californiasardar1

8 minutes ago, dallysingh101 said:

You do know there are independent accounts from the late 1700s that refer to Khulasa Sikhs (as differentiated from Khalsa Sikhs) that directly correspond to what we'd call sehajdharis today. Nooneis under any illusions that the panj hathiar armed Khalsa form is central to Sikh identity and that dasmesh pita elevated Khalsas, but to ignore historical evidence isn't good. Kaura Mal is a well known historical sehajdhari for instance. 

Plus I think a lot of people would take what Bhai Jagraj Singh says with some seriousness. This is not someone who didn't undertake serious study and practice of Sikhi. 

Did "Khulasa Sikhs" refer to khalsa Sikhs who got haircuts?

17 hours ago, dallysingh101 said:

@californiasardar1

What do you think of this?

 

 

The term "sehajdhari Sikh" was meant to refer to someone from a Hindu background who was in the process of transitioning to becoming a fully practicing Sikh. It is not meant to refer to monay born into keshdhari Sikh families (or families that have keshdhari Sikh ancestry).

The whole notion of a "sehajdhari" is someone who is a slow adopter but is in the process of adopting Sikhi. The term "sehajdhari Sikh" has been misinterpreted to suggest that just remaining a "sehajdhari" is some sort of legitimate form of being a Sikh. And as I said, it has been misinterpreted as referring to what we refer to as "monay."

How silly is it that those twitter guys expend so much effort defending anti-Sikh behavior. Yet, they are incapable of doing something to move closer to Sikhi that literally requires NO EFFORT.

6 hours ago, proactive said:

Punjab would be a very different place if Maharaja Ranjit Singh had the same strategy as the Spanish monarchs Ferdinand and Isabella had in Spain in 1492. They expelled the Muslims from Spain and only allowed those to stay who were prepared to convert to Catholicism. When some of these converts rebelled over the next century, the Spanish expelled them as well. Estimates of the number expelled are about 3 million out of a total population of 8 million, the majority of these were native Spanish speaking Muslims and not all were descendants of the Muslims invaders from north Africa.  So nearly 40% of the population expelled and what was the result, the Spanish golden age in which Spain managed to build up an empire across the oceans and create 'New Spains' all over the world. Can you imagine what Spain would have been like if they had kept all the Muslims in their country?  Just look at Bosnia and Kosovo. 

Expelling 38% of the population is possible. Expelling 80+%? I don't know.

8 hours ago, ChardikalaUK said:

Today we would be around 10% of the population of that Empire, I highly doubt we would still be in charge to this day if we didn't lose to the British. Also a lot of modern day East Punjab wasn't even in Ranjit Singh's empire for example Ludhiana, Patiala. At the end of the day we had an empire that lasted a mere 50 years. The suls ruled over a lot of India for several hundred years, the British were in India for 250 years and in Punjab for 100 years, so even the Brits ruled Punjab for double the time we did. It's sad but true.

And for most of those 50 years, the "empire" covered a relatively small area. Much of the empire was only under Ranjit Singh (and his successors') control for 10-20 years.

And as you mentioned, most of modern day Indian Punjab was not part of the empire. Probably half of the Sikh population of the time lived outside of the empire. Calling it the "Sikh Empire" is very misleading.

3 hours ago, ChardikalaUK said:

Foo doo logic - someone who does X is automatically a better and more trustworthy person than someone who doesn't. 

I have never said anything like that. On the contrary, look at my post saying I'd rather vote for Bhagwant Mann than the Badals.

What I am saying, to make it crystal clear for you, is:

Person A doing thing X is a better situation than person A not doing thing X

On 3/28/2022 at 4:17 AM, BhForce said:

I completely agree that not cutting hair needs to be encouraged among Sikhs, but what is your plan to do so?

There is no plan that can made to address this.

We have reached the point of no return.

With respect to politics and why panthic politicians never get elected, people overlook the divisions with the Sikh community.

First of all, less than 60% of the population of Punjab is Sikh. That alone makes it extremely difficult to elect any politician who will be portrayed as putting Sikh issues first.

Then you have to understand that most of the "Sikh" politicians prioritize issues that matter to jatts. And even if one argues that they don't prioritize those issues that much, non-jatt Sikhs have the perception that "panthic" politicians put jatt issues first. I blame jatts for their tribalism and for being jerks to Sikhs from other groups.

On 3/27/2022 at 7:57 AM, BhForce said:

Bro, I'd like to ask you to have a bit more compassion for us. (Yeah, "us" regardless of whether you're in Punjab, Canada, or Malaysia. It's all "us").

The reason is: what kind of fair election can you have when you don't have the right to full free expression? If you say what you'd really like to do when elected, they won't let you enter your election papers. 

Or you can't say what you want in the media.

So it's rigged in that sense from the beginning. What outcome do you think there'd be?

I see where you are coming from.

But what I witnessed when I went to India (pathological dishonesty, materialism, corruption, casteism, etc.) makes it difficult for me to sympathize much with them. These people were handed a religion to free them from so much of what plagues them, and they squandered that good fortune.

How can it make any sense that the "Sikh" community has huge problems with alcohol, drug use, female infanticide, huge spending on lavish weddings that leave families financially crippled, and caste-based discrimination? It is disgraceful.

On 3/27/2022 at 1:30 PM, proactive said:

One thing that I have noticed on this forum is that there are some people who use the forum to grind their personal axes, these being mainly Daily, MisterSingh and CaliforniaSardar who based on what personal experiences they have had determines what they think of Punjab and Punjabis (Jats in Daily's case and Sikh women in general in CS,s case). The person who wrote this rant has some very serious personal issues and these are best resolved by him outside of the forum. From what I gather from previous posts, it was freshies flexing at his Gurdwara and then I think land issues in Punjab. Using these experiences to post drivel like Punjab is finished shows that there is no even an iota of sympathy for his own people in this person especially, even Daily at least gives some constructive solutions but people like MisterSingh are here to spread their negativity and any of our enemies who reads these types of posts will think that Sikhs have already given up. 

This guy is the very opposite of Chardi Kala. 

I am kind of offended that you suggested that I only have issues with Sikh women.

I dislike all monay, men or women (and some non-monay).

On 3/27/2022 at 6:34 PM, Redoptics said:

From what I am aware,  you can be Sikh without having the 5 ks, the 5 ks are for the Khalsa panth, taken amrit. Do you know if the guy has taken amrit?

That's great news!

Now I know that if you aren't an amritdhari Sikh, following rehit is not important in Sikhi. Thank you for clarifying!

I can't wait to book the first flight to Amsterdam!

On 3/28/2022 at 4:17 AM, BhForce said:

Bro, I agree it would be great to have an observant Sikh leader of our political unit. But our political unit is not Sarkar-e-Khalsa (the Sikh Raj). It is a province in the Hindu dominated "Republic of India".

For a while we had incompetent, sell-out keshadhari "Sikhs" as CMs because that's all the system would allow. Any non-sellout would be dismissed and President's Rule imposed.

In addition, there wasn't a choice between a reform candidate with cut beard and a reform candidate with a 2 ft beard and kirpan. The others were just the same rishvatkhor (bribe-takers) that we've seen over the past 50 years.

I completely agree that not cutting hair needs to be encouraged among Sikhs, but what is your plan to do so?

I understand what the choices were and why people voted for Bhagwant Mann. I would have voted for him before I voted for the Badals, despite the Badals being keshdhari.

But this thread isn't about the choice people made given who was on the ballot. This is about the fact that a mona CM was even possible, and what that says about the Sikh community.

20-30 years ago, Bhagwant Mann would have had to become a proper Singh if he dreamed of becoming CM. There would not have even been a legitimate mona or "trim singh" candidate. Everyone would known that only a "proper singh" would be taken seriously and accepted as the CM by the Sikh community. So EVERY CM candidate, ranging from sincere and panthic-minded to corrupt and dishonest, would have been a singh.

As I said, it symbolizes the erosion of basic standards in the Sikh community.

On 3/28/2022 at 5:51 AM, BhForce said:

I keep trying to get the mona-haters (like @californiasardar1) to give monas a little leeway. But also, it's incumbent on monas to not hate on rehitdhari Sikhs.

If you can't keep rehit right now, whatever, Guru Sahib kirpa karnge. But don't denounce those who do.

Monay are more disrespectful towards Singhs than any group of people on the planet ... with the exception of monis.

Just now, dallysingh101 said:

Being a slob with money can also attract the wrong type of women. They might come to you for the money, but they'll go to someone else for the 'honey'. lol

Yeah, that's why the term "6-6-6" was coined.

I will leave it to you to figure out what each "6" stands for.

On 3/28/2022 at 8:28 AM, Ranjeet01 said:

I spoke of the reasons are length before.

Women always marry up and across, they will only marry down if the guy has potential.

The advent of social media has given a lot of women an ego boost so makes them more unrealistic. 

Most women find most men unattractive.

In a country where obesity is a thing, getting in shape already puts you in the top 10 per cent.

 

Being in shape alone can't put you in the top 10%.

It can help maybe in the context of obtaining short-term flings, but not marriage. Looks are not enough, women also want financial stability (preferably a lot more than stability).

On 3/28/2022 at 10:43 AM, BhForce said:

If you look here: https://dqydj.com/income-by-sex/

you'll see that 85% of men earn less than $125000. 90% earn less than $150,000.

So right off the bat, these women are excluding 9 out of 10 men.

Out of that remaining 15% (or 10%), you have to exclude the already married, the ones who aren't 6 feet tall (average height in the US is 5'9"), aren't handsome, are too old or too young.

No wonder these women are single!

Yeah, the vast majority of men who are earning higher-end salaries are married and/or old

On 10/29/2018 at 9:45 PM, namespace said:

Why do in old punjabi photos these people are dark and so unfed.  We see so many depictions of history where the people were big, light, and strong like today.  Times must have been so harsh back then and I doubt I would survive. 

I know my statement is a bit ignorant but it is how I feel when seeing the photos!

They were dark from sun tans probably. Punjabis are still tiny today, so that part hasn't changed.

1 hour ago, proactive said:

I agree that Bhagat Singh is propped up the Indian media but you second point I cannot disagree with more, I have never met a mona who justified him being a mona on Bhagat Singh! 

 

I

Are you serious?

Virtually every mona I have encountered (in real life or online) who attempts to justify being mona will say something like "so-and-so was mona and was a shaheed and KP Gill kept his kesh, so kesh is meaningless" They sometimes cite Bhagat Singh, sometimes other "shaheeds."

Anyway, it's really not difficult to understand why monay prop him up: people want heroes who are like them.

1 minute ago, proactive said:

You do know that the horror stories are what get the tongues wagging and hence the perception that these horror stories are the norm. 

Okay.

1 hour ago, Jai Tegang! said:

If local is difficult, what's preventing you from marrying a girl from Punjab? 

Let's pretend I was still interested in getting married. There are lots of horror stories about marriages involving an NRI and Punjabi.  I am sure you know of them, so I won't rehash them here.

1 hour ago, dallysingh101 said:

What would happen if you did randomly run into one? 

 

It's not about being 'tough guys'. If you understood the world around you, you wouldn't be talking like this.  

I don't know what would happen if I ran into one. Most likely nothing since I don't care at this point.