Ranjeet01

Won't make any difference. All these countries are facing the same problems.

Death threats from apostasy is big factor. Tackle this. This would mean any mullah that stirs up problems need to be tackled. No taqqiyah allowed. Prosecuting anyone who does those death threats.

The EDL has been around several years now and if anything seem to be in the decline. Very few Sikhs will join up with though most of us are very aware of the reasons why they were organised in the first place. Britain First is only really in the news because of Trump's retweeting. If anybody really follows the extreme far right, it was inevitable they would make a comeback because of Islamic Extremism. Nick Griffin whilst he was leader of the BNP noticed this in the early 2000''s well before Britain First and the EDL. Any UK Sikh that has been on Sikh forums since the late 90's/early 2000 's would have foretold and seen these future problem emerging. Because of the problems set up by increasingly Islamic population and the political elites /media turning a blind eye to a lot of the grooming /brainwashing in mosques etc, the working class gora population may potentially turn to the extreme right wing groups as the establishment won't listen. The establishment needs to pull their finger out.

The #metoo has opened up a whole can of worms.

What can be learnt from all this. There are many Sikhs who will speak out against the atrocities but can be picked up and detained on false charges. We need to have a strategy in place on terms what we collectively do. We need to understand what the mechanics are, who are the main influencers, how to become more persuasive.

You see plenty of these types that supposedly represent us in the media. I cannot relate to any of them and to be frank I find them patronising. There are a lot of nuances and contradictions and if you try to explain these things to the white liberal elites, they will try to put you down because they will be in complete denial or you will create cognitive dissonance.

You will find more hindu women with white men. Also, I think our thinking sometimes at least 25 years behind what is happening in reality today. I used to hear of muslim male -sikh female relationships in the early 90's. What has happened to those women today. They are in their 40s maybe close to 50. We hear of a few cases and then say that's all our women. When it comes to marriage choices, women are far more pragmatic. Men are the idealists and romantics who have to become realists. Women are the realist and the pragmatists who pretend to be the romantics. The kind of free spirited girl of Sikh background who goes out with all men and has ultra liberal parents is far more likely to marry a gorah than a muslim. That is what you are more likely to find in my view. I have seen in reality very few Sikh women marrying Muslim men and far more marrying goreh. Like with post to MisterrSingh, our communities have diverged and we have less in common with other Asian communities than 25-30 years ago.

The likes of the Guardian and the BBC are so behind the curve it is unbelievable. Several decades ago, you could say that there was more homogenisation because the UK was more overtly racist and less diverse. When I look at something like BBC Asian Network, it is so antiquated. The reality is that the various Asian communities have diverged to the point we don't have that much in common with each other. I have seen with my own eyes at Pakistani women have dropped wearing traditional salvar kameez and dupatta for the hijab. It has come to the point where I think non Hijab women are less common than the hijab ones. I have seen muslim males adopt those moustachless beards. They have become more overtly Islamic or Arabised. The reality has become that many UK Sikhs today in 2017 have a lot more in common with a gorah then they do with Punjabi muslims.

By nature, women are generally more exogamic. Our women are no different in that regard. What has happened is that men have become increasingly feminised in the west. Our males are not that different. Muslims generally in the UK have insularised themselves to this. A muslim of today would find it very difficult to try it on with non-muslim females in a pre-feminised society because the non-muslim menfolk would protect their women folk. For all the cries of feminism and equality, what a lot of women say and how they actually behave is very different. The reality is women find feminised wimpy men quite pathetic, no matter how they say they want a caring sensitive man. Our males have become wimpy and pathetic and our women are turned off by it. Women want masculine men and our Sikh men need to regain their masculinity.

Like many concepts in Sikhi such as Miri -Piri or being a Sant-Sipahi, there is a question of balance. Two completely diametrically opposed things used in unison. This is something that must apply in this instance also. I find that in this Universe that there seems to be a push and pull factors that seem to be contradict each other but are very complementary when used together. If Sikhs want to do good in the world and for mankind then they cannot help the world if there are fewer and fewer Sikhs until there are no Sikhs left. However, if you put yourself first then you are better equipped to see humanity. Even selfishness and selflessness are not mutually exclusive.

Maybe we are not getting the full picture of the Hukam. Our acommodation and openness must be tempered with common sense. I think Bani is very clear of human nature but we choose to ignore this.

It depends on the situation. The fact is this guy is from West London during the early 90's potentially has an impact because the likelihood this muslim guy would have a lot of Sikh friends. A lone muslim guy in a sea of Sikhs can have a significant impact on the outlook of the muslim guy. I think the Muslim male - non Muslim female has a significant impact because instinctively feel we know what this entails. Generally speaking we as Sikhs have naturally male brotherly protective ness over our sisters. This is a natural feeling that stems from thousands of years of culture. I think from a humanistic perspective we understand that in the propagation of our lineage it is patrilineal /patriarchal and the female marries into the male . When one of our females marries a male from another community we feel that we have lost a female. Because children are born from women, we lose potential Sikhs. It's a survival instinct. The fact that muslim men can be predatory and lord it over non muslims makes it very difficult to believe that a muslim male /Non Muslim or Sikh female relationship can ever be harmless. The reality what would happen if the relationship was in reverse: Sikh male -Muslim female. Compare the 2 dynamics.

When I do my ardaas, I ask for Maharaj to reduce the anger and bitterness inside me, focus on the present to build a better future and be in chardikala to whatever challenges I may face. I used to look at things are problems but with Maharaj's kirpa I now look at these obstacles as challenges to overcome. They become opportunities and after every success I become more chardikala. Chardikala makes you anti -fragile. I think aardas should be a time of gratitude also. I now give dhanvaad to Maharaj as well. I have a lot to be greatful for. It's about the process. If you get a nice house, great job etc - this a byproduct of the process. That's my opinion anyway.

Since the Brexit referendum there has been a net migration from the EU by 124K according to official figures. There is going to be very little migration by Pro -EU Sikhs from UK into the EU. Reality is that the UK is the go to destination for Sikhs who first go into the EU and become pakkeh. And the pro-EU Sikhs who may go into the EU will make their way back to the UK. Reality is that Europe has far less opportunities and has far more discrimination than the UK.

The problem is that we are following ideals and standards, you are expected people to follow those same ideals and standards. But they won't. You have understand people for who they are not what you wish them to be. Even if they proclaim to follow Sikhi. What you are experiencing is anger. You have been born and raised with high values, but your eyes have been opened to the realities. You have swallowed the red-pill and it has left you with a very bitter taste.

What you find is that men and women look for different things in a partner. Reality is that biology trumps everything. Women will look for a tall man athletic man because they want to a man with strong genes to pass on to her children. This is biologically hard-wired into women over thousands of years. In hunter-gatherer societies when you could be attacked by another tribe or by wild animals, you want a big strong man to protect you. They will also ask for a man who is far more educated and earns more money because a woman historically would want a man that was higher in social status who can provision for her and her children. Historically, women did not have professions and were financially dependent on their husbands so therefore it would make sense for them to pick the highest social status man that they can. Men tend to look for a younger woman (they tend not to look for social status) because of fertility.

Great Analysis!?

With a lot of Punjabi women being fickle with the latest trends and fashions, I thought that with the uptake of hipster beards and man buns that they would be fickle enough to be attracted to the kesh.

We would also have a far deeper presence in the Gangetic Plains. No British, no East India Company, no Purbia /Bihari army with no mutiny. The last remaining mughals would have been finished off a lot quicker. Awadh, Agra, Lucknow would have fallen into Sikh hands. There would be a link of Sikhi stretching all the way to Patna.

I would hope that Khalsa empire would have been consolidated with the territories been gained. It would have expanded southward over the Sutlej towards Delhi as there would be no Cis Sutlej agreement with the Brits. The Khalsa Empire would have expanded into Sindh (since there are significant Nanakpanthis in Sindh ). Khalsa Empire would have a seaport since Sindh is by the coast. This would mean that there would be a Khalsa Navy. With coastal trade links, Sikhi would expand across the Indian Ocean. The Sikh population would be larger and I think more Hindus and Muslims would become Sikh. There may have been potential conflict with the Russians as there would no Brits to act as a buffer with the Great Game. With the Industrial Revolution in Europe and Meiji Restoration in Japan in the 1800's there may very well have been some kind of modernisation in industry with the Khalsa Empire. The Punjabi Sikh diaspora would be far smaller because there would be no British Empire to spread the Punjabi Sikh population far and wide. However, we would see Sikhi have a diverse flavour with many different ethnicities being Sikh. In order for the Khalsa Empire to thrive, it would have to transform from being based on some monarchy into something very different. Maybe more panj pyareh orientated perhaps.

It seems it is because this is a University based "research" Both Hundal and Sian are both "University lecturers". One is a sociology lecturer at York and the other is a journalism lecturer at Kingston.

In Afghanistan, the Persian dialect is known as Dari. This is spoken predominantly by the Tajiks whilst Pathans speak Pashto. There isn't a lot of love between Afghans and Iranians either. The modern Iranian generally have a more olive type complexion than we do. Georgians and Armenians resemble the Iranian more than we do. We as Punjabis ga-ga when we see someone with green eyes and then claim Persian/Greek ancestory when if it really was the common we would not even bat an eye-lid. There is a subtext of what is going on. The reality is that as a subcontinental people for several thousand years we have been invaded, pillaged and plundered. It brings great shame. The only great thing that has come out of our homeland in the last 2000 years is Sikhi. However, having Hindu ancestory brings great shame because we see it as being weak and cowardly. Plus with everything going in the last 4 decades has pushed some of our people to completely disown this part and create this new ancestory. There is an expression, " Yesterday's low caste hindu who becomes today's muslim will tomorrow claim Persian /Arab ancestory " I think that some level we are doing the same.

Complacency sets in very quickly with our people.

That is a big part of the problem. Our biological hardwiring is human and we are going to human. It takes a lot to overcome these primal urges and parts of human nature. I think when we deal with non-Sikhs we as Sikhs tend to overcome some of our base human instincts but we get stung very badly because we think because we overcome they have to which is not always the case. Gurdwarae in the West are like social centres because they are few of the places sangat can congregate with one another. The Langar hall is where a great deal of socialisation takes place. Gurdwarae in the west for all their faults do this social stuff very well. You see community halls built, football/hockey and sports team set up, Punjabi classes etc. What is happening with Gurdwarae these days is that they are becoming vanity projects. I guess this is what happens when people become affluent.

Human beings like many other species are organised into hierarchies. The caste system is a hierarchy, you can destroy this hierarchy but it will be replaced by another hierarchy. Humans have always discriminated amongst each other for various reasons.If it is not based on caste it will be something else. There is a phemenon happening with Gurdwarae I hear from relatives in California. Gurdwarae aren't based in commitees where one is Jatts dominated or Tharkhan dominated. They are seperated by what is happening locally. There are different gurdwarae based on if you are a "trucker" or a "doctor".