Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Death Sentence - Balwant Singh - Share your views

Announcements Posted on
Got a question about Student Finance? Ask the experts this week on TSR! 15-09-2014
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by f1mad)
    Oh dear.

    You both should do some research.



    Deary me, I stopped reading there. Ill-informed knowledge of the subject leads to ill-informed judgements I guess...
    You just dont have any valid and correct points to argue back with, so you try and use bad humour to mask your incompetence and knowledge gap.

    Oh dear.
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by eddition)
    You just dont have any valid and correct points to argue back with, so you try and use bad humour to mask your incompetence and knowledge gap.

    Oh dear.
    I've done enough talking on this subject in the past, perhaps you should try using the search function.

    Saintsoldier will back me up with that, when I can be bothered I'll copy and paste compelling evidence that backfires against your argument on a profound level.

    You've just opened up a can of worms, well done mate.
    • 11 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by f1mad)
    Oh dear.

    You both should do some research.
    What about not talking to me again :confused:
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by arnoob)
    What about not talking to me again :confused:
    Off-topic comment I see? .

    I branded you both together for a reason. Go figure.
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by arnoob)
    Don't even bother, you can't generalise, even if a few SIkh soldiers are great I can guarantee you that not every Sikh soldier is the best. The Indian army currently has one of the biggest military forces in the world so I would imagine that there will be a lot of Sikhs in the army but the Indian Army is definitively not the best in the world. you could argue all that claiming that Sikhs are the best but you would never find out for sure.
    It's not a generalisation.

    The Sikh Regiment still holds the highest per capita record for Victoria Crosses in the British Army at 14. As has already been posted, we hold the record for the Indian Army as well. Historically, the heads of the Indian Army, Air Force and Navy have often been Sikhs, despite us making up just 2% of the Indian population. The British regarded us as a "martial race," naturally adapted to warfare. Sikhs made up more than 50% of the British Indian army. There are many accounts by British officers which state that the Sikhs were the best soldiers they had ever seen. Even Sir Winston Churchill himself acknowledged this. The Battle of Saragarhi, fought by the Sikhs, is regarded by the UN as one of the most spectacular demonstrations of human bravery in history. Going back further in time, the Mughals, and later the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, regarded us as very skilled and proficient soldiers. In fact, a British newspaper commented that had Hari Singh Nalwa lived longer, he would have conquered most of Asia and Europe. The same newspaper also called him the greatest general who ever lived.
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by eddition)
    As far as I have been told by my parents and grandparents, operation bluestar was to get rid of SIKH terrorists who would hide in the golden temple and thus prevent the police and the army to get to them.


    The situation came to a head in 1984 when the police stormed the golden temple as the general SIKH populations, CIVILIANS, were of no help and didn't identify the terrorists.
    Since when has the Indian government needed to identify anything? As you have seen from the picture above, they killed indiscriminantly. All they saw was Sikh = Terrorist.

    They weren't terrorists, because they didn't terrorise anything. Hence the Sikhs had nothing to identify in the first place.


    In the end they assassinated the then prime minister, a WOMAN, by BLOWING HER UP, in front of a rally. Now i cant see where in this whole episode the SIKHS are peaceful and law abiding citizens
    No. They shot her in her house. Blowing her up would have caused significant civilian casualties, which is not allowed in our religion. At least we have better ethics than the Indian government, otherwise we would have ripped India apart.

    I think you are trying to say she was a "woman" to earn sympathy. This has no place in Sikhism. By saying that, you are implying that women are somehow weaker than men. This is completely abhorred by Sikhism. Men and women have equal footing in our religion.

    Tell me, if someone came over to you and punched you in the face, would you be a "peaceful law abiding citizen" and not retaliate? Or would you do something about it?

    And no i dont think this person should be given a stay of execution. If sikhs were such underrepresented and victimised society in india, this guy wouldnt be alive today. Everyday I see sikhs from all over the country and world marching and demonstrating against the sentence, even though he has confessed and is guilty.
    He has confessed to killing Beant Singh, but that doesn't make him guilty. He killed a mass murderer, so does that make him wrong? If a Jew killed Hitler, would you blame them?

    He refuses to seek justice from a system that is unjust, which is a very noble thing to do. He doesn't have any lawyers or anything. He has embraced death as a chance to meet his Lord, unlike most people who cry at the thought of death.
    • 11 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SaintSoldier)
    It's not a generalisation.

    The Sikh Regiment still holds the highest record for Victoria Crosses in the British Army at 14. As has already been posted, we hold the record for the Indian Army as well. Historically, the heads of the Indian Army, Air Force and Navy have often been Sikhs, despite us making up just 2% of the Indian population. The British regarded us as a "martial race," naturally adapted to warfare. Sikhs made up more than 50% of the British Indian army. There are many accounts by British officers which state that the Sikhs were the best soldiers they had ever seen. Even Sir Winston Churchill himself acknowledged this. The Battle of Saragarhi, fought by the Sikhs, is regarded by the UN as one of the most spectacular demonstrations of human bravery in history. Going back further in time, the Mughals, and later the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, regarded us as very skilled and proficient soldiers. In fact, a British newspaper commented that had Hari Singh Nalwa lived longer, he would have conquered most of Asia and Europe. The same newspaper also called him the greatest general who ever lived.
    Wow... Once again, you are wrong. The Gurkhas have far more VC's than the Sikhs, they have 26 if you don't believe me check the BA website.VCs also went out to Hindus and Muslims. Oh and to make it fair as the Sikhs stopped being part of the BA after independence I can let you know that even if we counted the VC's that Gurkhas recived up until 1947 then the number of VC's Gurkhas received would still be higher than the amount of VC's SIkhs received. Fact is Sikhs are not superior to any other group of people ... If you took a few random Sikhs from India then I doubt they'd be adapted to warfare with no training. Everyone is capable of fighting provided they receive the right kind of training.The british used the Martial races theory to recruit people (Divide and rule) to do their mercenary work, filling people with a false sense of pride about themselves so they could serve british interests. To take pride in being called a "martial race" by the british is to accept that you are stupid, because the british used the illiterate to do their work. I suggest you research the martial race theory. Oh ok and when did the Mujahideen compliment the Sikhs? Wow you really are ignorant, there are thousands of soldiers from hundreds of different battles who took part in sacrifices for the sake of their country, you are just trying to say that Sikhs are the bravest soldiers, things is yes they might be but so are and were millions of other soldiers throughout history, give me an example of something similar that a Sikh has done such as this soldier http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/ma...ban-insurgents . I am not denying that Sikhs join the Indian army in large numbers, Sikhs do join the Indian army just like everyone else provided they meet physical requirements. Sikhism is a peaceful religion that later developed a martial character but only to fight for what is right. Not to boast of their military might! Sikh means a "disciple" of the guru. To learn something you must first be humble! An Indian should be proud of all Indian soldiers. Oh and before you claim I hate Sikhs I do not, I have quite a few Sikh friends.
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by arnoob)
    Wow... Once again, you are wrong. The Gurkhas have far more VC's than the Sikhs, they have 26 if you don't believe me check the BA website.
    Can you stop lying?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...Victoria_Cross

    Can you count? If so tell me how many of those men in that BRIGADE had allegiance for the British?

    "Since the VC was introduced it has been awarded to Gurkhas or British officers serving with Gurkha regiments 26 times."
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Further:

    "The Sikh Regiment is one of the most highly decorated and is believed to be the most courageous, powerful and skilled regiment of the Indian Army,[60] with 73 Battle Honours, 14 Victoria Crosses,[61] 21 first class Indian Order of Merit (equivalent to the Victoria Cross),[62] 15 Theatre Honours and 5 COAS Unit Citations besides 2 Param Vir Chakras, 14 Maha Vir Chakras, 5 Kirti Chakras, 67 Vir Chakras and 1596 other gallantry awards. The highest-ranking General in the history of the Indian Air Force is a Punjabi Sikh Marshal of the Air Force Arjan Singh.[63] Advanced plans by the MOD to raise an Infantry UK Sikh Regiment were scrapped in June 2007 to the disappointment of the UK Sikh community and Prince Charles of Britain.[64]"

    Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikh
    • 11 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by f1mad)
    Can you stop lying?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...Victoria_Cross

    Can you count? If so tell me how many of those men in that BRIGADE had allegiance for the British?

    "Since the VC was introduced it has been awarded to Gurkhas or British officers serving with Gurkha regiments 26 times."

    Further:

    "The Sikh Regiment is one of the most highly decorated and is believed to be the most courageous, powerful and skilled regiment of the Indian Army,[60] with 73 Battle Honours, 14 Victoria Crosses,[61] 21 first class Indian Order of Merit (equivalent to the Victoria Cross),[62] 15 Theatre Honours and 5 COAS Unit Citations besides 2 Param Vir Chakras, 14 Maha Vir Chakras, 5 Kirti Chakras, 67 Vir Chakras and 1596 other gallantry awards. The highest-ranking General in the history of the Indian Air Force is a Punjabi Sikh Marshal of the Air Force Arjan Singh.[63] Advanced plans by the MOD to raise an Infantry UK Sikh Regiment were scrapped in June 2007 to the disappointment of the UK Sikh community and Prince Charles of Britain.[64]"
    Ok then, I counted that'd be 14 , same as the Sikhs doesn't change the fact that Sikhs are not superior to Gurkhas .The Gurkhas have far more medals than the total number of medals Sikhs have received . The Gurkhas are far more valuable to the BA than the Sikhs if the Sikhs were that important than the Army would have introduced a Sikh regiment, I am not saying that the Sikhs were useless because they certainly were not . Oh why don't you reply to the rest of my argument?
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by arnoob)
    ...
    Ah, I'm fed up of your regurgitated bull shine.

    For example:

    if the Sikhs were that important than the Army would have introduced a Sikh regiment
    I'm seriously questioning your ability to read.

    Advanced plans by the MOD to raise an Infantry UK Sikh Regiment were scrapped in June 2007 to the disappointment of the UK Sikh community and Prince Charles of Britain.
    Further: "Following the partition of India in 1947, an agreement between Nepal, India and Britain meant four Gurkha regiments from the Indian army were transferred to the British Army, eventually becoming the Gurkha Brigade."

    It was under agreement for why the Regiment was made! Which is the same agreement the Sikhs would have followed had it not been scrapped amid rows over racism.

    My problem with you is, you seem to think the Gurkha's are far superior comparable to Sikhs.

    The Gurkhas are SPECIFICALLY SELECTED. THIS IS NOT THE CASE WITH THE SIKHS.

    Hence overall, Sikhs win hands down.

    However, you my friend need to do a lot of research; on face-value they are on a very, very, similar level. Who is the better of the two is VERY DIFFICULT to call!


    I shall leave you with this:

    During the Anglo-Sikh Wars (1845-1849), the British had been sufficiently impressed by the Khalsa Army to raise several battalions of Sikh forces. As they enlisted men into their own regiments, the entire profile of the British Army changed to include turbaned and bearded Sikh men. The Khalsa Army, previously a formidable enemy of the British, now became some of their most fervent loyalists.
    Proof of this reconciliation was visible when the Sikhs refused to join the Sepoy Mutiny of 1857. During this time, in a period of four very tense months, the British raised eighteen new regiments consisting mostly of Sikh soldiers and making the Punjab not only the breadbasket of British India but also its sword arm.
    In 1914 as war begun to unfold, the drive began to enlist Indian troops to bolster the war effort, for which Sikhs joined en-masse. The Anglo-Sikh relationship was to witness its pinnacle during the most sombre days of the Great War in the depressing trenches of the German and Turkish fronts, where thousands of young Sikh volunteers fought and laid down their lives defending a land unknown to them against an enemy that was no threat to India for an ally that occupied their own country.
    During that time, the world beheld what is probably the largest volunteer army ever in action, as Sikhs made up nearly twenty per cent of the British Indian Army despite being only two per cent of the population. Despite this contribution though, the relationship between the two began to deteriorate appreciably after the Great War. Sikh men who had fought for the Crown to free occupied lands in Western Europe were to return to their own occupied country, thus beginning the call for independence.
    As the allied nations stepped ever closer to a second global conflict, Sikh soldiers once again stepped forward as the mainstay of the British Indian Army. With only voluntary recruitment, young Sikh men helped to swell the ranks from 189,000 at the start of the war to over 2.5 million at the end.
    In this war too, Sikhs still made up a disproportionate quantity of the forces India gave to the war effort, seeing soldiers deployed to the most active fronts during the conflict. In Burma the Sikh regiments famously made their mark in 1944, where soldiers, well entrenched in the sweltering swamps of the Burmese jungle, curtailed the advance of the Japanese Army who had gotten dangerously close to India and Calcutta. For their efforts, the Sikhs were awarded four Victoria Crosses; the highest of military honours.
    • 11 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by f1mad)
    Ah, I'm fed up of your regurgitated bull shine.

    For example:



    I'm seriously questioning your ability to read.



    My problem with you is, you seem to think the Gurkha's are far superior comparable to Sikhs.

    You my friend need to do a lot of research; they are on a very very similar level. Who is the better of the two is VERY DIFFICULT to call!

    I shall leave you with this:
    You are getting me wrong. I am not saying that Gurkhas are superior to Sikhs, if you check SaintSoldiers post he claims that Sikhs are the best soldiers on the planet. I am proving him wrong by saying that Sikhs are not the only foreign soldiers who are important to the BA. I HAVE STATED THE FACT THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO CLAIM THAT ONE GROUP OF PEOPLE CAN BE THE BEST SOLDIERS BASED ON WHERE THEY COME FROM SEVERAL TIMES. I admit that I have stated that Gurkhas have received far more medals and so on but only to proove to SaintSoldier that he is wrong with the fact that Sikhs are the best soldiers. I suggest that you read the entire argument between me and him properly. In the source you have given me it says that ,'' Sikhs made up nearly twenty per cent of the British Indian Army'' , at the beginning you claimed that Sikhs made up most of the British Indian army which I have argued against. SaintSoldier claimed it was over 50 %, before you start having a go at me I admit that proportionally this is a astounding figure.Oh and I just want to throw this in, what about the Sikhs serving in the Free India Legion during world war 2 fighting for Germany ? We are forgetting about their sacrifice in the Wehrmacht and even in the SS.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SaintSoldier)




    Since when has the Indian government needed to identify anything? As you have seen from the picture above, they killed indiscriminantly. All they saw was Sikh = Terrorist.

    They weren't terrorists, because they didn't terrorise anything. Hence the Sikhs had nothing to identify in the first place.




    No. They shot her in her house. Blowing her up would have caused significant civilian casualties, which is not allowed in our religion. At least we have better ethics than the Indian government, otherwise we would have ripped India apart.

    I think you are trying to say she was a "woman" to earn sympathy. This has no place in Sikhism. By saying that, you are implying that women are somehow weaker than men. This is completely abhorred by Sikhism. Men and women have equal footing in our religion.

    Tell me, if someone came over to you and punched you in the face, would you be a "peaceful law abiding citizen" and not retaliate? Or would you do something about it?



    He has confessed to killing Beant Singh, but that doesn't make him guilty. He killed a mass murderer, so does that make him wrong? If a Jew killed Hitler, would you blame them?

    He refuses to seek justice from a system that is unjust, which is a very noble thing to do. He doesn't have any lawyers or anything. He has embraced death as a chance to meet his Lord, unlike most people who cry at the thought of death.
    From the picture i cant see what distinguishes that child from any other thousands killed all over the world. A dead child- yes. A dead sikh child-inconclusive. Furthermore, i never implied the terrorist was a 3 year old, you just assumed it and attached a picture of a dead child, which is nonetheless disturbing and heartbraking.

    I have already posted about Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale so if you can read that. I would be willing to clarify myself further.

    My apologies, i went overboard with that piece of information and exaggerated due to the other guy (f1mad) annoying me immensely. However, your claim that sikhs never retailiated is just plain wrong. There have been hundreds of deaths, possibly in the low thousands, of indian army personnel and not just in punjab, but also in other parts of india during this period. So no you cant say you have better ethics and sikhs did try to rip apart india and are still trying, but not succeeding due to the threat of violence from a predominantly hindu state and also the fact that "khalistan" would not be sustainable, economically or politically.

    The woman part was again in response to the other guy who did the same, highlighted women and children being killed by the indian govt, and you have done the exact same thing by placing the picture of a three year old child. and again you are making assumptions. never have i made any such references that men are superior, infact I have huge admiration for the work that Indira Gandhi did for india, for everybody and yes even for the sikh population.

    Completely hypothetical situation and would depend on the circumstances and because i am of a non violent nature and have been brought up with the ideals of non violence, most probably yes, i would just let it go and move on, but if there was further danger to me or to my close family, then no i would defend myself. But this situation cannot be compared to the 1984 riots as there are a lot of different variables involved, not just 2 people.

    Againn you are bringing in a completely different situation in to the mix The holocaust is not comparable in this situation because the jews werent demanding a separate nation and harbouring terrorists as far as i know. so if a jew had the means to kill hitler then no he/she should not be prosecuted. however, beant singh was a politician not an insurgent. he was blown away by a suicide bomber and in the process claimed the lives of 17 other people, so your earlier point is moot. however in this case i dont think he should be given a death sentence, and indeed a stay of executiion has been granted. but that doesnt mean he shouldnt be given a tough sentence, just because he is a sikh.

    In all of this i cant seem to find a single anti sikh view from the sikhs, when the majority of the major players in this were local sikhs from punjab. double standards and what not?

    Maybe the whole skih religion should look at themselves and really identify what it is that they want. the younger generation would not stand for khalistan if they knew what it entailed. A bit like the shariah law, it would be extremely tough to consume alcohol, drugs and even getting rid of kesh. they all seem to jump up and down like well trained dogs whenever khalistan is mentioned without having any sort of an inkling what the movement was for and what it entailed.
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I am not saying that Gurkhas are superior to Sikhs
    The Gurkhas are far more valuable to the BA than the Sikhs
    Says otherwise, no?

    at the beginning you claimed that Sikhs made up most of the British Indian army
    Nice contradiction:

    before you start having a go at me I admit that proportionally this is a astounding figure
    I argued that the proportional contribution is what would confirm the fact that the Sikhs contributed the most.

    Oh and I just want to throw this in, what about the Sikhs serving in the Free India Legion during world war 2 fighting for Germany ? We are forgetting about their sacrifice in the Wehrmacht and even in the SS.
    Again, why don't you take the context of the situation into account? You seem to make a habit of this. Or perhaps that is your intention?

    "Indian prisoners-of-war were transferred to a camp designated Arbeitskommando Frankenburg where military training was initiated by German officers and NCOs."

    Do you know what a POW is? They had no choice! This has occured everywhere, captured Gurkhas would've had the same fate.

    Finally, you seem to be forgetting: GURKHAS ARE SPECIFICALLY SELECTED, they are not ordinary people! Whilst the converse applies to the Sikhs.
    • 11 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by f1mad)
    Says otherwise, no?



    Nice contradiction:



    I argued that the proportional contribution is what would confirm the fact that the Sikhs contributed the most.



    Again, why don't you take the context of the situation into account? You seem to make a habit of this. Or perhaps that is your intention?

    "Indian prisoners-of-war were transferred to a camp designated Arbeitskommando Frankenburg where military training was initiated by German officers and NCOs."

    Finally, you seem to be forgetting: GURKHAS ARE SPECIFICALLY SELECTED, they are not ordinary people! Whilst the converse applies to the Sikhs.
    Funny how you take things out of context now. Oh really did you know even if you did I wasn't arguing against you but SaintSoldier. Perhaps taking things out of context is your habit? Initially the soldiers were taken from Rommels POW's from his North Africa campaign however there were a large number of volunteers epecially student who believed that if the British were defeated then there would have been independence in India. So what if they were trained if somebody truly was against the Nazi's then they would have definitively resisted them even if it meant death, something which thousands of people had done. Gurkhas are not specifically selected Gurkhas must come from Nepal but anyone from the region can join I quote , '' The Gurkha recruiting process is one of the toughest of any Army in the world. Our soldiers are selected from amongst many thousands of hopeful applicants. The process begins in the hills of Nepal where retired Gurkha soldiers tour around remote villages conducting initial screening tests. All applicants must meet certain basic standards of education, fitness and health. If successful, they will be given a pass to attend the next stage.'' If you are from Nepal then anyone can apply,'' Out of 28,000 applicants last year, only 230 soldiers were enlisted.'' On top of that if you are a British citizen of Nepalese descend you can apply. GURKHAS ARE ORDINARY PEOPLE WHO ARE TRAINED TO BE GREAT SOLDIERS http://www.army.mod.uk/infantry/regiments/13188.aspx .
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by eddition)

    1. Pompous little get. Just for your information, YOU CANNOT PROVE THAT SANT JARNAIL SINGH JI KHALSA was a TERRORIST. That’s why you arrested him and let him go. Fail.

    2. I’m glad that tyrants and sinners are punished. Such a comment about Indian army personnel being killed is bogus unless you can prove that they were innocent. Don’t get me wrong, innocent being killed is a sin, a big sin. But if a sinner or a tyrant cant be brought to justice via diplomatic means, sikh ethics state that the taking up of the sword will have to suffice.

    If all peaceful/democratic means fail, the picking up of the sword is righteous

    Sri Dasam Granth Sahib

    You accuse f1mad of having little knowledge, you mate are no different.

    P.S. Sikhs are not scared of a predominant hindu state, you dozy or something?

    3. "infact I have huge admiration for the work that Indira Gandhi did for india, for everybody and yes even for the sikh population" Such an idiotic comment when talking about Sikh issues after 1978 is not ignorance but blatant insult. I know hindus that hate Gandhi, and you’re here praising her. The only thing that Gandhi did for Sikhs is attempted to wipe them off the map of India. Shame she failed and paid with 33 bullets. I’m glad that she was slaughtered, just a shame I will never have the guts to do what the great martyrs Shaheed Bhai Satwant Singh Ji, Shaheed Bhai Beant Singh Ji and Shaheed Bhai Kehar Singh Ji. All 3 Khalsa’s carried their duty out immensely.

    4. Your knowledge knows no depths of disgrace comments. There were no riots in 1984, only a genocide. How the f can you dare to call it a riot. Sikhs were savagely killed like a lion looking for its next prey. A riot implies Sikhs vs Hindus. Another comment that smacks of great incompetence.

    5. Please do not advise Sikhs about their religion when you have a dog’s dinner brain. Also, please do not try to understand the Khalistani methodology because it’s a bit much for your poor little brain. If you knew anything, which you don’t, Panjab is one of the most drug infiltrated states in the world. Khalistan would be able to stop such a thing. It speaks a lot about the current administration that the land of the prophets of Sikhism could become such a state. Sharia law has no mention in Sikhism, so what you on about? Khalistan would, for all intents and purposes, clean up the tip that Panjab is in at the moment. Again, YOU ARE THE BIGGEST HYPOCRITE THIS SITE HAS EVER SEEN. You bark about “hypothetical situation, I don’t know what I would do”, yet you seem to have made your mind up about Khalsaland. I say this regularly, YOU CANT STAND IN TWO PLACES AT ONCE
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by arnoob)
    Funny how you take things out of context now.
    How? As you have said yourself:

    that if the British were defeated then there would have been independence in India
    That is the sole reason they contributed to fight for WW2 (for independence).

    India entered the war when the then Viceroy of India, Lord Linlithgow, without consulting Indian leaders, declared war against Germany on behalf of India. A sharply divided debate ensued and Indians split along the role that they should play in the war in the west. Traditionally Indian soldiers had played a lead role in Britain's battles to date, however a significant number of nationalists disliked Britain taking their support for granted and a call for British commitment to independence was called before they could expect India's cooperation in the war effort
    In hindsight, what they did was woefully incorrect. But given their main objective for that war, how can you argue otherwise?

    I don't see how this of any relevance as to who are the better fighters, which is the main argument of this discussion: the circumstances involved are for more complex and not related.

    Gurkhas are not specifically selected Gurkhas...
    Yes they are.

    The soldiers are still selected from young men living in the hills of Nepal - with about 28,000 youths tackling the selection procedure for just over 200 places each year.

    The selection process has been described as one of the toughest in the world and is fiercely contested.
    Are you trying to tell me that, that is how a normal soldier is selected? "Gurkhas" relates to specifically set of chosen people, as you have presented yourself.

    "Sikhs" are not. There's a clear distinction.
    • 11 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by f1mad)
    How? As you have said yourself:



    That is the sole reason they contributed to fight for WW2 (for independence).



    In hindsight, what they did was woefully incorrect. But given their main objective for that war, how can you argue otherwise?

    I don't see how this of any relevance as to who are the better fighters, which is the main argument of this discussion.



    Yes they are.



    Are you trying to tell me that, that is how a normal soldier is selected? "Gurkhas" relates to specifically set of chosen people, as you have presented yourself.

    "Sikhs" are not. There's a clear distinction.
    I am not critisising Sikhs and other Indians for fighting for Nazi Germany, personally if I lived in wartime India and believed strongly in independence I would probably consider it. Once again I am not arguing for whether the Sikhs or gurkhas are the best soldiers, I was trying to tell SaintSoldier that Sikhs are not the best soldiers in the world. No I am trying to say that anybody from Nepal or Nepalese descent can be a Gurkha depending on certain factors just like the Sikhs. You are saying that you have to be special to be a Gurkha but you don't even if you live in the UK .
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    You are saying that you have to be special to be a Gurkha but you don't even if you live in the UK .
    I am not, I'm referring to the system they have in place which would imbalance the comparison in this discussion. This system they have in place is nothing new neither (they've probably had it since day one- they were a tribe to begin with after all).

    Whilst the term "Sikhs" is a generic one, relating to the follower of a religion since the religion was established.

    Whilst the two are very difficult to separate with regards to their strengths out on the battlefield, I'd argue that Sikhs are more of the "natural fighters" between the two.
    • 11 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by f1mad)
    Whilst the two are very difficult to separate with regards to their strengths out on the battlefield, I'd argue that Sikhs are more of the "natural fighters" between the two.
    First you say they are on similar strength level and now that Sikhs are superior. In reality I know for a fact that you believe that Sikhs are superior. Unless we take a random selection of lets say hundred soldiers and give them a large amount of land and tell them to fight we will never find out for sure.

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: May 11, 2012
New on TSR

A-level secrets uncovered

Learn from the experience of last year's A-level students

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.