Jump to content

californiasardar1

Members
  • Content Count

    308
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

135 Excellent

2 Followers

About californiasardar1

  • Rank
    Aisay Gur Ko Bal Bal Jaaeeai

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I will wait for someone to inevitably come into this thread and defend monay who cut their hair despite no threat whatsoever to their livelihood.
  2. Yes, because "our ancestors" did not suffer from a much lower life expectancy than we do today (that was a sarcastic comment)
  3. My father told me that the vast majority of government jobs in the enlarged Punjab (before it was divided into present-day Punjab, Haryana and HP) were held by people who were from what is present-day Punjab. In other words, people from what is present-day Punjab benefited disproportionately from the existence of the enlarged Punjab. Similarly, people from present-day Haryana benefited disproportionately from the division of Punjab. It is worth considering whether the division of Punjab into present-day Punjab, Haryana and HP benefited or hurt Sikhs: Were Sikhs better off as a majority in a smaller state with Punjabi as the official language? Or would Sikhs have been better off as a large minority in a larger state? Would Sikhs have benefited from being the "king-makers" in all state elections (the way Hindus do in present-day Punjab) more than they benefit from being a divided majority in present-day Punjab? Would Sikhs have disproportionately benefited from being part of a larger state with more resources and more influence? Would Sikhs have gradually settled in larger numbers in what is now Haryana expanded the region where Sikhs have influence and power (similar to what happened with Sikh settlements in the "canal colonies" of West Punjab in the early 1900s)? Would it have been more difficult for the central government to isolate and "punish" Sikhs if they were part of a larger Hindu-majority state?
  4. No, there is something to correct. You wrote "much of Malwa" when you should have written "all of Malwa." Writing "much of Malwa was not under Ranjit Singh's empire" implies that there was some part of Malwa that WAS part of Ranjit Singh's empire, which is not true.
  5. What good does memorizing Dasam Bani do if you flagrantly break rehat all day every day? Gurbani is useful if we act on it and ensure that it guides the way that we live our life.
  6. Okay, then you should have actually written that she got Ranjit Singh to bring a majority of the misls under one banner. Why word things inaccurately when it is possible to be precise and accurate? Also, you wrote "much of Malwa was not under Ranjit Singh's empire" and then write "Everything on the South of the Sutlej was not under the Sikh empire." ALL of Malwa is south of the Sutlej, so that is another inaccuracy that you should correct.
  7. Punjab was never unified. Most of what is now the current state of Punjab in India was not part of Ranjit Singh's empire. Probably half of the Sikh population of the time lived outside of the borders of Ranjit Singh's empire.
  8. Impressive that he managed to memorize it in between stumbling around his palace drunk and fornicating with random concubines When will people stop worshiping a manmukh who, in the final analysis, probably did more to harm sikhi than to help it?
  9. You could easily google why he was killed. Anyway, my father has argued to me that Kairon was overall good for Punjab and had a forward-looking vision of a "maha-Punjab" that was far better than what the Akalis wanted and ended up getting (a tiny, severely truncated Punjab that was thus very easy to marginalize).
  10. Why are these kinds of things always happening in the UK, which has such a large Sikh presence?
  11. For every jatt "kharku" there were dozens of jatts helping the brahmin-controlled state hunt down the "karkus" Face it. At best, there is nothing that makes jatts stand out in the positive ways that you want to pretend they do. At worst, jatts have done more damage to Sikhi than any group of people. I'm a jatt myself, but I can't deny the fact that 99% of jatts are clowns who have made a complete mockery out of Sikhi and who do not possess any of the characteristics (anakh, honesty, trustworthyness, bravery etc.) that they like to beat their chests and pretend they do.
  12. Jatts did a really good job submitting to Brahmins from the 1980s up to and including the present day
  13. Yet you neglected to mention misls that weren't led by jatts (Ahluwalia, Ramgarhia, some also say that the Shukerchakia chieftains were not jatt) You also neglected to name the traitorous Phulkian "misl" that was led by jatts. They can now stake claim to multiple centuries worth of traitorous behavior. The least you could do is not forget them.
  14. I agree that this is great, and I also find it very surprising. I never would have expected to see western born Sikhs from nonreligious families move towards Sikhi. Here is something that I don't understand, and maybe you can help shed some light on this since you are from the UK: When a young man from a mona family grows his kesh out and becomes a singh, why does the father (and sometimes even the grandfather) remain mona? Is it a lack of sharam? Or maybe it is fear of embarrassment since they would have to admit, as middle-aged or elderly men, that they don't know how to tie a paghri? It is one of the most puzzling things that I have seen. A family with a young singh with a beautiful, full dhari and dastar ... and a clean-shaven bald man with a visible double-chin who is apparently his father. I find it so baffling that the father in such a situation is not shamed into keeping his kesh.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use