british fearing the might of ranjit singh's empire after defeat of sikh empire these states still ruled by sikh rulers which british called princely states or native States.Phulkian misls are now into four division nabha state ,patiala state,jind state, faridkot state. Patiala state was the largest with around 15,495 km sq of land and population of 2 million of which 50 percent were sikhs and faridkot state was also sikh majority with 58 percent population. There were several british administered districts in which sikhs were majority such as moga (64%) tarn taran (51%) jagroan (50%) and few more . Before partition these states were given option to join either pakistan India or stay neutral. King of patiala state was offered by jinnah to join pakistan.jinnah even sign blank paper and give it to ruler of patiala for demands he declined. There were several reasons why King of patiala joined india even sikhs had huge percentage in indian army could fight anybody.
1. He don't want the sikh state to become a puppet state between India and Pakistan.
2. Punjab naturally had no recourses such as ( coal ,iron etc) to sustain prosperous future.
3. Sikhs are actually more closer to Hindus rather than muslims.
4.he figured that even if someday hindu nationalist succeeded in making india Hindu rastra (hindu nations) sikhs will enjoy some freedom as compared to pakistan shria law etc . He came to conclude this because prominent hindu nationalist such as swami vivekananda and veer savarkar were admirer of sikhs and even sarvarkar once stated that there should seperate sikh nation in 1929.
All in all , sikh states joined india formed union called PEPSU ( Patiala and east punjab union ) . Which had area of around 26000 km sq had sikh majority and after partition sikhs and hindus became majority in several districts after muslims were gone ultimately the present day punjab became sikh majority. There is a fact that the doaba region of Punjab was always a hindu majority even before partition and its still hindu majority and malwa region was always sikh majority even in pre partition era and its still is . According to 1941 census the present day punjab was sikh majority st 51 percent.
I also want to mention the fact that sikhs are majority in those districts that were founded by them such as tarn taran ,moga,bathinda ,barnala ,patiala , sangrur etc . Jalandhar were historically ruled by hindus and even today its hindu majority likewise all these districts mentioned remained majority to those whom they were founded by .
The bigger question is why was there no Hindu country after partition when partition was done on basis of religion? If you get the answer of this question you will automatically get the answer of your next question that why there was no separate nation for Sikhs?
That’s because india didn’t just have Hindus and Muslims. You still have millions of sikhs Buddhist Jains Parsis Animists Christians Etc and none of them asked for partition. So it’s not for the Muslims but because of these communities that india had to remain secular
@@msr7373 why did the Muslims need their own country in the first place? They thought they were better than everyone else and deserved their own country. They didn't want to live with anyone else. That type of thinking is whats wrong in the world
@@msr7373 then why create seprate muslim nation, so that india become isolate in asia by bangladesh and oakistan from both side and india dont get acces to major trade route
India isn't one state country it does not have a single majority language like Bangladesh do 98% people are Bengali majority . The country i India itself is Continent
Don't forget Nepal was Hindu state now it's a secular
Didnt cover much but appreciate the effort. Thankyou.
I don’t mean to come off as insensitive or dismissive of peoples, but I’m becoming more and more convinced that the Partition was a mistake. Even if those who wanted it were well-intentioned.
No, you are absolutely incorrect.
I am an Indian and consider partition a good thing implemented badly.
No shit
Def a huge mistake. Further sewed division and ruined many lives.
Partition was not a Mistake. Incomplete demographic exchange WAS
Joining West Pakistan and Bangladesh into one country was a mistake too
Sikhs defeated the british in wars..
Learn about Battle of Chillianwala(worst defeat of british)
It was hindu dogras that betrayed the Sikh Empire to get revenge against Maharaja Ranjit Singh(killed Mian Dido) and Hari Singh Nalwa(conquered dogra rajputs) Sikhs were betrayed by hindu dogras.
Then british kidnapped the Sikh King.. Maharaja Duleep Singh who they also killed as we gonna bring Khalsa army to UK.
I ENJOINED IT VERY MUCH!
PLS DO A EPISODE ABOUT THE KALISTAN SEPERATISM!
Khalistan movement is mostly dead in India. The only supporters of Khalistan are Pakistanis and radical Sikhs living in the UK and Canada
@Alexios I Komnenos it's not the entire thing because he only reached a little into the 1970s, and the khalistan movement was most active during the 80s and 90s
I will suggest you to check channel called "basics of sikhi" to learn about khalistan movement and other Sikh history. This channel teaches you a lot
big mistake by sikh not creating their own homeland
Great video.
Please visit Micahistory 2, it would mean a lot!
Very interesting. I was under the impression there was a much larger percentage of Sikhs in the area during that time. I thought they were more closely allies with the Hindus so didn't push for an independent state during the partition.
They were this guy is cluless
@@karanvarma4843 It’s not hard to open the 1931 and 1941 census of Punjab. Maybe if WhatsApp University taught you to look for facts instead of making them up, people would take you folks more seriously.
Partition was in hindu and muslin and we sikh suffers alot 😢even though we had sikh army they lie to us
Its the same as asking "why there isn't any hindu country after partition". Only muslims wanted a different country, so they got it. Others just wanted independence.
It seems as some kind of oddity, that partition brought immense suffering to sikhs but not a state. Like Kurds, sikhs have suffered at the hands of history.Some fault can be attributed to Maharaja Ranjit Singh. He could have made Punjab predominently Sikh. But he treated all his subjects fairly & equally. Here lies the paradox. When Sikhs are in power, they treat others with tolerance. But when out of power, sikhs have to face suppression & barbarity.
I think you're forgetting a Historical fact. Most Sikhs back then and some even today are related to Hindus and Muslims. In order to convert Punjab to Sikh majorty, he'd have to turn brothers and cousins against each other.
how could he have made it Sikh, when they were less than 20%, without 4/5 of the population you lose most of your taxes
Sikhs need to stop playing victim, they are highest earners in India, so much for oppression
@hello all by that logic why not give it all to the British they ruled a bigger region for longer period. MRS ruled for 40 years, Punjab has been around for 5000 years, Sikh religion has only been around for 500 years
@hello all Sikhs are not from India most of the places they are from are in Pakistan, they are not special they don't get more rights than other people of the Punjab. They also sold out to the British for a lower tax rate. Now many of them have ran away to Britain and Canada.
@hello all Nepal is a Hindu country, the British couldn't capture it
Greetings to the proud people of the indian subcontinent from Egypt
Love from Punjab Pakistan 🇵🇰
Arab is pakistani daddy's @@PunjabiMuslim510
Sikhs are an integral part of India even before the British came in. They played a crucial role in the Independence and even today they make up a huge percentage of power throughout India. People should understand that when Gurunanak founded Sikhi to fight the oppressions against the Mughal Islamic rulers (these were the times of Bhakti Movement in the Hindu communities), the first people to join Sikhism were the people from the Hindu families. They treated it as a revolution within the Hindu communities in that region to join the Khalsa and fight against the Mughal rulers. Sikhs will always be a part of India, similar to other cultures and states.
India this is bharat continental heare tamil,telugu,malayalam,kannada,marathi,gujarati,bengali.all community partner's call us bharat continental of world peace nation's
1:20 "Hindus got the state of India". Then would you be ok with the muslims being deported/converted. First you say that India is just Hindu version of porxtan. Then you want independence of porxtan exclusively for muslims as well as let them have 'equality' in India. Then you also want our motherland to be divided between Hindu and sikh brothers who can never stay independent without each other.
India is a British construct. Punjab will be free one day whether you like it or not.
@@harleenkaur1408 how exactly. The so called East Punjab was again partitioned into Himachal Pradesh & Haryana. What is left of Punjab is also 40% Hindu, while Sikhs are 57%. Not sure how there will be an independent state with a minority that big, unless you want violent civil war & unnecessary bloodshed. Plus a major part of original Punjab now lies in Pakistan.
@@harleenkaur1408 India was a country even before the British were a thing. Even before the Romans reached Britain, India was a thriving empire. And Punjab was a part of it.
@@harleenkaur1408 Megasthenes, a scholar from ancient Greece has even written about India in his book 'indica'. So has Huang Tsang. India is also mentioned in the book 'journey to the west'.
@@harleenkaur1408 Pakistan's name was formed in Britain. Who is a British construct now? All of you khalistanis keep talking about independence of Punjab. But none of you has the guts to challenge pakistan controlled Punjab. Why such hypocrisy?
for viewers kind of Information, there is no country with national religion Hindu or Jain or sikh in the world so we can't say that India is a Hindu national country we are people who love to live in harmony and in root bases not even recognize each other as different religions
Oh really then why Modi government is using religious policies in our law to get Hindus votes
Would like to see you make a video on the Indian invasion of Hyderabad its an important part of partition thats overlooked and forgotten.
@Mr Wonder India didn't invade Sikkim, its succeeded to India after an overwhelming referendum. And India freed Goa from Portugal control.
@@hsthast7183 his profile photo is literally "jhaat ka bal"
@@udayrathod3786 thats the straightest 'jhaat ka baal' i have ever seen 😂
According to the regulations of Indian and Pakistani independence, landlocked stated had no choice other than to join the country they were surrounded with.
And also, a plebiscite was also done, on which people voted for India. So it doesn't count.
@@arnavranka4510 no referendum in Hyderabad
After losing the war from british Punjab or we can say sikh were brought in British empire after 100 year where as rest of the india was already under british raj for 100 years. And when leaving the british tied both horses and donkey with the sams rope. Sikhs are still struggling for there freedom.
Sikhistan would’e been a state with an OP army.
in ur dreams
Majority sikh don't see them as different from hindus actually. Almost all sikhs i know have hindu gods in their shop especially ganesha.
@@friendlyatheist9589 that is a lie
@@friendlyatheist9589 that means they aren’t real sikhs as worship of more than one god and idol worship is forbidden in their religion
@@friendlyatheist9589 yea sure keep peddling your bs propaganda. Sikhs are NOT Hindus!
Sikhs did not fight with the Hindus for independence. The Gadri Babe fought for the independence of Punjab
Excellent explanation
Punjab should be a sikhland or independent Punjab
Xhup khalistani
Why there is no Hindu nation ??
I support a Sikh Country in Punjab
Pakistani Punjab
Uday Rathod Jai Jodha Bai jiski ch00* muslaman ne maari
In 1710 after several battles sikhs led by banda singh bahadur killed mughal governor wazir khan in battle of chappar chiri and became de facto rulers of punjab . After that sikhs formed 12 principalities called Misls . These 12 misls controlled vast territories fast forward to 1799 five of these joined together to form what we called sikh empire but actually there was also a second sikh empire. Phulkian misl which was part of dal khalsa (army of all sikhs) and fought against mughals and abdali and aslo one of 7 who don't join Maharaja Ranjit Singh was strongest of all controlled region of malwa of present day punjab. They raised punjab regiment which is second oldest regiment of india they formed an alliance with british fearing the might of ranjit singh's empire after defeat of sikh empire these states still ruled by sikh rulers which british called princely states or native States.Phulkian misls are now into four division nabha state ,patiala state,jind state, faridkot state. Patiala state was the largest with around 15,495 km sq of land and population of 2 million of which 50 percent were sikhs and faridkot state was also sikh majority with 58 percent population. There were several british administered districts in which sikhs were majority such as moga (64%) tarn taran (51%) jagroan (50%) and few more . Before partition these states were given option to join either pakistan India or stay neutral. King of patiala state was offered by jinnah to join pakistan.jinnah even sign blank paper and give it to ruler of patiala for demands he declined. There were several reasons why King of patiala joined india even sikhs had huge percentage in indian army could fight anybody.
1. He don't want the sikh state to become a puppet state between India and Pakistan.
2. Punjab naturally had no recourses such as ( coal ,iron etc) to sustain prosperous future.
3. Sikhs are actually more closer to Hindus rather than muslims.
4.he figured that even if someday hindu nationalist succeeded in making india Hindu rastra (hindu nations) sikhs will enjoy some freedom as compared to pakistan shria law etc . He came to conclude this because prominent hindu nationalist such as swami vivekananda and veer savarkar were admirer of sikhs and even sarvarkar once stated that there should seperate sikh nation in 1929.
All in all , sikh states joined india formed union called PEPSU ( Patiala and east punjab union ) . Which had area of around 26000 km sq had sikh majority and after partition sikhs and hindus became majority in several districts after muslims were gone ultimately the present day punjab became sikh majority. There is a fact that the doaba region of Punjab was always a hindu majority even before partition and its still hindu majority and malwa region was always sikh majority even in pre partition era and its still is . According to 1941 census the present day punjab was sikh majority st 51 percent.
I also want to mention the fact that sikhs are majority in those districts that were founded by them such as tarn taran ,moga,bathinda ,barnala ,patiala , sangrur etc . Jalandhar were historically ruled by hindus and even today its hindu majority likewise all these districts mentioned remained majority to those whom they were founded by .
U can come and try.
As a Muslim Pakistani I support Sikhs, but not lindu Indians😂
then please give us our country back that we faught for if you support us :) Lahore was the capital of empire of Maharaja Ranjit Singh@@MuhammadThakur-si9ot
No this is wrong, you see Panjab was its own country before the annexation of the British in 1849 but after independence the first Prime Minister of India promised Panjab its own country (Khalistan) , in fact the first Prime Minister of India fooled Panjabi's that Panjab is part of Hindustan ( India ) when it wasn't.
Taxila university, Harappan culture and mohenjodaro are hindu civilization before you Huns enters India's punjab
Conversely, many enter tribal and intergroup conflicts were put to rest during colonial periods. And flare up afterwards.
Very well researched video. Well done sir!
All these stories are fine...But the real question is -- when and from where will we Sikhs get the courage to accept our true history? When will we remove the cloth over our eyes to see and accept the historic proof that our real home is Lahore in Pakistan, and not Indian Punjab?
Our Lahore is the kingdom of Maharaja Ranjit Singhand his ROOH still is in Lahore. Our Nankana is the birthplace of Guru Nanak, the founder of Sikhism. Can we forget Janam Asthan?
This is Historic Proof that our real home is Lahore in Pakistan, and not Indian Punjab. This is whar Deep Sidhu was telling us in his song ( ruclips.net/video/8N6c0czogxw/видео.html)
Sikhs own Lahore. Nobody can change that. Just as Jews own Israel, Sikhs own Lahore.
For how long will we call India our homeland and ignore our real homeland that keeps on calling us?
Come on brave brothers let us move back home to our Lahore. Forget India. Lets go OUR REAL, HISTORICAL, GURU-GRANTED HOME: LAHORE-PAKISTAN.
Only in Lahore can we can say “RAJ KAREGA KHALSA”. I repeat, brave Sikh brothers, let us never forget that the real home of Sikhs granted by our Guru and is Lahore and not India.
Indian Punjab belongs to Punjabi, Bihari, Madrasi, Bhaiyya, and all other Indians, but Lahore belongs to Sikhs alone.
How did we forget it?
In 1710 after several battles sikhs led by banda singh bahadur killed mughal governor wazir khan in battle of chappar chiri and became de facto rulers of punjab . After that sikhs formed 12 principalities called Misls . These 12 misls controlled vast territories fast forward to 1799 five of these joined together to form what we called sikh empire but actually there was also a second sikh empire. Phulkian misl which was part of dal khalsa (army of all sikhs) and fought against mughals and abdali and aslo one of 7 who don't join Maharaja Ranjit Singh was strongest of all controlled region of malwa of present day punjab. They raised punjab regiment which is second oldest regiment of india they formed an alliance with british fearing the might of ranjit singh's empire after defeat of sikh empire these states still ruled by sikh rulers which british called princely states or native States.Phulkian misls are now into four division nabha state ,patiala state,jind state, faridkot state. Patiala state was the largest with around 15,495 km sq of land and population of 2 million of which 50 percent were sikhs and faridkot state was also sikh majority with 58 percent population. There were several british administered districts in which sikhs were majority such as moga (64%) tarn taran (51%) jagroan (50%) and few more . Before partition these states were given option to join either pakistan India or stay neutral. King of patiala state was offered by jinnah to join pakistan.jinnah even sign blank paper and give it to ruler of patiala for demands he declined. There were several reasons why King of patiala joined india even sikhs had huge percentage in indian army could fight anybody.
1. He don't want the sikh state to become a puppet state between India and Pakistan.
2. Punjab naturally had no recourses such as ( coal ,iron etc) to sustain prosperous future.
3. Sikhs are actually more closer to Hindus rather than muslims.
4.he figured that even if someday hindu nationalist succeeded in making india Hindu rastra (hindu nations) sikhs will enjoy some freedom as compared to pakistan shria law etc . He came to conclude this because prominent hindu nationalist such as swami vivekananda and veer savarkar were admirer of sikhs and even sarvarkar once stated that there should seperate sikh nation in 1929.
All in all , sikh states joined india formed union called PEPSU ( Patiala and east punjab union ) . Which had area of around 26000 km sq had sikh majority and after partition sikhs and hindus became majority in several districts after muslims were gone ultimately the present day punjab became sikh majority. There is a fact that the doaba region of Punjab was always a hindu majority even before partition and its still hindu majority and malwa region was always sikh majority even in pre partition era and its still is . According to 1941 census the present day punjab was sikh majority st 51 percent.
I also want to mention the fact that sikhs are majority in those districts that were founded by them such as tarn taran ,moga,bathinda ,barnala ,patiala , sangrur etc . Jalandhar were historically ruled by hindus and even today its hindu majority likewise all these districts mentioned remained majority to those whom they were founded by .
Religious fuelled partition was only a factor for Muslims. Sikhs never had that separatist tendency. Christians are also large in number on the Malabar Coast but never demanded a separate state either. Minorities such as Sikhs, Christians never felt threatened or bothered by living in a democracy that was majority Hindu unlike many Muslims who prior to British rule were used to ruling over Hindus. That being said there has been a recent Sikh separatist movement exasperated by atrocities against them during the 1980s however it remains a small minority. Most Sikhs are patriotic and disproportionately serve in the army. Have been amongst freedom fighters calling for an independent India (not just Sikh India). We have also had a Sikh PM and are very proud of their contributions.
Ab ye sab chod bhai ek aur partion hoga fir se 24% hone hi wale hain
As far as I know, the partition was that Pakistan was for Muslims only and everybody else were to live in India: it was the Muslim League who instigated this.
Thank you for this video and speaking on the matter, it is very interesting. There is a long history here and I think once people fully understand what the Sikhs have been through under hindustan rule, it will come as no surprise why autonomy is wanted however what is interesting is that India seems to label any Sikh who utters the word Khalistan/sovereign state as an extremist/separatist/terrorist, these are terms they use interchangeably. It should be noted that this entire movement of self determination was in response to state oppression and the Sikh genocide. People have an inherent need to control their own destiny, make their own choices and determine their own future. Any attempt to suppress this feeling will only lead to resistance and further discontent. The desire for Sikh sovereignty is not a crime, they want a safe, secure homeland because they have been targeted. The Indian state silencing, ‘disappearing’ or jailing under fabrication of those with different ideological views, is a crime. It’s also important to understand that the Anandpur resolution put forward in the 70s was asking for Punjab’s state rights, for more autonomy, all requests were rejected by the central government. The movement of Khalistan came about fully in 1986 a few years after the 1984 Sikh state sanctioned genocide and followed by operation woodrose. Sikhs took up arms to defend themselves against mass killings and the Indian state massacring them, klf and such organizations who took up arms were born. Anytime Sikhs to this day speak of rights or sovereignty or fight the discrimination and draconian measures they are maligned, thrown in jail under false charges or executed. Such disappearance of Sikhs are not uncommon in India, these were the same tactics used in the 80s and 90s as they are currently doing (current call for Sikh state, led by Amritpal singh, who has since been targeted/silenced). It seems a new generation of Sikh youth has flourished and the Indian state are out to destroy it, again. It is widely known that the Indian state is grossly corrupt and seems to be on a trajectory towards ethnic cleansing with the current government, as Hindu extremism grows in size and are given free reign with impunity.
*The 1984 Sikh genocide, sometimes labelled incorrectly as ‘anti-Sikh riots’, not even 40 years ago, our generation. It's important to mention as there is much trauma associated with it. Riots denote an act of spontaneity, these killings were orchestrated state sponsored violence, organised and aided by the Indian state, targeting innocent Sikhs. The then prime minister’s two Sikh bodyguards shot her dead, for her role in killing innocent Sikhs and desecrating the golden temple and 30 other Sikh temples during operation bluestar. Many innocents people were killed in addition to countless temples burnt. There have been independent objective reports from people at the scene that the Indian army had instructed regular civilians at the temple to come out, reassured them that they would be safe and proceeded to shoot them dead. Then prime minister indira ghandi claimed they were after an ‘extremist’ who was gathering weapons in the golden temple, although this has been a point of contention from the Sikh community and the question arises was he in all 30 of the temples they attacked. It should also be noted that weapons have always been a part of the Akal takht since guru gobind singh’s time, as a means for Sikhs to protect themselves and others, this is what they believe in. There is an interesting interview (on youtube) of ex politician subramanian swamy, a Hindu nationalist who spent some time with Sant Jirnail singh bhindranwale. What then ensued by the country was a state sanctioned Sikh genocide, the hunting down of innocent Sikhs. Congress released voting lists and school lists so they could identify Sikh families/houses across cities, mobs in the hundreds (sometimes thousands) comprised of all types of Hindu men surrounded Sikhs houses, buses, businesses, temples etc. Weapons and kerosene were distributed. Genocidal mobs were paid for every Sikh they killed, more for prominent Sikhs, they were told they could keep the loot, jewellery and cash of the houses and businesses they robbed before they burnt families alive and burnt the houses, businesses and places of worship to dust. Police were instructed to ignore any calls and cries for help and have been quoted from survivors telling them ‘don’t worry, it won’t be long now, you too will be burnt alive soon’. Women and children were gang raped and burnt alive, men and children were tortured and set alight, placing flammable tyres around their necks, babies as young as 1 month old burnt alive. Tens of thousands butchered, mainly burnt alive, and hundreds of thousands displaced, left with nothing. Refugee camps were set up, women were also dragged from these camps and raped. All layers of society, including high ranking government officials, politicians, police and regular citizens committed and aided in barbaric horrors against innocent Sikhs just going about their lives. Justice has never been served, instead they were protected and promoted by the Indian state. Alongside an ongoing economic genocide - water rights, farming, electricity etc. Begs the questions, are they truly safe in India, how do you overcome your government genociding you.
*The Anandpur resolution. After peaceful measures failed (Punjabi Suba Movement), Sikhs decided to make a draft of all demands in 1973 and was given the name 'Anandpur Sahib Resolution'. Which mainly requests more autonomy for Punjab, some of the points were - reminded of the Federal structure for Punjab, that Punjab should have an autonomy to make its own decisions, as promised before the Independence. Return of Chandigarh as a part of Punjab, as it was inside Punjab and still was made a shared capital between Punjab and Haryana. Remove casteism from Punjab, to help the farmers by restricting the tax strategy, make Punjabi 1st language in Punjab and should be given importance in the neighbouring states. To recognize Sikhism as a separate faith in the Indian Constitution, to help Kashmiri migrants, to protect the interests of minorities from other states, to abolish excise duty from tractors so that the small scale farmers could easily buy and live their earning. To setup a system of reasonable minimum wages to the labourers, during those times the rights of Labour class were exploited so to ensure their living minimum wages which would invoke respectable income for the labourers. To establish a audio broadcast system for Sachkhand Harmander sahib to world for which *Khalsa* would pay. Amendments in Hindu succession act which stated a girl after the death of her husband could not claim on the property of in-laws, this point was included to protect the rights of women. To exempt the agricultural land totally from tax, as small scale farmers did not have adequate machinery for farming, leading to minimal savings. There should be *no reservation* in government jobs and other areas on basis of the caste in any state. Water dispute - 75% of the Punjab's water is already given to the other states without any permission of state and the SYL (Satluj Yamuna Link) would divide the rest water also, leading to scarcity of water in Punjab even after having 3 rivers. To establish 6 sugar mills and 4 textile mills in Punjab so that the farmer doesn't have to go to other states to sell his products. The Central government denied all the demands.
Punjab was an independent nation. There were multiple independent states pre British era. Winston Churchill's remarks in history are that before the British came, there was no Indian nation. “India is a geographical term". Imagine forcefully combining all of Europe....different cultures, languages, unique nations all under a rouge rule....cuvil war would break out over night.
Equation of Europe and Hindustan by someone can bring various conclusions including intellectual dishonesty, misunderstanding or ignorance. If purposeful, the intentions behind which can range to many such as an underlying goal of identity shift; engineering your own reality. Either way it is unhealthy for the Brain.
Why is there no country called Texas or Georgia or New Mexico or Oregon?
Only pakistan got divided from India on the basis of religion
India was and still a secular states
Only muslim wanted their seperate state and others
So there was no point of creating Sikh state
India was never a 'secular' state. It is just a pluralist state. There is a difference, despite the word "secular" being thrown around in India politics, most Indians have no clue what it means.
@@anonymouslyopinionated656 lol Indians don't know what it means?? Mind u we Indians value our school education more than u Westerners who think dropping out of school is a fad.
We have get to see daily newsroom debates on secularism(even though it's mostly garbage but still) .
india being ''secular'' on paper doesn't change that it prosecutes Muslims. its funny how ''islamic'' pakistan has hindus in parliment despite making less than 1% but ''secular'' India doesn't have a single Muslim in the current govt despite them being over 15% of the population. People who defend India are ridiculous. they just released rapists and murderers of a Muslim woman.
@@yolemae6580 ah yes, let's generalize all of India for the action of one right wing party, Oh by the way Abdul ur bias for Pakistan clearly is showing itself there.
@@anonymouslyopinionated656 what every you say but you were never Discriminated by religion in india
Would be interesting to hear an Alt history about how such a nation would relate to politics in the region.
@Alexios I Komnenos except Sikhs still only make 1.4% of Canada whereas religiously speaking both Hindus & Muslims make up higher percentage
Typical 'western' hypocritical narrative. Video starts with saying 'Hindus got India" when in fact all Indian religions including Hindus, Christians, Muslims, Parsis, Sikhs, Jews, Budhists, Jains etc were part of India as a secular state. Surprisingly this channel may never describe their nation as Christian even though most western nations are over 90% Christian
@@tanveercheema3802 that's a problem with your indoctrination coz you never learn or want to know the truth. Indian, Chinese, Egyptian & Mesopotamian are ancient civilizations and I'm not here to teach you that if you don't even know about your own places like Harappa or Mohenjodaro. Yes India got independence in 1947; unfortunately Pakistan was created then by the Imperialist British to cater to their geo political interests and to do their dirty work which Pakistan has been dutifully doing past seven decades for dollars
@@tanveercheema3802on past no any country
Only empire
1:49 That flag makes me anxious.
Great video, I knew.very little of this.
Fantastic video! Subbed.
In my opinion, the move to religious division instead of splits along ethnic lines which was accelerated by the British was ultimately disastrous. In its post-partition aftermath, the problem is only getting worse as both India and Pakistan seek to destroy ethnonationalism and move towards religious nationalism to hold together artificial nation-states. Punjab was strongest as a unified Punjab, just as a unified Bengal was stronger before being split in twain. The fact that both Bengalis and Punjabis died in droves for the independence movement is certainly correlated with a major push to split their influence and power between "opposing" nations.
Sikhs dosent belong to India, India belongs to Sikhs, it belongs to everyone who identifies with this ancient civilisation, Sikhs, Jains, Hindus, Buddhists, and many others, are different, but we all live together, respect each other and call ourselves one, Its only the Christians, the Muslims and the Communists (not nessecerily the population, but the institutions) who can't coexist with anyone who is different from them.
@@Mirza7385 you are not even a Sikh what are you talking about, I am Sikh, I am proud of my country India, when anyone come to attack us they will find us on the border
As a matter of fact. independent Sikh country can never survive alone! it will either be annexed by Pakistan or India.
Or heavily supported by either of the country to Survive via trade routes, most likely Pakistan
@@kk-gc1ii Khalistan exists in your dreams only
@@kk-gc1ii Why everything has to begin and end with Modi? Khalistan existed inside the Turban of Maun Mohan Singh. Because he was brainless robot
Why??? Sikhs are great ppl. They led wars. Powerful ppl. They would make a good country too cause in present day India, they make up 1% and do the most for the country like half of the military is Sikhs. Olympics athletes are mostly Punjabis or harayana ppl. And most of the food stuff comes from punjab. I’d say India is relying of the 1% too much and Sikhs will be fine on their own. Plus they get almost no rights in India when the sacrificed the most.
Very interesting. Thank you
As a sikh i can say india is our country we don't want a separate country our relgion believes in service to humanity
Basically a Sikh for you is to be a slave bi+ch. Each to their own.
Be quiet you hindu troll
If you believe in humanity then why not speak out after India attacked Sri Darbar Sahib, killed 100000 Sikhs, raped Sikh women and did Beadbi of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. India did not exist before 1947. Punjab has never been part of Bharat. We have always been independent. Guru Nanak Dev Ji blessed us with Paatshahi. Guru Gobind Singh Ji blessed us with Raj. Khalistan Zindabad
@@GuptSingh1469tu aur Tera khalistan dono Lund pe rakhti hai RAW. Tere khalistani dheere dheere oopar jaare hai aur tum Randiyo ko Pata bhi nahi hai😂
@@GuptSingh1469congress attacked...say like that Sikhs and Hindus were just victims of congress govt..before bhindranwale hindus and Sikhs lived happily...Sikhs from Pakistan who were getting butchered by Pakistani Sunni extremists also reached india lived happily in india.. congress did horrible things to hindus also.. congress was even silent when jihadis in kashmir were butchering kashmiri hindus...
I really wanna know more about Sikhs, Buddhists or Jains, but it's hard to know where to look.
There is a channel called "basics of sikhi". plus it is english. It teaches you about Sikhs and their history .....highly suggest you to check it out. They have a long playlist
To know more about Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains you should look at India... Birth place of all these religions
Hindusism and sikhism are the same religion
u have mistaken...Muslims got Pakistan but all other religions got India although hindus were in majority
There are many inaccuracies in this video! The facts should have been checked before publishing this.
As a Hindu I love my Sikh and Muslim brothers who are Indians.
Hindustan Zindabad
Jai hind 🇮🇳🇮🇳🇮🇳🇮🇳🇮🇳
So sad to see someone make a video about something which he has absolutely no clue about. Neither you know anything about who sikhs are nor do you have clue on the backgrounds on partition of the country. I am sure you won't have a clue about the imaginary Khalistan or is inception.
buddhism, jainism, sikhism and hinduism arent exactly religons!! They r dharma..
They have their disagreements for sure but that doesnt stop them from celebrating each other's festivals, visiting each other's temples and taking part in each other's rituals.
They arent like abrhamics " oh you disagree so u have choosen death", Indian philosphy is an open source software, gurus come and start their own traditions, if they are able to attract no crowd then they fade away, if they r able to attract a moderate portion then they become a sect within hinduism and if they recieve potranage and get a significant following then they become their own dharma, seperating themselves from sanatana dharma ( hinduism)
No one stops them .... Thats what makes hinduism so uniique it never undermines its
child philosophies( sikhism buddhism and jainism) cus it believes nothing is perfect or permanent,
"Changes are bound to happen as time passes" that keeps hinduism fluid and open for discussionn
Sikhism is completely separate
@@jag6846 no
@@jag6846 lol not sikhism just follows one of the school of thought of Sanatan dharma. All these dharmki religion came from there. Sikhism did not came from Hindusim. Hinduism is also an offspring of sanatan dharma as sikhism Jainism and Buddhism.
@@jag6846 you have to been illiterate to think sikhism is seperate religion. Sikhism is not even a religion. Hindusim jain Buddhist none of them are religion. Religion is an abrahimic concept
@@jag6846 You are very ignorant of your religion if that's what you think.
Hindu epochs such as the Mahabharata and Ramayana are discussed in the Guru Grant Sahib.
Hindu families would raise their first born son a Keshedhari Sikh during times of war, many of which relapsed back into Hinduism at later times.
Basic philosophies are share - dharma, karma, moksha etc.
As a Indian Christian, I can never imagine my life in Pakistan or Bangladesh . Life could have been hell with persecution and discrimination. Sorry to say Islamic societies are most radicalized and unembracing of other religions in their majority dominated area. You are either subjugated, subordinated or converted by force any not live as equal citizen in their countries.
Facts
RSS treats Christian’s real well in India don’t they…
@@FatehSingh95 We are prosperous and thriving in India . You don't have the confidence to say that minorities thrive in Islamic societies because they don't.
Then why do 5 million Indians swim the ocean to work in 'islamic' societies in Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain etc etc
Have you ever heard of an Arab Muslim willingly wanting to live in India? LMAO
@@jssapo303 No one seeks citizenship there and it's only about money . You are deflecting from what I m saying.
It's like saying why muslims go to US and seek citizenship when they hate US for support to Israel.
What I m saying is that Islamic societies don't treat non muslims are equal citizens. But you not able to say anything to that ...and ranting .
this is the root of all the religious tension right now
It was only Muslim-Majority state and Secular India with all religion it was never Hindu-Majority seperate Land.
First fact :Sikhs are not Hindus, it's separately 2 different religion.. During the partion of Panjab Sikhs were cheated by the Congress party there was never a sikh leader called to participate during the partition... While master Tara Singh was not even a sikh leader... He was just pluck from a Delhi to blow the Hindu horn....
sikhs are hindu converts
your 10th guru was bihari
@@user-ty5vj5gf2w 10th guru was not bihar unka janam waha hua tha jese india ke rehne waala kal ko america chala jaye or waha uska bacha paida ho toh kya wo american ho gaya ?
guru ji punajbi thhe unki ek bhi pankti bihari me nahi hai even koi bada sikh bihari origen ka nahi hua aaj tak
or ha sikhs me kai log muslims se bhi sikh baane hai 😂
Just to clarify some things in this video: Before the British, the Sikh ruled Panjab under Maharaja Ranjit Singh where people of all faiths were treated equally and lived in peace. Under Ranjit Singh, the Sikhs were still a minority yet this is not an issue as Sikhs are warriors, they're lions (Singh's). Sheep always outnumber Lion's but 1 Lion can take care of a 1000 sheep. This shows that you don't have to be a majority to rule a state.
The Sikh sided with the Congress whilst fighting for independence from the British under the impress they would be free and have political autonomy as a federal state just like the US system. This didn't not occur hence the fight for a separate Sikh state since the 50s. Key dates to prove this is the protests and subsequent raid of Harmandir Sahib in 1955, the Panjabi Suba movement resulting in a further partition of Panjab 1966 and of course the Dharam Yudh Morcha and Operation Bluestar in 1984 followed by the ongoing armed resistance til this day.
Thank
Its a democracy now and majority rules not the minority, power comes from the barrel of a gun not from a sword.
Go tell the Kashmiris of how lovely it was to live under sikh rule and how half their population starved to death under Sikhs discrimination against Muslims. The only Muslim that we’re treated ok were Punjabi Muslims
@@quiasnoorzad surely better than present administration of Kashmir
I would add that it’s gaining momentum again though it was always active. Indian state killed more than 20k Sikh youth in year following 1984 till 1992 and refuse to release the Sikh “political” prisoners who have served their sentences.
Pakistan was created on the basis of religion not india!!
although most see partition as hindu vs muslim but in reality it was muslims vs non muslims
Why did anyone deserve a religious state? Hindus didn't get one. Jains didn't get one. Buddhists didn't get one. Why did Muslims get one and why do Sikhs think they deserve one?
Bingo
They want everything
if it was Muslims vs non-Muslims then why does India today still have more Muslims than Pakistan? They have 200 million
@@Mirza7385 cus the muslim camp was itself divided into two:
pro partition muslims led by jinnah and
anti partition muslims lead by maulana abul kalam azad
Even NE region of india was forcefully emerged with india, that region were ruled by different kingdom and chieftains. Pls, make a video about NE region of india.
The current Republic of India = British India v2.0. Nothing really has changed. The British just transferred power over to their lapdogs (North Indian Brahmins) in 1947.
Ok south bhi seperate, North bhi seperate, Kashmir bhi seperate
Arunachal Pradesh on the other hand is mostly patriotic, it depends on situation man.
@@shivammore9502 speak in english, what is bhi?
@@anujnautiyal8539 it's not about being patriotic or not. i simply said make a history about NE region which is mostly missing in mainland indian textbooks. people needs to know how NE was forced to emerge with india even if the truth hurts.
After Partition of India, there were two Islamic countries, Pakistan and Bangladesh but no Hindu, Sikh, Jain or Bhuddists country. Please note that.
And how many nations have 1.41B population??
Divide it and make 40/50 hindu country from India
Do you think Ukraine may represent a modern Sikh state attempt? Not sure In race or whatever but In the hill families etc? Great vid thank you
Sikhism is a mix of Islamic theology with dharmic concepts of the sub-continent. It jad adherents all the way up to Afghanistan which jad a vibrant population untill the Soviet in invasion. For many hindus like myself I find it easy to go to the golden temple and pray just like I would do at any of my other temples. Very accepting faith like Budhism.
@@RavenSingh3733 Sikhism is full of Bhakti and Sufi philosophy. No religion is pure for that matter. Not Hinduism nor islam. All are derivative of prior religions. You are probably too young and not gone through the scripture. Atleast listen to the kirtans being sung when you visit the Golden temple. They are a celebration of Indian culture and philosophy which is my favorite part of visiting the temple.
@@RavenSingh3733 So the rest of my response was good i take. I will take that!
@@RavenSingh3733 Plenty of curry mixed in ;)
Sikhs will creat their own state very soon, but the question is these hindutavis indians had their own state before 1947 ??? How many hindutavis so called indians sacrificed their lives for india or Freedom, their mythology is bla bla bla 😂😂
This odd romanticism Indian nationalists have with BRITISH India is both funny and sad at the same time. Many of them can’t even wrap their heads around the fact that British India was a COLONY of Britain and not a country. Yet they constantly have this love affair about wanting to go back to a time when their great grandparents were considered second-class citizens. This is how weakly constructed Indian nationalism is. They are taught about how the “Muslim Invaders” are so wicked and horrible, yet the British Invaders are perfectly okay.
What’s even more funnier is the fact the historic and true land of India is the Indus Valley, which would make PAKISTAN (yes Pakistan) the real India. The only reason the current “Republic of India” is even named India (and not Hindustan or Bharat) is because of….yes you guessed it….BRITISH COLONIALISM. The Republic of India is a successor state of British India, nothing more. I often like to compare it to the Macedonia naming dispute.
So if the Republic of India is still operating like a colony, why are you surprised about uprisings in Kashmir or Punjab or Nagaland or now even southern India and the calls for an independent South India (Dravidanadu)?
Sikh majority Punjab should become an independent nation. It only makes sense….the people of Punjab share more in culture and language with their neighbours in West Punjab (in Pakistan) than any Indian. Furthermore, Punjab would economically benefit from being reconnected back to the former Northwestern Railway network (now Pakistan Railways network) and having access to Karachi port, as Punjab from 1860 to 1947.
What about West Punjab? What about merging both parts of Punjab(Pak and Indian) into a single independent country?
*"The Republic of India is a successor state of British India"*
Yes, that's true, but so are Pakistan and Bangladesh, isn't it?
*"The British invaders were perfectly okay."*
No, they weren't. They were as brutal (if not worse) as their Islamic counterparts.
*"This is how weakly constructed Indian nationalism is"*
It might seem *weakly constructed* to you, but not for us. We have been united as an independent, sovereign nation for 75 years despite many challenges.
@@ArindamKumar_2002
1. Merging West Punjab and East Punjab would make Punjab another Muslim majority country. I’m sure you’d be thrilled by that. Furthermore, West Punjab are the majority in Pakistan, while East Punjab make up less than 2% of India’s population. West Punjab has access to its natural trade routes with Kashmir the Khyber Pass and to Sindh/Arabian Sea, while East Punjab is essentially landlocked (like Kashmir) and forced to use a port much farther away. Simply put, nobody in West Punjab is looking for independence because they attained it in 1947. It’s the people of East Punjab who made a blunder that they they’re actively trying to fix.
2. Pakistan and Bangladesh are not successor states of British India. Pakistan attained independence from Britain in 1947 and had to reapply to multiple other International bodies including the United Nations, International Olympic Association etc.. India however is a successor state of British India, since the British simply transferred its titles and powers over to the new government in Delhi. So essentially the Republic of India still operates as British India but under a new name. The fact your national anthem is a hymn praising King George and the Colony of British India should be the hint.
3. You saying that doesn’t change the fact Indian nationalists are confused. You claim to hate the British yet use the British installed puppet Maharaja of Kashmir as your excuse to occupy Kashmir? Who created the “Princely State of Kashmir & Jammu”? One of your mythical gods? Or have the British becomes your new gods?
4. Indian nationalism revolves around an unhealthy obsession with Pakistan. Everything from your federal elections to even World Cup cricket matches is based on Pakistan. Punjabi farmers are now ISI agents, Kashmiri students who cheer for another cricket team are arrested and slapped with sedition charges. And what’s with this need to play the national anthem in cinemas?
Indian nationalism doesn’t exist that’s why. Your attempting to create a country out of a British invention. Kashmir and Punjab will lead the way towards freedom for billions of others…be it in Dravida, Nagaland or elsewhere.
@@TMBpk Our national anthem doesn't praise King George. If you want to live in your own fantasies, then good luck with it.
@@ArindamKumar_2002 India’s national anthem does sing praises to King George and here is the evidence. Feel free to debunk any point I raise.
1. The hymn was composed in December 1911 at the precise time when King George V and Queen Mary were due to visit their colony British India.
2. The hymn does not indicate any love for the motherland.
3. The 'Adhinayak' (Lord or Ruler) is being hailed. Who was the ruler of India in 1911? It was the British, headed by their King-Emperor.
4. Who was the 'Bharat Bhagya Vidhata' (dispenser of India's destiny) at that time ? It was the British, since they were ruling India in 1911.
5. The hymn was sung for the first time in British India on the 2nd day of the Calcutta Conference of the Congress Party in December 1911. This conference was held specifically to give a loyal welcome to King George and to thank him for annulling the Partition of Bengal in 1905.
6. The agenda of the 2nd day of the Calcutta Conference, in which the song was sung, was specially reserved for giving a loyal welcome to King George, and a resolution was adopted unanimously that day welcoming and expressing loyalty to the emperor and empress.
7. It was only as late as in 1937, when he wanted to show himself as a patriot, that Tagore denied that he had written the song to honour the British king. The above facts almost conclusively prove that 'Jana Gana Mana' was composed and sung as an act of sycophancy to the British king.
Thank you for your time.
@@TMBpk this is true actually.
“States”, borders, flags, democratic rule and nationalistic governance that we understand today are a completely different and foreign concept that we were never used to and very effective in division.
You seem to have misunderstood the concept of Sikhism. Sikhism and Hinduism are much more intertwined. Khalsa is a concept that emerged 300 years ago against Islamic oppression, but Punjabis as ethnic and linguistic group have existed for long. Infact, there has been a long tradition in Punjabi Hindus to make their eldest son a Sikh (Khalsa Warrior). That's because the knowledge of warfare and self defense was pretty much restricted to the Kshatriya Caste(Rajputs back then). But by becoming the part of Khalsa community, you could learn the art of combat to protect your family and village, given the fact the Punajb was the gateway to the subcontinent and first line of defense against invaders and was constantly at threat.
but he is talking about today not in 1500s. Sikhs don't want to be associated with Hindus in 2022. I wonder why that is?
@@Mirza7385 Sure, I'll tell you why. It has more to do with the legal aspect eversince the Minority Commission Act of 1992 gave Sikhs a minority status in Constitution. Perhaps your exposure to Sikh sentiments come from politicians indulging in identity politics and few Khalistani Radical or Canada based NRIs, but speaking entirely from a social perspective - the Sikh and Punjabi Hindu community is very much fluid and marriages btw the two communities is very common. And it's obvious, because they essentially come from the same community. Bhatia, Chhadha, Walia, Sahney, Narula,Kohli,Malhotra to name some, you'll find in both Sikh and Hindu communities. Even within the same Punjabi family, you can find one line of brothers/cousins who are Sikh and other Hindus
Not a matter of why not. It's now a matter of when. Khalistan is our only hope now.
Mehnat karna toh ab tum log ki bass ki baat nahi rahi... Sharam aani chahiye apne dada pardada k naam pe kuudne mein
Pak/Bangladesh is not a muslim majority state. They are Islamic state. They are governed as per Shariah.
India is a pluralistic society which has Hindus as majority.
So Hindus/Sikhs/Buddists/Jains no one got an exclusive country of their own. Only muslims got that.
As per the decree of Gandhi (India's father of the nation) - Muslims need to be appeased, even at the cost of Hindu religion, culture or motherland which the Dharmic people consider as holy.
😂😂😂😂 don't praise us that much we arre not worthy of it (bd fact)
I heard the Northerner in him :-) sounds like Mark Wood, the fast bowler.
Good video
What kind of country a 14% minority can have ?? How large will be that country?? How large will be the parliament and other legislative system of that country??
Sikhs should take one of the two options to get a country :
1. Conversion of more people into Sikh religion and thus increasing the number.
Or
2. Asking for state autonomy within india
There are no alternative way of getting a country.
My personal suggestion is option 1 because since in Punjab Sikh is minority they might not get state autonomy. So option 2 don't work for Sikhs.
So they should convert more vigorously into Sikhism and thus increase the number. When they get magic number of 50% or more than they might get a country of their own.
In 1950's they went for autonomy as promised by congress nehru to sikh leadership before independence and they got betrayed and attacked even at the golden temple in 1955 when nehru sent the indian army in to stop the movement for Sikh punjab autonomy
In 84 aanadpur reulation was for greater autonomy within india
@@PradeepSingh-ze8ks they won't get autonomy since they're minority. Thry should convert more Sikh to increase number.
Completely wrong. Everything you said was wrong, the reason why the Sikhs did not go for a separate country as advised by the British is because they were promised the “glow of freedom” if they stayed part of India by Nehru. He lied to them “the biggest betrayal in history”.
BJP bots out in full force here, with many claiming that Sikhs love being apart of India. If that was truly the case, then why didn't a single member of the Sikh delegation accept the Indian constitution? Why does Article 25 of the Indian Constitution, to this day, describes Sikhs as a "sect" of Hinduism? Despite being a miniscule minority, the Sikhs contributed immensely to the Indian independence movement. What was our reward? Another partition of Punjab, the loss of our old (Lahore) and new (Chandigarh) capital, having our holiest place of worship reduced to rubble, the suppression of our faith, language, history, and the massacre and rape of our people. We just want what was promised to us by Nehru and Mahatma Gandhi: an autonomous Sikh region within the Indian nation.
BTW Oberoi's claims are easily debunked with just a quick glance through Sikh history. The Sri Akal Takht, the central authority of the faith and comparable in someway to the Vatican, was founded in Amritsar, Punjab(Majha) by the 6th Guru. Punjab has been religiously tied to the Sikh faith since Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji was born. If only Oberoi spent as much time researching the topics he talks about and less time defending his genocidal uncle's heinous actions, he would actually be able to make claims that are historically accurate. I mean, the first Sikh Guru wrote extensively about Punjab, it's landscapes and seasons in a religiously poetic way. These passages would then go on to be included in the central holy scripture of the faith. This isn't even mentioning the various brutal campaigns led by Sikhs to liberate Punjab from the Mughals, Afghans, and Persians.
Two Sikh Guru's were executed by the Mughals, not one. Sri Guru Arjan Dev Ji (5th Guru) was tortured to death by Emperor Jahangir and Sri Guru Tegh Bahadur Ji (9th Guru) was beheaded by Emperor Aurangzeb. A few decades later, Aurangzeb would go on to arrest and execute the children of the 10th Guru. Revisionists do like to claim that Sri Guru Arjan Dev Ji was executed for "political reasons", despite the fact that in his own memoirs, Jahangir makes it explicitly clear that it was precisely due to his refusal to convert. On top of this, it was the execution of the 5th Guru which began the militarization period within the Sikh faith.
Okay so why did Punjab vote for Congress National government so many times? Why do millions of Sikh celebrate the fact that they're Indian. Why are Sikhs so proud of being Indian. You just think that you're better than everyone else. Why don't you hold any sympathy to the Kashmiri Pandits who faced 100x more atrocities than any other ethnic group in India.
You are obviously a Khalistani bot
@@dwarasamudra8889 Were Kashmiri Pandits raped and burned alive across India in a government sanctioned pogrom? The Kashmiri Pandit Exodus was horrible but Kashmir Files was a movie, not a documentary. As for the Congress comment, absolutely bonkers. Look at the percentage of Sikhs per election that voted for the Akali Dal. Congress heavily relies on the widespread support of the Urban Punjabi-Hindu population. I mean, if Sikhs love Congress, why would they come into conflict with Nehru, Indira, Rajiv, etc?
Quit repeating the same script that every other BJP bot uses. Just because Sikhs have grievances with the constitution and policies pushed forth by the Indian government doesn't mean we hate India. Less than 2% of the population yet 70% of those that were hanged or imprisoned by the British during the Azaadi movement. The fact remains that Nehru and Mahatma Gandhi promised Sikhs autonomy and then reneged on that promise as soon as the dust settled.
@robin smith Sikh Regiment did a better job at calling out Pakistan than I could ever do. Shaheed Major General Shabeg Singh even drove them out of Bangladesh... only to be executed by the very nation he served.
@@amritrandhawa3509 we didnt cauae the partition of punjab..
We did what we could...
Welcoming sikhs to the hindu side of punjab, made u army chiefs and even a freakin prime minister.
Go and ask the world , is their any nation which votes for a candidate who belongs to a minority religion!?! twice to power.
We r wholly commited to our respect to sikhs and sikhism if u r abrahamised brain still dont appreciate then we cant help
Punjab will soon be Sikhistan !!
Do Sikhs and Hindus share the same community when living abroad in the west or do they form their own separate communities?
@@johnguy25that's racist.
Separate. Cause different religious places and stuff. And ppl prefer talking to within their community like Punjabis.
pretty sure the answer is that tiny religious minorities are generally not given their own states to run when much larger groups would like to use that land too.
There were so many religious communities in India- Sikhs, Christians, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis. Did all of them demand for a separate country?
Not everyone had a rule before Britishers.
We had our own raj in Punjab.
They would have if they were larger in Number
@@japneetsingh5015 it was a Muslim majority state. Marathas Had their own state…but they seems to be happy with India and so did Rajputs who also lost their states and are doing absolutely fine in modern India.
The Sikh empire was a a Muslim majority state. you really think it could have survived? Even if Hindus and Sikhs were counted together, they were never more than 35-40% of the population.
@@japneetsingh5015 and also In the Maratha empire, they were in actually in majority and also have acc as to sea ports and their empire was 5-6 times the Sikh empire. They seem to be happy with india though. Wonder why you have any issues?
Your holy sites are spread all across India, you are willing to give them up for Khalistan?
@@japneetsingh5015 you didn't own it, sikh empire was replaced by British Raj. You were minority in undivided punjab.
This channel looks like muslim propaganda, most punjab terrain come inside pakistan
“When there is incest, adultery, atheism, hatred of religion, no more dharma, and sin everywhere, the impossible Iron Age has come; in what way the world will be saved? For the helpless, the Lord Himself will manifest as the Supreme Purusha. He will be called the Kalki incarnation and will be glorious like a lion coming down from heaven.”
― Guru Gobind Singh
You're here again. Glad to see you and you're quotes. It really educates us.
Good to see you again,was sad to see you banned on twitter,you may know me as femboy chaotic.
Wow I didn't know that Guru Gobind Singhji also believed in the Kalki Avatar (final Avatar of Lord Vishu) prophecy.
@@hsthast7183 He was actually a worshipper of Mata Kali and Lord Shiva
@@navminhas412 Typical whitewashed sick
Why would Sikhs want to be in a land locked country when they have all of India for them. Plus they will have to defend their boundaries against Pakistan and still not have any of the old Sikh empire land that is now in Pakistan.
Only people who are hating sikh in comments are hindus for only reason that they can't digest the fact that sikh have right to east punjab and should be under their control. (Even in which kalistani doesn't even count himachal and harayana ). Are you serious people you have whole india on your name, it just greedy.
Why is it that Sikhs only have right to east Punjab and not west? Because that doens't suit the idealogy of Pakistan who can't fight India hand to hand & relies on propaganda to weaken us.
A Sikh state is required so Pakistan can create a buffer state between India & Pakistan, what will happen to the Christians, Hindus, Dalits, Muslims living in Punjab who do not want to live in a Sikh ruled nation🤔
@PropioniBacteriumShermanii well, same can be said for India right now😁.
@PropioniBacteriumShermanii and When Muslims got there nation and hindu there, the India leaders promised the sikh to have control over punjab region, as culture, language region will be protected by India and ,that never happened😑.
@@Tattvavitt and other things sikhism heavily really on punjabi culture as both have great amount of influence on each other. So, you say more fight for punjabi and punjab, punjabi hindu,Christian and Muslims who love punjabi support the whole thing.
If you are a real truth-seeker please make video on why there was no Hindu state after partition of India, as pakistan was entirely made on the line of religions. And this video also discusses new state based on religion. Thanks!
They will say that India is a Hindu state.
The main reason for participation was the extremism and bigotry against Muslims of the Indian subcontinent. Being a non Muslim I can see it everywhere. The hate, the venom Indians have for Muslims is disgusting. With the current pace I wouldn't be surprised if India broke again
@@harlowida Isn't it same for the Hindus as well? Let's be even handed regarding this. Don't try to potray as if only one community is to be blamed, and the other is innocent.
Its just an Abrahamic priviledge narrative you are propagating. World is not only for Abrahamics.
India is a Hindu state. Nepal is too.