MisterrSingh

Depends. If she ticked the other boxes of what I require in a life partner I really would do so. I wouldn't marry a bibi with facial hair to make a point or laud it over other Singhs as if to say, "Tut, Tut, you aren't true Sikhs, because you can't see past this woman's facial hair," or anything like that. But, as I said, she'd have to be what I want in terms of a wife aside from the facial hair.

I have no idea why people air their dirty laundry in public like this. It reflects badly on Sikhs. Have a ruck to your heart's content if that's what you want, but don't upload it onto YouTube.

I think we should try to at least follow the hukam of leading a grisht jeevan. Clearly, if there are irreversible medical issues or a case of genuine asexuality, then fair enough. But don't cite celibacy or asexuality just because you don't feel like settling down or facing up to your responsibilities as an adult. Obviously nobody is saying settle for a partner who is completely unsuitable. Also, don't be one of those devious individuals that claims to want to serve Sikhi by staying unmarried, when in fact you're getting up to all kinds of filth behind closed doors. There's enough of those jokers around to give Sikhi a bad name.

He's lucky he didn't land head first. I wonder what spooked the horse? EDIT: It was the whooping and hollering that unnerved the creature. No wonder he galloped off. Someone needs to relay the following song over the above video for a laugh:

Putting aside the rehat debate for a moment and returning to the OP. I think it has been proven, albeit anecdotally, that there are Singhs who have no issue with marrying a Singhni who has facial hair. So, the OP's argument that Singhs are hypocrites and can be conditioned to behave like dogs is wide of the mark. Perhaps OP should work on cultivating a pleasant and agreeable side? Someone who is on the defensive and ready to be offended just isn't fun to be around. You won't make friends amongst your potential in-laws if you hold people with so much disdain! You never know, with a bit of introspection and an eventual change of attitude the OP might attract a Singh who'll breach that icy cold exterior of hers.

It's the spineless Gandhi propaganda the Indian masses cream themselves silly remembering. Let's not forget the barbarity of the British (Jaliawala Bagh to name one instance) and their devious divide and conquer tactics which meant us losing portions of our lands and our precious religious asthaans in partition. However the way Indians behave is as if the British left India in a worse state than they found it.

I've been giving this subject some further thought today and, in essence, I agree with your point above about our generosity and honesty in this particular instance. Of course, it easy for us with hindsight to be armchair generals, but I don't think there's anything wrong with passing comment or offering an opinion. I see the situation about the Sikh Empire in the following way: Since the beginning of our inception as a faith and even up to the times of Baba Banda Singh Badhadur, we've had our backs against the wall, so to speak. We've either been repelling or defending ourselves from attack. Would that be an accurate thing to say? Our Guru Sahibs were rebels in many senses. They rebelled against the corruption of the Brahmin classes and the inequality and injustice (among other things) of Hindu society, as well as the broader lack of humanity and tolerance on the part of the Mughal invaders. The first 5 Guru Sahibs fought purely with the strength of their actions and their words. Their remit was one of affecting the minds of the people in a way that the population would realise how strongly the veil of darkness and ignorance had clouded their existence. From the 6th Guru Sahib onwards the need for the sword - alongside the wisdom gained from spirituality - became painfully apparent. Yet, we were still defending ourselves from attack, ensuring the freedom of others and ourselves, but, as i said, we were repelling and defending ourselves from the forces who otherwise desired compliance or our destruction. Fast forward to the time of Maharaja Ranjit Singh and would I be right in saying this period of history was the first time Sikhs were in the ascendancy? Obviously, there were the attempts by the Afghans to make inroads, but more or less we had a settled base of power. I believe THAT period of time was the moment we should have began our conquests, in my humble opinion. Instead, what did we do? We started entertaining the British; we started admitting Hindu and Muslim ministers into court, we almost became patrons of the bloody arts. Basically, our honesty and our integrity meant we were more concerned with doing the honourable thing as opposed to doing what was needed to ensure our survival, and more importantly, our growth. We played by the rules and we assumed others would do so too. Who knows how many of those Hindu and Muslim courtiers had conversations with the British to weaken the Sikh Empire from within? From what we know about the aforementioned two groups of people, do we really honestly think they were genuinely pleased to see us with so much power? I imagine it was a case of smiling through clenched teeth, biding their time, knowing we'd trip up somewhere down the line. And we did. We should've been aggressive. And I don't mean make life for the average man and woman unbearable, but we should've started to conquer other parts of India. Army vs Army, General vs General, King vs King, we had enough about us to take huge parts of the country. The greatest empires this world has ever seen were not built through resting on laurels or through an over abundance of co-operation and fair play. Yes, alliances and the like are essential, but always keep those who aren't your own at arm's length. I know there were other races and cultures in the armies and other parts of the Sikh Empire, but we should've made it our priority to train our people and, like I said, ensure our men outnumbered the others. Of course, take advice and experience from the British or whatnot, but we should've always been single-minded in our objective of growing what we already had, whether it be in terms of land, people, skills, etc. Our ultimate aim should've been to ensure the expansion of Sikhi as well as increasing our physical numbers. But we turned to secularism and a desire to play by the rules, hoping others would recognise and reciprocate our integrity and our desire to be just and fair to all. There's the saying, "You can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs," and I'm sorry to say we never came close to breaking enough eggs. Why did we allow ourselves to become complacent in a period in history where we should've pushed forwards and ruthlessly expanded? I don't know, but I think had we displayed even a bit more forward-thinking and less confidence in the goodwill of others, we wouldn't be virtual slaves and prisoners in a country that could've been entirely our own by now, or at least a considerable portion of it might have been ours by now. A costly, missed opportunity that continues to have reverberations for us to this very day, imo.

I hear it's wonderful from a couple of friends who've moved there with their families. Not sure how long it'll remain that way if it follows the immigration policies of Australia.

It seemed a bit strange when you suggested it originally, but I assumed it was probably a Maori thing they ate. I'd sort your mate out if I were you, lol.

Never heard of rhubarb leaves being used as such a high source of protein. I think it might be worth a try. Also, they must surely consume vast amounts of fish, what with them living next to the sea.

Former wrestler Dwayne Johnson has Samoan roots as you know, and they've always been physically impressive from that part of the world.

There is a certain appeal to the iron-fisted way, lol. I'd argue it was this desire to be all-encompassing and all things to many people that proved to be its undoing. Long term, what did Sikhs actually gain from being so magnanimous? Hindus have their India, Muslims received their Pakistan and Bangladesh, and we... well, again, we were left running our tongue over our lips as the old Punjabi saying goes. We were naive. Admittedly, I haven't read about the Sikh empire since my teens, so my recollection of that era may be more than hazy, lol. Leave me alone with my fantasies of a Sikh empire laying waste to everything before it as others quailed in terror at our might!

I have two cousins born in Punjab who embarked for Italy (I think Venezia) with their families when they were 11 or so, and you're absolutely correct, it's a wonderful language and culture. The way they describe life in Italy is almost like a dream to someone like me. Clearly, they are working class and they all work very hard and long hours, but they've completely bought into the Italian culture whilst still keeping Sikhi alive. They speak the language fluently and it sounds brilliant, but they wish they could speak English, and I tell them I wish I could speak Italian. But, yep, can't really object to genuine Italian pizza. It's the thin crusts and lower quantities of cheese that clinch the deal.

:oI know you have a commendably wry sense of humour, Singh Ji, but I can't tell if you're joking in this instance.

Harsh, very harsh. But incredibly true. Ask these questions now or you'll regret it later. I know a couple of Sikhs (and a Singhni) who are lamenting their reticence in asking the tough questions before marriage, and now... well, they're tending to their wounds, let's leave it at that. I know a fair number of Sikhs who've fallen on hard times; we have an unofficial support network going on, lol. However, whether you receive honest answers to the above questions is entirely in the hands of God, I.E. you might be lied to. It's been known to happen. Of course, respect and honour goes both ways IMO. If a Sikh expects his potential wife to not have had any boyfriends, I believe he too should have refrained from similar activities. It's only fair.

True. Excessive TV watching is terrible for the waistline if there's no physical fitness going on, but more importantly it's very bad for the mind. The kind of insidious mental programming that passes for entertainment these days is crazy. I'm not being tinfoil hat guy, because I use to roll my eyes when people use to say TV was bad for us, but since I've stopped watching TV (around 2008 I think) I've found myself being able to process "life" a lot clearly without the background noise of what was being fed to me knocking around in my mind.

I don't think this is a Singh vs Mona argument at all. It seems, as simran345 bhenji says above, it's a committee issue. I reckon if a Singh from a rival committee faction had driven into the carpark, even he'd have been refused entry just for being from the other group. I'm speculating, but we've seen those committee skirmishes where the Singhs don't care who they abuse or hit; it's equal opportunity panga as far as they're concerned, Singh or not.

Could an argument be made that had the Sikh empire operated under entirely theocratic lines it would've been less susceptible to the eventual weaknesses that caused it to fracture? Yes, it may have seemed awfully democratic and all-encompassing at the time (what with non-Sikh given prominent roles in its darbar), but I think it was this sense of "fair play" and trust in the likes of the Dogras that tripped us up. I believe Maharaja Ranjit Singh's reverence for the Akal Takhat was a genuine attempt to ensure he and his kingdom didn't appear to be overshadowing it or inadvertently suggesting Akal Takhat was somehow secondary to the kingdom, considering the huge role the Akal Takhat had played in Sikh history from the time of it being founded. Was he torn between what he saw as issues of the state and issues of a religious nature, and as such due to his genuine affection for his religion he deferred to the Akal Takhat's judgement on particular issues so it appeared even he wasn't above its authority? Only he could answer that I suppose. But I return to my original thought that perhaps it was this generosity and desire to be just that perhaps was his and the empire's undoing. A religiously inspired iron fist may have been better in the long term, I'm not sure. As for deference to modern day monarchies, I see them as nothing but symbolic institutions from a bygone age. Those involved in the machine of these institutions are at constant pains to ensure their relevancy in order to justify their existence, but ultimately it's just powerful bloodlines not wishing to relinquish whatever gradually diminishing influence they possess in the world. I don't doubt there's a lot of activities that go on behind closed doors that ensures these royal families aren't assigned to the dustbin of history, but even the most deluded member of the royal family must realise the days of getting teary-eyed when the national anthem plays are long gone.

An honest portrayal of life overseas. Here I was thinking Punjabi music was all about drinking and scantily clad females.

I've been giving this some thought, Singh Ji, it's not being ignored. Not the kind of topic that a reply can be rattled off. Unfortunately, some of us need a bit more time to think things over; all that flowery language can cause befuddlement.

I apologise if you think I was misquoting you, but I did say if that's the kind of people you've encountered, then you can't be blamed for holding those opinions. It just pained me to read where you were heading with your argument, because I know from my own experience it simply isn't true.

I understand why you'd say the above, and you say it's your experience which is fine, but you're verging on snobbery, bhenji. It's a very black and white way of looking at things. It's a few steps away from saying the more prestigious occupation and social status a person has, the better they are as a human being. Do educated people not philander? Do they not swear? Do they not gossip? They do all those things and more. It's just society likes to pretend it's the unwashed masses or the blue-collar stiffs who have no idea how to conduct themselves with honour and respectability. That's so untrue on so many levels. But, like I said, it's your experience so you can hardly be blamed if that's all you've encountered.

Might want to work on that passive-aggression like I advised you a few weeks ago. Good luck to you, bhen Ji.