Jai Tegang!

5 minutes ago, dallysingh101 said:

Previous Sikh past times:

 

 

 

'Modern' ones: 

 

That is some crazy nice art (the top one).

1 hour ago, californiasardar1 said:

 

I'm not exaggerating anything. I have a hard time thinking of any mona I have met who has said "I am supposed to keep my kesh, but I don't. I should." Instead, they will make all kinds of arguments about why it is not required:

- Kesh is only required for amritdhari Sikhs (many people on SikhSangat even say this)

- They only believe in the first 9 Gurus and not Guru Gobind Singh (as absurd as that sounds, I have encountered multiple people who have stated this)

- It's not written in the Guru Granth Sahib that you need to keep kesh

- Kesh does not mean you are a good Sikh (and then they will give some examples), so it is not important

- Some shaheeds were monay, so kesh is not important

- What matters is what is in your heart, not on your outside

- lots of keshdharis/amritdharis are bad people, so kesh is unimportant

I could go on and on

 

Who is driving these guys out of the panth? They are already doing whatever they want and exerting greater control over Sikh institutions. On what basis do you claim that people are driving them out?

Nobody is pushing them out. Instead they are redefining Sikhi to suit their own lifestyles. And then people on SikhSangat complain about Sikhi being watered down.

Most people will want to take the easy route and follow majority habits. It’s the religious gatekeepers’ job to figure out ways to keep members motivated to follow rules (that aren’t entirely intuitive), especially since we lack any real political power to influence these decisions. If you keep belittling people, they will continue the outward drift. We should be grateful that monay have not completely cut all ties, no pun intended, because they easily could (just look at some of the western born who have no link to Sikhi whatsoever). There are more than enough vultures circling atop ready to take them in. I’m afraid your attitude just contributes to this and affects more those who are still Sikhi oriented, because the others I have alluded to don’t even need to provide an excuse, they will disown completely.

7 hours ago, californiasardar1 said:

No, but you won’t hear me pretend Amrit is not required. Compare that to monay who consistently declare that anything they do not do is not required.

There is also a fundamental difference between action and inaction.

I think you're exaggerating this to suit your set pattern thinking. There are also some kesadharis who hold the same view of progressing to their logical next step, but we don't go hounding them out of the Panth. You seem to have a hard time digesting the ground realities of the religious adherence composition of the Panth.

Having fewer kesadharis and amritdharis is a result of our collective failures and inability to guard against modernity forces, especially in Punjab, given that we should have set the standard in our own majority area. But it can't be remedied by driving out and belittling  everyone below whatever bar you set. 

musli-yudh  presents a real danger of Islamification of the offspring. Last thing you want is some half breed laying claim to the khalsa raaj throne with the help of rangarhs and pathaans. Akalis were strict about all things related to Islam and keeping its influence at bay. Sardars were not strict rehitvaans all across the board, but they pledged allegiance to the Panth, and that was good enough from a political perspective.

9 hours ago, Kaurr said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's good they are upfront about how they feel about us since our people tend to be a bit slow in picking up subtle messages. The message is clear from their side: don’t hitch your wagon for a free “victim ride”. Give proportionate respect back to black orgs and individuals that stand by us, but none of this sikh coalition free pass.

If racists think we have sign on our forehead reading “take-a-swing-at-the-raghead”, it’s only because we allow it. This problem gets solved by sending out clear and blunt messages through all channels.

56 minutes ago, shastarSingh said:

I respect all saints like baba nand Singh ji.

When I was new in sikhi, I thought of baba Sri Chand ji in a negative way but now I consider him to be a karamati brahmgyani who did sikhi parchar in forests and wilderness.

 

But veer I will be honest. I hv problem if some organization claims their leader/founder as the greatest and above other gursikhs.

It won't bring unity in the panth.

Cheley chatray tend to do that to any group, brother. You will see the same issues across the board. But we have to be careful how we approach the regular maintenance that is required without hurting the common sangat. It’s a delicate balance between destroying something and repairing it.

I think you need to step back and put your ego in check @shastarSingh. Referring to Baba Nand Singh Ji with such little respect isn't in your interest. These Mahapursh have contributed to Sikhi in ways we can't put a number to. Inspiring people to follow Sikhi in a genuine way and igniting the joy of bhagati is not an easy task. You can lump all intellectuals gyanis and parcharks on one side and they can never inspire the way a mahapursh Sant mahatma can. Don't take this the wrong way, we need all the intellectuals we can get, but their domain is never going to extend into the realms of these rarest of the rare type mahapurshs. You need approach these panthic matters with more grace. There is a way of offering constructive criticism without insulting. You need to refine these skills before speaking beyond your scope. Also, current Nanaksar as an institution  is a complex  matter, and also separate from Baba Nand Singh Ji.

18 hours ago, shastarSingh said:

Do we need so many Gurdwaras ?

There are 2-3-4-5 gurdwaras in villages and same problem in cities.

We hv wasted crores of rupees which could hv been used for the benefit of the panth and humanity

 

This is one of the main culprits. I was shocked to see this phenomenon. No protection, satkaar, seva of Saroops. Just an ego-driven obsession to build. But never maintain or utilize. Only One Gurdwara per village should have the privelege to house Saroop of Maharaj. Others can do whatever they want.

51 minutes ago, dallysingh101 said:

People from there posting here see it as a Sikh stronghold? Lots of tough apnay there apparently (even if they doing a lot of wrong things). 

It is. The factors include: overall population of BC is quite low (5 million) and the Lower Mainland holds 3 million of this. We have a massive stronghold in Surrey with our people numbering around 200,000 there alone. Not only Surrey, but we have many surrounding cities where we have decent numbers and well established communities dating back to 1900's. Then, we have communities scattered all over the rural and far-flung smaller towns and cities that were historically mill-towns. With plenty of young guys willing to get their hands dirty, heavy presence in trades, trucking, farming, lumber, the general image is rough and tough. It could be cleaner, with dirty, useless, low-class gang wars costing us too many boys, no doubt, but well  better than the "docile asian" image many westerners hold.

33 minutes ago, californiasardar1 said:

I rail against "monay" in general (men and women), not just males. I also rail against "singhs" like the Badals and KP Gill (before someone brings them up).

If you do want me to start "dividing the blame" by gender, let me point out that Sikh men began cutting there kesh in large numbers when it was still virtually unheard of for a Sikh woman to cut her hair. Before getting haircuts was widespread, Sikh men trimmed their beards in large numbers. Even before that, it was commonplace for "singhs" with long beards to drink regularly and engage in all sorts of other anti-Gurmat behavior. Sikh women have been much better about keeping rehat until relatively recently. To be fair, part of that was probably just socially conservative cultural norms that prohibited women from doing certain things, but it is what it is.

SIkh women have also in general been much better at doing path regularly. I think for a long time, it has been Sikh women who have passed down the more spiritual aspects of Sikhi to children. Perhaps that comes down to a natural gender dichotomy where males gravitate towards worldly/social affairs and women gravitate more towards spirituality.

Now, I don't think any of that applies to the current generation . But if we want to have this discussion and look at how we ended up here, I think it is only fair to point the finger at the group that took the lead every step of the way in normalizing degenerate behavior.

Do you think a Punjab filled with hair-cutting women wearing skirts, drinking openly, dancing like idiots etc. would exist with a bunch of men who don't engage in such behavior? No, of course not. But a Punjab with men engaging in degenerate behavior and women behaving respectably existed for a long time before the women joined in the degeneracy.

All fair points. But isn't this true of all ethno/religious groups? The vast majority of men of any religion are only observant in the orthodox sense if there is a heavy-handed religious authority that wields actual power over them. Left to their own choices, the number of "true followers" is never in majority. Maybe there are only a few hundred "true Sikhs"  if we apply more stringent  criteria, but where does that take us as a group? You can keep applying rules to prune down our numbers to no end. First it'll be kesadhari only. Then it can come down to only Amritdharis are Sikhs. Lets take it one more step and say only those Amritdharis who have weapons training and keep atleast 5 weapons at all times are Sikhs. Then we can jump into the spiritual realm and start pruning out those who don't get up early enough. Pretty soon the definition is going to end up at only a well trained brahmgyani khalsa is a Sikh. 

20 minutes ago, californiasardar1 said:

 

I don't want to embarrass amritdharis by joining their group. They deserve better than me.

I am already a huge embarrassment to the Sikh community (> 90% of the posters on sikhsangat have said so at one point or another). I don't want to make it worse by becoming an embarrassment to the amritdhari Sikh community.

You are suffering from unused man energy. I think a bit of physical training and some guns and a nice amrithdari girl would answer all your questions.

We need to promote large families and actually provide resources to support them. If Sikhs keep going with 1-2 kids our problems are only going to get worse, especially in Punjab/India. Our community holding back a few extra hundred thousand kids per year has no impact on India's demographics, never mind global. The results of our birth control are being felt already with villages emptied of youth, disintegrating family ties, non-sikhs pushing into Punjab. You will see more and more churches and masjids mushrooming with fewer youths willing to protest for our kaumi rights. Caring for the environment is all good, and so is controlled population growth, but it all depends on where you are in the world. India is locked in a birthing race between the muslims and hindus  and Sikhs think this doesn't affect them. It certainly does! If we don't keep up, as we are not, we will suffer the consequences, as we are. 

2 hours ago, MisterrSingh said:

The non-existent Musalmaan bhais in the sangat would get offended. They don't want their umbrella holders being critical or hostile towards their masters.

It’s some kind of subconscious defeatist attitude masquerading as high morality. These types remind me of the groveling elite Hindus during the Muslim invasions who helped turn their co-religionists into fodder, all for self preservation.The recent clash with the gujjars showed that the vast majority couldn’t care less, and it took a certain amount of shaming to finally elicit a belated response from our panthic circles. Even then, only a few could resist the urge to retreat into bhaichara instead of applying the sledgehammer approach that this situation deserved. I sure hope the future fight for survival is not a lonely one and enough of us can grow a spine and live up to a fraction of what our forefathers fought for.

You would think more people in Punjab might have the lemons to say what needs to be done, but no, it's always those born and/or raised thousands of miles in foreign lands that seem to give a f. You can excuse the political class as it caters to the lowest denominator, but where are our religious groups? Where is the dard for the kaums survival? The integrity of our demographics in our last bastion of refuge?