On 2/7/2022 at 2:57 PM, shastarSingh said:

 

Its interesting but I doubt we would be able to prove that Punjabi as a language is 5500 years old. Probably the best we could do is to push it back to 500 AD or thereabouts. That would make it 300 years older than English the world language and this would be a great achievement. But what it does show is we have allowed ourselves to be propagandised by others and we have allowed their biased perception of Punjabi being a crude language to persist for many decades. Also the eagerness with which we have allowed the two foreign scripts such as Shahmukhi and to a lesser degree Devanagari to be considered Punjabi scripts has been downright criminal on our part. For Shahmukhi we allowed the falsehood that before Gurmukhi, Punjabi was written in Shahmukhi script by the Sufis. Nothing could be further from the truth, for instance the first written copies of Waris Shah's Heer in Persian script on the orders of a former Durbari in Maharaja Ranjit Singh's court in the 1850s. Prior to that there are copies of the text in Gurmukhi. The Sufis were an oral tradition and their compositions were memorised and recited and not written down. Probably the first ever writing of a Sufi was Baba Farid's Bani in Gurmukhi in the Guru Granth Sahib. 

During the British times, they recorded literacy according to language by knowledge of it's script. Gurmukhi was tied to Punjabi, Nastaliq with Urdu and Devanagari with Hindi. They never considered there was such as script as Shahmukhi and the very name imitating the name Gurmukhi shows it is of recent vintage. This acceptance of Shahmukhi script has led to Punjabi being one of the few languages in the world to have two mutually unintelligible scripts. 

On 2/6/2022 at 9:16 AM, Premi5 said:

 

 

These kinds of petitions don't work. If we had more unity, then all the Gurdwaras should declare her persona non grata. They should declare that they will not engage with any ministers or any conservative MPs or candidates unless Priti Patel is sacked. That would be much for effective than a petition. Priti Patel is a joke, she has been a total failure on the migrants coming on boats from France. 

On 2/7/2022 at 7:15 PM, Guest guest said:

oh please.  revisionism 101.  stop deny any hindu past.  jatts were obivously hindus before.  even the ones who followed Saki Sarovar were probably Hindus.  Normal muslims don't follow sufi saints as its against their religion. Thats Hindus and Sikhs that do that (even today).

and literacy of what language?  english?  urdu?

Revisionism 101, denying Hindu past..blah blah blah. Do you have facts apart the usual BS for OBVIOUSLY Jats were Hindus. What's your background monkeyboy? Likely urban Hindu who doesn't even know about Punjab. The line below shows how great your knowledge is. 

Quote

Normal muslims don't follow sufi saints as its against their religion. Thats Hindus and Sikhs that do that (even today).

Literacy in all languages, Urdu, Punjabi, Hindi, English, Kashmiri etc.

7 hours ago, Suchi said:

Your figures make No Sense. The graph shows total migrants into Punjab as 1.37cr which is 13.7 million. The rest of your data has no basis in fact ie. You've just made it up! 

We know that prior to 1984, Sikhs were 52% and Hindus were 48%.  The fight is Not between Hindus-Sikhs, it was for water and land resources. Fights are always about land and resources as oppressors wish to control both to control the population. As you're aware as you've mentioned that Hindu Punjabis own very little land.

Why that is could be the subject of an entirely different thread. But basically Hindu Khatris are a Warrior caste, hence are allowed weapons but Not Businesses or Land.  Called division of labour and power.  Hindu Brahmins are the Spiritual leaders hence not allowed to accumulate wealth or arms. Only the business class (3rd caste) are allowed to do business/accumulate wealth but cannot have arms or vedic knowledge. 

Because this has changed due to historical reasons there is Hell on Earth.  Jats (previously landless labourers) have money, land, arms and political power and claiming top caste!!! But they have Zero Spiritual Power due to Lack of Morals. Only good for Bhangra and Bhang. 

Sure they are great fighters. No doubt. 

Both Muslims and the British played their part in this. Called subversion. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For someone who claims his people are more intelligent that us yet you cannot even read a simple chart. Migrants are classed as intra-state and inter state migrantion, so if a Bhaiya comes to Punjab then is an inter state migrant, if a Sikh moves from his village to the town WITHIN  Punjab then he is an intra-state migrant.

The 13.7 million figure takes intra-state migration into account. I just took the intra state figure which would include all Bhiayas coming to Punjab. 

Quote

We know that prior to 1984, Sikhs were 52% and Hindus were 48%.  The fight is Not between Hindus-Sikhs, it was for water and land resources. Fights are always about land and resources as oppressors wish to control both to control the population. As you're aware as you've mentioned that Hindu Punjabis own very little land.

Do we? The 52% Sikh and 48% Hindu figure was used by the media from the late 70s until 1985 when the 1981 census figures proved these to have been false in order to paint the Dharm Yudh morcha as an attempt by a bare majority Sikh population to try and maintain their control of Punjab. The same tactic was used by the media during the farm laws andolan by painting it as mainly a Sikh agitation. In 1985 the census showed that Sikhs were 60.75% of the population of Punjab. The fact that you still use the pre-census media's false figures shows that you have not even taken the time to verify what you have been spoon fed. You are a mindless drone. 

You can see how Bhaiya population after 1971 started to affect the demographics of Punjab with the increase in the Muslim population while the Christian population actually decreased because there were no Christian bhaiyas migrating to Punjab to increase their population. Even with the increase in Bhaiya Hindus, the Sikhs still increased their percentage between 1971-1981  because the Sikh birth rate was higher than the Hindu. 

Quote

Why that is could be the subject of an entirely different thread. But basically Hindu Khatris are a Warrior caste, hence are allowed weapons but Not Businesses or Land.  Called division of labour and power.  Hindu Brahmins are the Spiritual leaders hence not allowed to accumulate wealth or arms. Only the business class (3rd caste) are allowed to do business/accumulate wealth but cannot have arms or vedic knowledge. 

The Hindu Khatris are not a warrior caste, the Hindu Khatris might ACT as warriors in Bollywood films but they never had a warrior status. The only warrior Khatris after 1708 were the Sikh Misldars, Hari Singh Nalwa and Dewa Mohkam Chand during the time of Maharaja Ranjit Singh. Otherwise the Hindu Khatris were traders or administrators such as Dewan Sawan Mal and Dewan Mulraj of Multan. 

Quote

Because this has changed due to historical reasons there is Hell on Earth.  Jats (previously landless labourers) have money, land, arms and political power and claiming top caste!!! But they have Zero Spiritual Power due to Lack of Morals. Only good for Bhangra and Bhang.  

Jats were never landless labourers. They had their own villages and lands, their own religion which was not Hinduism and they took advantage of the chaos of the 18th century to carve out their own kingdoms. While your people were the like sheep to the Muslim sword, the Jats fought the Muslims and won. They came to Sikhi because the other alternatives of Islam and Hinduism did not suit their mindset. They would not play second fiddle to the Pathans and Mughals in Islam and they hated the effeminate Brahmins and the caste system of Hinduism. If Bhangra and Bhang is the way you characterise Jats, then I would characterise you as only good for drinking cow urine and throwing cow sh.t around.

4 hours ago, dallysingh101 said:

What, cos your great grandpa sucked off english lunh? lol

You aren't even half the man that these guys were.

Some of the Indian prisoners captured in North Africa by the Nazis were given a choice to join the Free Indian Legion, similar to the Indian National Army which was used by the Japanese. They were not in the same numbers as the INA and were mainly used for guard duties and some were based on Hitler's Atlantic wall waiting for the allied invasion. Here are some pictures of the Sikh soldiers in the FIL.

On 2/5/2022 at 5:03 AM, proactive said:

Every Hindu FU.DHU is an expert on Sikhi. 

And  I submit as evidence -;

On 2/5/2022 at 4:39 AM, Suchi said:

Who is the enemy and whom are you fighting? First define the enemy according to Sikhi. 

As far as I understand the teachings of Guru Nanakji,  the enemy is within as he embraced the teachings of both Islam and the Hindus.  I believe he was enlightened and declared 'There is No Hindu. There is No Muslim'.  I personally know this to be true. 

I have read that he might have converted to Islam as only declared Muslims are allowed in the Kaaba and that his body was taken by his Muslim followers and buried as a result. We know it was never found.

If this is true, then with whom do the allegiance of Sikhs lie as later they were forced to fight and kill the very same people. 

It is interesting that the Sikh symbol today is the exact same as on the Iranian flag. So why would that be? 

Could it be that the origin of Guru Nanak ji was indeed Persia (I understand he hailed from the Bactria region that has Persian ancestry). Or he became attracted to Sufi Islam and hence converted?  If so, it would certainly be problematic for Hindus and their Dharmic faith as they have spent almost a thousand years to get rid of this menace which they are still facing. 

Would it shake your faith if, indeed, this were true?  Where would your allegiance lie? Where would this put the position of GGSji who was actually forced to form a Fauj against the people that Guru Nanakji had, in good faith, embraced? 

 

On 2/5/2022 at 1:11 AM, Suchi said:

Hinduism is a living philosophy. It is Not a Fixed entity. We believe that everything is subject to change and we must move with the flow.  

Before Islam Hindus didn't fight after sunset probably due to lack of light. So we followed rules. 

Hence we were caught by surprise by the Islamic hordes attacking during the night. To respond to this challenge we had to create a new policy to deal with this menace.

Hence probably why Sikhs are required to wake after midnight to pray so they are ready for any impending attack. Furthermore, Sikhs are required to never remove their Kirpan, hence be ever ready for battle. These rituals are still practised today according to my understanding. 

However, in my view there is a fundamental flaw in the teachings. That is to help the enemy who is down in battle, in the belief we are all One. The other was not to take land that had been captured from the enemy. Hence it seems more of a suicide mission as most, if not all, the fighters were killed and more Hindus were forced to join to boost the Fauj. 

That was until Banda Bahadhur joined the Khalsa, who was a Khatri versed in battle with proven spiritual powers that he used in battle following his agreement to come out of retirement and fight for GGSji.  He vanquished the enemy very quickly and recaptured stolen land for which he was reprimanded by GuruGobind Singhji wife who had made a pledge with the Moghul ruler who had promised her son would be rewarded. 

Furthermore, as Guru Nanakji had already attempted to appease the Muslims by declaring 'We are All One' and creating a new panth based on Sufi/Bhakti philosophy, this edict was followed by Guru Gobind Singhji which he could not veer from. 

The Bhakti teachings are not suitable for a Fauj/Army that has to protect its population and secure its borders.  War is about killing the enemy not helping them when they're losing! 

I'm aware that Maharaja Ranjit Singh did capture alot of land but it seems he was outmanoevered by the British who infiltrated his army, double crossed him and destroyed his entire family. 

The reality is that the British were joined at the hip with their European partners via their various secret societies which we are only just learning about. Hence why French, German and other nationals were working in tandem to overthrow Indian hegemony using any number of subversive tactics in a total transfer of wealth and assets to the whole of Europe and then USA. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On 2/5/2022 at 12:03 AM, Suchi said:

I think many made the eldest son due to Britishers favouring only Kalsa Sikhs with 5 kakkars (replacing 5 hatiar) with jobs, land and opportunities abroad so it was probably an economic decision after they came into power. 

Again complete BS.

During the mutiny the British recruited former Khalsa army troops to their ranks and when they wanted to expand the Sikh numbers after 1857 they relied on these as well as their sons to join the newly reorganised army. There would be very few cases of 'Hindu' Jats being former Khalsa army veterans because very few Hindus were in the army apart for non-Punjabi Gurkhas and Poorbiyas.

The army factor only came into play in the first world war when the British undertook intense recruitment in the years 1917-18. By then most of the Jathera/Sultani Jats had already become Sikhs. The only districts where Jathera/Sultanis were still around in large numbers was in Hoshiarpur where the British did not even recruit heavily and these Jats became Sikhs during the Akali movement. During WW1 The British favoured Jat and Mazhabi Sikh recruits because they had proven themselves in battle. The only Khatris and Brahmins they would recruit would be a few hundred mainly for administration work due to their higher rate of literacy. There is no doubt that small numbers of Jathera/Sultani Jats did join the army and become Sikhs but not in the numbers that justify your 'eldest son' BS. 

In my village the only known case of an actual Hindu becoming a Sikh after joining the army was of a Brahmin who became a Sikh during WW2 but upon being demobilised he cut his hair again and became a Hindu. His family were the only Hindus in the village and they maintained a family Mandir in the village. His son was a police officer and was killed by the Kharkoos in the late 80s.His other son migrated to Ludhiana. There are other Brahmin families in the villages but they had taken to farming at some stage and although still Brahmins they had become Sikhs probably around the 1930s and they are virtually indistinguishable from the Jats in the village. 

17 hours ago, Suchi said:

That's because they are generally better educated as they follow their faith that tells them to become twice born. Hence why Hindus dominate in all fields that require education rather than physical strength. 

 

Better educated in RSS and HIndutva BS.

Most of what comes out of a Hindu Punjabi's mouth about Sikhi and Sikh history is compete falsehood. 

Quote

Many others were forced to boost the numbers to replace the Faujis lost in battle. So there is no Sikh without the Hindu

The vast majority or at least 70% of those who became Sikhs especially at the time of Guru Gobind Singh and the Misls were Jats who were never Hindus and were tribal Jathera worshippers or Sultanis. The Khatris in fact for the most part disowned Sikhi after 1699, the ones is Delhi were split between those who  wanted to become Khalsa and those who didn't. The ones who didn't were lukewarm followers still following Hindu traditions like Mundan (shaving of head after the death of ones father, shaving of head of a child) and because the Khalsa was to keep their Kesh, they strongly objected to the Khalsa. The Khatris who became Khalsa were smaller in number than the Khatris who still aligned with the Mughal state and wanted to retain their Hindu customs. The small number of Khatris that became Khalsa did contribute a great deal to the Sikh struggle and some were leaders of Misls. Nearly all Jathera worshipping and many  Sultanis Jats never had this issue with becoming Khalsa Sikhs as they never practised Mundan. The Sultani Jats who did not become Sikhs opposed the Khalsa, but when the Khalsa took over power, many more Sultanis became Sikhs and in the British times and with the Singh Sabha and Akali movement the vast majority of Sultani Jats became Sikhs as well. 

You being a Punjabi Hindu, I assume you come from either the Brahmin/Bania or Khatri/Arora background. The Brahmin/Bania were never supporters of Sikhi and the Khatri have already been shown to have a lukewarm belief in Sikhi so your views of Sikhi doesn't really amount to much as you subscribe to the Hindu falsehood of all Sikhs were Hindus prior to becoming Sikhs. 

The recent report by the University of Birmingham report about 'Islamophobia' showed that Muslims are the second most disliked group in Britain after Gypsies/Irish travellers.

The report author makes the usual liberal BS excuse of the 'negative' portrayal of Islam in the media as the reason that the more educated the person then the more likely he/she is to dislike Islam. 

Sikhs have a more positive image in Britain even compared to the Jews (39.8% compared to 35.8% and slightly above Christians) 

5 hours ago, Kau89r8 said:

@proudkaur21 @dallysingh101

cant win with them 

Liberals the world over like to parrot on about rights and responsibilities but they are the worse of hypocrites. These people who own weapons have taken on a personal responsibility to protect their families and those around them. When you want to subdue a people then the first act is to deprive them of the ability to fight back effectively. The British at the annexation of Punjab ordered all the people to give up all their weapons. This liberal woman knows that a population which is armed will never allow themselves to the subdued. The power of the oppressive state lies in its ability to unleash lethal force at any time on the people, if they people also have the ability to respond with lethal force, then the power of the oppressive state is diminished. 

5 hours ago, SikhKosh said:

Just like we use sullaah very commonly, muslaah is deragotary as well and rarely used but the best one is qutwaa.

What I don't understand is how our fuddhus like and share this video where the viewer is denigrating our faith, boasting of doing azaan in Harmandar Sahib and calling us Sikhraa. Check the comments, most top ones are from 'Sikhs'.

 

I think Sullah is of a modern insult, most Sikhs in Punjab at partition used Musla as an insult for Muslims. Hindu Jaats use Mullay as a insult for Muslims. 

On 2/3/2022 at 3:32 AM, Suchi said:

 

Sikhism was never meant to be a new religion but an additional Dharmic path. 

 

Every Hindu FU.DHU is an expert on Sikhi. 

On 2/3/2022 at 3:32 AM, Suchi said:

Hindus saw/see (now to a lesser extent) Sikhs as a warrior caste so not everyone needed to convert.  Only when they were needed to boost the numbers hence the eldest son was converted or when they were under threat they joined to fight the oppressors. That much is clear from the history. 

Whilst they are culturally close Sikhs themselves have more recently insisted they are a distinct and separate religion which was rejected by most Hindus. 

Hindu Punjabis in particular are less rigid, and more tolerant of Sikhs. Hinduism is also very broad so they are attached to their culture and teachings of Yoga, Ayurveda, Vedic rituals, Gita, Ramayana and the many festivals make them more inclined to stay within Hinduism. 

Sikhism was never meant to be a new religion but an additional Dharmic path. 

 

The Punjabi Hindu has been in decline since the 1880s. Although they like to claim that they are rooted to Punjab, they are mostly landless. The higher caste Hindus are urban dwellers while the lower castes own very little land. Each decadal census from 1881 to 1941 commented on the decline of the Punjabi Hindu. The decline was actually greater because the Punjabi Hindu population was artificially boosted by the Hindus of Haryana and Himachal which were a part of Punjab during British times. If we look at the core Punjab areas - all of west Punjab and the present east Punjab historically, the Hindu population was declining on a large scale.

The only reason that Hindu population in Punjab has increased  in the last two decades is due to the migration of Bhaiyas from Bihar and UP. So from a declining population the Hindus in Punjab have had their population artificially boosted by migration into Punjab.

Punjab has nearly 2.5 million migrants which is 9% of the total population.  If we take that 100,000 of these could be Sikhs who migrated to Punjab from the rest of India after the genocide of 1984. After 1984 there was also an outmigration from Punjab of Punjabi Hindus who settled in Delhi and Haryana but the numbers were small possibly 20,000 at most and many came back to Punjab in the 1990s. 

If we take off another 200,000 who are Muslim Bhaiyas so that leaves 2.2 million Hindu Bhaiyas who have migrated to Punjab and who are included in the census figures for 2011. 

In 1971 when there were very few Bhaiyas in Punjab the population of Sikhs in Punjab was 60.22% and the Punjabi Hindus were 37.54% after 40 years of migration of Bhaiyas into Punjab in 2011 the Sikh population was 57.69% and the Hindu population was 38.49%.  The population of Punjab was 27.7 million in 2011. 

In absolute numbers Punjab's Hindu population in 2011 was 10.7 million and the Sikh population was 16 million. 

If we deduct these Hindu migrants from the total population of Punjab 27.7 - 2.2  millions bring Punjab's population to 25.5 million. 

Deducting the Hindu Bhaiya population from Punjab's Hindu population 10.7 - 2.2 million bring the Hindu population of Punjab to 8.5 million. 

So without the migration of Hindu Bhaiyas the Punjabi Hindu population was 33.3% and Punjab's Sikh population would have been 62.7% a slight increase from 60.22% 

If we take into account the larger number of Sikh migrants leaving Punjab for abroad compared to the number of Hindus leaving this would make the Sikh population percentage even greater.