proactive

The Punjabi Muslims in Pakistan actually consider Punjabi to be the language of Sikhs only and I remember reading somewhere that the Muslim migrants of UP and BIhar who settled in the cities of West Punjab after 1947 were the ones who used to criticise the west Punjab Muslims for speaking the language of the Sikhs. Another reason for the rejection of the Punjabi language was that the Pakistanis wanted to use Urdu as the language to cement the various provinces together into one nation in the same that Hindu was used in India. At least Hindi is the language of the majority, the use of Urdu in Pakistan after 1947 is similar to if India had decided to make Sanskrit the national language!

Both the UK and US governments are importing lakhs of these Somalis into their countries.

Organisations like Khalsa Aid will always throw back 'Sarbat da Bhala' at anyone who asks them why they are basically replicating the work of dozens of charities in disaster areas using the hard earned money of the Sikhs. They started off in 1999 during the Kosovo war and God knows how much of the Sangat's money they wasted in helping Kosovan refugees who were already getting thousands of pounds spent on each one by the UN, Oxfam and other charities. They have spent thousands in Haiti, Sri Lanka, Indonesia etc whilst the money could have saved many a Sikh farmer. I remember discussing this on the Sikhnet forum at the time with someone I think called Ravi or Ravinder Singh and he said that I was a Manmukh! This is the level of thinking of people running these charities. They have made a start in helping in Punjab but even then it is impossible to know if your donation is going to Punjab or some other place. I would much rather give donations to organisations like SOPW. I have just made a donation to them because they do such admirable work in first getting innocent Sikh political prisoners freed and then giving them them a trade or employment

So what exactly was the monetary gain that Sikhs would get from converting to Islam under the rule of the British? What political favour would the British bestow on Hindus and Muslims but not Sikhs? Sorry but your above statement makes no sense what so ever.

If he follows my advice he should be able to forget the person within a few weeks. Who mentioned hate? He is just looking at her negative side and making himself aware of this side. He is not going to shout her negatives to her, it will just be for his mind to churn over and then decide that she was not the ideal person for him. Or he could take your advice and be a washed out wuss for the next six months on anti-depression pills.

The way to look at your situation is that when you are in 'love' you are attached to the here and now. You feel the elation when the person you love is with you and you feel the pain of separation when she is not with you. You need to look beyond the here and now. Focus on the future, imagine what you want a year from now, such as finish your degree, or have a career that you always wanted or to train and lose weight. The mind is very fickle, it can make you think that the person leaving you is the end of your world but if you can master your mind then you can turn this from a negative to a positive. Imagine all the free time you have and how you can spend it doing something positive like improve your health, work on improving your career, sewa or attend samagams etc. The thing is that when you are in 'love; you always exaggerate the person's positives and gloss over their negatives, in order to move on you need to start doing the reverse of this as this will be one of the things which will start to get you back to normal and not remain a wuss crying over someone instead of moving on with you life. Think of all the negative personality traits she had, It may be difficult at first because you may still think you are in love with her and have glossed over her negatives. Speak to other people who know her just to get their views on her negatives, When you have her negatives then exaggerate them and think of how your life would have been if you were still together and how her negatives would have a negative impact on your life. Negatives such as she wasn't ambitious, wasn't into Sikhi etc. The more you exaggerate her negatives the more your mind will start to believe that you are better off without her and then you will reach a stage that you will thank your lucky stars that she left you and you will actually feel embarrassed when you think about all the time you wasted in being heartbroken over her You also need to, for the next few months at least stop going to places where you used to go with her. If you went to a particular restaurant or cinema ect. avoid that place because the mind will just bring the memories of her flooding back. Also get rid of anything she gave you such as a birthday gift or card etc. You need to avoid and get rid of anything which brings her to mind. Start to think about what the negatives were with the person, such as she wasn't ambitious, wasn't into Sikhi etc. The more you exaggerate her negatives the more your mind will start to believe that you are better off without her and then you will reach a stage that you will thank your lucky stars that she left you and you will actually feel embarrassed when you think about all the time you wasted in being heartbroken over her. I am not saying this will be easy but once you follow the above and empower yourself then the sooner you will get back to normal. I hope you get over her and soon,

You have to admire Sardar Oberoi, he is one of the few rich Sikhs who uses his wealth for the betterment of our community.

That's the funniest things I've seen for ages! I'm surprised that social services haven't seen the video and taken action to take his kid into care looking at how he's swinging the two kirpans around him. His son seems to be more questioning of the sanatan warrior than any of his muppet students most of whom appear to suffer from mental health issues. This video confirms what I have always thought of Niddars gang, that they are a cult. In a cult, the leader can do and say any amount of BS and the cult followers will try and find the hidden teaching in the BS! If Niddar had taken his gang to Macs on the first day of starting his cult, most if not all would have seen the hypocrisy of someone claiming to be a Nihang eating meat from Macs which everyone knows is Halal. But the constant BS from Niddar over the years has turned the brains of his followers into shyt and they cannot see his hypocrisy.

I think that he might be referring to the conversion of ONE of the sons of the Nakkai misl who became a Muslim on the early 1900s because he wanted to marry a Muslim woman, various Sikh sources refer to her as a prostitute or a dancing girl. One of his descendants became the Chief Minister of West Punjab in the 1990s. Muslim writers as usual put the conversion down to him coming under the influence of a Sufi. Shahrukh Khan and the other Khans are probably descendants of lower caste Hindus who take the name Khan in order to lift their status. Shahrukh Khan's complexion probably reveals his descent more than his name! Large scale conversions to Islam from Sikhism were non-existent. A few stray conversions did happen during British rule but these were more than offset by conversions of Muslims to Sikhism especially through the Maharajas of the Sikh states who were approached at regular intervals by Muslims under their rule to convert them to Sikhism.

No Muslim wants to have Hindu ancestors. The ones who have money and are prosperous can claim to have Arab or Central Asian ancestors but the ones who are poor or whose Punjabi ancestry is beyond a doubt such as Jats and Rajputs they claim to have Sikh ancestors because having Hindu ancestors is seen as a big insult. Seeing the amount of Pakistani Muslims there are claiming Sikh ancestry then it would seem that the Sikhs in the 18th century must have been a Majority in Punjab!

The Rohangyas are Bengali Muslims who were brought to Burma by the British. They are not indigenous to Burma and that is the reason that they do not get given citizenship. The Bangladeshis have a plan for greater Bangladesh for decades which entails pushing out their excess population into NE India and Burma and then once they become a majority then Bangladesh will claim that area. The Burmese know this and that is why they are intent on kicking all the Rohangyas out of Burma. The Bangladeshi do not accept Rohangya refugees because to them accepting them will put the brakes on their greater Bangladesh scheme.

The clashes usually always occur because some Muslim needs to sexually harass or rape a non-Muslim woman. The same has happened to the Rohangya Muslims in Myanmar. The chronology seems to be that a sister of a Jaat boy was sexually targeted by a Muslim. The boy and his cousin then went and got knives and seriously assaulted the Muslim. The Muslim community then lynched both boys, The Musla was taken to hospital where he died. The Police under political pressure from the Samajwadi party government did not arrest any of the murderers.The Jaat community then held a Mahapanchayat to protest the police inaction. Jaats going back to their villages from the Mahapanchayat were attacked by mobs of Muslims. The Jaats then attack Muslims in their villages.

Just seen the programme and it was shocking. The BBC and SAS have to be congratulated for making the programme. When I read some of the newspaper reports about the programme, I did think that maybe the BBC would concentrate more on the 'code of honour' and that Sikh parents were disowning their daughters after they had been groomed. But the programme didn't pussyfoot around the issue. They had that Ibrahim Mogra id.iot who claimed there is no proof of Muslim grooming as well as that ugly cow from some government commission. If she's in charge of saving Britain's children from groomers then the children have no chance with this ultra-PC cow sprouting her PC nonsense. I hope those muppets at the Turban Campaign and the Sikhs against the EDL watch this programme. They are enablers of these grooming gangs. They should hide their faces in shame.

Master Tara Singh was the strongest non-Muslim leader in Punjab in the 1940s. This is the reason why even the Hindu legislators in the Punjab assembly declared him their leader as he was the only one would could stop the whole of Punjab from becoming a part of Pakistan. Maharaja of Patiala did a lot of good work by arming the Jathas and making sure that there was room for the Sikh and Hindu refugees in East Punjab. Otherwise his role was not that good, he basically gave away his Raj without a whimper and merged his state into India. The Maharaja of Faridkot and the Maharaja of Patiala were rivals and each did not want the other to do well politically so they cancelled each other out. As for the future, the Sikhs should be concentrating on parchar and creating the unity that existed in the 70s and 80s so that when India collapses, we are in a position to take back our freedom.

The population of Vanjaras and Sikligars are highly inflated. The Vanjaras are 3-4 million and the Sikligars about 2 lakh. The Sikligars are Keshdhari Sikhs who due to their illiteracy are counted as Hindus. The Vanjaras are monas but they have a mix of Hindu and Sikh beliefs.The Satnamis are similar to the Vanjaras. It is possible that if we had a concerted effort at doing Sikhi parchar then the Sikh population could double in the next ten years, going from 22 million to 44 million. I have been researching the census figures for Sikhs in India and they seem to highly flawed, especially the 2001 figures which are the latest to be released. Unlike the 1960's, in India language is not as political as religion is. It is possible census enumerators who are politically inspired to count many Sikhs as Hindus but as language is not political they do not misreport the language figures. I was in India during the 2001 census and it is the enumerator who fills in the census form and not the householder. So the enumerator can tick any box and the householder would not be aware of it. Take the figures for Delhi In 1991 the number of Punjabi speakers was 748,145 and the number of Sikhs was 455,657 so making Sikhs 60.90% of Punjabi speakers. But in 2001 the number of Punjabi speakers were 988.980 and the Sikhs were 555,602 making the Sikhs 56.17% of Punjabi speakers. So, between 1991 and 2001 the Punjabi speakers increased by 32% but the Sikhs only increased by 22% ! Put another way, this means that non-Sikhs speaking Punjabi increased from 292,488 to 433,378 which is an increase of 48%! What makes the figures all the more strange is that the tendency to list Hindi as their language is more stronger among Punjabi Hindus than Sikhs, yet the figures above are the exact opposite. The above is just a rough calculation. There is no doubt many Sikhs in Delhi might give Hindi as their language but this would actually make the above figures more unbelievable and the Sikh numbers under counted. The above figures would only make sense if increasing numbers of Hindus were listing their language as Punjabi which would be unbelievable. In 1990 here was a migration of many thousands of Punjabi Hindus from the rural areas of Punjabi to Delhi but this would make little impact on the numbers for 2001.

Totally agree with you. In the modern world, it is demographics that counts. The SGPC understood this before partition and their parchar was probably the most effective it had ever been. In the 1930s and 1940s, they were able to bring in hundreds of thousands of low caste Hindus in Sikhi. So successful were they that the upper caste Hindus in UP were complaining to the Congress leadership that so many low castes were becoming Sikhs. The Sikh leadership has done nothing since 1947 to increase the number of Sikhs. The last census showed that the Sikh population percentage in Punjab has started to decrease. Although the Indian census is open to manipulation by the government, this still shows that the Sikhs need to make an effort to retain the Sikh majority in Punjab.

I highly doubt that. The British were eager to cut and run. If you read the partition documents, although the British made statements about being sympathetic of Sikh interests, they did absolute zilch to help the Sikhs. They always told the Sikhs to make a deal with either the Hindus or the Muslims. Some British officers who claimed to be be sympathetic to the Sikhs were actually urging them to join Pakistan!! The simple facts are that the British through their intrigues annexed the Sikh empire in 1849 and in 1947 they betrayed the Sikhs by not taking into account Sikh interests and partitioning the Punjab into three and creating a Sikh state,

The biggest mistake that the Sikh leadership made was to agree to a accept the Radcliffe award in advance like the Hindu and Muslim leadership had done. Since the Sikhs had the most to lose they should have made sure that the 'other factors' in the terms of reference explicitly meant Gurdwaras and Land ownership. By accepting it in advance, the British did not feel the need to make any concessions to the Sikhs in the Radcliffe award. The so-called neutrality of Radcliife is a lie. Mountbatten's main concern was the British interests would be protected in the future India and Pakistan.

It was mainly after 1984 that many Sikhs started the question the decisions of Master Tara Singh in 1947. I am quite skeptical that the British were concerned about the Sikhs and were offering them a Sikh state and it was Master Tara Singh who refused it. The British have a reputation for using one people against another and then leaving them in the lurch when they leave the country. They did the same with the Karen people in Burma and a host of others throughout their empire. The only people they stood by were the Ulster protestants and even engineered the partition of Ireland by giving large chunks of Catholic majority areas to Ulster in order to make it viable. They could, if they wanted to have done the same for the Sikhs considering the loyalty the Sikhs had shown to them. The partition line was to be demarcated based on population majorities but there was a clause in the terms of reference given to Radcliffe that 'other factors' could be taken into account when considering the demarcation line. The Sikhs held on to the hope that this meant land ownership and Sikh Gurdwaras but they were betrayed by the British. Had land ownership been taken into account then districts like Lahore, Montgomery and Lyallpur would have come to East Punjab. Master Tara Singh did the best that he could. The Sikhs weren't united in 1947 with many supporting the Congress and the Communists. Had the Sikhs been united then he could have given Jinnah, Nehru and Mountbatten an ultimatum. Accept a Sikh state from Ravi to Jamuna or the Sikhs would make sure that the Punjab would be ungovernable. With over 200,000 Sikh troops available and the troops of the Sikh states, the Sikhs could have turned the Punjab into a battlefield. Using the Sikh states as a base the British districts could have been taken over. The only option that the British offered the Sikhs was to join either India or Pakistan. Joining India has been a disaster but joining Pakistan would have been a nightmare. We would be like the Copts of Egypt with the Pakistan government encouraging us to emigrate so that Muslims could become a majority in the Sikh districts.

When the decision to create Punjabi suba was announced, the Hindus in Delhi attacked the Sis Ganj Gurdwara. The sewadars beat back the attackers and the newpaper reports of the time state that two Hindus were killed by swords and spears during the attack, http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=v-xRAAAAIBAJ&sjid=DHQDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5658,3014644&dq=sikhs&hl=en

Sukhbir wasn't coming to Canada to create jobs in Punjab. It was a publicity stunt so that his TV channel and bootlicking newspapers could show how much support he has in Canada. The aim is not for jobs in Punjab but the Lok Sabha elections next year. The party agenda is not to improve the lives of Punjabis but to ensure that he succeeds his father to become the CM of the state. It is a dictatorship in all but name. It is good that he has had to face the embarrassment of cancelling his trip. The worst thing that dictators like the Badals cannot stomach is being embarrassed. Sikhs in other countries like UK and USA should also ensure that the Badals can never step foot in their countries without fear. Well done to the Sikhs of Canada,

The one on the Rara Sahib website

The dohra on page 1840 does not have the following lines present Aad Guru te Dasam Loh Granth Panth Ki Tek. Gehe Puran Thiya Granth Yeh Daya Sarb Har Ek

If you make a donation on Focus Punjab website then it appears to go to the main Khalsa Aid donation site. Not sure what safeguards KA have in place to ensure that donations on the focus punjab page are kept separate from donations on the KA page. One other thing which bugs me is that if you want to make sure that your donation does to Punjab you have to use the specific Focus Punjab website but all the donations that are made generally go to the KA funds for other appeals. Considering the amount of problems that Punjab has, it would be better for Khalsa Aid to downgrade their general appeals and make an all out effort for say five years in the Punjab. They can restart their other appeal work after the five years and when they know they have made a significant improvement in the situation in Punjab. I would guess that a majority of the people donating to KA are Sikhs. So this means that money which could be better used in Punjab is instead being diverted to take part in relief work outside of Punjab where there are already hundreds of other charities also making an effort. As isingh1699 wrote can ADMIN make some arrangement for posters like me and other who would like to donate for the Focus Punjab project but via Sikhsangat.

Muslims are well known for dishing it out but they can't take it themselves Even that hara,m.zada Qadiani leader made a anti-Sikh jokes when talking to the females of his community. Here's a few that never fails to pee off Muslims Q:What do you call a Muslim with ham on his head A:Hamed Q: What do you call a Muslim with more ham on his head? A: Mohammed Q: What do you call a Muslim with more ham on his head and a vibr@tor up his a%se? A: Sheikh Mohammed