Many Sikhs in UK don’t want to be identified as ‘Indian’

[mancalledsting]

3 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Sensible historians don't make false inferences. For example, there arnt' any historians who think Punjab was a rich province under the Mughals. Why ? because we KNOW it was poorer than most parts of India due to its value of chauth being low. 

Nothing more than your Punjabi bias speaking here. There is no shame in being a nobody province historically. Just don't carry the false image that Punjab has done a lot in history- it hasn't. Its done jack $hit before the last 200 years. 

Heer-Ranjha ? Seriously ? So in 2000 years, you have one steriotypical love story as your literary achievement. Congratulations, that makes Punjab's literary achievements (prior to the last 200 years) as 1/2000th that of Tamil literature and the hundreds of poems they wrote from that era. 

That counts as jack-$hit in my books and thank you for proving my point. 

Just to summarise for everyone out there:

 

Your claims: Punjab not prosperous under the Mughals, no literature/artistry, pre Mughal rule Punjab especially poor 

 

From Rajmohan Gandhi's work on Punjab- I spell it out for you in colours as I can see there are some comprehension issues. 

 

"For centuries, Punjab, due to its wealth and cultural richness, has faced number of invasions from its western frontier. As an exception, about two centuries of Mughal rule from Babur to Aurangzeb represented an extended period of peace and prosperity as well as stability and serenity."

 

http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/articles/t/the-panjab-and-the-rise-of-sikh-power/

 

Victoria and Albert Museum from the UK:

 

‘The Panjab was the wealthiest province of the Mughal empire in the late 16th and 17th centuries.‘ 

‘His rule was characterised by his tolerance, with Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims all holding equally high office at court.’

 

Just let me know which of the bits in red you are struggling to get through your head and we'll see if we can help you out. PS next move will be pictorial illustrations, if that fails animated videos. If that fails children's TV strategies. With you, I can't rule anything out. 

[zen]

The religions that originated in India are connected in one way or the other .... the word Sikh itself is derived from Sanskrit word for student iirc 

[PBN]

Ok, let's trace everything back to the Mughal records @Muloghonto keeps repeating again and again as the gospel.  From the same records:

 

Chittagong, which is east of Dhaka,  is included when describing the Bengal subah from the Mughal times.  Orrisa was also dissolved into Bengal during the Mughal Empire; thereby increasing the population+size.  There are no records of populations of the various regions during the Mughal times. Furthermore, the boundaries of the soobahs don’t overlap today’s geographic regions.  For example, large regions of Punjab i.e Ludhiana, Patiala, Sirhind, Sirsa or everything east  to the banks of Satluj were  grouped under the Delhi soobah and not under  Lahore/Multan.  Delhi’s revenue is recorded as higher than that of Bengal during the Mughal records. Therefore, you just can’t take absolute tax information and make any accurate conclusions. There are even more variables that don’t take into account economic or daily prosperity. 

 

Once again, using your ‘highly valued source’ , this is what the Mughal records say about the Lahore Soobah:

 

“This province is populous, its climate healthy and its agricultural fertility rarely equaled.  The irrigation is chiefly from wells. ……There are skillful handicraftsmen of various kinds.”

 

 

The  revenues of Delhi, Lahore, Bengal are recorded as relatively the same from the official 10 year revenue periods from the Mughal records.

 

From the same Mughal records which @Muloghontokeep on harping about as a great source, here’s what It says   when describing Bengal :

 

“The people are submissive and pay their rents duly”

 

 

 

Hope this covers the essence of the  holy grail source that Mulo keeps repeating again and again.

Anyways, no one is downplaying Bengal’s economic prosperity or history but it is you who’s downplaying Punjab’s history and all things related to Punjab to even fabricating and bragging about Bengali nobel prize winners in science just to  mock of the  lack of nobel prize winners of Punjabi origins. It’s as if you’re holding onto  some chip on your shoulder in your life.  Get well soon. 

 

EOD

 

 

 

Edited July 27, 2018 by PBN

[Muloghonto]

10 hours ago, PBN said:

Ok, let's trace everything back to the Mughal records @Muloghonto keeps repeating again and again as the gospel.  From the same records:

 

Chittagong, which is east of Dhaka,  is included when describing the Bengal subah from the Mughal times. 

Indeed, from the 20th year of Jahangir's reign. Where Chittagong was described as an outpost of Bengal to form trade with Arakan. 

10 hours ago, PBN said:

Orrisa was also dissolved into Bengal during the Mughal Empire; thereby increasing the population+size.  

Yes, which included like 15% of Orissa, the strip of land between Subarnarekha and just a few miles south of Puri. Again, most of Mahanadi interior was not part of the Mughals 

10 hours ago, PBN said:

Once again, using your ‘highly valued source’ , this is what the Mughal records say about the Lahore Soobah:

 

“This province is populous, its climate healthy and its agricultural fertility rarely equaled.  The irrigation is chiefly from wells. ……There are skillful handicraftsmen of various kinds.”

Sure. Just like how the Nile was extremely fertile for 300m on either side, so too was Ravi, Sutlej and Chenab for much of its lower course. 

10 hours ago, PBN said:

 

The  revenues of Delhi, Lahore, Bengal are recorded as relatively the same from the official 10 year revenue periods from the Mughal records.

False. Lahore was less than 50% of Delhi and 30% of Bengal. Multan was even lesser. 

10 hours ago, PBN said:

 

From the same Mughal records which @Muloghontokeep on harping about as a great source, here’s what It says   when describing Bengal :

 

“The people are submissive and pay their rents duly”

Yep. No lafraa, since the Mughals got their chauths one way or another. We are not stupid people. Doesnt change the fact that Punjab was a boonie land of that time. 

 

10 hours ago, PBN said:

 

 

Hope this covers the essence of the  holy grail source that Mulo keeps repeating again and again.

Anyways, no one is downplaying Bengal’s economic prosperity or history but it is you who’s downplaying Punjab’s history and all things related to Punjab to even fabricating and bragging about Bengali nobel prize winners in science just to  mock of the  lack of nobel prize winners of Punjabi origins. It’s as if you’re holding onto  some chip on your shoulder in your life.  Get well soon. 

 

EOD

I am not downplaying anything. I am simply pointing out that Punjab has done Jack $hit for most of history, serving as nothing more than boonie border provinces of Indian empire/Afghan/Persian empires or newly conquered land by the invaders (such as Sakas, Hepthalites and Indo-Greeks).

Not ONE unified Punjab kingdom till Ranjit singh ruled by natives.

Heer Ranjha folk tale, no major literary works through entire pre-modern period. No great works like Avijanam Shakuntalam, the Tamil ballards or Charyapada. 

Not one foreign traveller who described Punjab as anything major in India, from Megasthenes all the way to Ibn Batuta.

And all this, is confirmed by archaeology. The largest pre-modern site in Punjab: Sagala. Size of fortified town: 50 hectares. 
For comparison: Kaushambi: 170 hectares. Gaya: 200 hectares. Pataliputra: 700 hectares+. Karnasuvarna: 120 hectares. 
Ujjaini: 200+ hectares. 

 

A region that looked more like the nile valley - narrow band of fertile land, that deteriorates to scrubland within sight of horizon. Described as such by Alexander's sources too. 

Its not 'chip on my shoulder', its cutting you preening 'johnny come lately' down to size. You may not like it, but fact is, Punjab is a piddly, irrelevant player in Indian history. 

 

This is seen even by native Indian conquerors themselves. Most of the Magadhi empires preferred to conquer the much further but much richer lands of Kalinga, even Tanjore ( eg: Samudragupta, Agnimitra, etc) before conquering Punjab. And just as easily conquered too. 

 

These are basic facts of history. 

[Muloghonto]

14 hours ago, mancalledsting said:

Just to summarise for everyone out there:

 

Your claims: Punjab not prosperous under the Mughals, no literature/artistry, pre Mughal rule Punjab especially poor 

 

From Rajmohan Gandhi's work on Punjab- I spell it out for you in colours as I can see there are some comprehension issues. 

 

"For centuries, Punjab, due to its wealth and cultural richness, has faced number of invasions from its western frontier. As an exception, about two centuries of Mughal rule from Babur to Aurangzeb represented an extended period of peace and prosperity as well as stability and serenity."

Yes. Because one man's mediocre land, is another man's rich land. Punjab is far more fertile, far richer, than any land west of it, all the way to mesopotamia and all the way north to the Zerafshan-Amu Darya valley region (ie, ancient Soghdia, aka Sugdh). An area the size of almost India itself. 

However, EAST of Punjab, Punjab is below average. Lower agricultural productivity ( as evidenced by Mughal chauth records), smaller towns, etc. 

Archaeology confirms this. No site in Punjab, except Taxila (which is NOT historical punjab but only added on to it since the Sikh Empire period- even under the Mughals, Taxila was part of Kabul Subah) comes remotely close to the size of dozens of sites strewn across the ganges plain, Andhra-Orissa coast, N. Karnataka sites like  Manyakhet, etc. or the Tamil belt. 

 

14 hours ago, mancalledsting said:

http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/articles/t/the-panjab-and-the-rise-of-sikh-power/

 

Victoria and Albert Museum from the UK:

 

‘The Panjab was the wealthiest province of the Mughal empire in the late 16th and 17th centuries.‘ 

‘His rule was characterised by his tolerance, with Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims all holding equally high office at court.’

This is false and directly refuted by Mughal chauth records. seems like the ISI-backed Khalistani propaganda is working on the british liberals. 

14 hours ago, mancalledsting said:

Just let me know which of the bits in red you are struggling to get through your head and we'll see if we can help you out. PS next move will be pictorial illustrations, if that fails animated videos. If that fails children's TV strategies. With you, I can't rule anything out. 

PS: I have no qualms about how hindus/sikhs, etc. fared under Ranjit Singh. or how Ranjit Singh (a competent ruler himself) ruled. 

My point is, Punjab HISTORICALLY, is largely, a land of nothing of note. 

[Muloghonto]

15 hours ago, mancalledsting said:

who said Heer Ranjha was the only artistic achievement? straw man after straw man....deary me. I provided UK academic source for the claim of how wealthy Punjab was under Mughal era. If you can't read English, that's not my fault is it. Totally agree that sensible historians don't make false inferences-and thats why we would never classify you as a sensible historian. 

Where are your Punjabi ballads from 1000 years+ ago ? Where are your Kalidasa type epics ? Or Charyapada ? Or the Sangam literature ?

Your sources make claims that are totally false. I will shortly link you to the Mughal chauth figures, that show Punjab was a boonie-land. 

I will also provide what travellers who've come to Punjab from the time of Megasthenes ( 300s BC) to Ibn Battuta (1400s AD) wrote. 

Faxian directly said that while the land becomes a lot fertile after crossing into India (which to him, began from Khyber itself), the 'lands of the west are but a pale shadow of the splendour and prosperity of the courts of the ganges.

Xuanzong says that the lands of his patron Silhadi ( Harsha) and that of his main antagonist (Sasanka of Gaur, Bengal) 'pale any other in India, in the numbers of its people, the produce of its land and the industry of its men'. And this chap went as far south as Thanjavur. 

 

This, the archaelogical evidence, the fact that Punjab is the only major region of India that never formed a unified native kingdom, all confirm one thing : a poor, boonie land, sparsely populated, sparsely farmed and not a priority for anyone. 

 

[Muloghonto]

17 hours ago, PBN said:

Why do you keep lying? 

2. You stated there had been NO irrigation in Punjab prior to British. Again proven wrong

Learn to read. i said no major irrigation. While Gupta, Chola, Pala, Gujjar, Rashtrakuta rulers were building dams, digging canals and making humongous tanks to collect rain, Punjab didnt even have tube-wells till nearly a 1000 years later. 

17 hours ago, PBN said:

3.  Moron keeps yapping about Punjab having no history but Punjab and Sikhs have great history, that of bravery, sacrifice, social reforms,etc.  We don't need a nobody like you to tell us whether Sikhs or Punjabis have great history or not.  Sikh Kingdom is a great example of the secular, economic prosperity, that existed. 

Sikhs are a nobody in history till the 1700s. Yes, very gallant, but they were a severe minority and of no consequence to Punjab prior to the last 300 years. And not until 200 years or so ago, did Punjab even manage to be ruled in its entirity by a native Punjabi. 

No major literary works from periods earlier than that.

Smallest archaeological sites in major riverine regions of north india. 

 

Sikh Kingdom lasted less than 40 years. We have great empires from Bihar, Bengal, Karnataka, TN, heck, even Orissa (Gajapatis) who had single rulers who's reign lasted longer.

 

If your point is Punjab has a great history due to Sikh empire and Sikhs,it only proves my point that in the 2300+ years of writings of Indian history, Punjab has done jack $hit before the last 200-300 years.

 

17 hours ago, PBN said:

4.  The cradle of Indian civilization, the Indus Valley,  lies around the Punjab region

Sure. 

And then it died. 

And since then, till the KNOWN, WRITTEN history of India, lasting the last 2300 years, Punjab has been a second-rate region of the subcontinent. 
History, archeology, literature all prove this. 

[Muloghonto]

17 hours ago, PBN said:

STFU moron. Stop calling names.  You can brag all about how much taxes you paid to your overlords, the Mughals.  Go ahead and brag about how Bengal paid most taxes to the Mughals.  No one gives a ****. My ancestors were the rulers of the great Sikh Empire which is noted for its secular, equality, and economic prosperity. I'm proud of the great Sikh and punjabi history and nothing will change that.

Your ancestors were rulers of Great Sikh Empire that lasted the lifetime of ONE MAN. A one and done story. The end.

 

You wanna know who the ancestors of the Biharis are ? rulers of almost entire subcontinent and the largest empire of its time in the world (Mauryan) for 150 years. rulers of most of the subcontinent for 200+ years(Guptas). Rulers of one of the most powerful empires in Indian history that is the 'Rome of India' - Magadh empire, dominating the ENTIRE northern India (either directly or via vassal relationships).

What about the ancestors of the Oryas ? the greatest & longest sea-faring traders in Indian history, so much so that the word for foreigner in Malay and Tagalog is 'Kaling', a noun loan-word.  A region that was last to be conquered by the vaunted Magadhi empire, the inheritors of the Mahamegavahana empire, the Gajapati empire. 

Ancestors of the Marathas ? Inheritors of the the mighty empire of the Satavahanas, the primier power in the subcontinent spanning most of the peninsula for 200 + years. 

Kannada people ? inheritors of 600+ years history of being *the* primier power of entire deccan and for most part, also India, from the Chalukyas, Western Chalukyas, Rashtrakutas. 

Tamils ? The first trans-oceanic empire in the world. The mightiest empire in the subcontinent and even when not, a region that was virtually unconquerable by anyone outside of it except brief periods of Rashtrakuta domination (which they broke the back of ultimately), until the arrival of the Muslims. 

Gujjus ? *the* major vassals of the Chalukyas and the Gurjara empire, forming one of the richest, most splending kingdom that more or less ruled most its lands directly. 

My people ? not so accomplished, as we were mostly under the orbit of Magadh. But even we managed the Pal Empire for nearly 400 years, which at its zenith controlled Punjab to Malwa, Assam to Rajasthan. 

 

And you are proud of a 'one and done' empire, which dies with its founder practically. Bravo ! amaze-balls history. 

Goes on to prove my point how misplaced the pride of the Punjabis is. The most proud of the Indic people of their history after the Tamils, yet with one of the least accomplished empire or kingdom-building people of all. 

 

 you folks rank below pretty much every part of India except the far NE (like Nagaland, Tripura,Manipur, etc. because even Assam, aka Pragjyotisha/Kamrupa were a powerful kingdom for 100s of year) and Kerala, which was mostly a collection of city-states for most of its history, along with the barren/late developing regions of chattisgarh, jharkhand and interior Orissa. 

 

[Stradlater]

9 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Your ancestors were rulers of Great Sikh Empire that lasted the lifetime of ONE MAN. A one and done story. The end.

 

You wanna know who the ancestors of the Biharis are ? rulers of almost entire subcontinent and the largest empire of its time in the world (Mauryan) for 150 years. rulers of most of the subcontinent for 200+ years(Guptas). Rulers of one of the most powerful empires in Indian history that is the 'Rome of India' - Magadh empire, dominating the ENTIRE northern India (either directly or via vassal relationships).

What about the ancestors of the Oryas ? the greatest & longest sea-faring traders in Indian history, so much so that the word for foreigner in Malay and Tagalog is 'Kaling', a noun loan-word.  A region that was last to be conquered by the vaunted Magadhi empire, the inheritors of the Mahamegavahana empire, the Gajapati empire. 

Ancestors of the Marathas ? Inheritors of the the mighty empire of the Satavahanas, the primier power in the subcontinent spanning most of the peninsula for 200 + years. 

Kannada people ? inheritors of 600+ years history of being *the* primier power of entire deccan and for most part, also India, from the Chalukyas, Western Chalukyas, Rashtrakutas. 

Tamils ? The first trans-oceanic empire in the world. The mightiest empire in the subcontinent and even when not, a region that was virtually unconquerable by anyone outside of it except brief periods of Rashtrakuta domination (which they broke the back of ultimately), until the arrival of the Muslims. 

Gujjus ? *the* major vassals of the Chalukyas and the Gurjara empire, forming one of the richest, most splending kingdom that more or less ruled most its lands directly. 

My people ? not so accomplished, as we were mostly under the orbit of Magadh. But even we managed the Pal Empire for nearly 400 years, which at its zenith controlled Punjab to Malwa, Assam to Rajasthan. 

 

And you are proud of a 'one and done' empire, which dies with its founder practically. Bravo ! amaze-balls history. 

Goes on to prove my point how misplaced the pride of the Punjabis is. The most proud of the Indic people of their history after the Tamils, yet with one of the least accomplished empire or kingdom-building people of all. 

 

 you folks rank below pretty much every part of India except the far NE (like Nagaland, Tripura,Manipur, etc. because even Assam, aka Pragjyotisha/Kamrupa were a powerful kingdom for 100s of year) and Kerala, which was mostly a collection of city-states for most of its history, along with the barren/late developing regions of chattisgarh, jharkhand and interior Orissa. 

 

What's with you including pretty much every region and excluding Rajasthan :/

[Muloghonto]

2 minutes ago, Stradlater said:

What's with you including pretty much every region and excluding Rajasthan :/

My bad. Figured everyone and their dog knows of Rajasthani history as its the most well known in india. I did mention it obliquely by mentioning the power of the Gurjaras, who were the real deal from Rajasthan, not their feuding, Punjabi-esque political fail descendants known as the Rajputs. 
Bhinmal (the ancestral capital of the Rajputs) find mention as the seat of power of the mighty empire, from the arabs as well. 

[Stradlater]

10 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

My bad. Figured everyone and their dog knows of Rajasthani history as its the most well known in india. I did mention it obliquely by mentioning the power of the Gurjaras, who were the real deal from Rajasthan, not their feuding, Punjabi-esque political fail descendants known as the Rajputs. 
Bhinmal (the ancestral capital of the Rajputs) find mention as the seat of power of the mighty empire, from the arabs as well. 

Stop right there.

I don't want this thread to go in the direction of Bengalis bashing Rajputs left, right and centre.

Please continue with your Punjabi bashing.

Thanks.

[asterix]

^

[G_B_]

I think its time this discussion winded down.

 

From what I see in the UK (this is my viewpoint), British sikhs get on well with British Hindus with many inter faith marriages between the communities.

 

As far as the census goes, personally i feel maybe Sikhs (or anybody) dont want to be called Indian are free to put down their heritage under Other. If the Sikhs want to call themselves a special ethnicity thats fine as well.