californiasardar1

Sorry, I'm going to need more than this. Everybody was saying for years that it was "no secret" that Deepa was a mona, but more details reveal otherwise. What about the old photo I posted of Jinda?

I know you didn't bring up Deepa, but I am going to share some photos because monay love circulating haircut or trimmed-beard photos of him online (probably so they can justify cutting their hair)

Where is your evidence that Sukha and Jinda were monay before the freedom struggle? Here is the youngest photo of Jinda that I have seen floating around: Notice the curls on the side of his beard (indicative of it not being trimmed). You bringing up hindi speaking, pro-indian, bhappay is irrelevant to me. Being keshdhari alone obviously doesn't mean anything (see KP Gill, etc.). If you are keshdhari, maybe you are pro-sikh, maybe you are anti-sikh. But if you are NOT keshdhari, my opinion is actually irrelevant because you yourself, through your actions, have declared what you think about sikhi.

What do bhappay have to do with this? Why are you bringing up bhappay when they were a tiny minority of singhs during the 1980s? Most singhs in the 1980s (khalistani, non-khalistani, any other category) were from a rural background. And please cut out the revisionist nonsense. Note that: 1. There were a few monay in the khalistan movement, but the VAST, VAST majority were pendu singhs. 2. Most monay who were in the khalistan movement were in fact originally singhs who became monay in order to go undercover and evade capture (jinda, sukha, deepa, etc.). Only a tiny percentage of khalistani monay of the 80s were actually monay before becoming involved in the movement. There is a big difference between becoming a mona to go undercover, and being someone who is just a mona for no good reason.

That is a good point

It's sad that this narrative has emerged, whatever really happened. On the other hand, it looks like this "Jassi" guy is a mona, so that makes me care much less.

A Sehajdhari Sikh is someone who is not born into a Sikh family and is slowly moving to adopt Sikhi Someone born into a Sikh family who has a haircut is a patit (or, in my world view, a Hindu)

Who cares about this Hindu guy.

You people are morons.

Just do the math. Sikhi will never completely die, but it will be pushed to the margins and cease to be anything more than a tiny fringe group if people don't do anything to reverse the decline in our numbers. And numbers matter. 1947 showed that numbers matter. 1984 showed that numbers matter. The struggle that Sikhs face today to be allowed to wear their paghs in countries where Sikhs are a tiny minority shows that numbers matter. Maybe one day if you have children and try to raise them as Sikhs, you will understand the importance of having a sizeable Sikh community.

It's been a long time since I came out because these message boards are dead. There is very little activity. Anyway, if you insist on people following such minimal requirements, the Sikh societies will dwindle down to like 2-3 people and will then cease to exist for a lack of people.

What is the point of this thread? 99.9% of "Sikh" girls have haircuts. What do you expect they are going to dress like? If you demand that "Sikh" girls who are active in Sikh societies dress like your grandmother, then each Sikh society will dwindle down to a small group of singhs (maybe one or two token kaurs). It will be a lot like this message board: very few people on here, very little activity, 90% or more male

Why are you posting monay with white wives?

This is false. Deepa was a Singh when he joined the movement. He cut his kesh a few years later once his notoriety had grown in order to avoid arrest. I don't condone cutting kesh under any circumstances, and I think Jinda, Sukha and Deepa were wrong to do so (having said that, I still respect them and their contributions ... they are quami shaheeds) On the other hand, I strongly dislike monay rewriting history and pretending that a substantial percentage of kharkoos came from their ranks. So the record should be set straight. Most "mona" kharkoos were originally singhs disguising themselves to avoid capture. They were not people who were normally monay and they did not come from the mona community.

Great post. This also provides a good explanation for why "Sikh" girls are only interested in guys with haircuts.

You guys have brought up some valid points, but are ignoring the elephant in the room: Singhs have an extremely difficult time getting married In fact, it is so difficult, that many just give up

Why did you take my words out of context? I said: "At the end of the day, you have a haircut, so whatever you think or say is meaningless. Through your actions you have renounced the Sikh religion." This means, his actions show what he thinks and what really matters to him. It doesn't matter if I say something nice or say something that's not nice. It doesn't matter what you think or what I think or what he thinks. EVERY TIME he shaves, EVERY TIME he gets a haircut, he is renouncing his faith in Sikhi He has made it clear where he stands by his actions.

This is one of the stupidest posts that I have seen on here. Sikhi is not restricted to one ethnic group. The privilege that you think you are entitled to, just because 150 years ago or whatever someone in your family was amritdhari, is disgusting. At the end of the day, you have a haircut, so whatever you think or say is meaningless. Through your actions you have renounced the Sikh religion. You can identify as whatever you want, but at the the end of the day, you are just another stupid Punjabi jatt (who makes me embarrassed to be jatt)

Territory being "given" to a maharaja of a princely state and territory being "given" to India or Pakistan at the time of partition were two entirely different things. The arrangements that the British had with the princely states occurred long before 1947 (ranging from several decades to hundreds of years). Kashmir had Hindu rajas for 100 years or so prior to 1947. The parts of the British Raj that were awarded to India or Pakistan based on demographics were the parts directly controlled by the British (i.e. not the princely states). The British directly controlled most of Punjab (exceptions were princely states under indirect British rule, such as Patiala, Nabha, Jind, Faridkot, etc.)

Why are the posts that I've been making not being shown? Are the moderators worried that that is too much activity on these forums? That we might start exceeding the standard of 3 new posts per week?

You're talking about the doaba region. What did you expect to see? Someone actually wearing a pagh?

Good post. The narrative among most Sikhs (who like to only see themselves as victims) is that we were somehow deprived in 1947 of a Sikh majority country (or, at the very least, separated from lots of land in West Punjab that should have gone to India instead of Pakistan). They always ignore the cold hard demographic truths. We were lucky to get as much of Punjab on the Indian side of the border as we did,

Sorry, but this post makes no sense. I am guessing you are from the UK, so you don't fully grasp how popular basketball is in America and in many parts of the world. One could credibly argue that Kobe was the best basketball player ever (and an unbiased observer will have to concede that he is in the conversation). Can you name any athlete of Asian descent who is one of the top ten athletes ever in one of the most popular worldwide sports?

Tarsem Singh Sandhu is not jatt? In any case, your general point still stands. Note that when Sandhu was fighting for his right to wear a path while driving a bus, it was an elderly so-called bhapa (I think his name was Jolly) who stepped up and threatened to set himself on fire in protest. This despite jatts always mocking "bhapay" for being cowardly (and various other things).

Yes, this is true. But the thread poses a question about UK paghs in general, not just paghs worn by proper singhs. Anyway, the fact that most young Singhs in the UK wear a dumalla (as opposed to a nok wali pagh like the older generation) just shows how little the older generation did to pass on Sikhi to the next generation. Many young singhs in the UK got into sikhi on their own and therefore adopted the dumalla (perhaps the style most closely associated with traditional sikhi).