Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


dalsingh101 last won the day on January 26 2023

dalsingh101 had the most liked content!


Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests
    Sikh history and historiography. Effects of British colonisation on Sikhs and Panjab. Dasam Granth. Cooking healthy tasty meals. The Panjabi language. Sikh art.

Recent Profile Visitors

7,275 profile views

dalsingh101's Achievements

Grand Master

Grand Master (8/8)

  • First Post Rare
  • Collaborator Rare
  • Posting Machine Rare
  • Week One Done
  • One Month Later

Recent Badges



  1. Not at all. The guy is a disgrace. Plus it makes Sikhs look weak to have to link with the lowest form of indigenous life to deal with their problems.
  2. Thanks N30 Add to the above the earliest European accounts of the Panjab (we are talking about late 1700s here), which CLEARLY describe a Sikh community made up of Amritdharis (Khalsa) and what they term 'Khulasa' Sikhs who did not follow the Khalsa rehat but were still considered Sikh - note EXACTLY like today. Yes, the truth is that today the majority of monay/sehajdharis have come from relatively recent Khalsa roots, but seeing as they themselves have never taken Amrit and then committed bujjar kureit of hair cutting, they can't be called patit in the sense of an Amritdhari who has committed bujjar kureit. I'm not saying that everyone should be happy about the current situation but kicking people further away by haughty, excluding behaviour is certainly THE MOST FOOLISH thing to do out of ALL of the available options. That is exactly what made so-called 'lower caste' Sikhs leave and we still don't learn the lesson. We MUST become more inclusive and integrate people within our quom. Our Gurus were NEVER about elitist, exclusivity.
  3. Bijla is confused. How can someone who has never taken Amrit become apostate by cutting his hair? Plus does anyone here deny the existence and contribution of sehajdhari Sikhs even after 1699. Because if you do, you obviously haven't been making much effort to understand Sikh itihaas. We even had a thread here recently with pictures of shaheeds of 1984 who were sehajdharis or monas (whatever you want to call them?). I guess too Bijla's mind those guys weren't as good a Sikh as he is and they were manmukhs. Maybe? But I tell you one thing straight, they are bigger men than you'll ever be. Stop using the faith as some ego prop - for your own sake. Find some less obnoxious way to prop up your confidence and self-image for everyone's sake. And where do we go if we accept Bijla's assertion that all sehajdharis or monay aren't Sikh? Where does that leave us? The smallest faith in the world? Whether we like it or not, the majority of the Sikh panth is now mona. How we got to this can, and should be discussed. Attempts to, in effect, excommunicate the majority of people who consider themselves Sikh by Bijla types is mind boggling. I know our Sikh forefathers were remarkable people, made up of both Amritdharis AND Sehajdharis. That simple fact needs to be asserted today more than ever.
  4. Let's be frank, 'we' 'lost' them because of the way 'we' were generally treating them [note: by 'we' here I mean the hordes of obnoxious 'Sikhs' who subscribe to casteism and perceive these people as lesser beings as a result].
  5. That is EXACTLY what you are doing. And every other pious, holier than thou <edited> like you. You can keep deluding yourself, but anyone with half a brain and a just a smattering of integrity knows just how far removed people like yourself are from the original Singhs you try and imitate and whose reputation you try and hide behind to throw around haughty condemnation of others who can't match your self perceived 'strength'. Keep hiding behind your 'technical Sikhi' without any spirit or heart behind it. <edited>
  6. So I take it you think Rattan Singh Bhangu made that up or something? Nope, COMPLETELY relevant. It says a lot that pub brawlers types have to defend the Sikh community these days and people like yourself hide behind dogma as if it will cover up your own weaknesses. The point being made regards people's failings - there are a lot going on - and if we are going to point fingers (fair enough) , lets widen the context to get a truer picture of what is going on in terms of abject failures of meeting what being Sikh entails. That old game of dogmatic types to hide behind their physical form and castigate those who fail in this department whilst cowardly ducking any action requiring some courage and risk, whereas those being condemned as apostates and whatnot step up like MEN is an issue that rears its head periodically and needs to be nailed at the outset.
  7. What about Kaura Mal? A respected Sikh who actually smoked - of all things! That's not excuse smoking but another example of revisionism. Also about mona's excusing their apostasy. What about teh majority cowardly Amritdharis who NEVER put themselves forward when violent action needs to be taken against outsiders in the diaspora. What kind of <edited> in a tiger skins are they?
  8. Sometimes I see such things as 'revisionist'. Truth is that you meet a good few Amritdharis who appear to have issues with the idea of accepting prominent Sikhs of the past as being sehajdhari. Another example is the one of Bhai Nand Lal and the periodical controversy over his being Amritdhari or not that pops up. Whether the above is a manifestation of this is another issue (I don't know?) but at some stage we should face the wider topic. History shows us that Khalsa Amritdharis did remarkable things in the past - no one is ever denying that, but trying to write out sehajdhari contributions isn't on.
  9. You know what. People get into Sikh from all sorts of crazy angles. That's how it is. Some people come in from exploring their Panjabi culture, some from hearing Gurbani, some from x, some from y. Baba Nanak had patience with Sajjan Thug, a murderer who used religion to pull off his dirt. A cannibal. Guru Hargobind rehabilitated Bidhi Chand who was straight thief. I guess what I'm trying to say is that even 3ho can be a vehicle into Sikhi, and yes, people might not be perfect, but that doesn't give those weirdos amongst us, who seem to be on some constant judgmental trip toward all and sundry to create even more nasty vibes amongst our samaaj, when we've already got enough problems as it is! The plan? Take time, be inspiring, be inspired and warm and welcoming and make the panth grow by integrating people in it - and YES this may well involve tolerating what appears strange to us, at times, for a while.
  10. Just keeps going back to gross gullibility and desperation on the part of those back home. You can give them a thousand warnings about the ills that face them, but our lot still leave Panjab with the mindsets of dimwitted 9 year olds on some naive adventure. People back home need to get it into their thick heads that it isn't always heaven outside and the world is a big bad place. Smarten up for your own sake!
  11. I'll tell you straight up: Only 5, your own persistantly, haughty arrogant 'holier than thou' attitude has very little effect over the years- other than putting people off and serving as a perfect example of pomposity- simples. On the other hand, whatever her personal faults are, I have personally seen Snatam Kaur actually help bring positive interest and focus on the Sikh faith and she can sing Gurbani beautifully. She's worth 10 milllion of the bitter, nindak types who hide behind the faith as some sort of cloak to mask their own internal ugliness and insecurities.
  12. The 'big bad Singh's from India are full of their own hidden 5hite to be able to be able to say anything in my opinion. Like casteism and corruption isn't endemic in our own monopolised institutes. Like low down politics doesn't have a strong hold on even our highest institutes in Panjab. A person has to be one seriously deranged, denialist to avoid seeing the rot in our own state of affairs. Sometimes I just feel like pointing fingers at people like 3Ho is a tactic used by apnay to avoid facing up to their own kartootaan. Are Panjabi Sikhs any less motivated by money and status - personally I think not. That doesn't justify anything wrong being done by 3Ho but it does put an onus on us to sort our own crap out before we haughtily survey others - no? As for sitting down like brothers and sisters and sorting things out amicably - brother!! Are you serious?? Panjabi Sikhs haven't even learned to do that amongst themselves, let alone with others as a thousand and one incidents, major and minor will testify.
  13. That's what I find difficult. Our own people complaining about others doing what we are. In Panjabi we say 'sweep under your own manji before you start pointing fingers'. Given our own lamentable failings, exactly what position do we have to condemn others?
  14. I think one of the things that made M. Ranjit Singh great was his impartiality. Sure, as a Sikh, he can be severely criticised as someone who lacked restraint, especially in the kaam department. Plus it's well known that he took opium and drank alcohol. Despite these personal things he was still a man with a grand vision, who put Panjab on the map. He didn't seem to let theological/religious debates/matters interfere with the business of running a state. Ultimately, what people (especially Panjabi Sikhs!!) really seem to want is security and opportunities to prosper (even the most holier than thou Sikh in the west does this)- he knew that and delivered it against all odds when Sikhs and Panjabis in generally had experienced all manner of hellish strife and upheaval. I believe that is why so many of his 'foibles' were tolerated. Plus it was another time, for whatever reasons, a lot more was tolerated back then - which had both positive and negative consequences. Akali Phoola Singh may have sabre rattled about M. Ranjit Singh's aashqeean, and order him to be whipped but deep down even he probably knew that no one else could do the job, that Ranjit Singh was doing. To me the whole Ranjit Singh legacy opens up a lot of seriously important questions for us today, questions that many apnay (especially those loudest who like to hide behind dogma), would probably feel seriously uncomfortable facing up to. No one can deny Ranjit Singh's inclusiveness and tolerance of differences was one of the key factors behind his success. Pair these with his worldly wisdom. He was astute and realistic. Today the lack of these very specific qualities amongst Sikhs has turned our once powerful community into a bunch of small time, myopic pendus, bickering over petty issues and completely failing to see the wider, global picture. We need an independent, intelligent, astute leader like this man - who (by all alcounts and I've read many of them!) could mix it up with the most devious of diplomats from so-called advanced nations and out outmaneuver them, more than ever. The question to ask may be: Can we can really have a great, relevant, globally effective leader, today, who conforms to the rigid codes of behaviour/discipline that more conservative members of our wider society feel are absolutely essential to be a 'good Sikh' in this day and age?
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use