JagsawSingh

I don't do bhangra and I'm not a fan of bhangra music so I don't want you think I'm attempting to be a master of the art. I'm anything but. However, I should point out to you that bhngra by definition is the dance of the single most joyous.....most happiest time of the year for the farmer. All year round he works to the bone for this day. The day his crops yield. Harvest day. A day to discard the dour garb of the farmer and wear the brightest colours and display sheer unrefined joy. What I'm saying is that you have to understand what bhangra is. Its not the dance of the urban accountant to display joy on tax assessment day. You have to understand its rural significance. Another example is the way that, in the last 10 years everyone in India started saying 'chakk de phatte'. Rural families like mine have had it as a household expression since the day we were born because in our families it was always an everyday expression part and parcel of our occupation. You see, traditionally, when working out in the fields, the water drainage system is controlled by a series of wooden blocks...(phatte). When wanting th water to flow into a particular field the farmer shouts out to his counterpart at th top of his voice "chak de phatte" ! So, to recap, bhangra music and dance belongs to all of us equally but one needs to appreciate rural farming Punjab in order to understand aspects of it such as 'brrrrrrr' (herding the goats) , chake de phatte (water irrigation to the fields), smiling and bright colour clothes. Once you take away the essence of bhangra it is no longer bhangra.

Its all entered a brand new phase now hasn't it ? Its a PR battle now. They're gonna spin lies in this battle and its up to us to be media savvy enough to counter them in a clever way. So what is 'clever' ? Thats the question. For example, we need to ask ourselves if men, marching, doing that traditional 'Indian' demonstration/protest/strike movement of rollinging the right arm upwards and forwards with a clenched fist is clever enough to get us and our point of view on the news. I would counter that it isn't. Every day across India there are men marching whilst at the same time shouting a slogan and rolling their right arm upwards and forwards with a clenched fist. Its not the type of thing that gets the media even slightly interested. What would be 'clever; for example, is women and children doing something different to get the media interested....perhaps by incorporating mock coffins signifying our dead or Pinocchio signifying Badal's lies or something. I'm not saying thats what we should be doing now but I am saying our traditional way of males marching while rolling their right arm upwards and forwards will never get us, our cause and our counter to their lies on the news.

Our community is drinking far far less than it did in the 1970's,80's and 90's. When I was a kid, for example, there were always blind drunk people at weddings but I don't think I've even seen a legless blind drunk person at a wedding in the last 10 years or so. There's been a complete culture shift. The drinking seems very moderated and when it comes to weddings I think the biggest positive factor in that has been the way that husbands sit with their wives and kids as a family unit. This creates and fosters a very moderated outlook. But, even when we did drink alot (and I too used to drink) our alcohol consumption was always far lower than the white British. The problem however, was that we as a race, like the native americans and aborigines, lack that certain enzyme that helps break down alcohol. Thus it had a far bigger effect on us compared to the white britons. Bigger effect of course means negative effect and of course you're right in the fact that it caused alot of family heartaches.

Well, at least it has given some of you pause for thought and not too readily take the position of the 'Indian'. That can only be a good thing because they (the Indians) have planted that seed (idea) in your heads for too long now. Part of the process to self-determination is not only seeing the future without those that enslave you but also seeing the past differently by understanding that your past is not the same as their past. That requires a deeper knowledge and understanding of history per se and once we have that we wil surely be free.

I've been to Pakistan. There's an unbelievable love / affinty for Sikhs there. I'm not going to lie to you, it is mostly because they really do see Hindus as pagan devil / idol worshippers and they get a lot of news out there about anti-Sikh atrocities in India. When they see often what's happening to the Sikhs it makes them feel really relieved and grateful to have got out of there and made their Pakistan and deep down I think many feel that Sikhs have been left behind to suffer there (in India). But what you mention about 'Khalistan' including places like Lahore etc is not really correct. I don't tend to use the word 'Khalistan' because I basically just want a free Punjab so whether or not its called 'Khalistan' or not is irrelevent. However iif you want to call it 'Khalistan' in this discussion than thats fine. we'll do that. So what you'll find is that its just a tiny 1% of 'Khalistanis' who are calling for territories within Pakistan to be included. 99% of we Khalistanis do wish they'd shut up because their stupid unrealistic pipe-dream call basically destroys any hope for real freedom. So get that out of your head. All Sikhs want is what is rightfully theirs: the natural right to self-determination.

Every community has them. Most probably more than us. Carribean blacks don't tend to have as many father/husband issues though. Thats mostly because they don't know who/where he is.

Well done Jagmeet Singh. Personally I think every Sikh in the Uk should refuse to pay the licence fee collectively as they obviously don't feel we exist. Lets see them drag 500,000 people through the courts to be given prison sentences !!!! As for the point about Canadian media coverage; Its not really relevant here. London is a world hub for news. Relatively minor things that happen here get reported in news outlets in virtually the entire globe. In that respect, a report in Canada is a bit like a report in a village parish newsletter. Only local people see it.

Following on from the thread about Sikh soldiers of the British Army and the discussion that took place there in which some Sikhs seem to have a view about the British Raj as if they are Hindus from Calcutta or Bombay. I've got some things to say about this subject because most of all I think it is a sad indictment of the way that Hindu India has got inside the minds of Sikhs and sub-consciously made the Sikhs identify with, put themselves in the shoes of and ultimately imagine they and the 'Indians' are one of the same. There's alot I could say in this opening message but time is not on my side at the moment so I really can't afford to give it too much time in terms of structure and quality. Please forgive me for that. Let me start off then by talking briefly about the psyche of we, the Sikhs. It must not be forgotten that we Sikhs were empire builders too. At the time of the British Raj we too had an empire and thus we too had that empire mindset. Just as the Sikhs living in Canada for 150 years for example will surely have different traits in terms of character and outlook than a Sikh newly arrived in Italy, our life experience as rulers and empire builders shaped our psyche to be totally different to that of the Hindu masses of India. So we had that right from the onset. Right from the onset we felt no affiliation for the Indians because right from the onset they were as foreign to us as the British were. It’s also worth noting the importance of perception vs reality when it comes to empire. For example, our Sikh rule in places other than Punjab was seen as harsh by those subjects. Indeed, even to this day the Pashtu word for 'Cruel Rule' is sikha shahi (Sikh rule). But you see the thing is, taking over people's countries is now considered very wrong but that’s only because there have, since then, been so many interrelated academic ideas about the natural rights of people to rule themselves and these natural rights have now been accepted as the norm. But we have to remember that in those days empire was accepted as the norm and 'natural'. Experience too played a part in that initial period. For example there is no doubt why the Indians should see the Raj as evil when one considers how places such the Bengal were decimated to abject poverty once it's cloth trade relocated to places like Lancashire in England but a Sikh from the Punjab should not for one minute see himself as that Indian. So, given that we too, like the British, saw ourselves as men of power and empire, it’s probably worth having a slight amount of relief that it was Britain and not France that colonised us. At that time, of course, the Khalsa Kingdom and Punjab had developed unbelievably close ties with France. So much so that French became the Khalsa army's official language of war. This of course is still evident today in the way that some of our most common names, such as Jarnail and Karnail, were taken from French army ranks. Given the plethora of French generals in the Khalsa army and their regular documented correspondence with King Louis in Paris, I have no doubt that France saw Punjab as the key to winning the 'Great Game' with Russia and Britain and we would have seen the Franco-Sikh War rather than the anglo-sikh ones. I say be thankful for that because history and the present have shown us that France left all its colonies in far worse economic shape than the British did. That of course is demonstrated in the way that so many francophone African countries wish join the British Commonwealth even though they were never previously British colonies. The French habitually left dire institutions, structure and economies wherever they went. So, we're up to the point we're Britain ruled the Punjab. I'm not going to go into detail about how Britain went back on its treaty promises and shouldn't have ruled in the first place etc. because that is well documented and this is about what was, not what should have been. Within 2 years of the British in Punjab they started building roads (such as the GT Road), the magnificent railways and educational institutions such as Punjab's first ever University. The biggest cost was of course the railways and all of that was paid for by British investors because all of this was, ultimately a commercial enterprise that the British government had to reluctantly take over from the east India Company when the whole thing got bigger than they could manage. But when it comes to we Sikhs, there is no doubt that some people use the 'Agricultural land' situation as the example of how the British used 'divide and conquer' and 'caste'. There is no doubt whatsoever that the Jatt Sikhs, like myself, were the biggest winners from the British Raj. Heavily favoured, getting vast tracts of land and positions of power etc. it is of course natural to assume this was a divide and conquer tactic. There's nothing new there as even the Mughals, just before the Khalsa Raj did exactly the same thing. For example, the vast majority of the early jatt Sikh settlers in the UK, Canada and California all belonged to the tiny stretch of land in District Jalandhar from Phillaur to Nakodar. This tiny area, where my own family is also from, is called the 'Manjki Tract' and the inhabitants are called the Manjki Jatts. It was in this area that the Dhaliwal Misl that invaded Delhi and raised the Nishan Sahib over the Red Fort were settled. Rather than go to war with them the Mughals sought to placate them by earmarking the Manjki Tract as a Jagir, i.e a tract where the Sikhs would not be bothered by the Mughals and no taxes would be collected etc. So these types of things are nothing new. But I don't think Sikhs should see this whole thing in the way a Hindu should, and there are 2 reasons for this: Firstly, contrary to popular belief among non-jatt Sikhs, the Punjab Land Acts were actually designed to stop the encroachment of urban Hindu moneylenders into rural Punjab. In British India (outside of Punjab) a common problem was beginning to develop, and that problem was that the agriculturalists were getting themselves into debt and the urban Hindu moneylenders were foreclosing the rural farms. This benefited nobody, especially as the country needed farmers producing goods. It was to prevent this from happening in Punjab that the Land Acts were passed, ensuring only Jatt Sikhs could own land. Secondly, the system of Law the British set up in Punjab might give the non-jatt Sikh the impression that it was designed to be against all non-jatts but we need to have a little understanding of history here. Essentially, after the Anglo-Sikh Wars, the British kept the same system we Sikhs had in place during our Khalsa Raj. It’s well documented how the Iranian language Farsi was the language of the Courts in the Sikh Kingdom but essentially there was no Law as such. Sikhs, throughout our empire, used 2 systems of Law, and we can pretty much conclude that one was specifically for the pathan tribal areas into Afghanistan and the other was for all other parts of our empire. The first was called 'wajib-ul-arz' and this means 'Tribal Custom' and the second is 'riwaj -i-am', i.e aam rawaj, and this of course refers to the local customs and laws of the pends. And this is quite interesting really because it shows how we Sikhs were developing a common customs based law in Punjab at the same time the English were developing their Common Law. This was very different to what there was before the Sikhs because the Mughals pretty much had islamic shariat law in place. So, when the British took Punjab they introduced the 'Customary Laws' specifically for the Punjab and they used as their template the exact same system we Sikhs had in place in our empire. This was then given extra legitimacy with the enaction of the Punjab Law Act of 1872. This system which, as I just stated, was a continuation of our Sikh way of governance during our Sikh raj, basically involved having a Sikh Kardar (The Sikh raj introduced the concept of having a 'Kardar' as well as that of 'Sardar' and the Kardar performed judicial duties based on customary traditions which in the pends of Punjab meant Sikh traditions). This was not a bad thing at all as one of the benefits of this system the British embraced, evil non-sikh 'traditions' such as widow burning and female infanticide became against the Law for the first time). The British embraced this system mostly in order to benefit the Sikhs and disenfranchise the Hindus (because it has to be remembered that Sikhs were mostly rural whereas Hindus were mostly urban). The sad side effect of all of it was that the very few Sikhs that were urban were also disenfranchised along with the Hindu targets and thats one of the reasons many Sikhs have misguidingly embraced the urban Hindu position regarding the Raj. In conclusion then, since the British left in 1947, Hindu India officially denies we even exist, massacres us regularly, stops our children from attending classes with kirpans, sarkar steals the land, Punjab has gone from the richest state to number 11 on the list. This Hindu Raj we're under now is the real enemy of the Sikhs of Punjab. So when it comes to the British Raj do NOT look at it from the eyes of a Hindu Indian. You are neither. If your'e an urban Sikh then no doubt you were in a sense disenfranchised too but understand that you were not the actual target of those British policies. The British position was to ensure Sikhism remains seperate from Hinduism and as the Sikhs were rural and the Hindus were urban in Punjab, this policy manifested itself as a rural friendly policy. Understand the bigger picture.

Ah yes. That Jugraj Singh question you keep trying to ignore by posting other stuff instead. So, for the last time, we're not talking about Jugraj Singh's views about british army's part in Bluestar because we all agree with him there. We're not talking about Jugraj Singh's views about caste because we all agree with him there. In fact, we all agree with him on everything. The question however is about the one thing that you made it clear you didn't agree with him about. Now, I've met Jugraj Singh loadsa times and he's always keen to praise the British Army and its relationship to we Sikhs, and actively reccommends our kids join up. So, I'm asking you for the last time, how do you justify these words of yours: .You said : "our people aren't as dumb as in the past (even pendu jatts), I can't imagine hordes of apnay joining these people's military like they did in the past. That's not going to happen. What they will try is to get some uncle Tom type tokens and bandy them about" So, seeing how Jugraj Singh is also a very proud ex soldier of the British Army how do you explain calling people like him "pendu jatt uncle tom simpletons" ? One minute you say only backward pendu jatt simpleton uncle tom arse lickers would join the British Army and then when someone points out to you how one of the heroes of our generation is one of those and who also, in his talks, reccomends all Sikhs join up you go silent on the matter. Whats happened to your tongue now ? Speak up. Don't be scared. Have faith in your convictions. You said it so you obviously believe it but Im just asking you to clarify why you think he is such a "pendu jatt backward uncle tom simpleton" when the rest of us have such a high opinion of him. Its a simple question. Answer it

No. Things are rarely what they seem MisterSingh. No really talking about the 'german / 3rd reich' thing you mentioned in your message because I really don't have much interest in that. I'm talking about the Indian line of 'The British were evil theives who looted India' that some Punjabi Sikhs have foolishly embraced. Sikhs need to remember that they are not some bhaya Bombaywala for whom that statement is true. They are Sikhs from the Punjab. Not India. I'll telll you what....I'll make a brand new thread on it later this evening when I come back from the Gurdwara (my youngest is performing shabad for first time at darbar kirtan)

No. And that is articulated in the fact that while ALL the other Sikhs groups formed into Misls and took power, destroying the enemies, made empires, accumulated vast land the Bhatras managed the following: Zero Armies / Misls Zero land aquired Zero power acquired Zero enemies defeated in battles Zero political power Your community has achieved Zero nothing and that is why it has always been a fringe little group on the outskirts of Sikhi as the other Sikh groups not only do not accept you they also have nothing to do with you. Now thats nothing to do with background. Its to do with culture and traditions. Your culture and traditions are, to ALL the other Sikhs, completely and utterly low class and un-Sikh. So, whatever the opposite word for ferocious is, that is what the Bhatras are. That is borne out in the fact that the vast majority of Sikhs have never even heard of a 'bhatra'. The other thing to remember is that 50% of all Sikhs are female, and while all other Sikh groups have Sikh female warriors with dastars and shasters, the Bhatra women swan about in tacky gypsy gold and red dots on their foreheads with the word 'Devi' in their name. You're now making up history as you go along you little muppet. All the history books tell of the time during Sri Guru Hargobind's time when Sikhi entered the military phase and the Jatts entered en masse. During that time, the history books say, the bhatras were wandering minstrels from central India who had just begun to enter the Punjab after learning about Sikhi on our Guru's travels in India. Thus, your people are not ethnically Punjabi in the sense that all other groups and that of course is borne out in the way your people look Jesus Christ just how deluded are you ? :biggrin2: Do you even know how small and insignificant the Bhtra population is in comparison to worldwide Sikhi ? Your community is so small in numbers that most have absolutely no idea you even exist. :biggrin2: So lets get this straight, a tiny insigificant group of small dark people from central India came to the Punjab to act as 'bhats'...i.e minstrels, never ever had any army, but saved all the Sikhs with their fortune telling skills ?????? Seriously fella, you have mental health issues. Don't just say its well documented....document it for us. We're the same blood. From the same clans. Were living together in the same pends right up until 1947. Both my forefathers and the forefathers of the Muslim Jatts converted from the darkness that was Hinduism. None converted from Sikhism to islam. So what point do you think you're trying to make then ? Your people are little dark people native to Central India. You came to the Punjab to wander about as minstrels and as such took on the profession of kirtanis. You must be the great warriors that every single book ever written about Sikh warriors forgot to mention :biggrin2: Right from the beginning, right 'till today, the bhatras have been landless. Yes I and my community own the land. Its not just any old land mind. Its the beautiful fertile land of the Punjab which is arguably the most expensive agricultural land on planet earth (selling 1 acre in Punjab buys you 20 to 30 acres in Canada and 10 acres in expensive England) Seriously now, get some mental help man. You are so tiny and insignificant nobody even knows you exist. But you're right, you are the 'Mirpuris' of the Sikh community in that you think women only exist to stay at home, cover themselves and make babies for the men. And there we go. Our very own resident Pakistani Mirpuri community, equally as lazy without the Sikh / Punjabi work ethic and equally as abusive towards females.

The question to you was about THIS thing you said. You said : "our people aren't as dumb as in the past (even pendu jatts), I can't imagine hordes of apnay joining these people's military like they did in the past. That's not going to happen. What they will try is to get some uncle Tom type tokens and bandy them about" Now, the question to you, seeing how Jugraj Singh is also a very proud ex soldier of the British Army, and thats a point he articulates well and often, how do you explain calling people like him "pendu jatt uncle tom simpletons" ? One minute you say only backward pendu jatt simpleton uncle tom arse lickers would join the British Army and then when someone points out to you how one of the heroes of our generation is one of those and who also, in his talks, reccomends all Sikhs join up you go silent on the matter. Whats happened to your tongue now ? Speak up. Don't be scared. Have faith in your convictions. You said it so you obviously believe it but Im just asking you to clarify why you think he is such a "pendu jatt backward uncle tom simpleton" when the rest of us have such a high opinion of him. Its a simple question. Answer it.

DallySingh, you wern't Army material then and you certainly ain't army material now, especially given how you lack the inherent Sikh work ethic that exists in all other Sikhs. As I stated before, it is entirely natural and understandable that you will have such contempt for an institution that labelled your grandfather and great-grandfather useless. Of the pioneers in Britain, it was only the Bhatras that wern't here because the Army conection. But if you read up on our history here the Bhtaras even back then pretty much rubbished the good name of Sikhi by habitually doing gypsy like cold-calling on people's front doors for a living. But, as the Bhatras are such a tiny insignificant group on the fringes of Sikh society, indeed one that the vast majority of Sikhs don't even know exists, they are hardly important in this discussion. California in the late 1800's.....western canada in the late 1800's.....rural Australia in the late 1800's.....Malaysia....Singapore.....Shanghai.....Hong Kong all the way to Southall and Gravesend (Britain's 2 largest 'Sikh towns'); The one thing they all have in common is that it was retired Sikh soldiers from the British Army that laid the foundation to these Sikh societies that exist today. Oh...and that photo you pasted of the ghadar party: My forefathers that settled in the farmlands of California in the late 1800's, along with their kith and kin which at that point were more in washington state (around Bellingham) and Oregan after initially being in Vancouver, were, along with all the other Ghadars of California, ex soldiers of the British Army. What was that word you used? Oh yeah...."Muppet" ! You mean people like Jugraj Singh of 'Basics of Sikhi' ??????? He's been called alot of things by a lot of people but I don't think a fellow Sikh has labelled him an "uncle tom pendu jatt" by a fellow sikh for being a soldier in the british army before. This is definately a first. Care to clarify why you think Jugraj Singh of 'Basics of Sikhi' is such a British arse licking uncle tom backward pendu jatt simpleton ???????????

In other threads he goes on about Muslim boys "seducing" Sikh girls.....and blames the girls. Yesterday he went on about a Sikh boy being "seduced" by a Mulsim girl.............and blamed the girl. That ^ is indicative of a totlly un-sikh mysoginist upbringing within a fatally fawed community sub-culture.

As I stated before, our granfathers and great-grandfathers who were brave soldiers of the British Army are the very reason every single Sikh community in Canada, California, Australia, Singapore, Malaysia and the UK exists. It is despicable to pee on their good name when they laid the foundation to the great life we all have in the west. Truly despicable. The second point that should be remembered is that The British Army did so much for the Khalsa identity. For example, in the British Army any Sikh that ever laid a pair of scissors on any of his hair was instantly dismissed. In contrast, the Indian Army in it's Baat Chaat Bulletin 37 said 'the Amritdharis, with their completely uncut hair, are enemies of the nation and must be hunted down'. It is truly despicable that there are Sikhs in this current generation that criticise the former and praise the latter. Now, I fully understand that as the British Army only rated Jatts and Mazabhis there are Sikhs groups that feel aggrieved to the point of hatred that their own community was sidelined and rubbished in this way by the Army. I fully understand that and maybe I would feel the same way if I were in their shoes but that is no reason at all the great sacrifices and great history of our grandfathers.

All the jathedars of the Akal Takht must go and we should not let up until they do and we should intensify it to the point tht Badal finally gets what he deserves. As I said in my last message, when our male relative told us over the phone the other day he was going to cross the Sutlej and join the protest, we told him to leave his dad and brother at home and take his sister, mum and aunties instead. I reminded him how, when the Shah Of Iran was facing a million bearded men outside his palace he didn't even blink. But when a hundred thousand women joined the protest he was gone within hours. Its a psychological thing both for the protestors and the killers. Psychologicaly the brutal Badal police will find it hard to open fire on unarmed women (as we've seen over the last few years they have no problem at all shooting dead unarmed Sikh men). The moment they do, they are finished because that is not something the worldwwide media will ignore. And with that wider India as a whole will push for him to go. For the protestors themselves there is honsla in the feeling that our mothers and sisters are with us there. It gives us collective strength. 50% of Sikhs are female. 50% of the protest must be comprised of females and then it will become an unstoppable force.

Tell you what, it's pointless even talking to you so why don't you just do the following in this order: Tell your wife its time to go shopping for some dead animals to eat at the butchers shop. As your dad and uncles are also in the house she will of course have her face covered in pardah so whisper it into her. You're both a bit tired after the wedding you went to yesterday but you feel it will be nice to spend some time with her today because the curtain that divides men from women at your wedding functions does of course make it hard to mix. While you wait for to get ready by puuting on enough gold to make a gypsy blush and a red dot on her forehead, do some pooja to one or two of the photographs of dead people you like to have hanging on the walls. On the way to the butchers, stop and trick a stranger by reading his plam. After that, before you get to the butchers, why not stop at your Gurdwara and enjoy a nice fry-up of sausages, bacon and eggs. After that, you meet a cousin who gives you some terrible news. He informes you that one of your neices, who is now turned 16, insists on going to college to study. You can't allow her to bring that type of shame to your family so you do what needs to be done: You get her married off at 16. Once you get home, put on the TV and watch the Sikh channels. Wander, sadly, why it is that none of the people on any of the Sikh channels looks like you and your family, sounds like you and your family, has the same traditions as you and your family. Wander, sadly, why all the other Sikhs want nothing to do with you and have more social interaction with muslims and hindus than they do with you. Feeling sad, get on the internet later that evening and live in make believe land. Make yourself feel better about who you are by making up all kinds of cr*p. Then, go to sleep exhausted. Its been a hard long day. Unfotunately, when you wake up in the morning you'll still really be who you really are. :biggrin2:

Sikh boys being killed and maimed by Badal's bullets is so common that it is no longer newsworthy. When my wife's nephew telephoned us this morning to say he was crossing the Sutlej to be there we told him to leave his bother and dad behind on the farm and take his sister, mother and aunties instead. This was a time for the bibian to make a stand. A time for bibian to make the Sikh voice heard. I told them how the Shah of Iran never faltered or even blinked whan 2 million Persian men with beards were outside his palace but he fell within minutes when a few thousand females and academics joined in. Lets see Badal shoot bibian in the back with bullets without the international media taking notice.

Dallysingh, me and you have sparred on here way too much already, and none of it has been of any benefit to our qoum so please understand that what I'm going to say has no ulterior motivation about and relevance to background or 'community' : Sikh military history and 'sepoys' are as different and seperate as a Nigerian and a Norwegian. In Sikh miltary history, the word 'sepoy' has always been a derogatory term. The British knew that and that is why they always used us as brutal enforcers, for example, to crush the Chinese Boxer Rebellion in China as well as the Sepoy Mutiny in India of 1857. With regards to the Sepoy Mutiny of course (The Indian Mutiny) it was understandable why we Sikhs would want to crush it as it was the Mughals who were the power behind it but the main point was that the Seopys were the purbias that we Sikhs remembered from the second anglo-sikh war. It was always in our pshyche to detest the sepoy and thus the British always went out of their way to distinguish the Sikh from the sepoy. What I'm trying to say here is that you have not properly grasped the basics of sikh military history.

So when a girl does it it's a girls fault and when a man does it it's also a girls fault ? umm, just wandering then, according to this strange version of sikhi that you have, is it ever the fault of man ?

We were never going to look south. Its worth remembering that Malwa wasn't part of Sikh Punjab at that time but as the Khalsa Kingdom used it as a protecorate the psyche of the Sikhs of Punjab was to always and constantly look to central Asia for expansion etc. As for the British, the other side of the argument is that they did in many ways save our faith when you think how much emphasis they placed on being amritdhari and never trimming the hair. They had a very strict policy that any Sikh that ever trimmed his hair would be instantly dismissed. When you compare that to the current Hindu Indias Army Bulletin Batt Chaat 37 which states that "amritdhari Sikhs, with complete uncut hair, are the enemies of the nation and must be hunted down" its difficult to see Britain as the bad guy. There's lots to think about but as Sikhs we've got to remember groups that were considered not good enough for the army will naturally have bad things to say about hence the racist rants from the bhatra or two in the message above you.

Nothing funnier than a simpleton being brainwashed by the Indians giving lectures to Sikhs about being brainwashed by the bhamans. :biggrin2: Brother, as a Punjabi, you spent thousands of years as the easternmost (and richest) province of Persia, while everything to the south of you was loosely Hindustan. Evil Mughals came and incorporated you into a concept called India. After that, we Punjabis again regained total and complete seperation by being our own kingdom and empire, completely seperate to the concept to the south of us called India. Then , the British came along and incorporated you into India. Then, in 1947, you found yourself with India once again purely because of the lies and false promises made by Nehru at the All India Congress in Calcutta in 1946. And there you have it. A simpleton (you), who knows absolutely nothing about his hstory as a Punjabi, giving lectures to others about how they should be proud to be 'Indian'. You are indeed a first class muppett.

All meat is prohibited. I've never eaten any meat for example. But, if I were to start eating meat there is nothing in Sikhism that makes me single out 'beef' as a special case. Like I said, you may be confusing we Sikhs with Hindus.

All they really needed to do was to start the article by mentioning how a 'trainee masseuse' was the object of the news story. People would generally expect a male massause to be a bit of a drama queen and throw a hissy fit.

Yes Meat but not 'beef' in particular. I think you're confusing Sikhs with Hindus.