Ranjeet01

7 minutes ago, proudkaur21 said:

What sickularism are you talking about? That hindu guy mowed down 5 farmers and he is still not in jail. That sadhvi pragya thakur had hands in causing bomb blast and even accepted it and she is not in jail. Hindus can cause riots and are not put in jail. Are you saying the secularism in India is enjoyed by Muslims only? Maybe it was in the start under that nehru and all but this entire country's system has always been anti sikh from the start.

Like I may have pointed out before, this system has a pecking order as to who gets preferential victim status.

Sikhs are bottom of the pile.

27 minutes ago, MisterrSingh said:

I've come to accept, on principle, this isn't a negative once the shackles of secular and enlightenment emotional blackmail is discarded.

In a hypothetical Sikh state, would you want these same dhimmis advocating for a secular Sikh state that will - 100+ years in the future - come to resemble an Islamic or non-Sikh land? There's no point in any of the struggle if a group just breeds their way into demographic change.

Eventually, a government will need to stand up and say, "We don't want ANY of this particular religion / group in this country. We don't wish you any harm, but you can't come in, and those who are already here need to leave." There's no other possible way to overcome this issue in a peaceful way before letting the "problem" grow roots.

You could say the only reason India is secular is because it is a majority Hindu.

Once it becomes non Hindu, secularism gets thrown away.

This type of system happens in a democracy, where there vote bank and numbers count.

What could happen to save India from Islamisation is to throw away the democratic structure and enforce a more autocratic system where vote bank politics and breeding become irrelevant. 

7 minutes ago, MisterrSingh said:

It does beg the question regarding India of all places: why would Indian law create a backdoor for a group such as Muslims to almost colonise a land (over the imperceptible course of decades) through legislation that was originally created, supposedly, as part of a secular constitution? Who or what decided that was a good idea, and more importantly why?

Secularism in India does not mean the same thing that we know it as the west

There is a reason in India Secular is called Sickular. 

In the west, Secularism means separation of religion and state. In India it means separation of Hindu and state.

The Indian secularists are the dhimmis. 

53 minutes ago, MisterrSingh said:

Amusing to hear this when there's upcoming non-Congress Indian intellectuals who are arguing the same about their own Hindu temples not being free.

There's apparently certain laws embedded in Indian legislation that prioritise secularism at the expense of the integrity and autonomy of Hindu religious practices, i.e. the immediate surrounding land on which Hindu temples are built in India isn't owned by the outfit that runs the day-to-day matters of the temple. That's why you get Muslims able to buy beef processing factories on that same land in order to pi55 off these Hindus. And we all know that in a country where secularism is publicly espoused while being home to millions of a specific sand-dwelling religion and its followers, secularism will lead to Islamisation if left unchecked. Eventually, that beef factory will become a mosque. That's the plan.

Open your eyes to the nuance. Don't get your ideas on India and politics from uncles sipping on tea, sharing conspiracy theories from the 80s and 90s in the gurdwara langar hall.

You see the similar tactics employed in the UK.

Wherever there is a muslim owned businesses, they tend to have a prayer room attached to it and it becomes a defacto mosque.

In Queens, there were areas where a Chinese Laundry guy or an Indian Sikh cab driver would not venture because they would be killed for 10 bucks. These are black neighbourhoods where it was so deprived you would be killed to buy food. 

This attack is more of a racial undertone. After 9-11 , many of our Sikhs were attacked by whites but not so much by ethnic groups.

20 years ago, this seems to have changed. 

However like much of Sikh migration in the New York area (Queens), they are moving further east into Long Island. 

11 minutes ago, GurjantGnostic said:

The Beadbi is happening in united states. California. 

Sikhs here should solve it. 

I nominate you and CaliforniaSardar.

Sort them out!

2 hours ago, Redoptics said:

We need to sort this out, what goes on in these peoples head.

 

 

 

I have not seen this as yet, as I would be seething with rage once I have seen it 

Is the globo-homo agenda trying to subvert things again?

16 minutes ago, shastarSingh said:

Plz reply in 'Improving medical care in India '

Also plz elaborate on this washing drum.

 

https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/chandigarh-news/british-sikh-engineer-s-low-cost-washing-machines-to-head-to-india-101628968625183.html

I recall there was a Singh who invented a washing drum to wash clothes with. It was non electrical and it had a handle that you rotated. 

We as Sikhs ideally should aim for 3 children.

Not too many that standards of living go down but enough to be above replacement. 

Ideally these kids should be born so the oldest child is around 6 years older than the youngest children at the most.

1 hour ago, ChardikalaUK said:

The problem is that their overbreeding leads to poverty. I read last week that 18% of Britain lives in poverty but amongst suls it is 50%. They are retarded with their mindset. It will only bring them more hardships.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.sky.com/story/amp/half-of-uk-muslims-will-struggle-to-provide-enough-food-to-break-fast-during-ramadan-charity-says-12580111

Muslims in general are an r-selected type of people, we on the other hand are more k-selected type.

7 minutes ago, shastarSingh said:

A young white girl supported kisan andolan and bhainchod tendulkar said it's Indian people's personal matter.

If tendulkar's son rapes his real sister, will tendulkar say that I don't need outer help as it's my families personal matter??????

It does not matter what Tendulkar thinks 

Just because he was a good batsman does not make his opinion valid in any other matters. 

7 minutes ago, shastarSingh said:

Dear veer

Do u watch cricket?

Indian cricketers always go for personal records and achievements and are selfish.

Bhainchod tendulkar even after earning so much money likes to lick the <banned word filter activated> of ambani and did not stand with farmers at all.

Not a particularly big cricket fan.

India is a country where humans are worshipped, Tendulkar is not a God,  he is just a human being.

8 minutes ago, dallysingh101 said:

I think the opposite is frequently true. The honest person sometimes projects their own honest nature on others and doesn't see things coming, whilst the cunning, crafty person is on the look out for it constantly because they are wary of encountering others like themselves. 

Not always.

Indians are generally quite cunning but found themselves conquered for over a thousand years. 

When you try to be too cunning, you play yourself.

It is easier to con a crafty cunning person than an honest person.

This is because the cunning person lives in a state of self deception.