13Mirch

10 hours ago, Big_Tera said:

I used to live in east london about 10 years ago. In gants hill, Ilford, seven kings areas. It was actually very nice during that time. Nice area to live in and still is in certain parts. Mostly Sikh/Hindu sri lankans in the area back then. 

Having visited again after so many years. Some areas feel like down town islamabad. Especialy ilford lane. people walking around in full islamic robes. But thats probably down to ramadam month. But none the less. Mostly muslim foods shops from top to bottom. While the Sikh population has declined. Only ones left are the newly arrived fresh off the bananna boat ( in search of a better phrase)

Whats happening down there? Looks like the whole area has gone down hill. 

From what I have heard is many muslims from the nearby borough of walthamstow which has a big muslim population have crossed over and moved to Redbridge. Not sure why they have done this. But guessing most prefer Redbridge then walthamstow. 

Hardly ever See any brit born Sikh crews about as i used to. Mostly see the pendu punjabis all over the place walking around like they are in some pendu village acting like some hereos. 

 

 

 

Probably setting up more base camps to launch attacks from lol.

23 hours ago, Sukhvirk1976 said:

I don't think criticising caste is akin to criticising Hindus as a whole since.. It's a social construct and a aberration of the philosophy.. Casteism should be challenged at every opportunity. But by conflating it is not useful.. The book of manu out of which casteism developed did not promote inequality but was used by the elites to provide justification to support structural inequalities 

'Did not promote inequality' and then, 'support structural inequalities?' Self-defeat in one go isn't it?

23 minutes ago, Sukhvirk1976 said:

I agree the label 'hindu' is totally inadequate as a way to capture such a diverse group of philosophical traditions. 

It also seems to be be applied and used by people /writers when it is a convenient device to homogenise a group of people to criticise. It happens on this forum when people talk about Hindus, Muslims, 'gora' or liberals. It just a lazy way of articulating arguments stepping around actual analysis or pinpointing problems.. 

I believe that problems with belief/ideology might be the problem e.g. Caste is a part and parcel of Hindu belief or a majority of it. Is criticizing Caste akin to criticizing Hindus as a whole?

15 hours ago, dallysingh101 said:

Only for the brain dead. More and more people are waking up. Colonialism essentially involved dumbing down the wild Panjabi masses and turning them into conforming, useful tools for the imperial agenda. 

The difference between the brain-f**k that goray gave Sikhs versus the Hindus is that Hindus have benefitted from their reconfiguration big time (getting a country for themselves, now having a chance at unity with common language and umbrella concept of 'Hindu', having increasingly powerful military capabilities etc.). Sikhs instead got ar5e-raped. Lost country, redefined along caste/race lines which causes havoc with unity to this day, complete loss of military strength which is largely reduced to a blunt symbolic 'dagger'.

 

Try reading this if you haven't already:

 

Naipul, in his India Rediscovered, states that given the diversity of Hindu society (Hindu being a geographical label) it was very easy for the British to re-engineer it into some form of a politico-religious philosophy. Men like Dayanand Saraswati, schooled in Occidental thought, were conveniently maneuvered into prominent positions from whence they could argue that akin to Christianity Hinduism too was a monolithic religious tradition. The evolution of this re-construction is the ultra-orthodox brand of nationalism which we see today in in India i.e. Hindutva, where Hindu (as per the fundamentalists) is synonymous with Indian and nationalistic.

8 hours ago, BhForce said:

Would you care to elaborate?

The Waqf board, look it up. Alam was KPS Gill's blue-eyed baby; an individual, who I spoke to and who was one of his victims, described him as being a lunatic seeing himself avenging the "persecution of innocent Muslims by the Sikhs and their Gurus." The Badal mafia brought his wife to power and lent him some prominence.

On 6/13/2017 at 3:17 AM, HarfunMaula said:

The rise of radical Islam in Punjab is never touched upon within the Qaum but it is a pressing issue. With the restoration of hundreds of mosques, conversion of Sikhs to Islam in our Sikh home land, increase in religious riots involving Muslims and non-Muslims and the Muslim immigrants facilitating Jihadi activity and there have been talks about introducing Sharia Panchayats within Punjab. The Muslim population of East Punjab was 0.8 % in 1971 and was at 1.92% in 2011. We need to act proactively before it is too late.

The Gujar immigrants from Kashmir have been known to harbor terrorists and store weapons for a while now. A consignment of weapons was found more than 10 years back near the Adampur town of Doaba. The Gujar deras of Gurdaspur were used as a refuge by the terrorists before they launched the 2015 Pathankot attacks.

Now in April 2017 a Muslim immigrant from Uttar Pradesh who was living in Jalandhar for several years working as a tailor was arrested for his links to ISIS. 

These are the developments of dangerous trends for the future of Punjab. 

Ex-DGP Izhar Alam runs his own outfit which is a facsimile of the UK grooming gangs, 

20 hours ago, MisterrSingh said:

Why has the above in bold reared its head? What's the logic behind it? I'm frankly quite surprised. The Indian subversion is an open secret, but why are the Islamics getting involved? 

Typical Da'wah which they give out to get converts and, in the long run, terrorist recruits.

On 5/29/2017 at 4:30 PM, MisterrSingh said:

There's just something... I get suspicious when we're used, however innocuous it may be, to help someone's argument against Muslims. It makes me feel as if we're being flattered for cynical ends. As a community, and more so on an individual basis, we are incredibly susceptible to flattery and praise, which occasionally leads us to undertaking ill advised action, or at least adopting certain unhelpful attitudes. Yet I do think it's important the stark distinction between Sikh and Muslim must be made to the wider public, especially to the average person who assumes a beard and a covered head denote the same ideology. 

Islamic apologists amongst Sikhs, and some Muslims, will always cite the "divide and conquer" mantra, which is laughable in itself due to the mistaken belief that we as two distinct faith groups were ever unified, but to my mind that's another symptom of an interesting issue that's been brought into sharp focus since the Manchester attack whereby it's clear that Muslims (and some traitorous Sikhs) cannot bear to see Sikhs illuminated in a positive light in mainstream society, especially if it serves to highlight the contrast between our two religions and their respective people.

Be very, very wary of those who are quick to decry Sikhs for daring to differentiate themselves from Islam and Muslims. More often than not such behaviour is rooted in a devious enviousness and downright maliciousness. The unspoken subtext on the part of Muslims for not wanting us to be viewed positively is, "If we're being made to look bad, why are Sikhs being singled out for praise? They should be made to suffer for Muslim devilry." That's the mindset we're dealing with here; a vindictive, warped, and malicious desire to see Sikhs tarred with the same brush as them. Don't fall for their games. 

Valid, very valid. Our battle should be on three fronts:

1.) Against Islamic falsification of Sikhi and the Sikh past.

2.) Against the neo-liberals in our own Qaum.

3.) Against exploiters who would have us as front-line fodder in the battle against the Koranic state.

6 hours ago, jashb said:

 

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.

That's the essence of the article I posted:

'Ranjit Singh, himself a descendant of the famed Sirdar Charat Singh, re-connected the Sikhs with the very sub-continental past which the tenth Nanak had ordered the Khalsa to discard. The authority of the corporate Guru Panth was usurped and replaced with Imperialism. In the end, the path to ruin was paved when the precepts of the Gurus were roundly ignored by one and all. The Sikh masses adopted an apolitical stance and acted as silent spectators whilst their Raj slowly began to drift towards oblivion. The demise of Ranjit Singh owing to the frailty of the heart; the prominence of the non-Sikh Dogras; the Dogras’ running of the Raj as an autocracy and the conflict with the British were only the symptoms of an otherwise subtle disease. In the end, what was left of the glorious Halemi Raj envisioned by the Gurus? Nothing but shards.'

11 hours ago, Jacfsing2 said:

Ranjit Singh isn't someone who most Sikhs would look-up to. The true Sikhs during his time didn't really like him much either, for his lack of Maryada.

That's not that high of a standard, average Singhs and Kaurs today probably had a better Maryada then he did.

'Than' my friend, not 'then.' The latter is for time whereas the former for comparison.