scaredbahman

A researcher! Kudos to you for your study. Its intresting to see you make your conclusions from hearing answers from a handful of ppl on a forum, whom you cant even confirm for being sikhs. If thats how you have been coming to your conclusions than i call quits for a debate with you. Hi Palm - inder I try and do some research in my own capacity - if you think one of the posts here is not represenataive of Sikh feelings then please let me know Heres some historical references for you if you are interested: Battle of Saraighat of the Ahoms against the Mughals http://www.answers.com/topic/battle-of-saraighat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Saraighat heres some about Shivaji http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shivaji some about the Jaat rebellion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raja_Ram_Jat heres some about the Berads of south India http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/SRR/Volume11/airavat.html theres more if youare genuinly interested The key point to note is that Aurangzeb remained in the Southern India fighting for the last twenty five years of his life and not in Punjab which is much closer to Delhi/Agra Peacemaker Oh yeah - I dont consider Sikhs as part of Hinduism I see it as having become the movement of being part of the Indic family of dharmic faiths to the abrahmiac monotheistic paths of others - hence the eternal need to find distinction and seperation which will never end By beleif in Hinduism rejects such narrow thinking and therefore if that is what Sikhs beleive then i do noit beleive them to be part of Hinduism As for the Government of India - it is a secular left leaning instritution which has inherited an essentialy corrupt systmen from the British which Nehru never saw fit to replace The NCERT book have oftern given derogatorty references to Shivaji, Rana Pratap and freedom fighters etc - the left establishment fights tooth and nail to promote such referneces I'm a tolerant chap, after all isn't that the whole essence of Sikhism! :TH: Now, No matter what part Sikhs may have played in the 1984 disaster, nobody can condone an attack on a holy shrine! I'm not sure if you're a ware but a few years ago, in Jeruslam, a few insurgents took shelter in a sacred Synagogue, or it may have been a mosque. Well the jewish forces surrounded it and planned a 4/5 day stakeout, they did not shoot/bomb the holy place as they realised it's sancitiy, veera do you agree, that a place so holy should not be desecrated? After all the 9th Guru saved the Hindu faith? hi Pakandi, the events leading to 1984 were a culmination of years of brinkmanship on the part of both parties and the rasing of hysteria on all sides I dont think that anybody can walk away from that incident with clean hands thinking they have done Gods work- we can have a seperate debate about that if you want and about your comment about the 9th Guru saving the Hindu faith

Peacemaker you are right - How dare somebody agree with a Hindu and a bahman to top that ! does debating worry you - or shoudl all us four foot black skinned skinny bahmans worship at the altar of seven foot white skinned religiously superior Sikhs ? reminds of a a learned quote i heard some years ago 'I always tell the truth - even when I lie' Tony Montana from Scarface yeah they did they used 2 humiliate lower castes they used 2 call themselves superiors they used 2 do yugs/havans to earn more money from illitrate yujmaans. what used 2 be the behavior of bAhmans when their daughters/wives used 2 come back home after they were kidnapped by mugals or afghans ??? ive heard lord rama kicked his wife sita out coz of a dhobi . whats a dhobi? oh yaar, dhobi means 'kapre dhon wala' (laundry guy) it seems u should read some part of Sikh history. Hindu women were rescued by Sikhs from Afghan and Nadir Shah's army and returned to their families, but those idiots refused 2 accept their daughters back coz they were now untouchable. hi Duchess , p[lease read some of history I have stated before

Mr AK 47 Jatha I try and give you the Kalashnikov response I have already discuessed the point about murti puja because the question was asked by one your colleagues. If the answer and somebodies beleif systmen offends your mode of thinking then please fo not ask the question Murti puja has given spiritual satisfaction to people for millenia - some Hindu panths reject it like the Arys Samaj and Brahmo Samaj etc for some people it provides a focal point for worship much lke the Muslims facing Mecca five times a day its a matter of who you view things - it seems that in the effort to become like the monotheistic religions we are taking on board their fanatacism As for Bollywood - i dont really give a toss about it - it is hardly a organistion which promotes Hindu interests as for your historical points - are you serious The Mughals had already lost the war in Assam by the 1680's- Battle of Saraighat Shivaji has already lived and died before Guru Govind - The Marathas were almost a nation in arms by the death of Aurangzeb The two large Rajput clans of Jodhpur and Udaipur were in arms against the empire under the guidance of Durga Das and Ajit Singh The Satnami and Jaat rebellion were all before that time and much more dear Palm -inder what is your point - there can be millions of paths and names - they all lead to the same goal why is that so hard to understand does it offend the monotheistic tendency of one path, book etc etc ? Hi Palm- inder how many sikhs practise casteism today - how many Hindus follow the Manusmriti Even hisotrcially the Manusmriti has not been regarded was a major scrupture and was challenged even during its time by many other theories Hindu philsophy does not promte caste system you say that it hard for God created such a large number of dieties that is not the point - the point is that every person is disticnt and unique and in the end their own path to salvation will be unique as we are all created different the scary thing is to say that for all of there is only ONE path sounds like the Borg from Star Trek and yeah- before playing the tragedy scene please calrify where Sikhism has been insulted as opposed to the vile thrown against Hinduism ? i came on this site for some i was hoping interesting debate I am doing a study on comparative religion in India and was leaning towards the conclusion that modern Sikh identity has developed to the thought pattern that (1) they are distinct from Hindus (which is fine by me by the way) (2) that they are BETTER - racially, religiously, politically etc than the Hindus (3) Any attempt by a Hindu to promote Hinduism makes that person a 'Sikh hater' and that person wishes to destroy the Sikhs this debate is confirming by thoughts

dear Palm -inder what is your point - there can be millions of paths and names - they all lead to the same goal why is that so hard to understand does it offend the monotheistic tendency of one path, book etc etc ?

I did not think it was possible to talk more crap in a single post - but congratulations Mr so called Khalsa Fauj Where is Peacemaker ? Wihtout me making a derogatory reference to the Sikh religion you people (who beleive that there is no caste, race and the whole world is one family etc etc? have predictably turned a conversation about hisotry into a crap throwing contest Anyway - my turn now - To your first paragraph of crap - please read the essentials of the Hindu religion before you puff your chest and attempt to prove your superiority - The oldest scriptures are called the Vedas and the philsophy exemplified in the Upanishads and the Geeta - the latter exemplifiy the spirit and beleif of dharma - the others are stories- whether you beleive them or not - whether or not most Hindus follow them or not which are given through the ages as examples of dharmic life - i am happy to debate them if you want The same scriptures which you pathetically claim talk crap gave insprirations to saints and sadhus who are quoted in your holy books your hate has turned you blind as well as stupid historically you are talking about Rajputs not Marathas The hill rajas were amongst the smallest and weakest of the 550 odd Indian kingdoms and some gave shelter and supprt to the Sikhs as well The empire in Punjab fell because of internal weakness - are you trying to say that the Sikhs were utterley blameless in hisotry - that they were just sitting around doing paath surrounding by cunning bahmans ? are you trying to say that the Sikh leadership has NO PART or RESPONSIBILITY for 1984 ? heres some advise - stop listening to Juggy D , Stop thinking that you are seven feet tall with white wheatish complexion with racial links to the Sakas and Sythians and try and open your mind to the truth Heres some advice - stop listening to

The Dogras were and till today claim Rajput status - Brahmin clans will not generally apply the name 'Singh' to their names Jaswant Rao Holkar after defeating Col Monson tried to attack Delhi . After being replulsed her retreared towards Punjab - there most historians agree that he met and tried to convince Ranjit Singh to fight the British. Ranjit Singh refused (probably a prudent decision at that time?). You have not answered the question of the Patiala and other Malwa Sikh chiefs - the fact that they claim descent from Bhatti Rajputs is totally irelevant - they were Sikhs at that time a new and seperate religion Teja Singh was a Sikh. Many other Brahmins became Sikh but lo and behold when one goes bad he becaome a 'evil bahman' again - how convenient yeah they did they used 2 humiliate lower castes they used 2 call themselves superiors they used 2 do yugs/havans to earn more money from illitrate yujmaans. what used 2 be the behavior of bAhmans when their daughters/wives used 2 come back home after they were kidnapped by mugals or afghans ??? ive heard lord rama kicked his wife sita out coz of a dhobi. hi Duchess, nice to see the level of debate improving the caste systmen is prevelant all acrorss India cutting through religius barriers - look at rural Punjab today- these divisions did not come up overnight it changed and evolved through the millenia from a fluid system to a rigid one. for example Stacey in his 'martial races of India' talks about the UP Bhumihar Brahmins in the lates 1700's recruited into the British army as accepting virtualy anyone who began to adopt their mannerisms and senisbibilties into their ranks after a suitbale period whilst fifty odd years later their caste rigidity massively increased' Hinduism itself does not promote such divisions and recognises the soul as having no caste, class etc - it is anoither matter that people have chosen to exert their domination over others. Is the Sikh religion responsible for caste domination in Punjabs villages which are about 80% Sikh ? The rest of your points are puerile Women kidnapped by the Afghans Mughals etc were not returned to their families. If you bother to read more than the Kuldip Manak and Jazzy B version of history you will realise that some parts of INdian hisotry rank amongst the most bloodthirsty periods in human history - people were not sitting around singing bhajans whilst their near and dear ones were being murdered and killed Lal in 'the growth of scehuled castes in India' also lays the lomng period of outside attack casuing the internalisiton and rigidity of Indian castes as a protective mechanism

Peacemaker firstly I did not make an issue that you said Ganesh instead of Shri Ganesh because it is a non issue some misconceptions we have already talked about like ONLY the Sikhs did something in history - the Hindus did NOTHING - which is a falsehood we have talked a bit about this the other one is about what Kurtas just said - 'dirty Dogra bahmans' the Dogras were Rajputs from the hill areas who rose through their connection with Ranjit Singh There were many brahmins who fought for Ranjit Singh like Dewan Mokhan Chand, Moti Ram and Beli Ram and who remained loyal to him and his family The Dogras were only part of a tragedy that unfolded after the death of Ranjit Singh- remember two of the brothers and sons died in the plotting and counter plotting until Gulab Singh utilised his machiavellian agenda but is is also interesting to note that a largre percentage of Sikh leaders of the cis Sutlej region supported the British to fight against the Khalsa army. Before that they were under the indirect guidance of the marathas udner the treaty of 1785. And did not Ala Singh of Patiala receive the 'tika' of Maharajah from Ahmed Shah Abdali. They also supplied troops in the Anglo Sikhs wars but all we hear about is the evil Dogra brothers or the 'bhaiya bahmans' from UP in the British army whats the common link - thats right they were all Hindus 'Jack Nicholson is that you?? REPLY almost - its Jag Nicel-Sen of the Nikalsaini faqirs

Pakandi Baba as I have read and understand Hinduism it does not give promote or deny the validity of what you call idol worship The Upanishands speak of the supreme reality which represents the essential unity of God which can be attained through the personal expereiences of all living beings Hence idol worship in its own right may lead a person to fulfullment in his own experiences Ramakrishna Parmhans the guru of Vivekananda beleived that a person can take any spiritual path , eg Murti Puja, meditation on the supreme lord, Islam, Christianity etc and acheive mukti apart from that dharmic thought has undergone constant evoluation and adaptation through the ages. the Vedas as I understand talk of the Vedas themselves being endless - much gyan of liberated minds came before them and certainly after them and are continuning to this day That I beleive is the essential difference in what people mockingly call polytheism and monotheism - its not really about one god and many gods

peacemaker I am here to debate about the truth can you handle the truth ?

Peacemaker - I am not making fun of you. I can only write from my own perspective I am not here to casue trouble but have found on your site many many references to Hindus and many misconceptions - I am here, if you are prepared to debate the truth of some of these perceptions Mabye you are right - I am ready to learn I have found many Sikhs to be self proclaimed experts on Hinduism in a very neagative way

listen baman without the khalsa Hindus would be muslim and so would the hwole of asia the frontier 4 invasions was Panjab we like 'al muhajiroun' extreamits islamist facist group says 'Have been a thorn in Islam for 400 yrs' can c why they say that cos of us asia wasnt converted 2 islam so allow the marathis and rajasthanis they were jus hindu kings 2 which our 10th Guru had declared war on end of Militant Singh - is that a response ? is that supposed to be an answer ? like I said pride is a good thing but when it turns to arrogance there is a problem Peacemaker as you can guess I am a Hindu - and I am talking about my perspective in which I refer to Guru Govind according to my my own perspective - unless you are applying the Taliban perspective In any event I have seen far worse disrespcet to Hindu Devi Devtas from many online Sikhs

did you write all of that without taking any breaths ? @ Tell me - why do so many bollywood films and programmes show the villians with tilaks on their foreheads ? The Sikhs made some sacrifices - yes but to say that without the Sikhs there would be no Hindus is a total lie Guru Govind fought in Punjab and the hills The Marathas fought and freed Maharashtra before that time The Assamese defeated the Mughals before 1680 in the Battle of Saraighat (Aurangzeb sent the Rajputs under Ram Singh to fight with them afterwards and it is sadi he took Guru Tegh Bahadur with him) The Rajput clans of the Rathores and Sisodias were in open rebellion by the 1680's under Durga Das and Raj SIngh The Bundelas in Central India began a war against the Mughals from the 1670's until the early 1700's The Jaats of Bharatpur under Gokual and Rajaram were in arms from the 1670's The Satmani rebellion took place before them which threated even Delhi by the 1757 the Marathas invaded Punjab under Raghunath Rao and Sabaji Sindhia etc etc etc the list goes on so take it easy It is good to be proud of your community - but when you think that you are the only ones who ever did anything there is a problem

Is it that bollywood has an agenda to hate Sikhs ? or is it just a general non inclination to religious sensitivities ?