Balkaar

-

-edited-

There are plenty of ex-Sikhs who possess knowledge of the Sikh Dharam, but who leave the faith regardless. Resorting to ^this^ tired platitude in the face of every apostasy trivializes people's experiences and suffering. This young man didn't cut his hair because he was some clown who thought it would help him get the girls - if he was, he wouldn't have decided to start posting on an atheist forum. It's clear that he couldn't reconcile his rationality with his faith, and he deserves to be taken seriously. It's not easy to be forced to give up something which has been the bedrock of your existence for 20 years. No, it is just another example of what happens when parents do not give any knowledge to their children about Sikhi. The children of these parents should start taking some responsibility for themselves. They're not being remotely-controlled by mum and dad, there is nothing stopping them from learning Bani or Itihaas for themselves, like a lot of us had to do. Unless you're a little kid there is no excuse for not knowing your Sikhi, whether you have Gursikh parents, irreligious parents or no parents.

You're right, We on this forum also have no shortage of people burying their heads in the sand whenever an important/controversial topic is raised, and twisting the Sikh principle of accepting God's will to justify their servile and unquestioning natures. Guru Ji wants his Sikhs to ask those questions that need to be asked.

While that doesn't necessarily indicate a coconut, in reality it almost always does. Ever notice how the majority of 'Sikh' girls who marry outside of the faith either can't speak Punjabi or refuse to speak Punjabi, and know nothing about Sikhi other than the snippets which they twist into arguments to support their manmat marriages? However, and I find this fascinating, the same is not generally true of Sikh men who marry non-Sikh women. It would appear that Sikh girls are at greater risk of becoming coconuts than their brothers. I wonder why this is the case. That's a good start.

Lol, brown women definitely have an easier time of it. But it seems to me that you're right in your assessment that apnaay have to be of a certain type if they want to penetrate these white fields. Two types to be precise: A, a complete coconut, or B, a merchant of stereotypes. Newsreaders like Anita Rani and Daljit Dhaliwal would fall into the first, and most of our authors and 'comedians' who don't ever seem to traffic in anything except horrors and cliches into the second.

That's the crux of the issue right there. As well as being the reason why we have a dearth of boxers/MMA fighters to our community's name, it's also why we have no poets, no writers, no journalists, no artists, no actors and no sportsmen. Sikh parents are consumed with money, and the way to guarantee that their kids have money is by forcing them to play it safe and study engineering rather than allowing them to take a risk by following their dreams of boxing fame. They're not risk takers - but taking risks is how a people grow.

Every Sikh on the net knows exactly what follows when this video is posted on any Sikh site or forum. Troublemaking, or well-meaning mistake?

This is not the first time you've made a thread about this sort of topic. http://www.sikhsangat.com/index.php?/topic/77394-do-punjabis-lack-athletic-genes-compared-to-other-races/ http://www.sikhsangat.com/index.php?/topic/78673-why-lack-of-sikh-in-boxing-mma-an-other-combat-sports/ Do you have amnesia, or just an inferiority complex? If you're worried about your so-called 'racial weakness', get up right now and go to the gym. Sitting on your bum in front of a computer grousing about how physically pathetic you are, probably with a bag of doritos next to you, definitely won't help you overcome your 'racial weakness'. My friend you clearly have some issues with yourself, and trying to find solace in the idea that "other people are just as mediocre as I think I am" is not a good attitude. I'm sorry if I have offended you in any way, but if all the other responses in all the other threads still haven't elicited a change in your thinking, you need a kick up the backside to get you to change.

Did I not say earlier that there were exceptions? The Tamil tigers may be Hindu, but they are a nationalist movement, not a religious one. They are animated by a fierce ethnic pride. The Gurkhas were never renowned as particularly great soldiers until the advent of the British Raj and its Martial Race Theory. This theory was never simply about which people were the best fighters, but mainly concerned with the question of which groups could be expected to be most loyal to the British Crown and the least likely to rebel (the Sikhs, unfortunately, were considered among this number). In other words, the Gurkha legend was created by the British, the Englishman made the Gurkha, massaged their egos to the point that the Gurkhas felt indebted to them for it - they began to feel an intense loyalty towards the Brits. A loyalty which persists even to this very day. Gurkhas are still recruited into the British army. This was why they were so highly regarded, this and the fact that they were non-Indians who would have no qualms about turning their rifles against the people of Hindustan. The soldiers who fired upon the crowd at Jallianwala Bagh? Gurkhas. I don't understand the need for the question about Punjabi Muslims. I addressed this in my first post.

Why are you talking as if it's impossible for us to do both at once? Not all Sikhs are as bad at multitasking as you apparently are. These people mean our faith harm. The Sikhs aren't in a position where they can afford to direct 100% of their attention to internal affairs - or have you forgotten that Punjab is currently occupied by India, the state that suborns the armed cults which relentlessly work to undermine our faith and assimilate it into Hinduism? The Sikhs can't stop being vigilant as long as they are beholden to the whims of the G.O.I - especially at a time when it's Prime Minister is a confirmed Hindutva fascist. What you are advocating is doing nothing- not doing naam. If your line of thinking became the prevalent one, it would be the death of us, so it's a good thing Sikhs are holding on to this 'rubbish'. Miri and Piri mate. Piri, yes, but Miri also. Sikhs cannot blind themselves to what is going on in the world around them, the Sixth Patshaah made this clear when he laid the foundation of Sri Akaal Takhat Sahib.

I liked Jagsaw's post because I agreed with him about the hypocrisy of those 'anti-casteist' individuals who can't seem to see the casteism in attacking all Jats as though they were identical components of some evil hive-mind, and because he called people out on their choosing to ignore the fact anti-Sikh practices such as first cousin marriage and eating halal meat are not isolated occurrences in the Afghan Sikh community, but very much part of the mainstream. The things written at the end did not influence this. I did not agree with them.

Yogic meditation is showmanship - it's becoming popular because sitting in a lotus pose makes pretentious Western people feel profound and spiritual. As for Kundalini, it's predicated on the whole idea that there is some energy coiled at the base of the spine which needs to be awakened and redirected elsewhere. A glancing familiarity with Sikhi should be enough for people to conclude that these activities are not in keeping with the humble and simplistic spirit of Sikhi. This. unfortunately, is also why Sikh meditation will have a hard time catching on. It doesn't appeal to people's small minded need for theater - they want cool poses and zany eastern music in the background. All one has to do to enter Samadhi is empty themselves of everything but the Naam for a few moments - you can do this sitting on a sofa. It requires immense willpower, but it helps if you chant the naam out loud and surround yourself with brothers and sisters who are doing the same.

Not really. Hindu Punjabis, Muslim Punjabis and Sikh Punjabis are physically very similar, but the Hindus (Punjabi and otherwise) were always considered to be conspicuously ill-suited to war. Not because they were necessarily physically weaker, but because they were cravens. The Sikh religion and the history of our faith were what made the Sikhs of old some of the best fighters in the Indian subcontinent. In the heat of battle, the Sikh soldier could invoke the militancy of his faith and tales of shaheeds and warriors beyond counting to find his bravery. It's simply the case that certain religions compliment the art of soldiery better than others - Islam being another example. What does the Hindu itihaas have that can compare to our own, that can inspire zeal? The paragons of Sikh history are men like Baba Deep Singh, Maharaja Ranjit Singh and Banda Singh Bahadur - noble warriors all. The heroes of the Hindu world are idols of weakness, like Gandhi. How much valour could the Hindu saga of defeat after submission after defeat inspire in the average Hindu soldier? This isn't to say Hindus are incapable of being great warriors. But it is inconceivable to me that their religion could ever be the source of their strength, as is the case with the average Sikh sipahi.

I'm reasonably well acquainted with American history, and I have traveled to that part of the world. I didn't care to ask them their opinion of me, they seemed unfriendly, although they gave me no trouble. I did find other Southerners to be especially polite and courteous though.

Born and raised in Southall brother, why do you ask?

Allowed by whom brother? By Guru Sahib? By Akaal Takhat Sahib? Neither give any explicit answers to your particular question. In instances such as these you should use your own judgement. I personally think this question is indicative of a tendency among certain Sikhs towards total overkill. Where does it end? Would you shun and ignore people who eat meat or come into contact with meat? Will you stop buying your vegetables from supermarkets which also sell meat? If not, then I can't see why you would abhor foods which were simply a couple dozen metres or so away from some eggs (they weren't even touching).

The Americans weren't warring against all Afghans or the country of Afghanistan, but the ideology of a section of the Afghan/Muslim population. The proponents of this ideology were not to be found all together in a single area, they permeated the regular population of Afghanistan and indeed the Muslim world. This is why they were so difficult to beat - simply finding and distinguishing them from ordinary people was extremely difficult, besides which attacking them would entail a great many civilian casualties. This is why the Americans could and can never hope to defeat fundamentalist Islam. This is a war of ideals. An idea can persist and proliferate even if every single person who holds it at any given time is killed - there will always be someone somewhere who will take up the ideological battle-flag. The same can't be said of waging a war against a race or a people, as was done in the past - when the last one croaks and dies, that's them finished. You underestimate the Rednecks veerji. The rural Southerners who constituted the Confederate forces during the American Civil War were known for their chivalry and bravery in battle in spite of their overwhelming inferiority in numbers and resources - it was the men of the powerful, industrial North who were found to be lacking in these qualities. Also these rednecks are precisely the people who are most likely to enlist in the US Army - they aren't lacking for courage.

Yep, Nidar may be a scumbag, his views warped and repellent, but there's no question that he has helped many young Sikhs learn to defend themselves. Just look at his videos. His martial art may be a fabrication and a ripoff but his instruction is pretty sound and he seems to know what he is talking about - unlike those deluded gatka instructors who are convinced that their aerial twists and twirls will come in handy in a violent confrontation. Find a more useful martial art - any other martial art. Even regular boxing will have you throwing better punches. Gatka is a performance art, not a fighting art, and certainly not the fighting art of the puraatan Khalsa. Those Sikhs wishing to pay homage to the martial arts of their ancestors should also consider becoming proficient in the use of firearms. I'm surprised that the modern gatkabaj, living forever in his or her bubble of nostalgia, has forgotten that the Sikhs were not primarily famed as swordsmen, but as the pre-eminent horsemen and sharpshooters of their time. The Sikh guns and the Sikh cavalry charge, to say nothing of their zeal and reckless bravery, were what made our ancestors truly feared.

Isn't the whole basis for the second amendment that in the event that the American government becomes tyrannical and tries to curtail the freedoms of its citizens, they can resist them with armed force (i.e. not the reason of 'personal protection' as is so commonly stated)? Has it occurred to the people of the U.S. that their government has stealth drones, tanks and fighter jets? Ever heard that old line about bringing a knife to a gun fight? Well this is like that, x10. I think you're exactly right. dallysingh, that ordinary, sane people are not the ones collecting these vast stockpiles of arms and ammunition.

I'm not sure if Khatri and Kshatriya are the same thing. Actually, nobody is. Their preferred line of occupation, namely the mercantile, would suggest otherwise. The Khatris claim they were warriors turned merchants. Whatever the case, the Kshatriya abandoned dharam and their self-professed duty to protect the weak many centuries ago (I believe that Guru Sahib says as much, can't remember the tuk). It's little wonder that centuries of inertia and the merchant's lifestyle have caused them to lose most of their former martial bearing.

The Arora Sikhs have their fair skin in common with the Pathans, as in the picture you posted veerji. But Pathans are dramatically taller than the majority of South Asians, usually of slim, wiry build with sharp features. Arora Sikhs are generally quite short, with rounder features. There may be some Pathan Sikhs of course. It's my understanding that the Khatri/Arora Sikhs living in Afghanistan today are the descendants of migrants from the subcontinent. Doubt that even more brother, Hazaras are descended from Mongols so they possess the flat faces and distinctive eyes of oriental peoples. You'll never find a Khatri Sikh looking like that.

I doubt any of the Afghan Sikhs are Pathan veerji, they don't look it at all.

The majority of Afghan Sikhs (and it simply is the majority of them) practice a variation upon the Sikh lifestyle which is unique to their community, one which permits the consumption of Halal meat (as seen by the number of turbanned Afghan Sikhs who eat in Southall's Muslim fried chicken shops), first-cousin marriage, and does not require it's womenfolk to be observant in the least. Of course people aren't saying that Punjabi Sikhs have nothing to work on, but the three things I have just mentioned are not really a problem where our lot are concerned. Don't confuse the issues here. Casteism is attacking people for who they are. This is an issue of what a very particular group of people are doing, not who they are.

I agree that this paranoia is misplaced in certain quarters, but this story makes very little sense. It seems like exactly the sort of half-baked fiction I'd expect from these unimaginative and mediocre Indians. Its possible we're wrong, but you can't exactly begrudge us our suspicion of one of the most two-faced governments in the world, can you?