Jump to content

Balkaar

Members
  • Content Count

    949
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    39

Balkaar last won the day on February 26 2017

Balkaar had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,340 Excellent

2 Followers

About Balkaar

  • Rank
    Hamraa Taakur Sabh Thay Oochaa

Recent Profile Visitors

2,417 profile views
  1. Very true, but their Sikh chamchaay will continue to let themselves be manipulated and used as pawns in British conflicts just like they always have, little realizing that they consider the sight of a man in a turban just as alien as the sight of a Muslim woman in a hijab. The sharabi, gender-bending, narcissistic/materialistic/mayadhari values of Western civilisation are no more in line with Gurmat than Sharia. So why do Sikhs get so worked up about the supposed erosion of 'British values' by Muslim radicals? If they spent half as much energy upholding Sikh values as they do British val
  2. Veeray you're gonna use them as a stick to beat 'pappus'? The Sikhs of that generation were the biggest pappus and angrezi boot-lickers in the whole of the subcontinent. This the same generation of Sikhs that was so utterly loyal to the empire which scraped the Sikh nation off the face of the earth that they became worm food by the tens of thousands to preserve its existence. And you're gonna hold these men up as role models and paragons of 'character' and 'self-respect' for Sikhs today? No self-respecting Sikh would fight and die for the empire which destroyed the Khalsa Raj you allude
  3. Agreed completely. If the definition of a Sikh is what the SGPC claims it is, then none of the Sikhs who existed before Dashmesh Pitaa's time were Sikhs. Why do Sikhs consult these committees and man-made institutions before they consult Maharaj? He should be the first one we look to for answers. Maharaj himself tells us exactly what a Sikh is: gur siqgur kw jo isKu AKwey su Blky auiT hir nwmu iDAwvY ] gur satgur kaa jo sikh akhaa-ay so bhalkay uth har naam Dhi-aavai. One who calls himself a Sikh of the Guru, the True Guru, shall rise in the early morning hours and meditate on the Lord's
  4. ਰਾਗੁ ਧਨਾਸਰੀ ਮਹਲਾ ੧ ॥ रागु धनासरी महला १ ॥ Rāg ḏẖanāsrī mėhlā 1. Raag Dhanaasree, First Mehl: ਗਗਨ ਮੈ ਥਾਲੁ ਰਵਿ ਚੰਦੁ ਦੀਪਕ ਬਨੇ ਤਾਰਿਕਾ ਮੰਡਲ ਜਨਕ ਮੋਤੀ ॥ गगन मै थालु रवि चंदु दीपक बने तारिका मंडल जनक मोती ॥ Gagan mai thāl rav cẖanḏ ḏīpak bane ṯārikā mandal janak moṯī. Upon that cosmic plate of the sky, the sun and the moon are the lamps. The stars and their orbs are the studded pearls. ਧੂਪੁ ਮਲਆਨਲੋ ਪਵਣੁ ਚਵਰੋ ਕਰੇ ਸਗਲ ਬਨਰਾਇ ਫੂਲੰਤ ਜੋਤੀ ॥੧॥ धूपु मलआनलो पवणु चवरो करे सगल बनराइ फूलंत जोती ॥१॥ Ḏẖūp mal▫ānlo pavaṇ cẖavro kare sagal banrā▫e fūlanṯ joṯī. ||1|| The f
  5. It is a good idea. Perhaps we should not ape the Jehovah's witnesses, as they've come to be regarded more as a nuisance than anything else, but setting up stalls in public with eye-catching signs demonstrating Sikh precepts and history may be a good idea. Also we need to increase our publicity generally. Make sure Sikhi is given a fair and even-handed coverage in schools' religious study curricula (it only receives very rudimentary coverage in most schools currently), get more Sikhs into television, the media and the arts in order to make us seem like a part of the British culture and landscap
  6. Yes, and simply being a non-Sikh doesn't mean you had a hand in the downfall of the Sikh Empire. The overwhelming majority of the Sikh Empire's population were non-Sikh and committed to their country. Shah Muhammad's Jangnama Hind Punjab encapsulates this mood well, this was a non-Sikh writing of his patriotism for the kingdom of the Sikhs. They were not responsible for its downfall, the intriguing of the court was, and most of the people at court were Sikh. You can't just absolve our people of all responsibility every time they goof up and don't act in the way you think Sikhs should by saying
  7. I didn't respond because I didn't need to. You were right. And you never asked me to. Still haven't answered my question. Banda Singh Bahadur has nothing to do with this. Changing the subject again. For what seems like the umpteenth time to me, you said - "Bahadur Shah is proof that these enemies should never be trusted, Guru Sahib decided to help him because he knew he could teach a lesson to the Sikhs in the future." On what basis have you decided that Guru Sahib's motive for helping Bahadur Shah was to teach a lesson to future Sikhs not to trust these enemies (by which I pr
  8. Extremely wishful thinking. Sahib Singh of Patiala, the other cis-Sutlej Sardars, Ajeet Singh Sandhawalia and his family, etc were definitely Sikhs and they had no aspirations in the direction of theocracy I assure you. Neither did anyone else at the court of Lahore. You need to hit the history books. Tons of the people that joined the Khalsa under Baba Ji did it in order to acquire power (as Sikhs were rulers), out of fear of being plundered (also, forced conversions to Sikhism were rare but not nonexistent) or to join the army and participate in the sacking of Mughal Punjab. Bro you n
  9. Total non-sequitur, I never suggested that Guru Granth Sahib and Muhammad exist on equal terms. Don't try and dodge the question by turning it around on me and putting words in my mouth. You said "Guru Sahib decided to help him [Bahadur Shah] because he knew he could teach a lesson to the Sikhs in the future." I pointed out to you that Guru Sahib makes no such claim in his own Bani, and that no itihaasic source makes such a claim either, rather they say that Guru Sahib helped Bahadur Shah in order to secure the religious rights of non-Muslims in his kingdom. So on what basis have y
  10. Where in his Bani or his writings does Guru Gobind Singh give any indication of having that motive for helping Bahadur shah? You should not impose your own motives/agenda on Guru Sahib and assume that you speak for him, particularly when there is zero scriptural evidence for your position. Neither is there any historical evidence that I'm aware of - the histories say that Guru Sahib's motivation for allying with him was the condition that non-Muslims would be treated fairly under his regime. So, I ask you, how do you know that was Guru Sahib's motive for helping Bahadur Shah?
  11. The Dogras were the most immediate cause of the empire's downfall, but the fundamental cause for the collapse of the Sikh Kingdom was Ranjit Singh's fatal decision to make himself king of the Sikhs and replace the Khalsa's republicanism (Sarbat Khalsa, Gurmatta, Jathedari) with a system of absolutist monarchy which centralized all power in his hands - this had no place in a 'Sikh' nation. His miscalculation ensured that the kingdom would all but fall apart his death and be vulnerable to vultures, particularly in light of the uselessness of his heirs. I disagree veerji. This Sikh kingdom
  12. Very true, Sikhs need to read their actual history rather than imbibing Indian Government propaganda which endlessly regurgitates the trope that Sikhs are the predestined enemies of Musalman. Puraatan Sikhs and Maharaj themselves did not keep grudges forever and ever. Jahangir was ultimately responsible for the execution of Guru Arjan Dev, and yet he and Guru Hargobind Sahib eventually became friends. Guru Tegh Bahadur was executed by Aurangzeb, Guru Gobind Singh Ji could've embarked upon some blood feud against all Musalman and the entire Mughal dynasty after this but he actually supp
  13. I do not believe in an absolute morality, dharam is not the same for each and every individual. This is not to say that dharam does not exist, only that it doesn't exist in a monolithic form. This concept is reflected very well in the life of the Mahapurakh Sant Baba Thakur Singh, 14th jathedar of Damdami Taksaal. Babaji was a strict vegetarian like all members of Taksaal, so for him eating meat was a great sin. However when he visited the chaunis (encampments) of Nihang Singhs around Chowk Mehta he would often bring offerings of goats to be jhatkaa'd by the nihangs and later consumed. B
  14. I sympathize with a lot of what you are saying, but 'divide and rule' seems like a highly inaccurate and misleading phrase in this situation. You can only 'divide' something, a country or a people, if it was united in the first place. 'India' was never united, no such country existed before 1947. The bengali troops who fought against the Sikh soldiers in the Anglo-Sikh Wars were not Indians fighting their fellow countrymen, but foreign invaders attacking somebody else's country. Indian nationalists often sling mud at the Sikhs for giving into this supposed 'divide and rule' by refusing to part
  15. I personally think WAAAY too much is made of British 'divide and rule'. The British didn't really cause the divisions which exist in the subcontinent, they identified and exploited them. The divisions between Hindu/Sikh/Muslim, this caste and that caste, this country and its neighbor, have extensive historical precedents reaching back centuries before the Raj. Where the Brits succeeded was in preserving these divisions - come 1947, it was almost as if India had been in a stasis for 200 years. I think this notion of some omnipotent, endlessly scheming white devil is a convenient myth for
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use