Jump to content

JSinghnz

Members
  • Posts

    2,666
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    22

Posts posted by JSinghnz

  1. 11 minutes ago, chatanga1 said:

     

    posting as a guest now mr sheikyourbooty/mehtabsingh/upgutpsingh/london1699?

     

     

    Doing parchar is and was a part of Sikh teachings. Missionary activity such as the semitic faiths do is abrasive - do this or go to hell etc. Gurmat parchar is not like that.

     

    Did the Guru's end the schismatic sects of the Sodhis? From Guru Arjan Dev Ji there were 5 successor Gurus, yet the Sodhis deras are still alive. 

    Guru Sahibs couldn't take care of the rise of Dera?

    Or any other sect that split in their lifetimes?

     

    Did the sect of Bandai Khalsa not be born even in the time of Baba Deep Singh/Bhai Mani Singh?

    Is this sect not alive today with their base in Jammu?

    Baba Deep Singh/ Bhai Mani Singh etc couldn't take care of the rise of this dera?

     

    What about the dera of Baba Wadhbhag Singh?

    Did Nawab Kapur Singh Ji not help him and his dera?

    Lakhs of people go to Dera Baba Wadhbhag Singh every year even today.

     

     

    Good, otherwise we would have rats like dhunda and darshan rogi spreading their venom in delhi gurdwaras day in day out.

    What a preposterous and hare-brained question to ask.

    Guru Sahibs took care of everything.

    Only good for nothings started the deras and good for nothings still go to these deras.

     

     

     

     

  2. 2 hours ago, Amit12 said:

    Sikhism took care of itself in last 500 years ? 

    - they couldn't take care of rise of Deras

    - couldn't take care of rise of NaamDhaaris preaching that SGGS is not guru.

    - They let Badals grew

    - They couldn't take care of dhumma.

    Seriously, do you really think sikhism took care of itself in past 300 years or so ? 

     

    Good questions.

     

  3. 21 minutes ago, MisterrSingh said:

    There's a reason they (as in Prime Ministers or Presidents) stop short of an unequivocal, "I'm / We're sorry for what we did," because from a legal perspective it could be seen as an admission of wrongdoing on behalf of the country they represent, and therefore open the door to a legal challenge that might result in a hefty financial settlement running into hundreds of millions or more.

    It shows a woeful understanding of geo-politics if we're expecting an apology -- which would most likely be directed to India who doesn't really give a poo about Sikhs -- especially when there's an unspoken and implicit agreement between the two countries when trade contracts are awarded that any such untoward and thorny diplomatic issues will be avoided if smooth business, trading, and IMMIGRATION arrangements are to be upheld for the benefit of both nations.

    Britain is not Canada. Canada, with all due respect, is a weak nation that doesn't have the history or standing on the international stage that Britain had; HAD. Britain is no longer the country it use to be, although it clearly struggles to relinquish any of its old akhar as a result of being a former superpower. That doesn't mean it's going to start asking for forgiveness over historical issues, because let's be honest, if they apologise to us for Jalianwala Bagh, they'll need to start apologising for hundreds of similar acts they meted out on conquered populations throughout their history. It just isn't happening. 

    Let's get India to acknowledge what they did to us only 40 or so years ago. If we win that battle, then the sky's is the limit.

    An apology now will for something done 100 years ago will not make the pommies liable to pay anything to anyone. Canada has the moral strength to apologise and hence is a much stronger nation than England. 

  4. 3 minutes ago, kcmidlands said:

    When David Cameron visited there a few years back he stopped short of an official apology, stating it would be wrong to "reach back into history" and apologies for the wrongs of British colonialism, he called it a "deeply shameful event".

    The British government will never apologies for it nor will they say sorry for the many other atrocities commented by them during the day's of Empire, the moment they do they will be liable for it and reparations will have to be paid.

    Apologies and reparations are quite different last time I checked the dictionary.

  5. 23 minutes ago, Redoptics said:

    Would it make you feel better if they apologised? Especially coming off tge back of campaign and appeasing people rather than meaning it.

    Did our Guru's ask for apologies,  to what happened to them ? 

    I am not having a go, just asking questions,  please do not feel 

    This is just about making the pommies think they're holier than thou that they are not.

  6. 13 minutes ago, Redoptics said:

    Do you honestly think the British government would? Because there isn't a chance in hell in my own personal opinion.  They do not care or this current government do not have a clue about it.

    The Sikhs in UK can launch a campaign asking them to do so. If Canada can apologize for the Komagata Maru incident where no one was killed why can't the British government apologize for the massacre of thousands of innocents during their rule over India.

  7. 5 minutes ago, Redoptics said:

    Dealing with death of someone who is suffering from a disease ypu can accept,  dealing with a violent out of the blue horrific death is different.  

    No one is denying that. You can only deal with your  issues once you decide to do something out it.

    Also get in touch with GP urgently. They have heaps of resources  like counselling to help you.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use