proactive

I agree, the story of the offer of a Sikh state is at best a myth because there is no concrete evidence of any offer made by the British. The only offer that was made was by Jinnah of East Punjab upto Karnal being made into an equal unit with the rest of the provinces in Pakistan like Sindh, West Punjab and Balochistan. That offer was rejected by the Sikh leaders because they distrusted Jinnah and they did not want to live under Muslim rule. Sikhs need to get real and shed their angophilia because the British apart from being the ones who bought the Sikh empire to an end also used Sikhs as cannon fodder for their colonial wars and in the end left with just a straight choice between being slaves of the Muslims or the Hindus. Had the British wanted a Sikh state could easily have been created because both the Hindus and the Muslims needed the Sikhs to agree to either a partition or union with Pakistan. The Sikhs had more clout than their numbers would indicate. The Sikh ownership of lands in the central districts was enough of a basis to award these to the Sikh state. An area about half the size of present day Punjab was already ruled by the Sikh maharajas and this could have be joined to the districts where the Sikhs owned the majority of the land and a Sikh state could have been created. The British did not think anything of betraying the Sikh interests because it suited their purposes to leave the Muslims and HIndus in charge of their respective states. If the above seems had to beleive than just think of how easily Thatcher found it to assist the Indians in planning Bluestar which would have had a great impact on over 2 lakh British citizens who were Sikhs.

You are lucky in that you belong to a generation that can bypass the Indian govt propaganda and read the real history of Punjab online. Previous generations never had this resource and only had govt propaganda thrust down their throats. There is excuse now for your generation to know their true history and know that the persons the Hindustanis call their bapu and their chacha were the greatest enemies of the Sikhs.

If we can all come back to the thread before it was hijacked with casteist BS. The best case scenario is that when Khalistan comes about there is a complete breakup of both India and Pakistan. Pakistan into a independent Punjab, Sindh, Khyber province going to Afghanistan, and an independent Baluchistan. For India, independent states of Gujarat, Maharashtra, Andhra, Tami Nadu, Kerala, Orissa, Bengal, and the north eastern states. India if it remains will effectively be left as a rump consisting of UP, Bihar and Madhya Pradesh ie the so-called Cow belt. Therefore Khalistan does not need to face two large countries but a collection of different states with their interests. Therefore overflight, access to sea ports etc is only easy to negotiate. Each state will have its minorities, Khalistan will a Hindu minority, Sikh minorities in these states will be much less especially if Khalistan includes the Sikh areas of Sirsa-Ambala and Ganganagar. Effectively this puts over 85% of the Sikh population of former India in Khalistan. It is then up to Khalistan govt to look after the interests of the Sikh minorities in each of these countries. As for the takhts, Sikhs from Khalistan will need visas for the countries theses takhts will be located in.

You are the one who is writing BS. If you don't like the content of this thread then don't contribute to it. The existence of people like you in the Panth who can't handle the fact Sikhs along with the rest of society are waking up to the danger of Islam is depressing.

Muslims also respect force and determination. After 9/11 most Muslims believed that the attack would be seen as so terrible that this would be the end of the hospitality enjoyed by Muslims in the west. In their eyes, if such an attack had taken place in an Muslim country (say in Egypt by Coptic Christians) then Muslims would have massacred all the Copts in Egypt. So they also expected the west to take action against them but then when all the western leaders could do was turn up at the Mosque and give press conferences that Islam is a religion of peace, the Muslims perceived this as weakness and woe betide any country under attack from Muslims which shows weakness. Look at Myanmar, they have forced the Rohingya Muslims out after they raped Buddhist women and yet you don't see western Muslims rushing to their aid. Same for the Palestinians, because Israel takes no nonsense from them although Muslims in the west will support the Palestinians very few would go and fight Israel on their behalf. As Muslims believe themselves that force is right so when force is used against them, they will respect that as they will respect societies that use violence against Muslims in order to protect themselves. Coming to the western societies, because of their treatment of their Muslims with kid gloves, Muslims see this as a weakness and hence the west as weak and ripe for a Muslim takeover. Ironically there were no attacks on the US mainland when George Bush was president but when Obama came in and was seen as weak after his apology tour of the middle east the terrorist attacks in the USA have increased.

The trailer looks good but I would be surprised if the film dealt with the issue of Islamic terrorism in a unbiased manner. Chances are the terrorists will be shown as fanatics and there will probably be a Muslim woman ideally a hijabi woman who will save the country in the end.

These so-called moderates are in fact more dangerous than the so-called extremists. The moderates lull the rest of society into thinking that the extremists are just nutcases and most Muslims are just like most other people wanting to get on in life. Meanwhile the moderates actively pursue an agenda of subverting western society into an islamic one. These moderates are no averse to lying in order to present Islam in a good light. Just listen to their calls into radio stations and TV shows, just a few days ago one so-called moderate Muslim women blatantly lied on the Wright Stuff asking Matthew Wright if he knew what the word Islam meant, when he asked her to tell him she lied and said that the 'word Islam means peace'! It means submission btw but that would not have served her purpose which was to lull the tv audience. The difference between moderates and extremists is that the moderates are willing to bide their time and subvert the society whereas the extremists are impatient.

I think you are looking at this from a western perspective. Western society has mostly abandoned religion ie Christianity and anyone who claims to be a Christian is seen as some kind freak. What matters is not belief in God but getting by in society, owning a home, a good job and retiring well possibly in a warm climate, With the secularisation of western society western people have forgotten just how important religion is for non-western people. For Muslims more so, especially as the core belief is that Islam is a religion that trumps all other religions and that Allah has made Muslims the best of people and non-Muslims are basically animals. Now put yourself in their shoes. The family in the picture believes that they are the people chosen by Allah to rule the world and YET everywhere Islam has failed. Muslim states are mostly corrupt basket cases which are one strong leader's death away from anarchy. For this family, the secular west which in their eyes in the lowest form of society and one which is an abomination to Allah is succeeding (healthcare, welfare, peaceful etc) whereas Islamic societies are a failure. So how do they rationalise this. Either they can use their common sense and admit that Islam and its ideas of society are redundant or they can go to the extreme and believe that the failure of Muslim society is not because of their adherence to Islam but because they are not adhering to Islam. So its not a case of less Islam but more Islam and hence the reason that most Muslims opt for the purer form of Islam which is Salafism and not the airy fairy Sufism which has no basis in Islam. So for this family the benefits of living in a western society will never make up for living in a pure Islamic society where Muslims are on top and non-Muslims are oppressed. That society is what they yearn for and at the moment the only place where such a society has been set up is in the aptly named Islamic state. You would think that all the media reporting of rape of Yazidi girls, homosexuals thrown from roofs and beheadings would put them off IS but then we need to understand that this is EXACTLY the type of society they yearn for. Migration called Hijrat also has an important role as Sharia rules that if a Muslim feels that he lives in society where he is not able to practise his Islam and he cannot actively change that society then it is incumbent on him to move to a Muslim area where he will be allowed to practice Islam peacefully. Although in most peoples eyes Muslims have it easy in the UK yet for these Muslims because society is not ruled by Sharia law then it is still deficient. So either this family stays in the UK and attempts to subvert the society and change it into an Islamic one which is not so easy or they move to the ideal Islamic society which is what they have done.

Cameron and Obama are fools. Look at Cameron who just a few day prior to the attack rightly took the Muslim community to task for not doing enough to confront their extremists and yet after the attack he calls Islam a religion of peace! The irony now is that whereas there was a lot of opposition to the war on Iraq in 2003, there is near unanimity about dealing with ISIS and yet the two fools will not go into a ground war with ISIS. As for the 9/11 terrorists visiting brothels you may be partly right that they thought that they could sin as their 'martyrdom' would wipe these sins out but Islam does teach that war is deceit. so they could do unislamic things in order not to bring attention to themselves as according to them they were about to take part in a battle in the war between Islam and the west. Mohammed allowed one of his followers who he sent out on an assassination of one of his critics to lie in order to get close to the person in order to kill him. So in the 9/11 terrorists thought process they needed to do unIslamic things in order to successfully complete their mission.

I've read that technically a Muslim no matter how much of a good Muslim he is, is not guarantee heaven and the only way that he can be sure that he will get his quota of virgins in the whorehouse in the sky is by becoming a martyr. This is why the early Muslims were so into attacking neighbouring lands since if they died in the attack they go to the heaven and get the virgins but if they lived they could enslave the women of their enemies and get their virgins in this world. An ideal religion for bloodthirsty desert nomads from a violent society. But as Islam has expanded the non-Arab converts apart from the Turks and Mongol/Tartars weren't so bloodthirsty and were attracted to a more spiritual Islam (ie Sufism) without the call to arms and dying physically to get to heaven. As Islam is returning to its 7th century roots and the Salafis and Wahabis have successfully relegated Sufism to being a heresy, Muslims nowadays who research their religion find that the only sure way to get their virgins is by dying in a Jihad hence the desire of many young Muslims to fight in a Jihad. Also as martyrs on the day of judgement they will be able to intercede on behalf of their parents in order to also get them into heaven. This is why although most of those parents deny any knowledge of what their sons or even daughters were doing secretly they are in full support because their martyr son will get them also into heaven.

They are basically the same people, Bangladeshis because they are from Bangladesh and bengalis because they come from the state of West Bengal. Bangladesh used be a part of the state of Bengal which was also partitioned in 1947. The only difference is religion. Bangladeshi follow the desert rapist hence their involvement abroad in drugs gangs and child grooming.

B The word ਮੁਹਾਣੈ just means leader, so it means if you want to become a true Muslim of your leader then set aside your delusion of life and death. The rest of the Shabad is interesting as it makes it incumbent on a Muslim to be merciful to all beings. ਤਉ ਨਾਨਕ ਸਰਬ ਜੀਆ ਮਿਹਰੰਮਤਿ ਹੋਇ ਤ ਮੁਸਲਮਾਣੁ ਕਹਾਵੈ And when, O Nanak, he is merciful to all beings, only then shall he be called a Muslim. It is impossible for a Muslim to follow the Quran AND be merciful to all beings. 5:51 Don’t take Jews and Christians as friends and allies “O believers, take not Jews and Christians as friends; they are friends of each other. Whoso of you makes them his friends is one of them. Allah guides not the people of the evildoers.”

You mean they are facebook buddies? Did one accept the other one as his leader because he was able to show he had more 'likes' from other Nihangs. What is the fixation some Sikhs have with these losers? The other posters have pretty much commented on why the Nihangs have lost their relevance. They haven't been relevant in the Panth for the last 100 years and best to leave them to the dustbin of history where they now belong. It is amusing that the Muslay who attacked the Sikhs in Saharanpur were so scared of a Nihang army coming to get them. The Nihangs are such a joke that any that made any effort to get to Saharanpur would probably have embarrassed the Panth by their fighting abilities.

The British in their dealing with the Sikhs have always been duplicitous. The treaty after the First Anglo-Sikh war stripped parts of the Sikh empire but still left the major part intact. The British then used the excuse of a minor uprising which then became the 2nd Anglo-Sikh war in order to annex and destroy the rest of the Sikh empire. In that war a part of the Khalsa amy and the administration supported the British as they believed that the British were acting as the protectors of the minor Maharaja. The British annexation of Punjab was both illegal and immoral, the ruler of state which the British were bound by treaty to protect had not rebelled or made war on them. The British also during the early 1820s whilst officially being allies of the Sikh empire encouraged and allowed Jihadis to travel from their territories into the western areas of the Sikh empire and start a rebellion there. There is no doubt the chief architects of the demands for a Muslim state that led to partition was the Muslim league leadership but what I have blamed the British for is the way the Sikhs were left in a position where they lost over 50% of the land which they owned and countless Gurdwaras. The British were the ones that devised the rules of the boundary commission and they allowed the chairman of the commission to base the partition line solely on population rather than on land ownership and location of shrines. The British rather than upset one of Muslims were prepared to sacrifice the Sikhs even though the Sikhs had always stood by the British. Lastly karma will always come back and bite. After all the British have done around the world they now have a population of over 3 million Muslims who are slowly but surely aiming to either take over the whole country or at least create enclaves where the British will have no control. The next few decades will see this take effect. Maybe in the end the British will also have their own country partitioned into Muslim and non-Muslims areas!

It is good to commemorate those brave Sikhs who died in the wars that the British fought. My own grandfather's younger brother died in France in 1915. But we need to look now at how the British awarded the Sikhs. The Sikhs who saved the British rule in India in 1857 and fought in hundreds of the empire's wars. The British who have in fact brought about the greatest disaster that the Sikhs had suffered. The Sikhs had suffered many massacres like chotta and wadda ghallughara but we had always survived and after these events we had created a Sikh empire and smaller Sikh states in Punjab. If one looks at the trajectory of Sikh history, the end result of all the struggles was going be the creation of Khalsa Raj. This is when the British did their worst and changed the whole course of Sikh history. They destroyed the Khalsa Raj and from this the Sikhs have never truly recovered. The partition, 1984 and the events after are the direct result of the action taken by the British in 1849. Even though my grandfather's brother gave his life for the British as countless Sikhs did in countless British wars, the British left the Sikhs at the mercy of both the Muslims and the Hindus. Had the British wanted they could easily have awarded the Sikhs their own state and in some way make up for the injustice of their action in 1849. The British did nothing for the Sikhs and denied them a Sikh state and used the justification of the Sikhs not being a majority in any district of Punjab. Just a year after partition the UN divided Palestine and gave the Jews who were only 31% of the population over 50% of the land, The British had also in the 1920s kept Catholic majority areas in the Protestant state of Northern Ireland. So had the British wanted they could have helped the Sikhs for all the aid that the Sikhs had given them for over 100 years. Not only did the British not give the Sikhs a state, they also gave large areas of Sikh owned land and the Sikh Gurdwaras over to Pakistan. Had the British wanted they could have given the Sikhs the Lahore, Sheikupura, and Gujranwala districts as well as one of the colony districts based on the Sikh ownership of land there. In Lahore district the Sikhs owned 56% ( 936,349 of 1,662,456 acres) of the land in the district. The Muslims who eventually got the district only owned 32% of the total land. The denial of these districts ensured that the Sikhs rather than 20% of the Sikh population becoming refugees, about 50% of the Sikh population became refugees. This denial also ensured that there was no city in Punjab where the formerly wealthy urban Sikhs of western Punjab could settle. So they went to Delhi and outside Punjab and this ensured that the Sikh population again became split. So we Sikhs now need to reassess just what was the cost and benefit of relationship that we had with the British. It seems to be that the British used the Sikhs and when the time came to award the Sikhs they forgot about all the aid that the Sikhs had given them.

This has to be one of the most stupidest discussions ever on SS. While I agree that titles such as Mahanpurkh and Brahmgiani are thrown around without any care to whether the title is justified or not. So those who think that Bhai Jashjeet Singh was not a shaheed then I suppose all those pilgrims that the Indian army murdered in Harmandir Sahib in 1984 were also not shaheeds. After all they were there just to worship and it was not a conscious choice they made to stay there, it was the army which did not allow them to come out. So how about the youth that the army murdered with their hand tied behind their backs? After all they did not chose to be shot, it was the army in their destroy all attitude that caused the murder of the youth. How about the innocent Sikh youth that the police and army murdered in operation Woodrose and after? The definition of Shaheed in Sikhism is anyone who has lost his life solely for the reason that they were Sikhs or because they were identifiable as Sikhs. So this is why the pilgrims and youths at Harmandir Sahib were shaheed because they lost their lives because they were Sikhs and murdered because the army wanted to cause the maximum damage to Sikhism. Bhai Jashjeet Singh lost his life either because he was part of the protests or because he was clearly identifiable as a Sikh and the police man who murdered him wanted to cause harm to Sikhism by taking a Sikh life. Sikhism is different from other religions because it is well nigh impossible for a Sikh to deny that he is a Sikh in order to save his life. Therefore the very fact that one is a Sikh especially in an oppressive state like India, one has already made a conscious decision to give up your life for Sikhi which some of the posters state is a pre-requisitive for being considered a martyr. For a mona to be shaheed he has to make a conscious decision to be identified as a Sikh at a time when being a Sikh is tantamount to having signed your own death warrant.. This is why even the mona Kharkoos are shaheeds because they made a conscious decision to fight for and identify with the Sikh fight for freedom.

You have to admire the Jammu Sikhs. Even though they are surrounded by a hostile Hindu population which has recently shown how anti-minority they are by voting for the BJP, these Sikhs have shown the rest of the Sikh world how to tackle oppression and win. They have got all their demands conceded and shown the BJP government in Delhi how they would rather give up their lives than allow anyone to tear up a poster of Sant Bhindranwale. These brave Sikhs of Jammu have shown the government just how highly they regard Santji. They have also shown what they think of the biased Indian media channels which have been reporting that the police had fired in 'self defence' and referring to Sikhs as 'rioters' by burning the media van of the ABP news channel. The ABP media are alleging that the police made no effort to stop the burning of their van and had fled to a safe distance. Maybe the Jammu police have now learnt their lesson. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CIVoBWaM9s One of the media channels asked the question 'How can a poster of (Sant) Bhindranwale cause an entire city to go up in flames?' These clowns don't have a clue about just how important Santji is to us Sikhs. In the end the presenter had to concede that Santji is an important figure to a majority of Sikhs. Our thoughts should now be with the family of Shaheed Jagjit Singh and we should aim to give any financial help we can to the families of the Shaheeds.

The Jews did not have their country handed to them, the creation of Israel was preceded by over a hundred years of Jews taking active steps to migrate to the land from countries like Russia and from Eastern Europe. The Zionist movement created agencies that helped Jews to migrate and buy land from the Arabs. They also created pressure groups which canvassed support from the governments of various countries. In the end it came down to this canvassing that produced a majority vote from the UN in favour of partition of Palestine. Had the Jews lost the vote then that would have been the end of that project and the would have been an oppressed minority in a Palestine dominated by Arabs. In the case of Khalistan, the movement has a better prospect of success especially as things are now so bad in Punjab that only a diehard GOI chumcha would think that the Punjab is in a better position in India than as an independent state. In the 80s the issues were water right and Punjabi speaking areas. Apart from the farming community these issue would not have any resonnance with the non farming community. But the present situation, drugs, education and economy in stagnation, criminal dominated politics etc affects everyone in Punjab. What is required is a grass roots movement which unfortunately does not appear to be present in Punjab. The AAP election success in Punjab Lok Sabha elections shows that people want a change from the Akali/BJP and Congress mafia. It is for Panthic parties to unite and create the grass roots movement just as other parties in other countries such as the SNP in Scotland have done. The unfortunate thing is the alternative that the people of Punjab needed should have been provided by Panthic parties and not AAP. AAP just seized the chance that came up whilst the Panthic parties were too busy being divided and being made even more irrelevant than they were in the prior elections.

I totally agree with you. Unfortunately Sikhs are probably the only people in the world who will purposely help non-Sikhs rather than fellow Sikhs. To some fools this would seem like a virtue but what the end result is that Sikhs are living in dire need whilst their fellow Sikhs are running around replicating the same so-called relief work that bigger charities have done. Khalsa Aid is the worst in this regard, they seem to come out of the woodwork every time there is a disaster. SOPW now known as Sikh relief were a much better charity then Khalsa Aid in that they helped the Sikh victims of 1984 as well as those imprisoned falsely. But now they appear to have become another version of Khalsa Aid running off to Nepal and getting photos plastered all over the net of their relief activities. These charities are becoming exactly like the bigger non-Sikh charities with their 'sewadars' becoming professional relief workers. Even the Sikh channels have gone mental running two hour shows asking for donations for Nepal while they themselves can barely keep their head above water financially. All in all it shows the stupidity that is inherent in our people. They would rather help non-Sikhs than Sikhs. It's as simple as that.

The dog is said to be out of danger. Respect to Kashmir Singh for making the effort to dispatch an enemy of the Panth.

Both videos are hilarious, the second one is more funny because there is no attempt at comedy but the truth comes out that Niddar is a joke in real life as well. What an insult to the real Sikh warriors over the last five centuries that this mupp,et has been promoting himself as the last Sikh warrior and his joke of a martial art as Shastarvidya.

You are typical Hindustani id1ot. Indian airforce still flies MIGs from the 1960s which are called flying coffins. Your air force will never go above the USAF. There's a aircraft crash every other weeks.

A word of warning, people on this forum are clued up on Islam and are not the ignorant fools that will be impressed because you pulled out some quote from you holy book which appears to make some sense. Islam has given rights to women? You really are deluded and you just prove my point about stupidity and Islam which I wrote about on this forum. Feel free to have a look as it might just shine some light into your closed mind. Look around the world and non-Islamic cultures have given much more rights to women than Islam ever did. You so-called rights belong in the 7th century and not in modern times. I doubt a person like you lives in the real world. You have to explain away some of the inconvenient things about Islam by accusing the Jews and Americans! You have posted some quotes from the hadiths. Here is a good one which shows that Mohammed allowed his followers to rape captured women. So what happened here with the great protector of women and mercy to mankind?

When you have the example of a man like Mohammed who killed, raped and enslaved non-Muslims how can his followers treat non-Muslims with respect? I don't know whether you are so deluded that you believe that your religion really does preach peaceful co-existence or you are just practising taqqiya. Be honest with yourself, look at any Muslim country and see that the non-Muslims are oppressed by the Muslims. The oppression isn't uniform across the Muslim world but the level of oppression is dependent on how Islamic the country is. In countries where Islam is followed to the letter like IS, Saudi etc then the level of oppression is the worst. In countries like Malaysia it is less but it is still there. Blaming Israel and America for IS shows that you do not want to face the truth, the truth that IS are following the sunnah of Mohammed. If Mohammed, Ali and Abu Bakr were alive today they would be in IS.

The thing to realise is that there will be always be a certain percentage of people who are stupid. This has been true throughout history and is the same in our time. I remember something interesting someone told me that some people have transmigrated from the jooni of beasts like cattle and sheep into human life too quickly and thus are totally unequipped for human life and will soon head back into the jooni of beasts after this life. This could be an apt description for those who convert to Islam or born Muslims who remain in their religion. The most ironic aspect of this dawah guy and others like him is that they are as stupid as the people they seek to convert. Islam contains and attracts the stupidest people around. Over a period of time stupidity has become inbred. It becomes a trait among these people. Those born into Islam who are intelligent are dumbed down by their religion. We make the mistake of assuming that everyone is inherently sensible and have some intelligence and therefore should have enough intelligence to realise that Islam is a political ideology devoid of any spirituality masquerading as a religion. We make this assumption because we ourselves can see Islam for what it is but if you are stupid and fed on PC garbage about how Islam is a religion of peace then you don't see the disconnect between what you are being told and what is the reality around you. What person other than one who is stupid would convert to a religion whose founder was a slave trader and a rapist? Why would anyone other than a stupid person stay in a religion knowing what the true practitioners of that religion are doing in Iraq and Syria. The first convert to Islam I ever came across was a white guy many years ago who said he converted because 'Neil Armstrong had heard the Muslim call to prayer on the moon and had become a Muslim because of that'! This was the reason for this white guy converting! Everyone should be aware that that particular story as well as all other such celebrity conversion to Islam stories are a fake. But who but a stupid person would convert to Islam without verifying that the story he is being told is true or not. This is the gist of the issue, that the stupid people will be attracted to the ideology which elevates their stupidity. The more stupid you are the more Islam makes sense to you. Read any Muslim conversion testimony and you will realise that most of the positive aspects of Islam which attracted these people to Islam simply do not exist. They have been fed lies and for most they will never realise that they have been lied to because as converts they are told that any questioning of Islam may lead them to unbelief and then into hell fire! Those who will realise that they have been lied to will come to that realisation when it is too late. As women these converts will be married off and have kids and then come to realise that if they leave Islam they will lose their kids to the father as per Islamic law. By the time they realise they have been lied to them will have become well integrated into the community of the stupid from which no escape is possible without facing a death sentence.