pedrorizzo

Well it is definitely not Sikhi related as there is no requirement in Sikhi for Sikhs to do bodybuilding. As to whether it helps or interferes with a persons Sikhi is a personal thing I guess. If it increases their sense of ego, and their desire to get a 'rep' and if they are doing it for female attention then it could be considered bad. However, if its done in moderation and simply because the person wants to exercise and that is their chosen method alongside an otherwise balanced spiritual and physical lifestyle then it could be considered ok. In my opinion, if someone is that desperate to get big, to the extent of taking steroids to build up their body then then their whole perception on bodybuilding and/or their chosen activity is pretty skewed and messed up. However, I think that some of this is down to some of the imagery that we portray about Sikhs as well, and some people may get into bodybuilding because they think that they are somehow fulfilling the warrior aspect of Sikhi. And this is the root issue that needs to be addressed and youth need to be given guidance as to what kind of activities they should pursue. We have to be careful what kind of imagery we use to show Singhs in. For example, many of the Sikhi art pictures of warriors and nihangs from the olden days are portrayed as huge bodybuilders with great hulking muscles. Even the war memorial for Sikh soldiers in France and Italy is shown as a statue of a Sikh soldier with huge oversized biceps. Also when we tell stories of Sikhs we always over exaggerate and say that Singhs in the olden days were all like 7 ft tall and had huge muscles and could crush you with a single hand etc etc. People forget that you dont have to be big to be strong and fit and to be a good soldier/fighter. Just look at pictures of the kharkoos in the 80's. How many of them were massive bodybuilders? In reality, most Singhs were slim and of an athletic build, like soldiers normally are. You cant underestimate how such imagery has an impact on peoples minds and they feel they should try and look like that in order to be 'a true Singh.' For most people, bodybuilding is an easy way out as all they have to do is lift weights and make themselves 'feel hard' in their own brain. We as a community probably give too much pump to guys who get massive so it makes them and other Singhs want to do it more. I think we should encourage our youth to do other activities instead and try and forget about all this silly bulking up business.

Your friends have been brainwashed by others to believe that they have to take steroids if they want to be fit, big and strong. Most muscle heads that you see in inner city gyms take steroids. It is true that steroids can be taken safely without causing long term side effects if you know what you are doing, however, this is not a justification to take them. Firstly, steroids are performance enhancing drugs and are illegal anyway. Secondly, many people have got fit, strong, healthy, aggressive and become great athletes and great fighters without using steroids. Using steroids is a losers way out. Another thing is looking at peoples motivations to train. Bodybuilding is a modern phenomenon and is purely related to making your body look big and strong. It is purely superficial and looks related. To me, that is fine, if that is your kind of thing. However, we shouldnt be under the illusion that this has anything to do with strength, fighting ability, fitness or has any correlation with any Sikhi values. Most 'singhs' who do bodybuilding probably think that they are 'representing' in some way like they are some big strong warriors. In reality they probably enjoy the 'rep' of being massive and the respect that monay and other singhs give them when they come up and say, 'yo respect to you singh. You are what a proper Singh should look like!' plus all the female attention they get from having big muscles. Yet despite that, they will still get banged up by a skinny musalmaan that does boxing three times a week! The above is the real reason Singhs do bodybuilding. It has got nothing to do with being a saint soldier, strength or fighting ability. Remember, puratan Singhs were never bodybuilders. They were soldiers! And soldiers have to train like soldiers, not like body builders! Steroids are for misguided self obsessed posers who like to look the part only and crave attention from the opposite sex!

Yes your patka will come off. Wrestling ear protectors are good. You could also try using a rugby scrum cap over the top. Singhs who wrestle in Punjab tend to have a special patka made with strings that tie under the chin which also keeps it on.

So are you telling me that the above will be willing to state that Shastar Vidya bears no resemblance to their own martial arts? Principles, footwork, angles and technique in the Phillipino martial arts can be adapted to any weapon regardless of whether it is indo-persian and regardless of whether it is an empty bottle. Please show evidence that the above martial artists endorse shastar vidya. Regarding the radio recording, yes it would interest me to listen to it if you can provide a link to it. However, I suspect that the linkages between what he talks about and the fake martial arts that Niddar teaches will be very loose to say the least. Sure Sikh martial arts have changed over the last hundred years. From the time when they were used to actually kill people, the techniques would have focussed on killing techniques. All martial arts are at their best during times of war. However, they are also at their most simple and direct. The concept of Jhatka is a simple and direct one, just like sticking a bayonet through someones heart in world war two is a simple concept and is a form of 'jhatka'. Sikhs were not martial artists. They were soldiers and had to get the job done quickly and simply. Be suspicious of anyone who teaches that martial arts are more complex and cerebral, during times of war. If Niddar's martial arts reflected simplicity over fine motor skill and complex technique I would be more inclined to believe that they were used during times of war. Nevertheless, please send your links, I would be more than happy to research this topic further, in case you are somehow right.

This is a disgusting attitude towards fellow human beings? Are you not the same person who was jumping on me when I made a joke about the colour of people's skin? Yet the same person is coming on here and being judgmental to fellow human beings and members of the same religion. What kind of hatred is this? This huge judgement that you have made... what does that say about you? The first goal in Sikhi is to conquer ones own ego and yet here you are with your huge magnificant ego looking down upon others and judging others. I thought that Sikhi was about oneness of the human race, and promoting love between all people. It is truly digusting what you have said and you should really be ashamed of yourself. You are on your own when it comes to these views.

I have too noticed that lot of Singhs nowadays lift weights purely for show. Partly, they think that they are igniting the martial spirit by looking big and strong, others do it for increased confidence and some do it so that they can develop a 'rep'. Many are also doing it to attract female attraction. If you do martial arts, which u need to do to be able to fight, then weight training/strength training should supplement it and not over take it. Strength is very important when you are grappling. However, mechanical strength, ie how much you lift in the gym does not necessarily translate that well in a fight. True strength is 'grappling strength'. This means more dominance on your pull groups, ie biceps and back and your grip strength. You are constantly pulling and squeezing isometrically when you grapple, alot more than you think. You actually dont push very much in grappling. Have you ever noticed how strong guys are who do manual work? Guys who lift heavy objects all day long? They often dont look that strong but you can feel that wiry strength when they grab a hold of you, their grip is solid. These guys feel alot stronger than guys who do bodybuilding five times a week with huge biceps and chests. Grappling strength is very similar to this, it is a kind of hidden strength, developed from doing the activity. Judo practioners and wrestlers are very strong because they wrestle all day long. The other area that strength is required is in the context of explosiveness to throw powerful kicks, punches and explosive hips and legs if you wrestle so that you have powerful takedowns. On top of that you need anaerobic conditioning and increased lactate tolerance in your muscles. Many of these attributes can be developed simply by attending the martial arts classes and training regularly. However, this can certainly be supplemented by twice a week in the weights room. The best resource that I have come across and used regarding developing the strength and conditioning for a fighter is Eric Wongs stuff online: http://ericwongmma.com/

Well you are correct in pointing out that I have an extensive background in martial arts. However, I dont have a background in Filipino martial arts. My comments about Niddar's martial arts come from Master Richard Hudson http://www.kick-fit.co.uk/about_us.htm, whom I showed Niddar's training clips from his website several years ago and those where his opinions. Given his extensive experience in Escrima, I was more inclined to believe him over Niddar's dodgey claims that he is reviving old Sikh martial arts without any kind of reference, especially when coupled with his stance on Sanatan Sikhism, it is clear that he has appeared on the scene with a certain agenda that actually has little to do with martial arts in the first place, and more to do with spreading his cultish religious views, using martial arts to lure people in . There is no evidence to suggest the existence of Shastar vidya apart from Niddar's own claims. His references to old Sikh texts such as Suraj Prakash and Panth Parkash and even to old Hindu texts are loose to say the least. Niddar has used his own creative mind, together with some knowledge from old Hindu texts and his extensive experience in Escrima, silat and Kung Fu to piece together his own martial art and call it shastar vidya. My relatives used to be his next door neighbours when he was a mona living in wolverhampton and in those days he was openly training in those martial arts as a young man in his garage and garden. Now just because some non-Sikh martial artists have chosen to respect SV does not give it credibility. There are others whose views I have also heard who do not respect or recognise it, so where does that leave you? Some martial artists may have just acknowledged it out of humility and respect for another martial art and without giving it much thought or analysis. Others may have acknowledged it simply because the training methods are similar to their own, hence giving themselves a level of validity. I heard Krishna Godhiana really liked it. Is that because hes a Hindu and is sympathetic to Niddar's sanatan beliefs and/or is it because the techniques are similar to his own? Regarding your points about footwork, I noticed that Niddar actually DID use triangular footwork when he was demonstrating his pentras. Curiously though, he has withdrawn his technique videos from his website without explanation, so I cannot send you the link for it. If you can provide evidence of the existence of shastar vidya to back up Niddar's claims, and not the loosely related nonsense that is on his website, I would be quite happy to swallow and back down on this issue

this is very dangerous for sikhs and must be challenged

Regarding superheroes, sure we should look up to them and recognise their achievements but I personally dont like to go as far as idolising them and saying that they are something that they were not. I'm sure that they themselves, if they are watching from up above wouldnt want to be idolised either. The debate regarding western v eastern martial arts is a long raging debate. Empirically, exponents of both have been successful in warfare. The term Shastar vidya simply means learning how to use weapons. Whether there was a martial art called by this name that actually existed is extremely doubtful. There is no reference or evidence of its existence. Therefore the idea that it was banned by the British and replaced by fencing just appears to be another manipulative myth created by Niddar Singh. Unless you can provide evidence or reference for its existence, then it would be safe to assume that you only hold your belief in this because of what Niddar Singh has said from his mouth. On the flipside, I can give you lots of evidence of the existence of European fencing in the 19th Century, along with military manuals dating from the Middle Ages which show the techniques of European hand to hand combat, which were successfully used in duelling and on the battlefield. The Europeans did after all take over 80% of the known world, so they probably knew what they were talking about when it came to fighting. Here are a couple of manuals for you to have a look at: http://www.thehaca.com/pdf/ColdSteel.pdf http://www.thehaca.com/pdf/OldSwordPlay.pdf Niddar Singh has deliberately tried to make a distinction between Shastar vidya and gatka. However, the rest of the world, including Nihang Dals, use the words interchangably and do not see the two as two separate things. There is no record of it whatsoever, and it has not been preserved anywhere else. Curiously though, Niddar's martial arts look rather suspiciously like the Escrima and Kali techinques that he used to learn in Wolverhampton before he grew his hair and appeared on the scene as the only existing Gurdev of a secret and ancient martial art that noone has heard of..... hmmm

Well Jarnail Singh certainly had enemies. Does Ranjit Singh Dhadrianwale?

Really good points, understanding weapons, is a must, and the knife is definitely the ultimate close quarters weapon and people underestimate what it can do. Even the smallest, skinniest, unfit person who has some knowledge of how to wield it immediately becomes pretty dangerous. Someone that studies it seriously is VERY dangerous. I would also add that learning how to wield a stick and unarmed combatives is also important, and being able to translate those skills to pick up inanimate objects for use as improvised weapons is also very important. There are not many situations in the UK that would justify the use of lethal force, or perceived lethal force by brandishing a bladed weapon, so non-lethal options have to be learnt as well and priority given to them in a Western World context. Non-lethal options would mean having good empty hand skills and using improvised blunt weapons.

Keep following your fantasy about Nihang/Akalis being some kind of super hero fighters. They were a disorganised wild hoard. Brave and full of guts and desire to die fighting. An effective fighting force? Maybe against other wild hoards such as Afghans. Maybe some of them were good one to one and could handle themselves in a duel. Against a disciplined force like the British army? They got smashed, both at a distance a disciplined force emptied volley after volley of musket fire into them and also in hand to hand combat where the 'very basic' skills of the British soldiers' bayonet thrusts, team tactics and superior organisation smashed straight through them. If you dont believe me, read the history books. Wake up from your fantasy and dream. Niddar Singh's martial arts are philipino in origin and with silly Indian names added on to make them sound authentic. Regarding fencing, fencing was the primary martial art used by the British and European armies during the 18th and 19th centuries when it came to sword play. Fencing also influenced the development of boxing, stick, bayonet and knife fighting. It was turned into a competition sport with rules because like many proponents of 'hardcore dangerous battle field arts' such as so-called 'Shastar vidya', these martial arts were too dangerous to train competitively and hence, pretty much pointless, as there is very little scope to practice the techinques against a resisting opponent. Hence, modern sport fencing was born. Also the emphasis on fast evasive footwork and the use of the point/thrust as the main weapon made it one of the most efficient martial arts for learning how to fight with a sword, compared to the swinging cutting attacks common in Indian and other Asian martial arts, the use of the thrust and point is more efficient as a movment and more likely to result in immediate incapacitation or dead. It is not a melee (thick of combat as on the battle field) martial art. For the melee, very simple and basic movements are all that are required, backed up with solid team strategy, organisation and lots of aggression. However, for duelling, fencing was second to none. Many of your Nihang idols were cut down in battle by British soldiers in hand to hand combat who had learnt nothing more than the extremely funny joke that is fencing.

Lynn Thompson, head of cold steel swords, on why the sword is one of the best weapons you can keep for self defence: Part one. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aj41zHWth0s&feature=related Part two. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AA9zMvRT_-0&feature=related

Going back in time for this one to 2007 during large scale clashes between Sikh and Dera Sacha Sauda: http://ibnlive.in.com/videos/40912/akalidera-fight-makes-kirpan-dearer.html

lol. Well if you are glad then I am super glad :cool2:

I agree with this point. If the Khalsa Panth became better at spreading Sikhi, there would be more 'true' Sikhs. If there were more 'true' Sikhs in the electorate, they would be more inclined to vote for a leader with Sikhi values that permeated through into political office and promoted policies that were backed up by Sikhi principles. However, since the current Sikh population itself is way off the mark in terms of personal practice of Sikhi and given the multicultural/multifaith electorate in Punjab, this would be very difficult in the current climate. In order for a spiritual Sikh to become a leader, more spiritual Sikhs must be created full stop, ie more parchar.

It is pretty disgusting to me that people are suggesting that the Kara is a weapon and it is ok to use it in fights. This is purely a myth created by the con-man Niddar Singh, which some members of our youth have selectively accepted, whilst dismissing everything else that Niddar Singh preaches. The Kara is 'hath karri' or a handcuff that attaches us to waheguru and reminds us of our duties and to prevent us from engaging in immoral or unrighteous acts. Now I will say that if the circumstances are serious, then the Kara may be used as an IMPROVISED weapon if you can justify that level of force. By improvised I mean, that you would use the Kara in the same way that you might use a pen, keys, chair or half a broken brick. However you would have to justify using that level of force. Frankly, most of these huge Kareh that young Singhs are wearing nowadays will put you in a coma and require plastic surgery to repair the kind of injuries that these things will cause. If you hit someone over the head with something like that and get caught... you WILL be getting done under GBH and getting locked up for a while. Also, the problem is that if too many Singhs start using the Kara in fights, it will basically get banned.... and then everyone will be crying! So try to use alternative things please. The kind of circumstance where it may be justified to use a kara in self defence could be if their is a big disparity in force, ie if you are outnumbered, facing an armed opponent, you are disabled or you are much younger or weaker than your attacker. In those circumstances, yes, you could use a Karra, as an improvised weapon, but beware of what you are getting yourself into; I have seen someones ear virtually hanging off their head where someone hit them with a Kara. Incidentally, the best improvised weapon ever is a snooker ball in a sock or anything heavy wrapped in material or something loose and elastic. Something similar you can do with a Kara is to loop it around a belt and swing it around. That is by far one of the most baddest and lethal things that I have ever seen on the street and I probably should not be telling you this :biggrin2:

The reason why Spiritual Sikhs do not get into politics or get into leadership roles is because usually most of them either lack the desire or they lack the skills for a career in politics. Modern Day politics requires a person to be able to make lots of compromises, diplomacy, public speaking, management, decision making, marketing.... these are just to name a few. Especially in a country like India where politics by its very nature is dirty, people of a spiritual disposition are less likely to get involved. They are aware that if they get into the politicical game, they will have to play the game in order to get anywhere. However, for most spiritual people, their jeevan or their path to God is the most important thing and their conscience will not will not allow them to make the compromises required for that career path. Because of the democratic system, anyone who wants to become a leader and make a positive change will need to compete with the other people who want to do exactly the same thing. So first of all, they will need to become more powerful and influential than their competitors. The only way that they will gain power is by gaining votes.. and the only way they will gain votes is by selling themselves to the public and by making compromises. Hence, to be a politican or a leader, you cant just be yourself. You have to be whatever you think the majority of the public wants you to be and give them what they want. The other issue is that most spiritual people are aware of the mistrust that many members of the public have of religious people getting into politics. If a parcharik enters politics, their reputation will become immediately tarnished by that. For example, when the likes of Dhumma contested the SGPC election, Ranjjit Singh Dhadrianwale wisely stepped out and didnt allow himself or his reputation be soiled by getting involved. Spiritual Sikhs have the right credentials and values to be leaders... their jeevan, transparency, Sikhi values etc, however, in practice, it is very hard for them to completely cross over into a field that does not respect those same values.

Regarding this article, what would be the basis for saying that he is inciting racial/religious hatred? To me, the only objectionable thing in the article was the fact that he doesnt acknowledge the role of Indian Government conspiracy in the Air India disaster. Other than that, it just sounded like a case for Canadian Hindus to stand up for their rights a bit more? No?

Looks awesome, cant wait to see it. Congratulations to Badal Sarkar..... oops lol

I never asked for your help at any point during the discussion. However, you assumed, rather patronisingly, because my views were different to yours, that I need your help lol. The Shabad you posted is beautiful, and in my mind highlights the supremacy of Waheguru over all things. However, I cannot infer that Miri and Piri are the same thing from this particular shabad as you have stated. By doing so you are forming an extrapolation that does not exist. My understanding of Miri and Piri is that these two entities must co-exist side by side, ie neither should be neglected. Like I said, we were trying to do two different things. I was trying to learn lessons from history, whilst you were trying to preach your Sikhi beliefs to me. No hard feelings. vjkk vjkf

I come from a secular view point when I am talking about a secular topic. I will come from a Gurmat standpoint when discussing a Gurmat related topic. However, politics and leadership are secular topics. I understand that Miri and Piri are connected. However, they are not the one and same thing. This is the reason why you are so confused. The Gurus Sahibs did not state that the two are the one and same thing or interlinked. They stated that these two separate entities must co-exist side by side. This is what Miri and Piri means. Again you are confused, because you fail to understand Miri and Piri, first as separate entities. Only if you recognise them separately, can you begin to understand how the two must co-exist side by side. You have convinced yourself that you are following the true one and only Gurmat. Again, like other fundamentalist people, you think that only you know everything about Sikhi and that your interpretations are the correct ones, and everyone else is wrong. You are annoyed that you cant convince me of your beliefs, so you have resorted to stating that I dont know very much about Sikhi etc. My criteria for objectivity in this example, like I have stated many times, is the ability to step out of your own shoes as a Sikh and attempt to view Sikh history from a neutral standpoint and weigh up the good and bad point of an event or a certain individual, to enhance our learning and to aid problem solving. I do not accept your definition of objectivity, which you have somehow labelled a Gurmat definition of objectivity. You are too focused on trying to prove what you regard to be my secular opinion as wrong. You are heavily focussed, as many preachers are, to prove me wrong and 'convert' me into your belief system. I, on the other hand, am trying to take an objective view and weigh up the good and points of an individual or an event to enhance my understanding and to aid problem solving. I am not here to try and prove you wrong. I am trying to do something completely different, and you have not really grasped that yet. In addition, like a true pindu preacher, you are attempting to scare me and convince me that if I do not change my views, that I will be going against Guru Sahib and presumably.... what? burn in hell? get beaten by jamdhooths? or maybe come back in my next janam as a spastic?

Any person can be false, regardless of how esteemed and well regarded a scholar they are. I have no doubts about the fallibility of humans. You are correct about quoting enemies. Usually, if an enemy says something good/nice about you, there is probably some truth in it because they have no real motive to be nice to you or nice about you. Obviously there may be exceptions to the rule as well. I agree that some of the Persian and Mughal sources show alot of respect for the Sikhs.... so do many of the British sources after the Anglo-Sikh wars. However, both of these communities have also written negative things about us. Does that mean that we should disregard the negative things they have written? Not necessarily. Of course they will have all kinds of motives for writing bad things about us, so they will be heavily biased. However, as a wise man said, ' If you ever want to hear the truth about yourself, ask the opinion of someone who is your enemy'. Your enemy is less likely to suck up to you and keep telling you nice things about you. They are more likely to find something bad about you and insult you about it, in order to hurt your feelings. More importantly though, is the ability to reflect on oneself. Actually we shouldnt need other people to give us positive or negative feedback in order to learn from it. We should actually be able to look deep inside ourselves and also have a deep long look at our own community and our history and be able to point out both the positive and the negative. If we cannot do this. We will never learn.

It is better to speak about the topic at hand to be honest, relating to leadership and the Akal Takhat etc. We can read up and educate ourselves on Sikh history in our own time, so posting more information is not really necessary, thanks. You still havent really explained why my posts are materialistic... I can see why an someone may think that I am a realist, secularist or even a scholar (lol), but there is nothing I have said that relates to materialism. I think you will struggle to find a connection between my posts and materialism, assuming you completely understand what the word means. I will attempt to explain to you why I believe you have what I referred to as 'comic book 'and 'over glorified' views. You are correct, that my views are modern. Throughout history, the purpose of history and historians has changed. In the olden days, most historians were heavily biased in favour of their own community in order to make their community seem bigger, better, braver and more successful than what they really are. This is called over-glorification. However, in modern times, the emphasis has now changed. Historians are not interested in one sided, biased history that only shows the good sides to a community and completely ignores the bad. Most historians today try to approach a subject as a neutral observer and weigh up both the good and the bad. They will still quote their own community. However, they will also quote their enemies and other neutral parties in order to get a balanced view of history. You see the danger with what people such as yourself do, is that you only look at the good and positive attributes of our community. However, in order to make improvements in our own lives and to allow our kaum to progress, we must also focus on the negatives. We should be honest with ourselves and honest with our history. If we cant find anything wrong with ourselves and/or our history, then we are really not looking hard enough. The greatest learnings take place when we acknowledge the negatives, learn from them and attempt to improve this for the future, so that repeated mistakes are not made. Hope this helps.

Leadership is a subject that has been studied throughout history. It is nothing new. Sikhs are not the only people to have leaders after all. Great leaders like Alexander the Great, Napoleon, Duke of Wellington, Julius Caeser etc, alot of these great leaders from around the world have been studied. They had certain characteristics that made them great leaders and have a huge following. However, it is not just political leaders. Religious leaders have also been studied. And Sikhs are not unique in that we are not the only kaum to have had religious leaders. Jesus Christ, Joan of Arc, Muhammed, Peter, the Apostles... there have been so many. They have also been studied. They also have some common factors that have enabled them to be successful as leaders. One of these important factors is the environment/context in which they emerged. This cannot be ignored. Gursikhs and scholars do not agree with each other because Gursikhs are practitioners of Sikhi and say that Sikhi, spirituality and jeevan cannot be understand by the objective observances of a scholar. I am in total agreement with this. However, politics and leadership can be studied and commented upon by scholars and I believe that they should be listened to when discussing worldly subjects, after all that is their forte.