JagsawSingh

About 3 weeks ago the Admins started a thread in which they said there are occassions when individuals, institutions and governments ask SikhSangat.com for the IP addresses of some of us and there are occassions when Sikhsangaat.com oblige and give out our addresses.

Following that comment by the Admins, many of you ignored it and carried on talking about some other stuff. I however, did not ignore it because I found the revelation to be startling. I wrote a comment about how scared and surprised I was that this website had been sometimes giving out our IP addresses to people and governments.

Guess what ? No one of you had anything to say on the matter but instead carried on talking about some other stuff.

Perhaps now this thread will awaken some brain cells in your collective brains ?

I'll repeat what I said at the start of this message:

About 3 weeks ago the Admins started a thread in which they said there are occassions when individuals, institutions and governments ask SikhSangat.com for the IP addresses of some of us and there are occassions when Sikhsangaat.com oblige and give out our addresses.

This thread is showing itself to be a living, walking, talking example of why both Hindus and Muslims stereotype us as a very simple and not too smart people.

Its been made crystal clear by some of us that "if" and only if the boy is a "Sikh", she must go ahead and marry him even if it goes against her parents wishes, for caste has no place in Sikhi.

If however, the boy and his family is a believer in a 12th Guru, a Guru elevated to the status of most important and yet still calls himself a 'Sikh', and the odds say this is a very likely scenario given the boy's background, then No, the girl's parents are absolutely correct in showing their disaproval. A Sikh must only marry a Sikh. Its a very simple point. I can't understand why some of you here are advocating getting Sikh girls married to people that willy nilly add further Gurus into Sikhism. Do you hate yourselves and your religion so much that you're trying to destroy it ?

Wow !!! Scary ignorance being demonstrated here. :omg:

Talk to any Sikh child or even any white or black child that has ever studied the very basics of Sikhism in school, and he or she will tell you that any visual moving depiction of the Gurus is absolutely forbidden in Sikhism. This is crystal clear and beyond debate.

I am absolutely flabergasted that there are grown 'Sikhs' on this 'Sikh' forum actually OK with it. :omg:

Slippery slopes are dangerous. More dangerous still are blind muppets on slippery slopes. We've clearly got more than just a few of them here on this discussion. These fools are too silly to see how they are making a rod for the Sikh's back. Lets just analyse, for one moment, exactly what they are saying is "OK" and "Sikhism" to do.

By their reasoning, its would be perfectly "OK" and perfectly "Sikhi" for all Jullahe Sikhs to elevate the Bhagat Kabir to the status of not only GURU, but as the number one premier Guru. So, that would be a religion with 12 Gurus with one rising above all, i.e the one that came from their own 'caste.

By their reasoning, its would be perfectly "OK" and perfectly "Sikhi" for all Jatt Sikhs to elevate the Bhagat Dhanna Jatt to the status of not only GURU, but as the number one premier Guru. So, that would be a religion with 12 Gurus with one rising above all, i.e the one that came from their own 'caste.

D'ya see now what I mean by slippery slope and making a rod for our own backs ? There is no way in hell anyone in their right mind could describe any of the above as 'Sikhs' following 'Sikhism'. But here's the thing; the above is wild nightmare fantasy whilst the chamar thing is real....very real. Clearly, the supposed 'Sikhs' here supporting the chamars doing this are indeed 'out of their minds'.

I've talked to her before, she's very sweet. Let her live her life however she wants, she will get whatever karma she will get, and you will get whatever karma you get, insaaf always happens after mrityu, so why worry about someone else?? She isn't harming anyone.

See here's what I don't understand about comments supporting Harnaam Kaur. She's a human being and has a right to live her own life the way she pleases. Nobody is disputing that especially given the harsh conditions that fate has dealt her. I can see its been incredibly difficult for her to find her place in society and its easy to see how she went through the phase of wearing dastaar, kirpan etc because that phase not only gave her life some meaning but also gave her celebrity and acceptance as media outlets flocked to her. So, I would never actually criticise her, as she was obviously trying desperately to find a place in the normal life we all take for granted.

My gripe is more with all the Sikhs, especially Kaurs and Sikh organisations that portrayed her as a role model for all Sikh girls. I remember there were Gurdwaras up and down the country inviting her to give 'inspiration' talks. It is these Sikhs, Kaurs and Gurdwaras that need to have a quiet word with themselves. Her multitude of Tatoos are nothing new. She had them and was getting more while our Sikh institutions and Kaurs were portraying her as an inspiring hero. Her multitude of body piercings are nothing new. She had them and was getting more while our Sikh institutions and Kaurs were portraying her as an inspiring hero. Her fondness of beers is nothing new. She was a drinker while our Sikh institutions and Kaurs were portraying her as an inspiring hero. Her talk of the love of sex is certainly nothing new as the very thing that got the Kaurs and Gurdwaras so inspired and excited by her was that very first interview she did in the newspaper where she lay on her bed saying how "sexy she feels".

Our Kaurs and Sikh institutions were so blinded and mesmerized by the dastaar and kirpan that they were not able to read the text of the interview.

This whole Harnaam Kaur episode is not a lesson for her The subjects of this fiasco are us...the Sikh sangat. The lesson is for us. I'm not going to spell it out. You should all be able to learn it yourself.

I submitted this piece of work last year and got a good mark, above 70. I'm not sure whether to apply for an Msc or PhD, so I'm trying to prepare a proposal based on SRE in schools. What are the Sikh views on who should deliver this controversial subject? Are there many Sikh parents out there that openly discuss about such taboo topics with their children?

Thanks in advance!

Sister, with respect, it means alot to you personally because you have devoted thousands of physical and mental hours towards studying it and perhaps, or hopefuly in your case, making an academic career out of it.

But thats academia. This is reality. In the real world, Sikhs have been for centuries, and continue to, like nearly all Asians (south and east), marry, have sex, make children, bring up those children.

In other words, we know what to do. Your parents from the pend didn't have the 'sex education' you're prescribing but still they knew how to have you.

Statisticaly, we have, here in the west, less sexual assaults than the others, less illegal sexual perversion than the others and yet more getting married and making children. In other words, we already know what to do better than the others.

If the above piece is written by you than it is written well. But, always bear in mind that a doctorate will entail people interrogating you, asking you to justify your research and finding. Your proposal, sister, is all to easy to tear down.

My point was (as I said in one of my first posts on this discussion) that caste should not matter if you have the same Gurdev/IshtDev. Which in this case is Sahib Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. If both have taken Amrit and belong to the same Guru, then no problems from that point of view.

However, going against parents wishes is an entirely different kettle of fish...

We're in agreement with everything then Koi, except your use of a Hindi word when a perfectly good Punjabi one will do. Our language is 1000 years older than theirs. It is them, not us, who should be sometimes using, out of respect, words from a foreign language (Punjabi) from their point of view. Slowly slowly monkey monkey they are destroying us by colonising our hearts and minds. The first step of this is through language. Each and every day I look for signs of it and I stamp violently on it like a dirty rash that needs to be squashed. Please don't do it again.

I don't think "Ravidasia" was mentioned anywhere by the Original post, just "chamar"

Have you read any message properly ?

There wre clues for you. Certain words were mentioned. Individual words such as 'hypothetical'. Collection of words together such as 'statistically, the vast majority of chamars are Ravidasias'. And other collection of words such as 'even though ravidassias have a 12th Guru who they elevate to the status of the one true Satguru, they still clasify themselves as Sikhs'.

These were all clues. In life, not everything is spelt out to you. Sometimes you need to use your common sense. For example, if, on some other forum, someone starts to talk about their undying love of Hitler and the BNP you can take it that statisticaly there's a good chance he's a racist....despite him not mentioning the fact in his message.

Now.....you and the other can go back to your completely meaningless discussion about surnames. A conversation made all the more ridiculous with the fact that 2 Punjabis are talking to each other about 'gorths' but each show their intellectual immaturity by thinking they are both Hindus sitting in Bombay by using the totally alien Hindi word 'gotra'.

Do you even know why you're both using a Hindi word when a perfectly good Punjabi word is available (especially when one remembers how Punjabi is nearly a thousand years older than Hindi) ? :giggle:

Singhsabha1699,

For the last time please stop talking about Dera Ballan. It is irrelevent to this conversation. This conversation is purely about any group of people who want to distort Sikhi and add a '12th Guru' onto the list just because that bhagat was of the same 'caste' as them and then refer to that bhagat as the one true 'SatGuru'. Such people cannot, by very definition, be classed as Sikhs. So, as I said before, just because the OP's boyfriend describes himself as a 'Sikh' (and remember, the majority of these people that do the above still classify themselves as Sikhs) it doesn't neccessarily make it so.

Forget about dera bhallan. Every person that does the above is, by very definition, a Ravidassia. The vast majority of chamars have the above belief system. So, whilst it is at this point all hypothetical, the statistical odds do point to the boyfriend being a ravidassia.

Its all really very simple: Either you accept Sikhs as Sikhs or you accept people who distort, modify and bastardize Sikhi as Sikhs. I, along with the girl's family are in the first camp and you in the latter.

Neither I nor her parents have anything we need to justify here. Instead, it is you who need to explain how and why you think it is a good idea for this Sikh girl to marry into a family that has a 12th Guru who is, in their eyes, the Satguru.

I spent the whole of this thread trying, to no avail, to explain to the 90% of posters here who were against the idea of having a Sikh Regiment that they (you) were playing right into the hands of your enemies. It was the Indians and Hindu nationalists in general that scuppered the idea last time around. This time around, judging by the comments here, Hinduvta fundamentalists don't need to do anything.....There is clearly a new generation of young UK Sikhs so silly and gullible they do the work of the anti-Sikh hinduvta brigade for them.

Anyway, it didn't take too long (only a week or so) for the Indians to start doing the same thing they did last time around. They, unlike most of you, realised then and realise again now, that a Sikh Regiment in the British Army will seriously damage India's claim to 'own' the Sikhs.

This, on another thread started today on SikhSangat, shows how the Indian PR machine against the Sikh Regiment has started in earnest:

http://www.sikhsangat.com/index.php?/topic/76725-india-getting-desperate-in-countering-impact-of-sikh-manifesto-sikh-federation-uk/

Hopefully, most of you here will now finally wake up, look to your side, and see who you were sleeping in bed with.

Jagsaw is absolutely correct here. If the chap is a Sikh, then no issue. If, like a subsection of the chamaar community, he is a ravidaasia, then I can understand there is an issue.

As Sikhs, we respect all the bhagats from all the communities. But we don't accord the status of a guru to any of them, and I say this as a julaha.

Forget it DailyMail. As you can see with every message both before and after either of us pointed out the issue of a 'Sikh' girl marrying into a belief system that adds a 12th Guru who then gets elevated to the position of the one Satguru, we seem to be a community full of extremely uneducated people unable to understand simple points. It is not for no reason that both the Hindus and Muslims describe us as very very simple and thick people.

Its all hypothetical of course because we don't know whether or not the boyfriend of the OP is one of the small minority of chamars that are not Ravidassias but the most revealing aspect to this thread is the way that poster after poster is criticising the parents of the girl without realising that, in all probability, they are advocating getting Sikh girls married to people who are clearly not Sikh. :surrender:

Maggie Thatcher knew all about the paedos in her government , but chose to ignore it and help cover it up and it is said arranged for people to handle the needs of these people so that it was safer for her fro exposures.

And 3 or 4 days ago, the present Prime Minister publicly unveils a statue in central London in tribute to a notorious peadophile who habitually slept naked with little girls in order to 'test his purity'.

Something is very VERY rotten in the state of denmark.

You're going round in circles mate talking gibberish.

Let me repeat what I said before:

I stand by what I said before. If the boy is a Sikh than the OP should marry him because Sikhi knows no caste. But if, however, he is a Ravidassia rather than a Sikh (and this is the more likely scenario) then her parents are absolutely right in condemning the alliance and she ought to feel ashamed of herself for suggesting it.

A Sikh, regardless of gender, must always marry a Sikh.

Now, just because the OP says he is a 'Sikh' that doesn't make it so. After all, even you keep on saying people who promote bhagats to 'Gurus' and then believe in that bhagat as 'Satguru' are 'Sikhs'. She could just as easily be as foolish as you.

Note: Please please stop talkinga about Dera Bhallan. I've not mentioned it. Nobody else has mentioned it. And yet you keep going on about it like its the issue of the day.

Brother it is only Dera Ballan who pimp the lie that most in east Punjab of a leatherworking ancestry are non-Sikhs. In fact the majority of those with a leatherworking ancestry in East Punjab are indeed Sikh (the region of Doaba notwithstanding in which Sikhs are a minority as a consequence). We have to counter these Congress pimps false claim by claiming that ONLY Sikhs (all of us) have the right to be considered True Ravidassi's as we actually follow the teachings of Dhan Dhan Ravidas Ji Maharaj in opposition to the caste system, whereas Dera Ballan crooks are Congress pimps who actively support the caste system.

Singhsabha1669, Now that we know you advocate our Sikh girls marrying Ravidassias let me ask you a question :

Lets suppose a majority of jatts got together and decided they wanted to make Bhagat Dhanna Jatt not only the 12th Guru...not only the premier Guru but actually refer to him as Satguru. This group then go on to refer to themselves as Dhannasias.

Could anybody rightly refer to them as Sikhs ?

Would it be right for a Sikh family to marry their Sikh daughter into such a clearly non-Sikh group ?

I'm asking you but, as you stated in your message previously, you've already said you approve of such alliances.

I stand by what I said before. If the boy is a Sikh than the OP should marry him because Sikhi knows no caste. But if, however, he is a Ravidassia rather than a Sikh (and this is the more likely scenario) then her parents are absolutely right in condemning the alliance and she ought to feel ashamed of herself for suggesting it.

A Sikh, regardless of gender, must always marry a Sikh.

To the OP:

If you are a Sikh and he is a Sikh then there is no problem as Sikhi has no caste.

However, if you are a Sikh and he belongs to the Ravidassia faith, which is totally seperate and different to Sikhism, then yes, your family are right, there is a big problem.

As most chamars are Ravidassias rather than Sikhs, are you saying your boyfriend is one of the small minority that are not ?

Still the OP won't tell us what Gurdwara this 'sikh to a muslim' marriage is about to take place in.

Until he tells us as far as I'm concerned its an imaginary scenario he dreamt up in his mind about some imaginary boy and girl about to get married in some imaginary gurdwara.

There's only one question that needs to be asked and frankly I'm surprised it hasn't been asked yet, and that question is: WHICH GURDWARA ??? WHERE ???

Well, now that we know statues of peadophiles and racists are in vogue, I think we can all look forward to Jimmy Saville and Hitler's statues going up soon in central London.

No brother ^ , its about a clash of civilisations. Our present pitiful existence as gulaams of India means we are losing in this clash (battle).

It is tempting, sometimes, for one looking to win a clash to look at more famous and celebrated clashes and armies for inspiration and 'sameship' but, when doing so, one is unlikely to achieve much and, in our case, we have achieved nothing. Instead, if one is intellectually genuine in his or desire for freedom one must find inspiration in less celebrated (and very apt) examples.

Bangladesh. Who among us ever look to Bangladesh and Bangladeshis for inspiration and respect for anything ?

Very few of us, but the fact is that the Bengalis have shown us the way. Pakistan came into existence in 1947. What we today know as Bangladesh was Pakistan. Pakistan is Muslim.....the Bangladeshis are Muslim. In theory then, no problem. But there was a problem and that problem was language / mother tongue. With Pakistan keen to impose a foreign language on all Pakistanis the Pakistanis that lived in what we today call 'Bangladesh' stood up and gave their lives for their mother tongue. From 1947 to 1971 they never stopped fighting...Never stopped rioting....Never stopped dying. And, in 1971, after the famous 'language riots' in Dhaka, achieved freedom. They may be poor. Very poor. But, unlike us they are free. I would rather be poor and free than to live this life as a gulaam.

If you, my brother, can't see how the slave owners are enslaving us with their language, than you're already a very poor man compared to the Bangladeshis.

To me, this seems less of a case of 'silly Sikhs fighting again' and more a case of America and its developing world / 3rd world type gun laws and the problems that naturally go with it.

Its a shame really.

I've got a cousin in Punjab looking to come over and stay illegaly as an overstayer. This would have been a perfect opportunity.

Yea, blaze is the same thing as smoking weed, it took me a while to realize until my high school cousins clarified it. For them this whole fight was a joke.

I cannot say about the whole community, but I can only say from my limited experience. I went to the same high school, I was never involved in any such drama or fights. Somehow cruised through high school safely, except two instances with kaale in 2 years, mild ones too. I think this is only a high school thing, which has been over glorified too much. Once kids go to unis, their lives change no such drama happens.

So the sikh community is decent here, hard working people, getting their kids higher education. This is my view.

Yeah I feel ya bruvs. :poke:

Your "kaale" analogy is quite apt though because I think sometimes Sikhs in other places don't realise that Toronto is up there with London, New York and Miami as the 4 main cities of the Jamaican diaspora, so the whole Jamaican influence is very strong there amongst our youth (or should I say yoots dem) there just as it is in London or Birmingham. In fact, probably more so in Toronto because we Sikhs share the same neighbourhoods such as Rexdale and Mississauga. Blacks are thin on the ground in Vancouver, of course, and perhaps thats why our young boys and girls there have taken the position of the blacks there in terms of a reputation for drugs, crime and general nasty attitude ?

But like I said I really do feel you because honestly, hand on my heart, it was in Canada that I for the very first time in my life (except visits to Punjab) experienced langar sitting down on the floor. When we moved to Canada there was no Gurdwara here in the UK that had langar on the floor. It was all tables and chairs. Then, when we moved to Canada and had to sit on the floor I remember arguing with the bajurgs. I said how can this be equality when most people can't sit on the floor because its too hard o do so. To be honest it was hard for me because I'd never done it before. But thinking back now I smile when I think how stupid I was. The first time was hard. The second time was hard but not as hard as the first time and before I knew it...it was no issue at all. Of course I knew that in this day and age having a chair was not the thing that differentiated a rich man from a poor man but it was more than that. There was something spiritual about all of us, together, on the floor enjoying his blessings. For that experience I have to thank Canada and in the political sense I think we all have to thank Canada for it because Canada led the way. I think then for many of us in the diaspora it is sad and dissapointing to see the current young generation in Canada display so much apathy for Sikhi when their counterparts in the UK and Italy for example are taking it to a whole new level. But I think we've got to take into account some socio-political realities. The reality is that Sikh Canadians are extremely proud to be Canadian. Thats why, for example, you see the Maple Leaf everywhere you go in Punjab. But when's the last time any of us saw the Union Jack being displayed by UK Sikhs ? The answer is never because we just don't do it. We don't do it because our loyalty to a large extent is with Punjab even though we are 3rd and 4th generation British born. This is possiby a European phenonemon as surveys have shown that even ethnic minorities who are 5th, 6th and even 7th generation French born feel no affinity towards France but instead class themselves as natives of the land their great-grandfathers came from. Canada doesn't have that. It doesn't have that because 8 times out of ten even the white man there is from relatively recent immigrant stock from Portugal, Poland etc. Thus you all feel you're in this together, thus you all feel affinity together as Canadians, thus the strong Sikh nationhood and cultural identity that UK and Italian Sikhs feel for example, does not exist at the same scale. This is a shame. Its a shame because we in the diaspora have great hopes and dreams about what Canadian Sikhs could achieve in the future for the Sikhs of Punjab. We're fast approaching a time when the oil in the Arabian gulf is finished and the only nation left on earth still producing oil is Canada. We all know that Canada will be rich beyond understanding. Knowing the power that will bring we're all hoping the young Sikh Canadians wake up and use that power for the benefit of Sikhi.

As for the Singh in the video ? Having read his messages and gained knowledge of his character I'm increasingly of the opinion that it's about time someone gave him a beating.

So I got some information on this case from my cousing who are in that high school and know a little bit about the person involved.

This happened outside Lincoln M Alexander Secondary School.

The people involved are punjabis and the guy boxing is Mohammed.

Apparently , that singh is an <banned word filter activated> and talks <banned word filter activated>. He came from some another area, thus some territorial thing involved too. He also blazes, he smokes weed. They didnt steal his phone and threw it in river.

Apparently after a beating this guy is still talking <banned word filter activated>.

Thats all the info I got from my cousins.

Excuse my ignorance because I'm not as 'down wid da yoots dem' as I used to be, but what does "blazes" mean ? You said he smokes weed and he also blazes.

Although I'm not altogether too surprised because when I lived in the Vancouver area the drug problem there shocked me to the core not least the laissez faire attitude the bajurgs (including women) had towards weed.

One more question, do any decent normal people exist among the Canadian Sikh community or is it a total lost cause as far as the diaspora is concerned ?

no one will imprison you if you utter khalistan zindabad in many demonstrations people raise khalistan slogans no one is arrested death penalty is a figment of your imagination

The Indian media reports were full of articles about what happened after the Rajoana protests in India a couple of years ago. The Indian Police went through all the you tube clips and rounded up all the Sikhs that were vocal in the protests. In the most famous example, the young nihung that was seen on the Sikh Channel fighting with his spear in Gurdaspur, was found by Indian police a week later, tortured, and died in custody.