# 1947. ... Were Sikh Independent At That Time.



## ravneet_sb (Oct 30, 2018)

Sat Sri Akaal,

Were SIKHs seeking indepence in 1947, or were humble sacrifying help to get independence.  

What was the spirit behind struggle for
independence.


----------



## Logical Sikh (Oct 30, 2018)

ravneet_sb said:


> Sat Sri Akaal,
> 
> Were SIKHs seeking indepence in 1947, or were humble sacrifying help to get independence.
> 
> ...


They were seeking independence for PUNJAB..... They shook hands with india s thinkin' "The Enemy of your Enemy is your friend"... But that wasn't the case..... Didn't get Punjab.... was'Nt even given the status of a state for another 30 years.....


----------



## sukhsingh (Nov 9, 2018)

Logical Sikh said:


> They were seeking independence for PUNJAB..... They shook hands with india s thinkin' "The Enemy of your Enemy is your friend"... But that wasn't the case..... Didn't get Punjab.... was'Nt even given the status of a state for another 30 years.....


I'm not sure that is correct


----------



## Logical Sikh (Nov 9, 2018)

sukhsingh said:


> I'm not sure that is correct


Give your version


----------



## sukhsingh (Nov 9, 2018)

@Logical Sikh I'm not sure your characterisation that Sikhs were looking for a independent state is correct or that punjab was not a state until the mid 70s


----------



## Logical Sikh (Nov 10, 2018)

Logical Sikh said:


> They were seeking independence for PUNJAB..... They shook hands with india s thinkin' "The Enemy of your Enemy is your friend"... But that wasn't the case..... Didn't get Punjab.... was'Nt even given the status of a state for another 30 years.....


SORRY that was 20 years. ( till mid 60s )


----------



## sukhsingh (Nov 10, 2018)

Logical Sikh said:


> SORRY that was 20 years. ( till mid 60s )


I still don't quite understand the point


----------



## Logical Sikh (Nov 10, 2018)

sukhsingh said:


> @Logical Sikh I'm not sure your characterisation that Sikhs were looking for a independent state is correct or that punjab was not a state until the mid 70s


As of what the situation was in 1947, Sikhs were not looking for an INDEPENDENT STATE, But Rather an AUTONOMOUS state which was Promised by Indian and Pak officials.
Going with Pakistan would mean they'd have to give up PATNA SAHIB, Hazoor Sahib
Going with india would mean Give up NANKANA SAHIB.
Sikhs were given Same Offers from both india and Pakistan ( maybe more from Pakistan ), But there was a Trust issue with Pakistan as because of their History with mughals, So maybe thats why Sikh leaders decided to go with India at that time.


----------



## sukhsingh (Nov 10, 2018)

Logical Sikh said:


> As of what the situation was in 1947, Sikhs were not looking for an INDEPENDENT STATE, But Rather an AUTONOMOUS state which was Promised by Indian and Pak officials.
> Going with Pakistan would mean they'd have to give up PATNA SAHIB, Hazoor Sahib
> Going with india would mean Give up NANKANA SAHIB.
> Sikhs were given Same Offers from both india and Pakistan ( maybe more from Pakistan ), But there was a Trust issue with Pakistan as because of their History with mughals, So maybe thats why Sikh leaders decided to go with India at that time.


The only sikh states that had any say were the princely states, most of the panjab did not have a choice


----------



## Logical Sikh (Nov 10, 2018)

sukhsingh said:


> most of the panjab did not have a choice


dont know abt that tho.


----------



## Harry Haller (Nov 11, 2018)

Logical Sikh said:


> As of what the situation was in 1947, Sikhs were not looking for an INDEPENDENT STATE, But Rather an AUTONOMOUS state which was Promised by Indian and Pak officials.
> Going with Pakistan would mean they'd have to give up PATNA SAHIB, Hazoor Sahib
> Going with india would mean Give up NANKANA SAHIB.
> Sikhs were given Same Offers from both india and Pakistan ( maybe more from Pakistan ), But there was a Trust issue with Pakistan as because of their History with mughals, So maybe thats why Sikh leaders decided to go with India at that time.



I rather think the Sikh situation was a bit like pass the parcel, in the sense that we were passed round between both parties in the vain hope that someone would be able to take us, and then kill any ambitions for power sharing. One must remember that Nehru and Jinnah were both trained solicitors, and our Sikh representative, Masterji, could cook some really wonderful parathas, but unfortunately had no legal training at all, Nehru and Jinnah must have been {censored} themselves at the naive and trusting way we allowed ourselves to be sewn up


----------



## Logical Sikh (Nov 11, 2018)

Harry Haller said:


> I rather think the Sikh situation was a bit like pass the parcel, in the sense that we were passed round between both parties in the vain hope that someone would be able to take us, and then kill any ambitions for power sharing.


True.



Harry Haller said:


> Masterji, could cook some really wonderful parathas, but unfortunately had no legal training at all, Nehru and Jinnah must have been {censored} themselves at the naive and trusting way we allowed ourselves to be sewn up


it is true because all the decision making power was in no more than 2 or 3 sikh leaders, which were not even on the same line, and SHIT happens when you have only a few representatives and they too disagree with each other......... Same situation like today man......... nothing changed


----------

