MisterrSingh

There's a huge difference between allowing a birthday to pass without celebration for reasons of being non-plussed about the whole thing, and then on the other end of the spectrum there's making a spectacle about how incredibly pious and spiritually inclined one is for spurning these "base" occasions in life that other un-enlightened souls seem to celebrate with relish. Guess which faction most of our pakhandis belong to, lol? 

16 minutes ago, puzzled said:

Way do you mean 

I mean how nobody in the Kar Sewa crew questioned the idea of destroying a historical building. Instead, they start bellowing jakare when it came tumbling down! How disconnected from reality are these people?

This has seriously annoyed me. I know it's "just" a building, but some of us have 5hit for brains.

32 minutes ago, Ranjeet01 said:

What happens is that a lot of people who worked hard physically liked to unwind and that is where alcohol played a part. It's a release. 

I read somewhere in passing a while ago that, genetically, we're one of the races that's least suited to the adverse affects of alcohol. I think we're broadly in the same category as various Far East communities, such as the Japs, for unsuitability for sharaab. I think the Scandinavian races and certain Germanic tribes are at the opposite end of the scale to us, which I took to be a remnant of their Viking genes. Those guys would knock back the stuff like it was Vimto, lol.

I'm going to reveal my ignorance on the subject, but was alcohol as big a problem for us back in medieval times? I keep reading conflicting accounts.

4 minutes ago, puzzled said:

Looks like a whole corner of the building was demolished  

Shows how slow the authorities were before they got involved, 

The guards and the officials at places like Auschwitz offered up the same argument when confronted with their crimes after WW2: "We were following orders." Although I'm not comparing a damaged building to the taking of a life, the idea of underlings blindly following orders at the behest of a superior without thought to the results of their actions, speaks to how far these chelleh are willing to go.

4 minutes ago, puzzled said:

SGPC has finally got involved and stopped the destruction of the deori.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.timesofindia.com/city/amritsar/karsewa-group-demolish-historical-darshani-deori/amp_articleshow/68657470.cms

How much damage was done before the intervention?

6 minutes ago, dallysingh101 said:

I think the thinking is that massive, imposing buildings impress and bring in more visitors and thus are a good thing compared to smaller, older structures. 

The crass and ostentatious nature of it flies in the face of the values we're supposed to value and encourage as Sikhs. This may upset some people but this is a prime example of a lesser cultural mindset. I suppose it's a knock-on effect of the wider culture of the environment in which issues like these occur. I just don't see where aspects of our religious teachings suddenly disappear to when it comes to these issues. It really is picking and choosing what to believe and how to behave dependent on circumstances and whims.

3 minutes ago, FreshMind13 said:

Why can they not just restore it? That is also Kar Seva.

If these Babas really want their name on the building and want $$$ in their pocket, restoring Historical buildings still gives them the same outcome. What incentive to they have to destroy it?

There has to some agenda to destroy our heritage.

They probably don't even know such a thing is possible. It's just about bulldozing it down, erecting something in its place, and receiving the plaudits thereafter. There's no love or grace or nurturing involved. And these people are meant to lead us to a brighter future? What a crock of bakwaas. Clueless. Absolutely clueless.

There's videos of the Baba on YouTube. From what I can tell he seems to be doing a fair bit of good for poor Sikhs without access to expensive healthcare. Perhaps he's being poorly advised (or not at all) on the issue of preserving historical buildings. It seems unless something is explicitly religious or spiritual in origin, the darn thing is coming tumbling down because Baba Ji ordered it so, lol.

6 hours ago, Truth Eternal said:

Sadly, I noticed from some of these sikh singles match maker events that the men were very keen (happy to consider divorcees) but the ladies were rejecting guys on their jobs “he’s a bus driver” or “he’s not as educated as I am” were some of the comments passed. 

 

Were these UK born and raised or Straight Outta Doaba?

Historically, the BBC have been merely tolerant of Sikhs. Not warm or friendly. We definitely have never been afforded the benefit of the doubt as Hindus and, in recent times, the Muslim community have been granted.  It seems we're forever in a precarious position of being on a tightrope of acceptance or rejection. 

In the past, they've been favourable to us as long as we've towed the line of multi-culture/religion, which relegates our faith and our beliefs as a secondary concern, i.e. diluting the very source of our supposed strength and identity. They also seem to favour us when we act the clowns for their entertainment. 

When they turn on the Sikh community, it usually happens when we wish to assert our identity, our rights and our opinions in conjunction with something (as others see it) negative to say about the Indian state; when we express misgivings about Islam and some of its adherents, and now in recent times with the preponderance of gender politics as it relates to minority communities such as ours, they've latched onto the policy of undermining our ways by giving certain females from our community a very public opportunity to grind their respective axes in order to undermine from within.  

The BBC is vehemently anti-Sikh, and I wouldn't be surprised if it's a purposeful and carefully co-ordinated strategy between the Indian state and the intelligence services of this country to gradually chip away at Sikh integrity, or at least its perception amongst the population, to keep us cowed and unable to assert ourselves. One less minority community to worry about, particularly one that hasn't any geopolitical presence and aspirations that need to be placated and encouraged for various other ends and purposes that would benefit this country.

I keep saying it, but we had a golden opportunity in the 70s and 80s to "do something" for Sikhs, but poor leadership combined with the eventual economic and general international emergence of India as an economic force and a country that can't be allowed to fail or disintegrate from within, means the most realistic opportunity available to us was lost.

6 hours ago, BhForce said:

Really? When did this happen, and for which Muslim?

Nazanin Zaghari Ratcliffe. British-Iranian arrested by Iranian services under suspicion of being an intelligence agent posing as a charity / relief worker teaching English. Her husband's been campaigning for her release for the past few years with high profile media efforts, and only very recently did the British move to grant her immunity. 

In my opinion, she's either MI6 and never told her husband and her family (for obvious reasons), and the husband, having realised she most likely is MI6, decides to play the government's bluff by bringing her issue to public prominence, thereby insuring she isn't disavowed by the British and left to rot on foreign soil, which is what happens when agents' covers are blown. OR he genuinely believes that she isn't an agent, and therefore oblivious to her true occupation IF she is actually an intelligence operative. 

This is a topic crying out for a Jagsaw contribution. His assessment of the Midlands is always hilarious! 

The few dodgy ones reflect badly on the others. So it becomes fashionable to disparage all of them, regardless of merit and truth. Saying that, I can't say I'm into the "Sant Scene" anymore. It was a part of my life in my childhood and youth, but I realised a few things, and I backed off and made my own way. But I bear no malice for the genuinely decent individuals who play it straight and honourable. 

Why the melancholy? You've received a gift most people spend their entire lives awaiting! By becoming an Amritdhari, life has filtered the people who were with you for YOU, which unfortunately was nobody. Blank slate. New beginnings.

But be careful. In your desire to stave off loneliness and find companionship, don't replace a group of undesirables with another batch of undesirables albeit those who "look" the part according to your new lifestyle. We are social animals, of this there is no doubt. Just spend some time adjusting to the hugely impressive and commendable life changes you've instigated, and remember that when you do eventually encounter the people you're looking for, don't feel as if you need to impress anyone or give the impression that you're in awe when in their presence. Keep learning and keep faith. It won't be a bed of roses; that's something you need to accept. But you are free to live life with your head held high. 

20 hours ago, NonExistant said:

Hindus are evil

4 hours ago, dallysingh101 said:

Those street level guys are often the children or grandchildren of the God-fearing people you mention. No one is talking about making allies here. But the reality is that if your worse case scenario comes to be, those guys (whether we like it or not) will be a potent force at ground level, with the potential to cause havoc and even swing things if mass open racism (and the inevitable attacks that accompany this) returns. All of you younguns have never had any real experience of this scenario. Now whether those 'street' guys current position is a result of their own misdoings, or the result of a sustained marginalisation of that community by the majority is anyone's guess. You could argue both ways. But one thing no honest Sikh can deny is that their historical experiences with Europeans (with slavery) is as bad as those our people experienced with the fundamentalists of the past. We just come out on top because of our divine leadership and the strategies and cultural norms they inculcated in our ancestors.

If things do go pear shaped (which is by no means guaranteed), you'd want to have some sort of basic truce/understanding between our communities. Otherwise I guarantee you'll only get more weak-willed, nerd-like apnay crying about being bullied by kalaay. As people have pointed out - for all their faults, the legacy of slavery seems to have stayed with some sections of that community and they are determined not to be blatant victims like that again. They've even developed a strong aversion/contempt for perceived male weakness (or so it seems to me?) We might not like how this acts out, but it is a logical/rational reaction given the historical and even current social factors. My feeling are that they are determined not to go the US route, where they were (and some people say still are) being basically killed in violent encounters with the police in droves. We've got enough people who work against us as it is - we don't need to add another group, that is almost guaranteed to react if they feel overtly under attack in this country. 

And it isn't a matter of respect or emulation, Singh you should know now that it's actually part of this marg to study and understand ground level politics and movements. Acknowledging the effects of their actions and tactics is a smart thing (and this goes the same for the tactics/actions of other communities too). It's just an observation of a seemingly downtrodden community and their reaction to the perceived actions of the powers that be - essentially a study of a particular type of raj-niti and it's effect.  

As an aside. I think it is really interesting to note how Bhai Vir Singh edited out so many explicit references to Singhs looting and rioting from the original Panth Prakash by Bhangu (amongst other things). This isn't to suggest that these things should be done today, but you guys know how I like to discuss the interesting and even controversial (by today's standards) content of our wonderful literary heritage, especially in relation to contemporary events. More so when they appear to have been hidden from us. 

Not in my area. It's the Nigerians, Kenyans, and the Ghanaians that represent blacks in the best possible light. The Jamaicans (ironically, another group from the ex-colonies), on the other hand... pfft, let's not even go there. Demons in human skins. Call it dehumanising or whatever, I don't care. They're a destructive force drunk on victimhood whenever they're called our on their bakwaas. They hate Asians, because of the obvious reason: we contradict their victim narrative due to our sianah emigrating to the UK around the same time their sianah made the journey, and yet the relative fortunes of both communities diverged a very long time ago. This fact sticks in their throat, and they resent us for it.

So, no, there's no justifiable reason for why I'd ever stand with such a feckless, Godless, and unreliable group of people, regardless of any potential Anglo Saxon storm on the horizon. I'll take my chances without that albatross around my neck.

3 hours ago, NonExistant said:

And do i say the full fateh or just the one most people do which is shotened to "Why khalsa , Why Fateh"?

Someone would think you're beginning a philosophical discussion on the existence of the Khalsa, and why glory belongs to it. "Can someone explain to me why the Khalsa, and why its Fateh? Please, explain!"

The street level blacks should neither be respected nor emulated. They are not an example, regardless of the unintentional knock-on affects they may inspire in the ruling establishment. It's a Pandora's Box that must remain closed. Of all the groups to ally with, I would never consider inner-city blacks to be one to consider. Saying that, aspirational, God-fearing blacks  are wonderful people, lol. Honestly, most of them are incredibly grounded and chilled, promoting strong family and strong ethical and moral conduct.

Sikhphobic in the context of this particular instance doesn't even make sense. It was terrorism. 

15 minutes ago, dallysingh101 said:

Absolutely. Just plain old neurobiological factors will dictate that. But they can definitely be an insular lot, and don't like criticising their own society which makes things fester and grow in them. 

Ultimately, the kuffar will never supersede the Ummah and its directives. Non-Muslims need to get this undeniable fact into their skulls, then decide how they wish to proceed from there onwards. "Being nice" and accomodating beyond reason will not swing a thing when it boils down to them making a choice. Yet, as Sikh history shows it is still possible to be on good terms with some of their kind, dare I say friends in some cases, but always on the alert.

2 hours ago, dallysingh101 said:

Turks aren't generally fundamentalist about their faith either. Might be Ataturk's influence?

I genuinely believe it's a combination of culture, upbringing, and personality, which is why it's impossible to generalise ALL Muslims to be of a certain frame of mind despite what their religion instructs.

41 minutes ago, dallysingh101 said:

Just not necessary dude.......

Then he wonders why he's treated like a joke.