dallysingh101

The way it looks to me is that the modern Khanda symbol does have precedents or links to older Sikhi concepts: The khanda is obvious - from Bhai Gurdas's time at least we have the vaalaun nikkhi khandhan tau tikkhi concept. Sikhi is sharper than the edge of a khanda. The two kirpaans representing the concept of miri and piri have an early provence too (only found this out a few years ago) - in Kavi Kankan's Das Gurkatha we have: ਪੀਰਨ ਤੇ ਜਿਨ ਪੀਰੀ ਹਰੀ ਲੀਨੀ ਗੁਰਾਈ। ਸ਼ਾਹਨਿ ਸੋਂ ਪਤਿਸਾਹੀ ਹਰੀ ਅਰੁ ਮੀਰਨ ਕੀ ਜਿਨ ਮੀਰੀ ਗਵਾਈ। Finally the chakhar or chakhram is traditionally linked with Vishnu, but according to Kahn Singh Nabha, it was one of the Panj Hathiar worn by dasmesh pita everyday (and to note, it was the one shaster/ashter that was different to the panj hathiaar worn by regular Khalsa members). That all being said, there was no reason to change the original standard, and doing so seems like a typical ploy of brits (which I've seen them do a number of times recently in places they've attacked and tried to colonise like Iraq). What is significant (in my opinion) is what was excluded from the original nishaan. And that is the dhaal or shield. Obviously this represents a protective barrier for the panth, a defensive shield (in inclusion to offensive weapons). So this important concept has been missing. And it explains a lot in my opinion. That's maybe why goray could turn lots of apnay into their colonial attack dogs - whilst people totally forgot about protective factors - which led to partition and the loss of large swathes of Sikh zameen. Throw that in.

Nah, the new Khanda symbol was being used by WW1. I saw an old leaflet from some high ranking military gora with it on there. Shame I can't find that image anymore. It's weird because by the time I was growing up, knowledge of the original standard had practically disappeared from the SIkh masses. Here is some more evidence of the original standard. I've not seen some of these images before:

Do they help us understand better?

I'd like to ask the sangat: Are such contextual analysis of writings important? Do they help? Are they useful?

Two more members of this perverted crew is convicted. Notice how ineptitude by the social services helped the perverts: Mohammed Akram, 33, had his prison sentence increased from 17 years to 22 years and Usman Khalid, 31, was locked up for five years at Leeds Crown Court https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7169599/Child-abusers-jailed-sexually-exploiting-girl-groomed-gang-age-11.html

Here's an apparent summary of some of Mandair's work. I just skimmed through it. Haven't read it fully yet.

Here is a link to an abstract of the paper. I think my copy of the paper is on an old laptop that broke before I could back it up. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20181914?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

It's obvious that the missionaries are a direct result of this in my opinion. It's a weird (And very subtle) assimilation of victorian era, protestant, racialised and even prudish thinking (amongst many things). This explains why caste is going on stronger than ever (notice this is most strong within the community to whom brits most successfully introduced their racialised theories and depended upon for their colonial misadventures abroad). Also notice how this externally introduced victorian era prudery (which interestingly goray themselves have since outright rejected - go out on any Friday/Saturday night and see for yourself) is the direct cause of apnay looking upon Charitrio Pakyaan with suspicious and even contemptuous eyes (as it now seems ashleel to them). There is an honest, earthy 'realness' to the original Sikh perceptions of human nature which have gone amongst the masses and has been replaced by prudery. I believe this naivety and coyness played a part in why so many 'religious' conservative apnay turned a blind eye to all the grooming issue that was and is going on. There was a political and military confidence that was attacked too. I don't think the missionaries are trying to please the brits, they just can't see outside of the framework they've inherited, and actually believe what they are pushing is the real thing. This bit will be very controversial - but maybe this is the logical conclusion to the Singh Sabha lehar? They might have had real good intentions, but ultimately when we introduce these things in - they take on a life of their own with unforeseeable long term consequences.

I think it is more about a shift in contextualisation that was brought about by the brits. It's perfectly understandable as a consequence of colonisation, but the BIG question is whether it is a smart thing to do (even more so, as you've alluded to), when we've thrown off that subjugation. Sure, apply some western constructs to see what we get, but if we are oblivious to the very fact that what we are doing is essentially introducing major shifts and outside ideas to original Sikh thinking, then we are being very dimwitted. Then we have a colonisation of the mind itself - regardless of the physical presence of those that caused this. Will try and find that link for you.

You got a source for that? Sounds like a typical apna wedding reception gone wrong.....

I've heard differently from people who were there. When foreign fighters came into the taliban, they would harass Sikhs, knock off paghs etc. It is true that Mullah Omar protected Sikhs when he was in power though.

I know, even in cultures where people are allowed to test the waters beforehand, this can become a problem at a later stage. Some restraint is strongly advised in older Sikh texts. Not outright abstinence but limiting it to a certain amount of times in a week type of thing. I think they had an inkling of how excess can drain a man's testosterone maybe?

How many of them were actually bisexual as opposed to full on gay though?

Yep, that's the kunjur.

I think the above point warrants further elaboration. Redoptics, sorry if the original post and objective is going on a tangent with this, but I think it is an important point. It's sort of an attempt at contextualisation. When Ernest Trumpp wrote his disparaging orientalist (British sponsored) 'thesis' on Sikhs and Gurbani in the late 1800s (shortly after the annexation), he wanted to employ a grammatical approach but claims that gianis of the time told him that this was not possible. He disparagingly put this down to Sikh ignorance. Here's an extract: Recently I read (or tried to!) read a VERY academic paper by Arvind Mandair on the topic of modern 'Sikh theology' which emerged as a result of the colonial encounter. He made an important point (in my opinion) that the scathing criticism from the aforementioned work sort of set up the direction of most Sikh literature that was created subsequently. It was attempt to respond to these 'criticisms'. He also (very interestingly and possibly significantly - if true), suggests that Sikhs have yet to extract/free themselves fully from the paradigms imposed on them during the colonial period. Anyway, Professor Sahib Singh's interpretation is historically important because it is essentially that which Trumpp claimed Sikhs were incapable of producing - a more strict grammatical interpretation - with all it's strengths and weaknesses. In one of his biographical extracts the Professor also claims that he also stopped interpretations along 'poly-semantic' lines, meaning multiple interpretations of Gurbani, because (if I recall rightly) Arya Samaj fellows openly insulted Sikhs saying things along the lines of: These people don't understand their Gurbani so they produce a bunch of interpretations of the same tuks. This gives some background to the production of the Professor's work. He essentially employed old Indic grammatical forms on Gurbani (which all the now silent vowel symbols are supposed to represent). Does this make sense?

Yes, we shouldn't take all the contents as gospel, but to ignore this important Sikh literature is also a level of stupidity no one should stoop too.

What was returned? I know thee was a saroop of Maharaj scribed by dasmesh pita's hazoori scribe Bhai Hardas that went missing. I know that a 1765 AD rehatnama by Chaupa SIngh Chibber also went missing. Did these come back?

Oh, I get where you are coming from now. I wouldn't have interpreted her comments like that myself. I would've thought that this was an attempt to analyse what had been encountered. Sort of like churning what one had imbibed through the reading and an attempt to extract more from it. Not that it was shallow but rather an attempt to get a deeper grasp of its depth and significance. I know Tejkaran holds the professor in the highest esteem, so I don't think she is going where you think.

I don't think this is true. Many females elope with other men when they feel they aren't getting what they desire in this respect. I'm sure we've all seen mismatches with couples where one has a high sex drive and the other doesn't. This usually leads to trouble. At the very least, an angry wife.

It was in Banda Singh's time:

It's all over SGGS ji in my opinion. It's referred to as an attachment to this fleeting world over the eternal.

There were other masands who were punished, like the one of Sirhind who didn't speak up when chotay sahibzadhay were given their 'kangaroo court' 'trial'.

This was sad to read. Masand type action.

That bit above is from Zafarnama, so it is Guru ji's words (or a paraphrase of it). Bachiter Natak shows Guru ji's attitude towards his nauvin padshah's shaheedi and Guru ji differentiates between the human response towards it (lamentation) and those of dev lok (who considered it a victory). Interestingly, I just read a bit from Panth Prakash on this very thing and it says that Guru ji did show some emotion and some Singhs pulled him up on it. But that was written long after.