BhForce

Again, there's simply no reason for a mona to hate Sikhs who keep rehat. What happens to quams who don't have power is that their members start being attracted to the lifestyles of foreign qaums. Stay strong in the rehit, bro. Bhai Nand Lal ji's Rehitnama says that Guru Gobind Singh ji says that when a Sikh's son cuts his hair, his root dries up. And when his son keeps his hair, his tree greens.

I keep trying to get the mona-haters (like @californiasardar1) to give monas a little leeway. But also, it's incumbent on monas to not hate on rehitdhari Sikhs. If you can't keep rehit right now, whatever, Guru Sahib kirpa karnge. But don't denounce those who do.

Yeah, and that's not friendship. If he were truly your friend, he would have just either let you be or applauded you for following rehit. It's like if you had a friend who was a marathon runner and you were a couch potato. If you were truly his friend, you'd encourage him for keeping fit, even if you couldn't. Not bring him down to your level.

Well, this thread isn't about you. It's about these crazy women who only want a man who has a Ferrari in the garage and a helicopter landing pad in the back yard. Wanting a good Sikh man who is dedicated to marriage and raising children is completely reasonable. Good. I salute your dedication to wanting to be a mother. That's a much higher calling than some corporate drone job.

I'm sorry, but what are you talking, bro? Another name for "welfare", as you call it, is marriage. As we've always known it, except for the past few decades, when also everything has gone to tell. @proudkaur21 said she'd rather stay at home and raise children instead of a corporate job. That's the best thing a Sikh woman (or any woman) could do. The famouse pauri from Asa di Vaar praising women is written in praise of them as vessels. The word ਭੰਡ means vessel. (Meaning carrier of babies.) Guru Nanak ji says the greatness of women is in birthing great children: ਸੋ ਕਿਉ ਮੰਦਾ ਆਖੀਐ ਜਿਤੁ ਜੰਮਹਿ ਰਾਜਾਨ ॥ sō kiu mandā ākhīai jit janmah rājān . How can those be called bad who give birth to kings?

With respect, bro, I think you totally fail to understand the male-female situation today. (And while I'm talking about general society, it all filters down the Sikh society, too.) The jokes that people are cracking above are in reaction to the fact that women have completely unreasonable standards. Do you really think that the spates of "I'm not happy!" women divorcing billionaires like Kanye West are because he's fat and ugly? A reasonable standard is a woman of average attractiveness wanting a man of average attractiveness and average finances. An unreasonable standard is all women, fat, ugly, normal, and beautiful, all requiring handsome young millionaires with mansions and yachts. The average American man of marrying age (20 to 34) earns from $31K to $46K. Exactly how many women are specifying that as their "minimum". Forget that, their minimums are set to the top 5% income-earners. But they are not the top 5% beautiful women. Note: It's OK to want a handsome millionaire. It is not OK to require it. It's one thing to daydream, it's another to stay single until your eggs dry up just because you can't snag a handsome millionaire.

What're you talking about, bro? They're translating Suraj Prakash into all the languages of the UN. (Cue for softies to misquote "So kio manda akhiai jit jamhe rajaan")

It's not just now. It was the "Akali" govt that decide to give half ownership in the "Chandigarh" Airport (built entirely on Punjab land) to the Haryana govt. Otherwise, given the infrastructure was within Punjab, it would have strengthened the case for Chandigarh being Punjab's.

Absolutely right, wherever anyone reading this forum is, make sure the "Uncle Ji's" running your local gurdwara allocate funds for a weightlifting gym (not yoga). Even if you want to use a kirpan, you have to have the arm strength to do so. Actually, I see the reverse. With the farmers' protest, even mona Sikhs (or actually, especially mona Sikhs) were taking interest in and participating in local protests. That's the reason people like Deep Sidhu were becoming attracted to something they hadn't considered before. The key is to not push them away by telling them they aren't even Sikhs.

Great. I hope the Badal "Akali" Dal does do so to cement its decline. Meanwhile the "real" Akali Dal, Akali Dal Amritsar, created in Amritsar in 1994 or so at the behest of the Akal Takhat Jathedar can come to the fore as the representative of Sikhs. In addition, please remember that the electorate of Punjab is barely majority Sikh. This was not Sikhs voting among themselves.

Bro, I agree it would be great to have an observant Sikh leader of our political unit. But our political unit is not Sarkar-e-Khalsa (the Sikh Raj). It is a province in the Hindu dominated "Republic of India". For a while we had incompetent, sell-out keshadhari "Sikhs" as CMs because that's all the system would allow. Any non-sellout would be dismissed and President's Rule imposed. In addition, there wasn't a choice between a reform candidate with cut beard and a reform candidate with a 2 ft beard and kirpan. The others were just the same rishvatkhor (bribe-takers) that we've seen over the past 50 years. I completely agree that not cutting hair needs to be encouraged among Sikhs, but what is your plan to do so?

If this happens, what do you (and other forum members) think the govt reaction will be? Do you think the Hindus (BJP and the soft Hindutva AAP) will be OK with it because they hate the Muslims? Or do you think they'll have a problem with Sikhs standing up for themselves and gaining experience with "direct action"?

Although AAP is by no means a Punjabi party and it won't solve the fundamental problems of Punjab, just fixing some problems like providing 24 hour electricity, smooth roads, and stopping bribery in the ordinary course of life will allow more Sikhs to move back. If you were a Muslim and told you had to go to Sudan for work, would you want to? On the other hand, if you had a work assignment in Dubai, I don't think you'd have the same problem. And so, if there's any advantage of AAP, it is that it will allow more of us consider going back to our homeland.

This is especially discouraging. Because those rich Sikhs from Bombay are thinking, "let's set up a plant in our homeland." But, no, Badals just won't let them be.

By the way, was it Harbhajan Singh the cricketer who was made a Rajya Sabha member? He knows how to hit the ball, what does he know of Punjab's problems?

What? They made Zail Singh's grandson the Punjab speaker? That's a deliberate insult. I mean, you can't find one other person be speaker than him? Also, is the speaker supposed to be a member of the assembly or a nonmember? Secondly, I have no idea why Sikh politicians think it's necessary to to Bahman stuff to make Hindus happy. I don't actually think Hindus care about that, it's just our politicians are so stupid. As a Sikh I wouldn't require a Hindu to carry a kirpan or something, I just want him to do the right thing in office.

Exactly. They play a dirty game, capitalizing on Sikhs warm regards for Bhagat Singh because he fought the British. And try to smuggle in atheism and communism because, "Hey, you like Bhagat Singh don't you??"

Bro, I'd like to ask you to have a bit more compassion for us. (Yeah, "us" regardless of whether you're in Punjab, Canada, or Malaysia. It's all "us"). The reason is: what kind of fair election can you have when you don't have the right to full free expression? If you say what you'd really like to do when elected, they won't let you enter your election papers. Or you can't say what you want in the media. So it's rigged in that sense from the beginning. What outcome do you think there'd be?

That's actually quite possible. The CIA always tries to maintain links with both ruling and up-and-coming parties. It is always looking to influence countries one way or another. It doesn't care about "stopping corruption in Punjab" or "100 free units of electricity". It just wants whoever's in power to be beholden to it.

Really? Your infographic shows "61 organizations representing 3.3 cr farmers" were for the reforms. What is that supposed to even mean? The fact that the govt got some of their henchmen who happen to be heads of certain organizations to put out press releases does not mean that 3.3 crore farmers were vehemently for these "reforms". You really think all those farmers evaluated the laws in minute detail? Meanwhile, at the main stage for the farmers protest you had lawyers and others day in and day out talking about the laws in detail. And the ways that they would end up being traps for farmers (written on purpose in the laws). The opposition of an informed group means much more than the "membership" in an organization which has been co-opted by the govt.

Oh wow, Suchi says something we can all agree with!

Thus making it a self-fulfilling prophecy. The Jews have it right where they fund going to Israel for Jewish American teenagers. And they don't have to "go back" permanently. Just maintain links. Go there every year during summer vacation. Visit historic Gurdwaras. And extended family. Help poor people. Practice your Punjabi. Worship.

Right, and what rational connection was there between 1/2 crore per acre land price vs the income you could derive from that land from crops? Seemingly, none. Which leads you to the conclusion that something else was going on. Let me take this opportunity to tell everybody: Never sell your jaddi (ancenstral) land back in the homeland. Doesn't matter what price some trader or some corporation offers.

Around 2003 or so, policies of the BJP govt lead to skyrocketing levels of wealth for their favored constituencies (Bombay financial types and traders) plus huge amounts of "black money", they started putting it into hard assets like property. People couldn't figure out why land prices were going so high. It wasn't to buy a house to live it. It was to park black money. Meanwhile, people who just wanted a place to live couldn't afford it. It continues on to today.

They're flaunting their power. Throwing it in our faces.