dallysingh101

It does not explain in the article How he was discriminated by other Sikhs.

Was he not allowed into a Gurdwara even though people from every creed, race, religion go to Gurdwarae every day all over India , or was he discriminated from a job which he would have preferential treatment due to caste quotas.

The media seems to make these blanket statements without any reason or details behind it and we do not question their meaning and follow what they say blindly like sheep.

Mate, I've seen enough from apnay with my own eyes to know what is reality and what is bull.

And I tell you what, the first thing closet jaat paat knobs try and do is play it all down. Just because people might be let in and out of Gurdwaras, it doesn't mean rampant snide, haughty, obnoxious, exclusionary treatment doesn't take place on a continual basis (that people don't like to face up to, in the same way people ignored the grooming issue for decades). Jeez dude, are you really that naive?

http://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/sep/17/asian-child-sex-victims-suffer-more-than-white-children-court-rules

Kannada

I thought the above was the desi way of saying Canada first....then it dawned on me it was language... hee hee

Where is it spoken?

No it won't. It's been tried already.

The new maryada will just become another one amongst many.

Can someone please explain how he was being discriminated against?

Are you serious?

You don't have any idea about how so-called 'low-caste' Sikh are generally treated by the high and mighty???

Yeah that momma's boy thing is just too much.

Not a good look.

Like we don't a have major problems with this....

Keep deluding yourself.

alot of farmers are going to tamil nadu to farm cheap land. tamil nadu is very far from punjab but madhya pradesh is close and alot of migrants come from there. wouldn't it be better if these sikh farmers going to farm in tamil nadu bought land in madhya pradesh instead, it would help the local economy and its not far from punjab. also all these new sikh converts recieve alot of abuse from the locals and cant find a job because they have become sikhs. these new farmers can hire them.

A lot of 'Sikh farmers' have a very negative attitude towards such people deeming them as lesser beings. I doubt they'll be too fussed about helping them.

Hell, they are probably the people who rejected them in the first place.

A Dalit turned Sikh from Katana Sahib Punjab,

Khanna worked here for 35 years and said after

he accepted the faith, he was opposed by the

locals in Punjab and moved to Bihar.

I tell you, the hypocrisy of some so-called 'high caste' Panjabi pendu 'Sikhs' is revolting.....

I am not sure about the Khalsa eating meat but I am positive about why they had to take 'bhang.' Nowadays, we have plethora of painkilling drugs and antibiotics to help us to control pain and cure infections. In olden times when the brave Khalsa fauj had to fight non stop battles with the mughals and were injured in the process, there were no strong painkillers and antibiotics availabable. They had to resort to 'bhang' to control their pain caused by life threatening injuries sustained on the battlefield. Just imagine what kinds of injuries they must have sustained to resort to a strong painkiller such as 'bhang!' That's when usage of bhang was intorduced in the Khalsa fauj. Why do they still use this, I haven't a clue. When I visit India again in perhaps two years time, I will definitately pose this question to any Mr Nihang Singhs I encounter and report what they have said in response here.

I suppose the jhatka was introduced to toughen up the fauj. The invincible Khalsa fauj could only be toughened up by killing in a 'jhatka' style. The logic behind all this is that, how can anyone kill an enemy in the battlefield, if they are not even able to kill a goat or a chicken? It was to instil or implant the killing instinct into the fauj and that's where this practice was introduced. The Khalsa fauj was a sant but it had to be transformed into a sipahi as well. So, killer instict was vital to toughen them up.

Seriously, read Bhangu's work; dasmesh pita onwards:

Vol 1: https://www.scribd.com/doc/54832175/SRI-GUR-PANTH-PRAKASH-by-Rattan-Singh-Bhangoo-Trans-Kulwant-Singh

Vol 2: https://www.scribd.com/doc/149671030/SRI-GUR-PANTH-PRAKASH-by-Rattan-Singh-Bhangu-VOLUME-2-English-trans-by-Kulwant-Singh

So I guess you people think Rattan Singh Bhangu made all that stuff up about the Khalsa eating meat then (let alone taking bhang)?

Not j4cking off has its benefits!

hee hee hee!

I still don't get why so many people get their knickers in a twist when they read things in puratan granths that aren't common today??

The mind boggles.

Plus people seem absurdly oblivious to the possibility that being colonised by foreigners for a full century, (who had a TOTALLY different world view to the original Khalsa), might have had some (major or minor) influence on us. Or even just the natural passage of time.

No society has ever remained constant and the more contact societies have with radically different cultures (let alone being ruled by them for 100 years...), the more likely that some cross contamination will take place.

It's just straight weird that all discussions about certain practices of purataan Singhs gets reduced to ridiculous name calling and accusations of trying to condone drug taking, alcohol drinking blah blah blah. Sure, some people do this, but not everyone trying to understand the true nature of puratan Sikh society in a non-judgmental way is trying to excuse away or justify modern practices. Some of us just want to know our history - warts and all.

It's an amusing thought: Would certain people be disgusted with their own ancestors because they don't meet up to their standards today?

What annoys me is the way this mentality regularly causes a shut down of interesting debate regarding past Singhs - because historical sources don't parrot what they themselves believe. At this rate we might as well burn all our older literature and pretend it never existed. lol

We are LUCKY to have all the literature we do given the determined way people tried to rub us off the face of the earth.

It can't be said that the Practical concerns superseded the spriritual ones for the Khalsa because they had their Kesh unshorn even when thier was a reward on their heads and also all Sikhs adhered to the ban on tobacco.

When you seriously start studying history you discover all manner of hidden things. The point you made (highlighted above) isn't true according to Bhangu's Panth Prakash.

He explicitly mentions how the Khalsa tolerated the smoking of someone who was part of the Moghul government but an undercover sehaj-dhari Sikh. His name was Kaura Mal. This guy would forewarn the Khalsa of impending Moghul attacks and send supplies when they were surrounded. Apparently they made him pay fines for his smoking huqqa but he was well loved.

This IS NOT (!!!) any attempt on my part to justify, encourage, excuse smoking before anyone jumps on that wagon! I'm just exploring what I've discovered whilst exploring my own literary heritage!

I think what has happened today is that the Sikh masses have been so conditioned by a particular, white washed account of their history that many have sadly become incapable of exploring their own beautiful and rich literary heritage because they experience hardcore dissonance with what they sometimes encounter because it is so different from their preconceptions of the past. It's sad really but very common.

Probably because its full of the ramblings of a man that comes from an alcohol drinking, drug taking, dead animal eating family trying desperately to justify it in the name of religion, in order for him to feel better about himself and family. Religion however, is about sprituality, and only a complete inbecile would claim any of the above things aid sprituality. Thats probably why it was locked.

Is that your description of Rattan Singh Bhangu and his family, or are you talking about posters?

The first one I think is an excuse which the defeated armies made to their leaders. Many accusations of the sort were placed against the sikhs as they were thought to be consuming something very strong which made them undeafable in war.

Well, I'd disagree because I think soldiers taking afeem or bhang was common back then. We've even got a sakhi where the emperor Babur himself offers Baba Nanak bhang. It's still done now in places like Afghanistan for example.

Also, many Sikh sources themselves record the taking of bhang like it is no big thing. Read Rattan Singh Bhangu's Path Prakash for example. Remember Bhangu was the grandson of Mehtab Singh who slew Mass Runghur at Amritsar, so he wasn't any marginal figure in Sikh history.

For instance Banda SIngh Bahadur did practice magic and ate meat etc but he stopped when he came into the sharan of Guru Ji. He however disobeyed the hukam of not getting married. This led to his downfall and his son was sort of murdered in front of his eyes as well.

Well actually, Panth Prakash is REALLY interesting in this respect because it claims the opposite; that Banda Singh didn't eat meat and this was one of the things that upset the mainstream Khalsa. Other things that were supposed to have gone against Khalsa norms included wearing red instead of blue and changing the jaikara to 'Fateh Darshan'.)

You can read Panth Prakash in English and check for yourself:

Here's volume 1, which covers the Banda Singh period: https://www.scribd.com/doc/54832175/SRI-GUR-PANTH-PRAKASH-by-Rattan-Singh-Bhangoo-Trans-Kulwant-Singh

Further research is required into the main stories of where these lines have been taken from.

They are in no way presenting to us any concrete evidence that this was actually the rehat of the puratan Sikhs.

A lot of puratan rehats are available. A scholar called Piara SIngh Padam collected a good few in a book. Its a mixed picture, some rehats are okay with meat (as long as it is not halal), some not.

These lines are parts of the whole stories and cannot be taken as direct references to the peoples behaviours. We need the full story.

Given all the evidence I've seen it looks like some people have always eaten meat and some have always been vegetarian.

I never directly referred to you saying anything. Sorry for misunderstanding.

No misunderstanding, no need to apologise. lol

It's just really easy (and common from my experience) for people to start pointing fingers when we discuss this topic and claim people are trying to justify x and y practice today.

Some of us are genuinely interested in history and for me personally, given the violence Sikhs experienced in 1700s, I don't think any less of any of them doing all these things that people have issues with today. That's just a personal view - everyone is free to disagree.

No one in their right mind will deny that Sikhs face serious challenges in the 21st century.

That all being said we have to remain chardhi kala and slowly and steadily improve our own communities game in terms of retaining people born in the faith and bringing people in.

I know it is becoming cliched a bit but we still have to remember that we've recovered from mass genocide on more than one occasion.

With Guru's kripa we'll survive modern challenges too. But what we can't keep doing are things that are detrimental to our communities growth and cohesion, even out of ignorance.

The video kiu murgi mare clearly explains that people who wanted to indulge in meat eating and other things will go to great lengths to get some sort of justification to do it.

Yeah but there is separate issue about so many references to meat eating, bhang consumption etc. in a lot of old Sikh manuscripts.

That's not me trying to justify it, but pretending these things don't exist is like burying ones head in the sand.

I don't think Sikh history is as clean cut as some people like to make out today. Suffice to say that it appears as if certain behaviours and thinking of SOME Singhs in the past was different to today, for whatever reason.

But yes, it's sad that people try and use this today to justify recreational intoxication.

I think some compromises might have been made on the ground during warfare.

That isn't to say that talking bhang etc. was something all or most Sikhs did. Or even that Gurmat condones it.

Also, on another thread on Nihang rehat I made a point that some use of substances may have been self medication i.e. opium is an analgesic and certain non-intoxicating compounds in marijuana have uses beyond getting high (i.e. cancer, MS, some psychological conditions amongst others).

Plus remember, a lot of these writers wrote a fair few decades (if not centuries) after the events. For example Gyani Gyan Singh published the above in 1880, a good 170 odd years after dasmesh pita's earthly passing.

OP, when you post this stuff can you make sure we have the original Gurmukhi text too?

That way people can assess the translations.

What you described is how most typical Hollywood movies are like, good girl falls for the bad boy. Neither of them are mature in my opinion, so yes, you're right, not all girls fall for it. :D

Okay, but we've got to deal with the reality of many apneean falling for it.

Unless you want top wash your hands off it and make the situation even worse (if that is possible).

Streetsmarts is good way of explaining it.

So many girls who are academically excellent fall for it, so it obviously isn't THAT type of 'intelligence'.

Panjabis used to talk about people being 'lulloos', which I basically translate as simple minded. Not being aware of threats in the environment. You can get top grades in your GCSE and degree and still be like this.

Muslims aren’t Romeos. They actually have no amazing tactics to attract girls. I have been approached by muslims and I said NO. Their personalities are actually very awful to me. The problem is that the girls they target are seeking that love and attention because they do not receive any at home. It is rooted to bad parenting.

Maybe social intelligence plays a part too?

probably it is an attempt to malign nihangs , but it is true that Hindus consume bhang for getting out of their heads and so have pushed their bad attitudes into our circles.

I'd put it down to human nature myself.

We always do. I mean Sikhs have been talking about the grooming issue since the 80s while white people are just now waking up to this reality. As one member here correctly observed, the Sikhs have an instinctive understanding of Muslims that others don't have.

I disagree. I think a lot of important goray (in the police, media, social services etc.) have known what has been going on from day one. They've just decided to cover it up. They still do.

Also, remember it looks like we've had a paedophile group operating from amongst the highest levels of government (no less!) here in the UK, that has been pretty much an open secret here.

Goray in government and media have purposefully played Sikh girls being groomed down in my opinion (same with working class white girls) and purposefully vilified Sikhs who've stood up to it like SP. I think they knew what was going on but obfuscated the issue by making out it was jealous Sikh men versus successful sullay lovers rather than deal with it.