seedhi Posted November 9, 2012 Posted November 9, 2012 Really? When was the last time you saw a TV program on this? Like EVER? :haha: Are you telling me that tomorrow if Doordarshan makes a karyakarm on 1857 and shows this angle, we wont have stone being pelted and banners bring brought out suggesting how Sikhs are being targeted once again in India? :haha:I am just commenting on people denying history. I have not seen anyone actually deny Sikh rulers helped British in 1857. One can make a historical argument explaining why they took that stance. If Doordarshan were to make a program which included a scrutiny of the decision of the mutineers to restore the mughals and also present the reason why Sikhs supported the British, I am not sure it would lead to what you suggest. Some other set of people could be offended by it then. Not really, no. I mean I am yet to meet/read a leftist showing Nalanda vidhwansh never happened. Or Hindukush for that matter. Ok so you are not aware of the canards that are spread about Nalanda. Here, read what Syed Shahabuddin writes: http://www.syedshahabuddin.com/syed_shahabuddin_editor_organiser_msn_menon_article_nalanda.html . This is just about Nalanda. The accounts of all muslim historians of the time of Ghori, Ghazini, Khilji etc have been summarily labeled and rejected as exaggerations by the leftists. Just recently Girish Karnad did essentially the same in his rant against Naipaul. So if it is fairly well known like you say, maybe I should NEVER hear the whole naara - We are 2% but we make 10% of Indian Armed Forces, ever again in my life?? Want to bet on it Seedhi saab? :winky:I was commenting on the British policy of recruitment, especially their characterization of the so-called "martial races". But it is fact that even after independence Sikhs have a impressive presence in the Indian armed services, which is remarkable.
King Tendulkar Posted November 9, 2012 Posted November 9, 2012 Good reply to a poster whose mission in life is to try & show Sikhs as traitors. his literally begging & pleading to you in your replies to name 'who' are they? :headshake: I think he is a very bitter person who hates Sikhs..who gives a flying fock to whiners like him. Also Sikhs don't need a stamp of approval from anyone like him from Bihar to prove their immense contribution towards India, they are hard working people, Punjab is a rich state....look at Bihar today... looks like there are way too many people like Lurker still living there :hysterical: So true. His anti sikh stance is so clear:hysterical: Still remember how the BS man used to always slam NRIs living outsiode of india giving massive moral lectures on this. Then he let slip that he lives in USA and the whole lie slipped. It showedhim to be a hypocrite and liar:hysterical: Sorry he has no credibility after that. Obvious he was bullied at some point by some power house punjabi, the tweeny bihari had no chance:giggle:
Lurker Posted November 9, 2012 Posted November 9, 2012 I am just commenting on people denying history. I have not seen anyone actually deny Sikh rulers helped British in 1857. One can make a historical argument explaining why they took that stance. If Doordarshan were to make a program which included a scrutiny of the decision of the mutineers to restore the mughals and also present the reason why Sikhs supported the British, I am not sure it would lead to what you suggest. Some other set of people could be offended by it then. In my opinion you are being politically naive if you think there wont be any backlash. But I will take your word at it. Ok so you are not aware of the canards that are spread about Nalanda. Here, read what Syed Shahabuddin writes: http://www.syedshahabuddin.com/syed_shahabuddin_editor_organiser_msn_menon_article_nalanda.html . This is just about Nalanda. The accounts of all muslim historians of the time of Ghori, Ghazini, Khilji etc have been summarily labeled and rejected as exaggerations by the leftists. Just recently Girish Karnad did essentially the same in his rant against Naipaul. Come on now Seedhi saab, Shahabuddin???? Really? Of all the people? Thats like saying VInay Katiyaar is against Muslims. Duh!! I was looking for more credible voices than one may take in more sincerity. I was commenting on the British policy of recruitment, especially their characterization of the so-called "martial races". But it is fact that even after independence Sikhs have a impressive presence in the Indian armed services, which is remarkable. I think you are either looking at "current state" or trying to sound like that. I am looking for more historical causal and result analysis. To me, one can not be honest about current state unless one learns and concedes history. That said, this has been one of the more civil conversations we have had recently. So thank you for that. I think there is no big divide between us on this really, it is just the semantics at the end. No harm done. Lets agree to disagree.:winky:
Tiger80 Posted November 9, 2012 Posted November 9, 2012 In my opinion you are being politically naive if you think there wont be any backlash. But I will take your word at it. If a serial show all the communities which supported Britishers in 1857 then I don't think anybody will mind.Also much better if the serial show arrival of Britishers and communities which were enrolled in British army when they arrived and played vital role in defeat of several Indian Kingdoms.
maniac Posted November 9, 2012 Posted November 9, 2012 When did this turn into a historical debate....but since we are having discussion about Religion,history,patriotism,etc let me dive right into the topic without having a clue of what's going on... If Sikhs did aid the british in the 1857 war,then it worked out just fine.....How is supporting the British against a equally tyranical Mughal dynasty or any other princely state for a matter of fact equate to being a traitor? I have seen Padosis getting all hyped up and emotional about the 1857 war in their revisionist history as it was the final nail in the coffin for the already declining Mughal empire but seriously I for one am really glad we lost the 1857 war because firstly, you are kidding yourselves if you call that a war of 'Indian' Indipendence. It was pretty much Princes and in this case add a princess fighting to save their own kingdoms-how is that equate to being patriotic in a nationalistic sense? I havent read the direct co-relation between this but the start of social-reforms and most nationalistic revolts started after-math of the war.So that tells us something Winning the war would have made these princely states that much more indipendent and stronger that we would be still serving our respective Kings and queens even today.
maniac Posted November 9, 2012 Posted November 9, 2012 ^The only hero for me in this case was Mangal Pandey who for whatever reason is a cool dude who stood up to his evil boss....whatever side you or on about Mangal Pandey's character....you are cool if you go against your much powerful boss.
Tiger80 Posted November 9, 2012 Posted November 9, 2012 When did this turn into a historical debate....but since we are having discussion about Religion,history,patriotism,etc let me dive right into the topic without having a clue of what's going on... If Sikhs did aid the british in the 1857 war,then it worked out just fine.....How is supporting the British against a equally tyranical Mughal dynasty or any other princely state for a matter of fact equate to being a traitor? I have seen Padosis getting all hyped up and emotional about the 1857 war in their revisionist history as it was the final nail in the coffin for the already declining Mughal empire but seriously I for one am really glad we lost the 1857 war because firstly, you are kidding yourselves if you call that a war of 'Indian' Indipendence. It was pretty much Princes and in this case add a princess fighting to save their own kingdoms-how is that equate to being patriotic in a nationalistic sense? I havent read the direct co-relation between this but the start of social-reforms and most nationalistic revolts started after-math of the war.So that tells us something Winning the war would have made these princely states that much more indipendent and stronger that we would be still serving our respective Kings and queens even today. +1 Winning the war could had started civil war in India as Mughals , Maratha's Rajputs , Sikhs etc. all would want control of as much area as possible.
Recommended Posts