dalsingh101

Whatever their faults, SP were never out and about attacking people randomly. The fact that you are equating the NF/BNP with SP plainly shows how much brains you have. Look - the main point I'm trying to make is that 1) The BNP type hate filled ex-skinhead banging on about this issue makes it harder for decent apnay or ANY decent white people to get people to take this issue seriously. It gets taken as more 'right wing ranting'. Plus let's be frank, NF types are also trying to mobilise goons with this issue for their 'future plans'. Now you might not be too bright - but I can take a good guess as to what they might be like - and they aren't pleasant for anyone including us in the long term. No matter how chummy they might act with us now, whilst it suits their agenda. 2) The BNP is PRO-ACTIVELY trying to get dimwitted Sikhs on board with their agenda and we all need to be wary of this BIG TIME and combat it. Simples.

Why? Are you one of their closet fan club members? I still remember when Nick Griffin's crew were viciously and cowardly attacking brown people, including Sikhs. Now, they get the sympathy of low IQ brothers like yourself. They ARE white scum. End of.

Thing is, the 'Asian' thing can be of serious usefulness in terms of mobilising votes in a democracy or protesting. Some of us older heads remember the days before Pakistanis messed it all up, and recall how a sense of 'Asianness' wasn't a bad thing and how it helped unite people against a common and very nasty enemy. Personally I think, that minus Paks (or at least those <banned word filter activated>-off ones), the identity might even become useful again for mass mobilisation. I only see racism growing in the UK if the economy continues to dwindle. They are too scared of kalay to kick off with them, so 'Asians' would become the natural 'whipping boy'. We need to factor in potential issues we have to deal with in the future, and one thing the whole Barak Obama thing has shown us is that a so called 'minority' UNITED can make BIG CHANGES to the scene. For example, Bengalis and Sikhs can unite and increase numbers and face common issues. It's true that that sleazy, slimy element of Paks needs serious dealing with, but turning our back on other potential allies (even if they are sullay!!) because of them doesn't seem too prudent to me. I'm not saying we crawl up their backsides btw, just have healthy positive relationships with other 'Asian' communities (and even other nonAsian visible and nonvisible minorities if possible) . We have to be careful and circumspect for the long term. What you guys think?

Got to say, a good few apneean from back home come here, get married and then dump the guy for their boyfriend from back home. So those days of simplistically perceiving desi kurian as some icon of purity and western girls as straight slappers are long gone. It's a tad more complex than that these days.

We've been heading towards this for AGES. We may as well try and open a new Gurdwara that doesn't operate along the traditional 'fault lines' of the community. I'm shocked no one tried this before. I say give it a go!! I hope that it takes off and helps bring us towards a new era where we have less of the Panjabi feudal buckwaas baggage holding us down.

^^ Sheet! It does appear as if the BNP is monitoring us here?!?! The problem with dealing with this grooming issue is that the lowest form of white scum also jump on the issue, which automatically make Joe Average run for cover lest they be besmirched with the NF brush (ironically even some of those of them that are closet racists also like to keep their crap covert in this way). So how can we get this issue dealt with without them derailing it? Also, I mean, I have to say it. What are we to make of an apnee that still gets caught up in this type of mess these days with so much parchaar done by apnay and even mainstream media on the issue???

Also, notice how they only seem to give a toss about white girls getting abused. As an aside, I recently saw the film 'Taken' with Liam Neeson and it got me thinking that maybe there IS some overt cover up by white highly placed paedo types in government and the police?

Anyone care to venture a guess about the BBC's persistent use of the phrase despite numerous valid complaints? Actually maybe it's us being dumb? The BBC has ALWAYS been a mouthpiece for old school Brit mentalities, the same ones that create generalised 'identities' for 'natives' for the masses to consume (essentially orientalism). Plus now it turns out that these dogs have got their own internal problems with shielding paedo nonce cases. Can we really expect them to give a toss?

See, you strike on a very important topic there - what if the Arya Samaj guys didn't act like haughty a55holes? Most accounts appear to say that originally Sikhs were sympathetic and even supportive of the Samaj until they made their disparaging remarks about our faith and Gurus causing the reaction you mention. The reaction (naturally) was to distance themselves and we live in the legacy of this. Exploring this is important. It's more subtle than that, the British/Protestant influence people refer to is more on the theological plane and possibly a natural product of high ranked Singh Sabhians being educated in Christian colleges. Plus there is the whole matter of the general loyalty to the British. I'm not anti sabha, but I don't agree with suppressing historical truths because they are uncomfortable. Some of us know that the Amrit given to British recruits included a vow of loyalty to the British, which raises an eyebrow (look at Macauliffe's work for evidence). It's not only that, Brits also racialised Panjabi identity like it had never been before with their weak 'Aryan' and 'Scythian' theories - that still effects us today. It's a valid point to make that perhaps they manipulated the Khalsa identity for their own imperial agenda and achieved a certain degree of success in their objectives - as unpalatable as that statement may be for us today. I agree with your point about nihangs. I think the vast majority of the ones that were deep into their thing got shaheed in the later Lahore darbar campaigns against the Afghans in the NWFP - that's the picture contemporary records seem to paint anyway. Only a few seemed to have remained by the time of the Anglo-Sikh wars, most of whom probably got shaheed. I agree, there is even pictures of latter nihungs who would extol the British and preach loyalty to them - the ironic thing is that this stuff is in the 300 year book published by Niddar's friend Amandeep (who for the record I think did a good service to Sikhs with 'Siques, Tigers and Thieves'). Another thing some of you people need to realise is that critically reviewing the past isn't about trashing it, it's about learning lessons about positives and negatives. The original Singh Sabha had many positives as well as negatives in my eyes. I mean the movement produced some seriously influential people like Ganda Singh (the historian), Professor Sahib Singh etc. It helped popularise Panjabi/Gurmukhi literature. But we still need to ask questions and find out the truth. What I don't like about Niddar is his own 'vilification' approach which tries to demonise people of the past and not look at the situation and evaluate in context. His language is all wrong. BUT - that all said and done, the underlying point about pre and post Singh Sabha Sikh worldviews - how they may have come to differ and how they remained constant too is a subject EVERY LAST intelligent, conscious Sikh should be interested in! We just need to frame our research, discussions in dispassionate, gentlemanly, intelligent language - which, let's be frank, isn't our quom's (or my own) strong point.

See, for me the problem is that the discussion about the impact of colonialism on Sikhs and the Panjab, and the way Sikhs may have begun to perceive their faith in a subtly different way than before in light of the European ideas they were exposed as a consequence of being militarily subjugated and colonised - important stuff that deserves our full attention and analysis - gets sidelined by personalities. If we now all ignore Niddar, we still have important questions to ask and answer about this period of our itihaas and its impact on us. If Niddar with his strange ways brings this topic (which too many apnay seem too frightened to face) to the fore (even inadvertently), then I think that good has been done - even if I vehemently disagree with his beliefs - which I do. Sometimes you need controversial catalysts to force our lot to get off their a55 and study things deeper - sadly we seem reactionary rather than proactive. Niddar has his role - and I'm not connected to him or a fan of his at all.

They were mostly Panjabis from what I recall. and you are right to distinguish between grooming and 'dating', although the latter can sometimes be a precursor to the former. Some of these guys were just looking to get 'laid' and apneean had a reputation for being the easily talked into these things. When you look at it, our lot, in general, appear to be infinitely less conservative than Panjaban sullian. Go to any city bars, clubs in London and you'll see this for yourself. Some of the girls that would get groomed would be what we used to call 'runaways'. Young 'asian' girls who had run away from home and had been housed in East London (they seemed to be mainly from the midlands or up north?) by social services/the police. Some of them claimed to come from abusive families and I don't doubt that in some cases this was true. But in some cases it was just a very strict father who wouldn't let them go out partying or out with friends and the usual stuff. Once some Paks got wind of this they would home in on the address. Paks have a VERY tight network with their minicab businesses, and when girls would go out in a cab, or come home tipsy from a party in a minicab or whatever, word would quickly spread. BTW, when I say 'groomed' here I mean as in having sex with multiple guys. Finishing with one guy and then moving onto his friend/cousin/uncle type thing. Your last question about Pathan and Bengali attitudes is an interesting one. One thing apnay need to acknowledge is how sullay in general are much more insular and less forthcoming with opinions than big mouthed apnay. Whereas our lot try really hard to keep secrets away from each other (which become open secrets which everyone knows about - Sikh and nonSikh - in the end), sullay are very good at keeping things between themselves. Funnily enough I've been speaking to some Pathaans and Bengalis recently and this topic came up. The impression I got from the Bengalis was that they generally considered all 'Indians' be they Panjabi or Gujerati as infinitely more westernised than their own society. Overall I didn't sense any hostility but I did get the impression that they thought we were 'lost' as a consequence of our being better integrated into white society. Some Pak Pathaans appear to view us as almost comical, fun, dancing, laughing partying types. I think the Afghan Pathaans probably have a slightly better impression of us, possibly because they have yet to experience prolonged contact with Panjabi apnay?

Okay, but don't for one second ignore the stark differences between these places and a theoretical K'stan. Generally Europeans seemed to have learned not to squabble militarily since Hitler's failed project. Now generally they just beeach with each other through the EU. Acknowledge the big differences with our neck of the wood, with infinitely more 'hot blooded' militant types like Panjabi sullay and Pathans and what not. There is infinitely most hostility on our patch than these places, face up to this. It's not just about being landlocked but also about the environment we find ourselves in. Lumpen sections of the Sikh peasantry seems to think that we can stick our heads up Pakistan's backside (like they previously did with the British) as some sort of solution, which is ridiculous. Don't be in denial about it, we aren't in what would be considered a 'stable region' by any stretch of the imagination. And Paks ARE NOT our friends despite a55 yaari projections by some of our more dense brothers. Screw large scale agriculture. Even if it wasn't water control, climate change has a good chance of decimating the farming sector. Sod farming, we need more modern, robust economies, instead of those that create obnoxious pendus that tear Panjab apart with bewakoof illusions of grandeur. Get into the 21st century for God's sake! If India does come up in economic terms (which is not an unrealistic prospect, like it or not), it will be able to decrease its reliance on Panjab for food like the west which can ship/fly what they need from abroad. So look at the long picture. We can't rely on farming forever.

Panjabis need a complete attitude change, that's what we need. Towards each other, towards the world. Right now we are some materialistic, backstabbing, hungry, show off, unsophisticated pendus. Education is only going to help if it gives us a more healthy, progressive mindset, not if it just some strategy to get better jobs and still act like small minded, backwards yokels.

In the East London I grew up in, yes. Don't know about Essex but it appears to be less (but you have to ask clued up long term residents there). I know Pak guys from East London would go to Southall to 'pull' Sikh girls since the 80s. They were considered 'easy'.

How can I NOT watch that film now that you've got me so intrigued about its contents! lol

@WLS post #11 ^^ I hear your criticisms, but remember you are talking to someone who supported the notion of K'stan for a LONG TIME. I've seen the movement in the diaspora up close. Whatever my flaws, I'm not unreflective, or severely lacking in cognitive abilities, so yes, I do think my opinions have a claim to be valid and pertinent. What in your eyes may appear to be a 'depressing habit of always seeing the glass as half full' can be more readily explained as being 'realistic' in the face of direct observation and experience. Without trying to sound offensive, I think your own views could very easily be classed as naive and simplistic - but keep in mind that I deliver this criticism knowing full well that I TOO thought along similar lines to you for a long while. And I'm not negative towards Panjabi independence at all, I just see it very different to you. I don't equate being Panjabi to being Sikh like you appear to do. I believe other nonSikh or even nonreligious Panjabis on our side of the border are entitled to a voice and respect as much as anyone else in these matters. The model for a free Panjab can't be one where Sikhs run rampant over nonSikhs. Plus you do have a persistent habit of straight playing down our own negatives whilst you criticise other communities, which is weak. We are NOT a strong cohesive community - the reasons for this are mainly our own feelings of jealousy and envy towards our own people over wealth, caste etc. etc. - in a word haumai. We aren't going to pull ANYTHING, united and big off until we squarely face and deal with these ugly internal issues conclusively - and I'd say people like yourself are a big obstacle to achieving this. I don't agree that all nationalistic movements are the same like you are suggesting - each one has overlap for sure, but each is also unique in its own way - especially one like ours which straddles a complex array of factors including the socio, religious, complicated notions of race/caste and economic factors. We can even add international factors like brother Mehtab mentioned to this now, and probably a bunch of other things I haven't thought of on the top of head right now. To me the way you try and reduce the above into simple binary illustrates exactly what i'm trying to say about run of the mill K'stanis - who frankly seem to be way out of their depth. Try reading up Che Guevera's stuff and Jagjit Singh's 'Sikh revolution' to get a better grasp perhaps? Anyway, I'm not the only one who feels this way, even independent sympathetic observers have aired similar views: Take the time to read this article I posted a while ago as an example. Look at her criticisms - it seems like apnay haven't learned any lessons at all. So maybe I have good reason for not making an overly enthusiastic song and dance about what you perceive to be 'the common Sikh in Panjab'? I know we are strong in many areas - I'm also real enough to be able to face up to the fact that we are seriously lame in certain other areas. That is sat.

Thanks for the people who highlighted The Grey - saw it last week - was one of the best films I've seen recently. I think I'd put it in my top 5 best films ever? I also recommend another Liam Neeson film called 'Taken' - it's very pertinent to our community as it covers grooming and abuse of naive, vulnerable girls (even has a puppoo sardar at the beginning!) Saw Prometheus, which was the Alien 'prequel' which wasn't too bad. Saw a comedy called Thats my boy (Adam Sandler) which had me in stitches - but it is very adult (it's about a school boy who knocks up his teacher and gets her pregnant), so don't watch it if you mind that stuff.

This is still better than our 'nationalist' lot, who start accusing other Sikh people who don't support their views as being 'non-Sikh' or other similar gibberish.

I find our own Khalistanis myopic myself - they don't seem to be able to grasp the idea (even after decades) that people generally don't really care excessively about religious sentiments, but rather issues of prosperity, prospects and lifestyle. That goes double for Panjabis who seem obsessed with this. So all these ideas about 'international trends' and gaining support abroad are ridiculous as the truth is that the people who need convincing the most - Panjabis - of all backgrounds in India - are not given much thought at all.

^^ The Scots example is very interesting. It is a 'model' nationalist movement to my mind. Notice the distinct differences between Scottish and English nationalism. So far we've had no rabid, angry, violent movement in Scotland, immigrants aren't getting vilified, no one is getting 'bashed' and no skinhead types are running amok. However, when the English get nationalistic - hate-filled, tattooed 'Angry-Saxon' cavemen types and their suite and booted leaders (like Griffin or Enoch in the past) act and speak in such a vile and unpleasant way that any decent people understandably distance themselves from the movement. There are important lessons in that for Sikhs.

^^^ I'm from London. It does effect Sikhs here in a big way. Apnay just pretend it doesn't. Thumbs up to ADMIN for finally making this thread a sticky....eventually......lol

Normally i give topics like these a wide berth, but I feel sharing some thoughts today isn't a bad idea. Let me start by saying I don't believe Sikhs are part of what has come to be known as 'Hinduism' today. So if Niddar is of this opinion, I don't share it with him. That being said, I DO think that Niddar has (perhaps inadvertently?) highlighted some important things that many Sikhs seem to prefer to cowardly avoid facing. Regulars here know that I am quite interested in Sikh historiography and the effects of colonialism on Sikhs/Sikh thought, I've posted a few pieces/translations on this in the past. In this context what Niddar does (again perhaps unintentionally?) is to highlight the big difference in Sikh worldview prior to and after the infamous 'annexation' of the Panjab by the British. Anyone even remotely interested in the truth who has done a bit of research would be able to see that prior to annexation the Sikh worldview/cosmology (whatever you want to call it) appears to be more than a little different to that considered the 'orthodox' view today (represented by the Singh Sabha worldview - by this I mean the social reform movement not todays networks of Gurdwaray with the same name). It doesn't take a genius to trace the (admittedly subtle) influence of what we can call 'western enlightenment' type thought as well as protestant Christian on subsequent interpretations of Sikhi. My point is that prior to this respected Sikhs themselves seemed prone to interpret things with a more 'Indic' framework. You can clearly see this in all traditional Sikh works like Bhangu's Panth Prakash, Kavi Santokh's Suraj Granth etc. I sometimes perceive the situation with a pendulum analogy, where colonialism may have swung the pendulum to a western/protestant influenced high, and Niddar types are acting in a reactionary way to this and swinging the pendulum to the other 'Indic' extreme. As with most things, the real truth probably belongs somewhere in the middle of the two respective perspectives. I feel Sikhs acting like we have absolutely no connections to the beliefs which existed in Panjab prior to Sikhi are as guilty of misrepresentation as those who claim we are Hindus. What is most sad is that apnay can't see the clear opportunity for debate and learning in all this and turn Niddar (who has his faults) into some pantomime villain. If any apnay 'lose faith' over issues like this, I'd say they were pretty unintelligent or weak minded in the first place.

The 'gangsta' in the background looks like he's choking. lol Where you get that clip dude!!

Well worth watching!! Got to give it up for Harjap - the guy doesn't seem to give one pud about his physical appearance on TV, complete with stain on his sweater and everything! hee hee Nice to see in the face of all the looks obsessed media personalities out there.

Thanks for the heads up. Have downloaded the vid - will watch later.