- Popular Post
jashb
-
Posts
275 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
8
Content Type
Profiles
Calendar
Forums
Posts posted by jashb
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
On 6/6/2022 at 6:44 PM, Jacfsing2 said:Neither Muslims or Hindus are our friends, let them fight amongst themselves.
Exactly.
This is Guru Gobind Singh Jee's bhavikhbaani playing out. All preliminary steps for the establishment of the Sikh State.
4 -
On 6/15/2022 at 1:11 AM, ipledgeblue said:
hi everyone. so I found out what Nupur Sharma actually said.
Nupur said that Mohammed married a 6 year old girl. The muslims say this is true.the reason they are upset is because a non-muslim is saying this, and they say a non-muslim cannot say this because it is criticising the prophet!
I came here specifically to find out what exactly the hinduaani said to trigger these lot.
To find out it was the truth - you couldn't make it up!
They should just refer them back to aisha's hadeeth where she states it herself.
1 -
12 hours ago, MisterrSingh said:
You got triggered when I criticised Simranjit Singh's conciliatory post about them! How is that not supporting them? Sikhs like you tend to draw these false equivalences between our struggle with the Indian state, and Muslim agitation against the same opponents. The only valid constant in both instances is the opposition.
When we "support" Muslims in their endeavours against India it's like a boar supporting a tiger in the tiger's battle against a rhino; the tiger doesn't need or give a f**k whether he has the boar's support or not.
When Muslims "support" Sikhs in our conflicts against India, it's like the tiger nudging the boar to fight the rhino knowing the boar's going to get destroyed by the rhino BUT the boar might get a few lucky shots in, and this makes the tiger feel a little better, because he wants to see the rhino in pain. Nevertheless, it's all entertainment for the tiger, because he's a tiger, and nothing will affect him.
You underestimate the role this "tactic" played in islam's development and growth - right from its infancy, up to today.
Helped it grow from a ragtag bunch of a few of muhammed's slaves, right up to the 200 crore ijjar that it is now.
Not bad at all (when correctly employed).
2 -
On 5/7/2018 at 8:43 AM, Prokharkoo84 said:
Good post bro, but it was Gurdev Singh Debu of KCF from Dheerpur and not Manjit Singh
Vaheguru. Bhul chuk maaf.
0 -
On 5/3/2018 at 1:19 AM, MahadrasSingh said:
I'm thinking Nattan ji wasn't intending to produce a music video that would be deep or invoke insightful messages but the way he just fully embraced the gang wale look and didn't show reasons to why they would take up arms annoys me, but I'm in this weird position where I like how it ticks off Canadian media but I knowit very well antagonises us in the public eye but then if we played to their eye would we not be the khalsa and oh my mind's a mess WJKK WJKF.
The video could certainly have been made A LOT more informative.
There was a whole wealth of information that could have accompanied the video that could have explained the armed struggle to the lay person.
Recorded statements like those passed by balram kutha jakhar, the 8th speaker of lok sabha no less, pertaining to the Sikh Genocide could have been presented. Facts and figures about the genocide of 1984 could have been given. Figures of the Sikh contribution to the struggle for freedom from Britain could also have been provided to contrast with the treatment Sikhs received immediately from 1947. Bhai Sahib Bhai Kapoor Singh Ji's Sachi Sakhi is a treasure box of information on the subject.
Images of indian state torture victims could have been included to show the depraved acts of terror Sikhs suffered at the hands of agents of the indian government during this period, in what was almost always illegal custody, that for some continues without charge even to today (Jaggi is the tip of an iceberg).
E.g. How Sikh babies were set on fire and even fed to kingdoms of ants by indian police officers just to end the bloodline of certain families. How Pregnant women were killed just so they wouldn't give birth to a Sikh child. How Singhs like Bhai Gurdev Singh Debu Ji were boiled alive in police stations just like Shaheed Bhai Dayala Ji.
How the panth's daughters were gang raped by indian police kuthey like gobind ram in broad daylight and the pind was rounded up and forced to watch. How the jails of mir mannu were resurrected under the directions of kachi dilli darbar. How whole families were wiped out, yet india just went by its business like nothing happened.
Tyrants like abdali would have been proud of the systematic genocide of Sikhs. A little research would have revealed names and locations of the victims, there were so many that it is baffling such information is not provided routinely in videos that touch upon the subject of the Sikh Genocide, there are plenty of Amnesty cases on Panjaab that the lay person could be inspired to look up.
Factual information regarding what forced Sikhs to start the morcha for their rights in india in the first place is also totally missing.
E.g. the loot of panjaab's river waters that continues to today, continued denial of the semi-independent status of the Sikh homeland that was promised to the Sikhs in 1946, article 25 that even denies the independent existence of Sikhi. The blatant discrimination of denial of state language status to saadi pavitar maa boli Panjaabi for decades despite the fact that every other state was granted its local state language. Only for dilli darbar to eventually carve out haryana and himachal out of Panjaab, whilst passing entire swathes of Panjabi majority areas to non-Panjabi administrations.
The enactment of TADA, the unconstitutional "law" specifically designed to be enforced on the state of Panjaab in order to suspend the most basic and fundamental human right that any human being can expect of their government - THE RIGHT TO LIFE - enabling the indian government to summarily execute Sikhs for the simple crime of being Sikh, without having to go through the formalities of detention, trial or even charge, providing the butchers of Panjaab, kachi sarkar the ability to systematically cut the panth down to size. Providing the indian punjab police and crpf the freedom to kill thousands upon thousands of Sikhs at will since 1984.
The numerous, dozens of link canals that have been dug up in the blink of an eye since 1947 from Satluj to divert river waters to rajasthan and haryana and deprive Panjaab of its only natural resource without compensation of even an anna to Panjaab. (SYL wasn't even the tip of an iceberg, yet some of our people seem to think stopping that has stopped the loot of our river waters. Think again.)
The reduction to destitute beggars of a proud kaum by deliberate centralised policies of keeping Panjaab under-educated and reliant on agriculture.
Then the failure of the indian government even to provide a sustainable price for the crop it procures by force - a pitiful fraction of the international going market rate at any time - not even allowing farmers to market their produce privately but instead banning them from private enterprise, and even the blatant in-your-face discrimination of throwing Panjabi farmers the pittance of a rate as low as half the price for the staple crop that it pays to those outside Panjaab in neighbouring rajasthan and haryana!
Deliberately overlooking the superior educated potential youth workforce of Panjaab in favour of the unpadh backwater of haryana for mass industrialisation in order that Panjaab's economy remains dependent on state controlled agriculture.
How the deliberate failure to provide the farmers a fair price for their crop has led to the curtailment of the growth of the panth by forcing farmers to have smaller families in order to have enough to provide a half-decent yet astronomically priced private education to their child, since teachers are non-existent or useless in Panjaab's sarkari schools. How the continued discrimination against Panjabi farmers since 1947 has led them into the vicious cycle of continued debt, drug addiction, and eventually suicide in order to escape such a wretched existence.
The counter argument would be as to how much can you fit into a three minute music video. That point might be partially valid, but I would disagree. The video is almost completely devoid of factual information, so at least a start should have been made.
Overall, the video is more than a decent effort as a starting point, and is miles better than the gundh being pumped out in the name of "kalakari" in Panjaab. Its main downfall is that it is completely missing accompanying information which would have done a lot better justice to the song.
Hopefully, if these Singhs make another music video, they will make it much more informative to the lay person.
2 -
A lot of the b1tching simply seems to be about these Singhs being decked out in all black from head to toe. This is a really superficial argument, and is the same as the one levelled against Sikh Unit and others back in the day. Now I don't claim to know the background of these Singhs or where they grew up, but for anyone who grew up in or around a council estate, being dressed out in mostly or even all black was simply the norm for a lot of youth. It didn't necessarily imply gang membership, though those wearing it may well have been affiliated with a gang, and if so usually for their safety. If these Singhs were truly gang banging there's no way they'd be openly displaying their faces in this video, so it's safe to say it all largely appears to be posturing. They also shouldn't be waving around shastars like it's all just fun, though anyone with half a brain would have realised they are merely replicas. But that's hardly as bad as some are trying to make out. Immature certainly, given that I can safely bet none of them are tied up in gang life, but then again this video isn't aimed at the intellectuals of the panth.
1 -
3 hours ago, TheeTurbanator said:
You completely misunderstand my point, im not criticizing the fact that they are singing about assassinations, but the manner in which they are doing so. Sikhs traditionally had a lot of humility and discipline, but these guys are acting like a Gangbangers, and its not a great image for Sikhs. Just look at the way they are boasting and waving around guns. There is a certain etiquette and way to talk about sensitive topics. Music videos like this just make the entire freedom movement look bad.
LOL
If you say so, kakeyo!
3 hours ago, TheeTurbanator said:Stupid argument. We as Sikhs need to stop blaming others for our problems and take responsibility.
Stupid argument da lagda, chhittar na khalee tutti'ch pyonke.
3 hours ago, TheeTurbanator said:The Indian government isnt everywhere, and responsible for everything. The very fact that we have so much caste and lack of education in the WEST, outside of India, shows that we are doing this to ourselves.
It's time to come out of denial mode and accept the reality, the Sikh community is harming itself.
Let's be honest, the main activists for Khalistan are in the west, and Khalistan movement in India was destroyed in the 1980-90s, they fought a war they could not win, and they lost. The remnants of their ideology fled to the west becuase they would not be safe in india.
The tactics the Khalistanis used in the past did not work, and will never work. It's time we focus on fixing our major issues and spreading Sikhi. Maybe in a few generations when we are more competent that we should openly demand a separate state, but for now a united india is our best option against both India and Pakistan.
Kal da jammeya kakeya, tu sanu panjaab da santaap bare sikhayenga?
Ponki ja kakeya, lagga reh...
3 hours ago, TheeTurbanator said:This music video demonstrates the horrible state of the panth,
Vadda aaya judge te jury
3 hours ago, TheeTurbanator said:We are all talk, we can't even do anything besides making music videos. The people who made that video are probably all blacklisted from india. We need less gangbangers and wanna be freedom fighters, and more proper education and academic focus. AK47s dont work anymore, it's time to update our strategy.
Karleh update fer. Pesh kar teri navi strategy. Lol
2 -
On 2/18/2018 at 8:33 PM, TheeTurbanator said:
Please watch the video before you read my response:
Thanks for putting this video up brother.
On 2/18/2018 at 8:33 PM, TheeTurbanator said:MY RESPONSE:
Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa, Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh!
As someone who actually supports the concept of an independent state run on Sikh values (Khalistan), I don’t think that songs like this do anything for positive the movement. We need less gang bang hood type of music videos, and we need actual change in terms of drug addiction, female infanticide, low birth rates, lack of education, etc, all of which will actually help the Sikh community, rather than a music video in which we are waving around guns and talking about assassinating people.
Singhs have been assassinating dushts since Akaal Purakh Waheguru Jio gave Sachi Sarkaar Chhevin Patshah Sri Guru Hargobind Sahib Ji Maharaj the hukam to raise the panth's army for this very purpose.
All of the panth's wars, battles and encounters have been fought for this purpose. If it wasn't for panthic Singhs assassinating enemies of the panth, it's likely many ordinary Sikhs wouldn't exist today.
I can't even put into words how Gurbani resonates with the beauty of Akaal striking the living daylights out of dushts.
There is nothing wrong with assassinating dushts. In fact it is Har Hukam. There is no plainer way of saying this, but those that don't punish dushts are just disobeying Hukam (I don't exclude myself from this statement).
There is nothing wrong with talking about assassinating dushts either. What's wrong is just talking about it, and not carrying it out.
On 2/18/2018 at 8:33 PM, TheeTurbanator said:They put videos of Baba Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale, but don’t realize that whenever people came to him asking to join the movement, the first thing he said was to pick up a Gutka before the Gun, because the real power of Sikhi comes from Bani. Baba Bhindranwale also never boasted or showed off, and and neither did he all of a sudden start demanding a separate state, but he primarily focused on major issues in the panth, and used violence as a last resort. Our community has a habit of ignoring the important humanitarian and intellectual work of sevadaars and mainly focusing on the action part. People always talk about Baba Deep Singh as a physical warrior, but forget how he had an entire life of studying Bani that led up to his legendary Shaheedi.
Bhagti mein Shakti
On 2/18/2018 at 8:33 PM, TheeTurbanator said:We all like to talk about Khalistan, yet forget the main issues affecting the panth like drug addiction, farmer debt, suicide, casteism, sexism, lack of education, low birthrates, etc. The Panth doesn't have the infrastructure to build or support another country, and before we start boasting about end goals, we should at least primarily focus on our main issues.
I have considered and debated these issues for years.
Eventually, I concluded that none of these issues can be solved without Khalistan.
On 2/18/2018 at 8:33 PM, TheeTurbanator said:A common response that I get is that this is just a music video, and that it at least does a good job of reminding people about important issues, however I would argue that there are better ways of talking about the issue of Sikh independence without waving around weapons and acting like a gang. The last thing the Panth, and the Khalsitani movement needs right now is even more bad publicity, and videos like this only reinforce the common held belief that the main advocates of Khalistan were from the west.
(Though I know you don't dispute this,) It's the other way around. The main advocates of Khalistan were and are still in the east. Here in the west we are just following in their footsteps.
It's not really their fault that Singhs on the ground can't afford to be outspoken though.
On 2/18/2018 at 8:33 PM, TheeTurbanator said:
PS: At least they didn’t put a communist flag in this video, it was a decent song tho.Lol
On 2/18/2018 at 8:33 PM, TheeTurbanator said:Question for the Sangat: What do you guys think of this video?
To be honest, I thought it was alright
2 -
On 13/01/2018 at 12:39 AM, MrDoaba said:
Errmm actually they don't.
Hence the "dry". It's not supposed to be a "lol" joke. And lastly, the joke wasn't directed at you so next time you need not reply.
The only thing I've clocked onto is that you're offended which I wouldn't care about even if you were the PM of Khalistan.
And why yes it did thanks for noticing.
I had to state the obvious because the subject of the joke wasn't Guru Sahib, which you were kind enough to point out albeit erroneously.
Call the Beadbi Police if you have an issue. I ain't here to agree or disagree with you puttar.
Neither am I, but you haven't half dragged this out, theeye.
Like I said, all the best.
1 -
5 hours ago, MrDoaba said:
Jeez sorry if I offended you.
I invariably have a sense of dry British humour.
You'd find that so do most of the lot round here.
Your "joke" just simply wasn't funny though, which I hoped you'd have clocked onto by now.
It clearly had you in stitches however.
5 hours ago, MrDoaba said:True, although the joke wasn't about Guru Sahib per se. Rather it was directed at a newbie poster, which you may or may not have noticed.
No sh1t sherlock.
Thanks, for stating the bleeding obvious though.
5 hours ago, MrDoaba said:As for your policy, well it's your policy, the joke was not disrespectful or harmful.
Like I said, I don't agree, so let's leave it at that funnyman.
5 hours ago, MrDoaba said:I'd love to stay and chat
Likewise.
5 hours ago, MrDoaba said:but I must take leave to go and set up my Puratan earring stall at todays Dharmic programme.
All the best.
0 -
2 hours ago, MrDoaba said:
I do not believe I have crossed such a line.
On this occasion, I humbly disagree.
3 hours ago, MrDoaba said:Instead of highlighting a section of my comment which looks offensive on its own, why don't you read the whole thing for context, you'll see it's clearly humour.
Lol, obviously I read the "whole thing". I only highlighted the part I'm referring to. It's only five words short for gods sake.
3 hours ago, MrDoaba said:Or is humour on its way to being added to the list of bajjar kurehats?
Depends on who's the subject of the said "humour". I'd venture to say it's generally a good policy to leave any mention of Guru Sahiban out of jokes.
As for bajjar kurehats, what is or isn't one is no business of mine.
0 -
9 hours ago, MrDoaba said:
do you know where I can get earrings similar to the ones worn by the Gurus?
Easy geezer.
There's a line between banter and taking the p1$$.
0 -
4 hours ago, sikhni777 said:
If it is not a portrait of Guru ji then it is imagination. In the olden times, people had to travel far by foot to meet anyone. If someone said Guru ji dressed like a king, then it is possible the artist imagined the king complete with jewellery.
Agreed. It is one person's imagination.
I think it's a good idea overall to view some of these artists depictions with a healthy dose of scepticism. Especially considering some of their (Non-Sikh) backgrounds.
Don't forget that male artists generally gravitate towards the effeminate side of the spectrum. Art and painting aren't skills that come naturally to most blokes.
It's no surprise then that some of these artists might want to depict their subjects wearing things like earrings, and even ankle bracelets(!).
0 -
On 25/12/2017 at 5:26 AM, MrDoaba said:
My point was that technically we celebrate Guru Arjan Dev Ji's Shaheedi, do we not?
I don't think we do to be honest.
I would say that we commemorate it, or at least that's what I think we do. To say that we celebrate it carries the wrong kind of connotations for this pivotal moment in Sikh history, and is imho inaccurate.
The whole month of June in particular is shahadat da mahina. In this month, I salute the heroic nature of their selfless sacrifices, their defiance of state tyranny, and their defence of Gurbani and Guru Panth. I remember Pancham Patshah Guru Arjan Dev Ji, Banda Singh Ji Bahadur, Sant Jarnail Singh Ji Khalsa Bhindranwale, Bhai Amrik Singh Ji, General Subheg Singh Ji and the 1984 Shaheeds. I pay respect to the way they all stared down the barrel of death without fear.
I don't however think I could honestly say that I celebrate the shahadat of my Guru Ji or thousands of innocent pilgrims. To say that we celebrate these events, in the manner that others might celebrate festivals, weddings and birthdays (although I know you're not suggesting that), is a bit of a stretch. We don't necessarily have to be sad, but one can vow vengeance on one's enemies.
I think the best way to really "celebrate" all the Shaheeds is to remember them, never forget them, bow down to their selfless sacrifices, and disseminate as much information as we can about them so that we can prepare and train current and future generations for the difficulties that lie ahead, in order that they can follow in the footsteps of the Shaheeds and their sacrifices that we commemorate.
0 -
On 25/11/2017 at 5:20 PM, AjeetSinghPunjabi said:
Indira gandhi was a power-hungry woman, no doubt.
Completely inconsequential. Every politician is power hungry.
On 25/11/2017 at 5:20 PM, AjeetSinghPunjabi said:Akali Sikhs were the most rebellious to central govt of India in 1977 emergency.
No they were not. This premise is entirely incorrect. Indra gundhi abused the electoral process to gain her seat in the lok sabha. It was the janata dal in 1975, the forerunner of the BJP, not the "Akali Sikhs", that took the case of her fraudulent election to court and won. The high court ruled her election to lok sabha void due to electoral malpractice. The judgment disallowed her holding the office of prime minister. She was ordered to make way and step down in a matter of days. In response to the prospect of being unseated, she imposed the "emergency" and conveniently handed herself draconian powers as a result. Following her imposition of "emergency", it was again the janata dal, not the "Akali Sikhs", that was foremost in opposing it across india, amidst a wider background of resentment against her rule. The "Akali Sikhs" were by no means "the most rebellious to central govt in 1977 emergency", though that may well be their own present line of propaganda.
On 25/11/2017 at 5:20 PM, AjeetSinghPunjabi said:And I think she just had grudge against Akalis, perhaps not Sikhs in particular.
On 25/11/2017 at 5:20 PM, AjeetSinghPunjabi said:It is possible that she attacked akal takht as a vengeance against akalis in their role in 1977 ,
It seems you are trying to downplay or brush aside the widespread desire for the congress party led Sikh Genocide by attributing it to some sort of minor political dispute between political factions that subscribe to the same overall anti-Sikh policy. However that is not the case.
The "Akalis" were in fact wholly accommodative of the Sikh Genocide and were in league with the congress party at this point and they have been ever since.
On 25/11/2017 at 5:20 PM, AjeetSinghPunjabi said:I think we tend to exaggerate the anti-sikh attitude of the then prevailing govts.
If anything, it is clear that we tend to carelessly (or deliberately) undermine it.
On 25/11/2017 at 5:20 PM, AjeetSinghPunjabi said:but I think to assert that she wanted total annihilation of sikhs like aurangzeb did , is a bit far too stretched.
Either wishful thinking, or ignorance is bliss. Perhaps the proximity of indra gundhi's ancestry to the same "aurangzeb" is underestimated. Perhaps one should investigate the lineage of this litter. Besides being the product of a b*****d jawahar lal nehru that shares its birth in a muslim (mughal) brothel of Allahabad with the other b*****d zulfiqar ali bhutto, the so-called "gundhi" clan traces directly via its paternal line through moti lal nehru and further raj kaul-nehru to gangu bahman.
On 25/11/2017 at 5:20 PM, AjeetSinghPunjabi said:She wouldn't have appointed Zail Singh as president then
So if Hitler appointed self-hating Jews as nazi army generals, which incidentally he did, then I suppose his actions couldn't remotely be determined as anti-Jewish could they? Lol
This is equivalent to the kind of simple logic that the quoted statement represents.
One can only make that juvenile assertion if one chooses to close their eyes to the fact that he (and she) might have intended to provide their regimes with the convenient camouflage of a veneer of secularism in so doing, whilst charging those very self-hating cretins appointed with the act of rounding up and indiscriminately slaughtering members of their own race and faith.
On 25/11/2017 at 5:20 PM, AjeetSinghPunjabi said:also would have provided nothing to sikhs.
Other than the Sikh Genocide, what exactly did she provide to the Sikhs?
On 25/11/2017 at 5:20 PM, AjeetSinghPunjabi said:To sum it up, I think she was a power-hungry totalitarian politician who wanted to clear anyone off her way. She hated sikhs for this I think, not because of some brahmanical agenda as is always said .
I could be wrong though
This sense of "nostalgia" that is felt by some waylaid Sikhs for the inherently anti-Sikh congress party that executed the 1984 pogroms and the 1980s Panjab genocide that eliminated 250,000 youths, turned Panjab into a government sponsored slaughter house, and forced over 1 million Sikh males off the register of india within a decade between 1981 and 1991, which leads them to retrospectively rewrite contemporary events in the congress party's favour, is due to anti-incumbency sentiments against the BJP.
It is mostly because a hindutva government led by another dictator is in power and is clearly the result of aggression by the RSS and BJP.
However no Sikh should ever try to downplay the anti-Sikh actions of the kaul-nehru litter and the congress party in particular. The two opposing political factions are both thoroughly brahmanical and biparvadi. They differ in approach only, not in degree.
0 -
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
51 minutes ago, MisterrSingh said:A march against radical islam took place in Manchester yesterday. The media and the press re-branded it as a "Far Right" gathering.
A white woman telling a black man - who was a witness to the National Front in the 70's and 80's - that he's a Nazi. Lol.
The so called "anti-fascists" are inherently more intolerant, fascist and racist than those they pretend to oppose. The complete stupidity, incoherence and lack of any kind of skill of the women in this "debate" speaks volumes. If these are the kind of degenerates that eulogise and form the base of support of Jeremy Corbyn, I'm glad Labour didn't win.
In truth, what these communists really oppose is the right of anybody to criticise islam.
4 -
On 11/06/2017 at 11:31 AM, 5akaalsingh said:
Truth is that habits like drinking and watching nautch dance were very common among Indian rulers and misldars.
I don't think this should realistically be played down like this.
The problem with this kind of behaviour by the leaders of any nation/society is that they don't live in a vacuum. If they did, they could theoretically get up to whatever kind of depraved anti-Sikh debaucheries they felt inclined to as far as I'm concerned. As long as these didn't adversely affect their rule in particular and the behaviour of society as a whole. Which, in itself is a pipe dream.
The reason why that's not advisable policy in any event in the real world is because leaders possess a very real and powerful signalling function. This can be highly beneficial in the right hands and potentially seriously dangerous in the wrong hands. Public perception of a leader's behavior is hugely magnified, and, inevitably, it filters all the way down society.
Therefore, leaders have a strict duty and responsibility to their subjects to set them a healthy and positive example to follow. They need not only to possess the correct morals, but more importantly, to be seen to possess the correct morals. This is more or less dharam, to which the Maharaja appeared to give wild abandon towards the end of his life.
Now these kinds of restrictions could well be deemed a bit of a straightjacket for a red-blooded ruler, and I suspect that the one being referred to here felt that to be the case. But, quite frankly, that is the price of the job. Either accept it, or leave it to someone with greater self-restraint.
At this point, it should be self-evident that any form of widespread addiction to the baser sensual pleasures is seriously detrimental to the future existence as a going concern of any nation. I shouldn't need to explain how these addictions encourage and normalise the very vikaars that produce a society of weak, shallow, easily manipulable individuals, low in morals, and crippled by a complete absence of the family values that are required to maintain a healthy strong and growing nation.
However, by the Maharaja and most (though not all) of his close leadership indulging in this exact kind of downright utter gundh, it gave a green light to the rest of society that this stuff was strictly A-OK. So you could get drunk, get high, sleep with multiple partners that you never intend to get married with, and still call yourself a practising Sikh. All with the endorsement of the Maharaja. Happy days.
Ironically, the Maharaja, increasingly brazenly in his latter days, got up to the very kind of anti-Sikh rubbish that the Khalsa was instructed and mandated to eradicate. So much for Khalsa Rahe Niara.
Consequently, I think that the roots of the current simplistic, unsophisticated, promiscuous, and shallow "balle balle" drinking/dancing/bhangra culture (which is incidentally a totally mughal imitation) that our society is currently infested with can be traced back to this era.
As a result, I believe that Guru Maharaj gave us a good and well deserved lesson when the Khalsa Raj that was abused in this fashion came crashing down. Yet, apparently we've learnt nothing, and some people appear to actually fantasise about returning to an age where this exact same gundh can be repeated and replicated with impunity, whilst somehow avoiding the side-effects that are bound to accompany it. It's impossible.
No serious nation ever prospered whose rulers gave into cheap pleasures, sensual thrills and hedonistic debauchery.
2 -
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
20 hours ago, Jacfsing2 said:Vaheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Vaheguru Ji Ki Fateh! Why is it hard to inspire others to live a Gurmukh lifestyle, when it's meant to be good for people? Also why don't most people learn lovingly, but only want to learn when there is something else involved, (pressure to learn). I hope everyone improves and tries to follow Guru Sahib, but sometimes it just fails. How can I improve myself, so that more people are willing to listen? I feel my heart is in the right place, but nothing happens. Vaheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Vaheguru Ji Ki Fateh!
Maybe this is because you're, more or less, so resoundingly simple? Try to recognise that there is more than one dimension, and try to accept there may even be positive aspects, to the people you don't like. People want to listen to someone that stimulates them intellectually, not someone that reduces everything to a couple of soundbites.
Perhaps this is also something to do with their impression of you? Maybe you're perceived as being, rightly or wrongly, someone not worth listening to?
Sadly, no matter how high truthful and beneficial the message, in this case, even the path of Gurmat, people tend to judge the messenger before they pay any heed whatsoever to the message.
To provide you with an example, you could do much worse than look to Shaheed Sant Jarnail Singh Ji Khalsa Bhindranwale for guidance in this respect.
Sant ji was, on the face of it, identical to nearly every other parcharak. He wasn't the only bhujangi educated in the Taksal, and he wasn't the only Amritdhari Singh. Others were given far better stages and opportunities to influence Panjab, nay bharat, for the commonwealth good. Yet, despite these obvious similarities, ungint numbers of bharatis felt raised, inspired and compelled to step onto the path of Sikhi due to hearing Sant Ji's bachans, but at the same time, next to nobody and his dog listened to the other parcharaks even though they encouraged effectively the same thing.
Now go figure why. And don't try to reduce the reasons for this to a simple catchphrase or two when you do.
4 -
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
9 hours ago, Jacfsing2 said:No.
That's your whole explanation for misquoting me?
9 hours ago, Jacfsing2 said:I don't know how Kharak Singh would have ruled, since he didn't have enough time, but I am refering to all the assassinations and royal deaths for Ranjit Singh's successors. In 10 years there were 5 kings.
You are so one-dimensional it's unbelievable. You reduce the complexity of everything you see to black and white, without caring for the finer, sometimes hidden, message that lies in shades of grey within.
Have you ever bothered to discover the background to these assassinations? For example, where the conspirators came from, and what were their several, complex motivations? How they managed to obtain such power that they were able to effectively collude with each other to cause the assassinations of the sons of Maharaja Ranjit Singh, and consequently suck the Kaum dry during the resulting chaos?
These aren't events that can be dismissed in a single sentence - nothing is ever that simple. You can't do justice to this period by simply declaring "Maharaja bad". Things don't work like that.
Moreover, the events that we are referring to possess relevance and importance of the highest magnitude for the Kaum right now. They have shaped the destiny of the Kaum for the last 170 years, and if we're not careful, they will continue to do so for a long time more.
Fail to understand what went wrong before, and you'll keep on committing the same mistakes over and over again. I can see the exact same things occurring within the Panth right now, but you can't correct what you don't see. Too many evidently don't.
6 -
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
On 08/06/2017 at 11:51 PM, Jacfsing2 said:But what's wrong with having Non-Punjabi Sikhs? I think our greatest problem is limiting the Prachar to Punjab.
Where have I said there's anything wrong with having "Non-Punjabi Sikhs"? You are deluded if you believe that non-Panjabis and "Non-Punjabi Sikhs" are the same thing.
The entirely reasonable and justifiable position in this respect is that putting non-Sikhs and furthermore non-Panjabis in charge of the destiny of Panjab was an incredibly poor, stupid, and myopic decision by Maharaja Ranjit Singh. Moreover, it treated with utter contempt the very Guru Sahiban in whose name he claimed to rule. This does not in anyone's wildest imagination equal the kind of anti-Sikh discrimination you have tried to allege.
What is there about the distinction between these two disparate groups of people that you don't understand? Are you one of those people that have been brainwashed into believing that Panjabis and Sikhs are equivalent terms? Or do you simply believe the retarded equation that "Panjabi = Sikh"?
Explain yourself. There are 90 million reasons why you and others like you are wrong.
On 08/06/2017 at 11:51 PM, Jacfsing2 said:The worst thing was giving a falling empire to a family that was obsessed with being king, most of his successors only ruled for about a year.
You really need to read about the demise of Khalsa Raj from an objective, authentic, and truly Sikh source (stress applied on the latter factor being operative), then come back here when you're ready. I can help to point you in the right direction. But only if you're willing.
Frankly speaking, it was a stupid and nepotic mistake. But it was by no means his worst decision. I'm no fan of Kharak Singh. But that doesn't mean he shouldn't have been given the opportunity to rule once appointed. Moreover, this wasn't the incredibly poor, stupid, and myopic decision I referred to that so strictly and brazenly violated Guru Ji's hukams.
Understand this. There were then, and there remain, certain non-Sikh elements, that we have stupidly permitted, in our blind sleep, to infiltrate our society, that walk the walk, and talk the talk, yet do not hold the authentic Sikh ethos and interests in the form of Khalsa Halemi Raj in any way shape or form at heart. It is not that sincere Sikhs that existed at the time of the events being referred to didn't have the parkh to recognise this fact. It is, that, to a large extent, their hands were tied by a regime that started more or less as a Sikh democracy, and ended definitively as an anti-Sikh autocracy. It was these non-Sikh, nay, anti-Sikh elements that had no intention of ever letting a Sikh, even one like Kharak Singh, from succeeding to rule.
4 -
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
On 06/06/2017 at 8:55 PM, genie said:This amazing picture sums it up best
3 -
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
7 hours ago, MisterrSingh said:Yet he achieved - admittedly temporal - feats that no other Sikh has managed since those times.
If we believe the strength of a people and its nation are recognisable in its successes on the non-spiritual plane, he's one of the greatest Sikhs of all time from a certain point of view. Those worldly victories may count for very little in the kingdom of God, but unfortunately the kingdom of Man is where we all reside whilst we breathe, and on that front Ranjit Singh made his mark not only for himself but for the benefit of our people. That counts for something.
For me, there is no more complex a figure in Sikh history, no greater a paradox, no other man that evokes a more diverse range of opinions emotions and feelings within the Kaum, than Maharaja Ranjit Singh.
If the Kaum were to properly consider, and with balance, assess the life, successes and failures of this remarkable man, I have no doubt that this would provide great lessons that would help us manage the future.
Maharaja Ranjit Singh, for the first time in history, so successfully defended Panjab from foreign invasion that he was able to take the fight against the islamic onslaught into the very regions from which the jihadis emerged. He countered and comprehensively defeated the jihadis of his time, people with the same ideology as modern day islamists, those who can reasonably be said to be the antecedents of the present day ISIS and taliban. This was no mean feat.
While assessing his achievements one has to bear in mind that the overwhelming majority of the citizens of Khalsa Raj belonged to the same mindset as the Panth's enemies. Yet, he actually managed to earn their respect, admiration and loyalty, even after he defeated them, to such an extent that they welcomed him. Whether this was the result of his sense of tolerance, his political expediency, or his weakness in excessively pandering to the islamic population to the detriment of the entire region, is not definite. I suspect the answer lies somewhat in degrees of all three.
Now, having said all that, it would be a matter of pure dishonesty if one did not provide balance and address the fact that in so doing, he committed the very serious transgressions against Guru Ji's hukams that would eventually consign Khalsa Raj to history.
What troubles me the most about the way he went about this is that Khalsa Raj did not belong to Maharaja Ranjit Singh, nor was it his creation, nor was it for him to throw away.
In this respect, the speech delivered by General Hari Singh Ji Nalwa, the greatest and most successful General of his time, in response to Maharaja Ranjit Singh's announcement that his son would succeed him, is particularly poignant and relevant. When assessing the life and achievements of Maharaja Ranjit Singh, we must never overlook the fact that Sadde das lakh Sikh fought and died in multiple genocides in order to achieve Khalsa Raj. Khalsa Raj was built on the foundation of these shaheedis of huge numbers of Sikhs over several generations for the cause of Sikhi and out of love for Guru Maharaj. It did not belong to a single family alone. But by choosing to pass on his reign to his son, Maharaja Ranjit Singh consigned the Kaum to a fate that we are still reeling from 170 years later. This nepotism was acted out in an almost nonchalantly shameless and neglectful manner.
General Hari Singh Ji Nalwa was entirely correct when he said that Kharak Singh, whilst being his friend and brother, was unsuitable and incapable of shouldering the responsibility of running Khalsa Raj. Yet this advice, which merely repeated what was by then already apparent among sincere Sikhs who cared about the future of the Kaum, had little to no effect on a man that started off his life as a Gursikh in the true sense of the term, and ended it as something quite different, as a creature that sought to ape the myopic rajputs of old.
Furthermore, by appointing non-Sikhs and worse still even non-Panjabis to the government, he committed the fatal mistake that made the collapse of Khalsa Raj inevitable. These outsiders had no stake whatsoever in the continuing future as a going concern of Panjab. Even a fool with no respect for Guru Ji's hukams should have been able to see what was forthcoming. Yet, the Maharaja apparently didn't.
The result of his non-adherence is plain for all to see. Panjab, the sohni di chirri of our ancestors only a few lifetimes ago, was reduced to dust. The parasitic non-Sikh traitors that Maharaja Ranjit Singh passed control to leached off the Kaum in the same way that the jews profiteered off post-great war Germany. However, the Germans at least identified, opposed and later avenged this treason. We never have, and, due to deliberately planted defects in the transmission of our values to future generations, designed to protect our oppressors, we quite possibly never will.
Nobody put a gun to his head and forced Maharaja Ranjit Singh to ignore, neglect, and dismiss Sikhi rehat in the brazen way he did. He did so purely of his own will.
And yet, for all of that, I still possess an outstanding admiration for the man, who was at one point, one of the greatest Sikh leaders in history. He is one of the greatest paradoxes I have known. Maharaja Ranjit Singh is for me simultaneously a source of great inspiration and pride, and an object of revile and disgust.
Whatever you think about Maharaja Ranjit Singh, and there is much to think about, we could do a lot worse than learn from both the positive and negative aspects of his example, of how to obtain sovereignty, and how to subsequently lose it.
In conclusion, when faced with the sobering fact that we have yet to recover our stolen land, there are few better examples to look to in this respect than our own. I have faith that Guru Maharaj has greater things planned for the Kaum than we know at present. And I believe that we were given Maharaja Ranjit Singh to learn from his successes and failures for a reason.
7 -
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
20 hours ago, dallysingh101 said:I think much of the lullooness from our lot (that we are both alluding to), has its antecedents from the Christian, Victorian era influenced 'Sikhism' that was developed and promoted during a century of colonisation.
I would return to this point specifically. I believe this is more or less a fact, and one that requires more detailed examination. Two points.
1. I think what you have addressed here should be widely acknowledged, if it isn't already accepted by now. It made sense for the colonisers to do this. The colonisers had the motive, opportunity, and means. Given that 9 million out of 10 million Sikhs left the Panth in the ten years immediately post-annexation, very few Sikhs would have even known Sikhi as it was revealed by Guru Sahiban. This gave the colonisers pretty much a blank slate to dictate a distorted, inauthentic, and politically convenient/subservient form of religion to us.I think the early Singh Sabhias were understandably so alarmed at the rapid loss of numbers in the Panth that they unwittingly played into the colonisers' hands. However, we have the opportunity and duty to correct that.
Having said that, had the Singh Sabhias not urgently done what was realistically achievable within the parameters of the critical situation the Panth was in then, you and I may not have known Sikhi today.
The reasons for annexation have never been properly examined by the Kaum in my opinion, even until today. The Panth went into a state of shock at this time, and I believe we are yet to fully recover from this. But that is another matter.
2. In regards to the way this induced state of "lullooness" was enforced on us, I think we have to go back much further than annexation to truly get to the root of this.It is my sincere belief that the way the colonisers slyly encouraged and enacted this is analogous to the way the hindu priestly class dumbed down hindu society for thousands of years.
They impressed the ordinary and somewhat simple and sincere hindus with their intellect and study, and used that intellectual superiority to preach to them the basic message that; "We know better than you. We know what's good for you, and what's bad for you. Do as we say".
The ordinary hindus were banned from learning and advancing themselves politically. This enabled the brahmans to exploit them. And they did that brutally. Different sections of the hindus were each provided disparate instructions in ways to serve the brahmans, be that by fighting and dying for them, making money for them or feeding them. The brahmans termed the resulting disparate classes of society as jaatis. They are what have became known as castes.
The ordinary and somewhat simple and sincere hindus succumbed to this exploitation, and this naturally led to the downfall of hindu society. They became the willing or unwilling unthinking pawns of the brahmans. They lost all sense of examination and introspection. They simply accepted what the brahmans told them. "Be honest and innocent in all your doings. Don't study, leave that to us. Keep what you need to feed yourselves and your families and hand over the rest to us".
Notice how others, particularly Dalits, who resisted these instructions were ruthlessly dealt with in order to send down a firm message to the rest. The shameful and awful treatment, ostracisation, and consequent killing of Sant Shambook comes to mind. To this day, hindus conveniently manipulate and defend this atrocity with the sort of nonsensical, illogical, mythological bs that is known only to them and is their expertise.
The colonisers didn't invent this concept at all. They found, as a result of their research, a religious system that was proven to have worked on the indigenous people for thousands of years. They understood that religion is probably the most effective medium with which to influence a population. They adapted it to suit themselves and deployed it to their own benefit. I don't mean to understate the colonisers' role in deploying this to their benefit. However, it was already there. All they did was ruthlessly take advantage of it. It's still there after they've gone, and to some extent it always will be, because it is and always will be woven into the fabric of hinduism. These problems are intrinsically intertwined.
Although this is slightly different to what we were originally alluding to here, you can also see a parallel in the way they deployed the hindu caste system against us in a similar fashion. This can be seen in their propagation of different Sikh "caste" units in the british indian army, each stupidly competing with each other for the affection of the white master, to divide and control us.
They didn't invent caste either, but it was the result of their study that they stumbled across the work of bahmans to divide the indigenous people over thousands of years, and that it was highly convenient to them. They simply ruthlessly put it to use.
It's what I believe our Guru Sahiban pulled us out of when they banned the hindu caste system and instructed all Sikhs to become politically aware. It's at any rate partially down to the colonisers that we're once again mired in it. But those colonisers have long gone. We now need to look beyond that, and actually get out of this mess. If we don't, I fear there will be grave consequences for the Kaum.
We have no right to dishonour the destroyer of hindu caste by hypocritical calling ourselves Sikhs if we don't do everything in our power to remove the stain of hindu caste from the Panth once and for all. This has to go. From our minds, from our mouths, from our Gurdwara Sahib.
6 -
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
4 hours ago, dallysingh101 said:Your not picking up on an important nuance. I said previously, many (if not most) decent, dharmic, self-sacrificing apnay (both rural and otherwise) have achieved shaheedi. I'm talking about the general situation today.
I picked up on this. I accept that many did attain Shaheedi. I just don't think that so many of them have been wiped out to render a dire situation hopeless. Or, at least, some of them have come back, lol.
There are some forces at work in this mortal existence that can't be rationalised.
An atheist would laugh at the whole notion, or more likely, fail to understand completely. But then again, an atheist would laugh at most of Sikh history, if it hadn't already happened.
4
Current State of India
in WHAT'S HAPPENING?
Posted
I hear you.
These problems are the result of gulaami; we have no state (yet). They have 40-50 states that don't merely teach them political expediency; they put it into practice.