chatanga

4 hours ago, Kira said:

 The Guru of this sect taught that a living Guru is required for salvation and would himself sit on a soft throne whilst Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji was placed on a bookstand beside his stage.

I'm not too sure this is accurate.  The renegade sant-nirankaris say this.

2 hours ago, Singh2017 said:

VJKK VJKF

chatanga Ji, I never said I doubt my gurus. I said that I find it hard to believe because of what I've been taught before and that I've never been given any straight evidence. If Guru Ji said this themselves then the conversation stops here but I have not said anywhere I doubt my gurus in the slightest. 

Vaheguru Ji.

Ok bro.

On 04/11/2017 at 7:38 PM, Singh2017 said:

Sangat Ji, I'm hearing that apparently the gurus had past lives. I find this hard to believe because I thought they were Akaal Purakh themselves so can someone please enlighten me?

Guru Gobind Singh Ji had a previous life, about this there is no dispute. Guru Sahib has told us about it himself.  None of the previous Gurus have written themselves about any previous lives. There is also a tradition that Guru teg Bahadur Ji was a rishi is his previous life.

If you find this hard to believe you are doubting your Guru. And thats never  a good thing.

But it doesn't matter in any way whether they had previous lives. There was a time when you and I (our atma) was part of Sri Kaal Purakh.

On 04/11/2017 at 10:14 PM, harsharan000 said:

Guru Sahiban can never ever have any past life nor karam, for they they come from  the  plane of complete Truth, namely Sach Khand, for the only purpose to enlighten and upliftment of mankind, in the mysteries of Wahiguru Akal Purukh, for us polluted jeevas, as we can not have any sort of access, not morally,  neither physically, nor intelectually.

For Guru Angad, Guru Amardas and Guru Ramdas this plane of truth was the previous Gurus to them. Bhai Lehna was not born on this plane and neither were 3rd and 4th Gurus.

there is a sakhi of Guru Amardas Sahib being a "nigura" before he came to Guru Angad Dev Ji, and Bhai Lehna was a worshipper of Goddess Durga before he came to Guru Nanak Sahib. Guru Ramdas when known as Jetha followed the family tradition of worship ( I can't remember what it was at this time) and they protested when he gave that up to follow Guru Amardas Sahib.

On 15/10/2017 at 10:31 AM, NonExistant said:

I read somewhere that Guru Gobind Singh Ji's sons, the Chaar Sahibzade, were actually the Hindu Deities Brahma, Shiva, Vishnu and Mahesh in their past lives. 

 

Is this true????? Apparently a sant predicted it or whatever.

There are some stories like this floating around. In the end it makes no difference really.

In "Sri Kalgidhar Parkash" (I think) the Kavi Santokh Singh (I think) has written that the origins of the Sahibzade was from Satjug when the demons were trying to kill the Devi and she took refuge in the mountains near the dera of a Rishi.   the other demons asked this Rishi where is the devi and the rishi took the lion skin which he was sitting on to meditate and shook it. From that many lions appeared and devoured the demons and helped the goddess kill the demons. In this book it says that these lions were then told to do tapasya until kalyug where they were to be born in Guru Sahibs house. The rishi was supposed to be Guru teg Bahadur.

Baba Santa Singh says something similiar (although not in as much detail) in one of his kathas of Sri Sarbloh.

On 12/10/2017 at 4:10 AM, SoulSingh said:

 From what I understand from the clip above I reason Dhandrian wale isn't either , but just because someone has different views doesn't mean they're wrong.

You're kidding right? Dhandrianwale says that it is against the nature of Waheguru to getr up in the morning and do naam simran as the human being is a nocturnal being. He says it clearly, "how can you win favour with Giod by breaking his laws."

On 12/10/2017 at 4:10 AM, SoulSingh said:

, but just because someone has different views doesn't mean they're wrong.

Not all the time, but in this case, there is no grey area. Dhadrianwale is wrong.

On 12/10/2017 at 4:10 AM, SoulSingh said:

 Also on that note: @chatanga look believe what you want about me, I don't care if you think I'm in a cult, but I recommend you learn to become a sikh. From the way you generally try to do veechars I think it'd in your best to cut down on the haumai a bit.

Defending gurmat is haumai to you? What about you defending guru nindaks like dhunda and dhapali ?

You don't want me to beleive that you are in a cult, then don't side with the cult on each and every thing. Esp those things you know to be wrong.

On 14/10/2017 at 0:43 PM, Guest Singh said:

In regards to her dad I went to the Gurdwara to ask for her hand in marriage, he shut me down on the spot.

Hey Bro. Just a piece of advice. Religion and culture may not be the same thing, but they are important to many people especially of our parents generation.  You need to understand this. What you have described above is a serious error on your part. Nobody, even Panjabi Sikhs go up to a girls father and say "I want to marry your daughter." It's not the protocol in our culture. It's very insulting for the girl's father to hear this from anyone let alone an person of different community . In our community if a boy-girl liked each other they would most likely discuss it with their parents, and if that were not possible, then with a aunt or uncle, to get the ball rolling and get a vichola arranged, if they couldn't contact the family direct.

Your direct approach, especially in a gurdwara, was something that can only be described as foolish.

If you are still interested in her, you should try and arrange a vichola, or middle-man to do this. Failing that, the girl has to take the step and aproach her parents.

This gurcharan is the same gurcharan from facebook. He is no-one to talk about Sikhs.

https://www.facebook.com/gurcharan.singh.731

he uses the most abusive language for Sri Dasme Patshah's granth Sahib.

@S1ngh Bro, you are a moderator here. Can you sort this OP out and approve his posts before they appear here.

He is spreading a lot of nonsense from the Asia smachar group which is based in malaysia and are hard-core missionaries.

1 hour ago, Prokharkoo84 said:

, or us losing a large part of Punjab during 1947 with the role of Master Tara Sio

If you knew your history you would have seen that because of Master Tara Singh we saved some of Panjab. No-one in the world could have kept Panjab muslim majority areas from going to Pakistan.

Do some research bro.

5 hours ago, S1ngh said:

Don’t tell me brother that you SUPPORT him on Amritvela issue ?

it's obvious this guy is a cult follower.

12 hours ago, jkvlondon said:

  ...didn't think I'd get to see this.

Well to be honest I don't think many people would have ever expected this.But lucky for you, at least you can recognise this cult leader. Others on here are still blind to the fact that they are in a cult.

12 hours ago, jkvlondon said:

he does look visibly upset by what he is hearing though, maybe he is worried about creating a fight in front of sangat/Guru ji

He certainly doesn't look like he is comfortable with what is being said. Harinder Singh hasn't got the support base that dhadrianwale has, so knows he is more vulnerable.

1 hour ago, SoulSingh said:

If this type of parchar offends you don't listen to him. Just keep listening to people like dhumma and banta singh.

Whatever Baba Harnam Singh's political activities are, he doesnt tell lies about Sikhi.

1 hour ago, SoulSingh said:

Why do you insist on cramming your view(s) of sikhi down others' throats?

Why do you insist on supporting missionaries and their view of Sikhi?

If their was anything correct woith what dhadrinwale had said in that video, you would have lead with it. Instead like me, you know he is wrong, but unlike me you will not admit it or accept it.

1 hour ago, SoulSingh said:

 Honestly man if it doesn't match your taste, listen other parcharaks.

Match our taste? You talking about Gurmat practices for the last 300 years? Why wouldnt Gurmat match our tastes? And why is this missionary nastik stuff that dhadrianwale is peddling matching your tastes?

1 hour ago, SoulSingh said:

At the end of the day he tells everyone to read guru sahib for themselves, if you guys are right, then why are you worried? 

He doesn't tell everyone to read Gurbani for themselves. he tells them to listen to his own idiotic analysis of Gurbani. If this missionary dhadrianwala wanted everyone to read Gurbani then that would be the only thing he would say in his diwans. But no, he is telling all these cult followers of himself that "to wake up and do simran is against God's laws..."

There is no  dispute here that dhadrianwala is wrong here, but what worries me, is that he has access to thousands of his cult members who see his own stupidity as the truth and are blinded by his cult personality to be decide what is the truth. And then they are not able to stand up for the truth.

A lot like yourself really...soul-less Singh.

This guy is going even deeper and deepr into his hole:

On 15/08/2017 at 6:48 AM, Kira said:

While I second this. Another small Benti might be to remove the anonymous like system. Nothing malicious but I'd love to see how everyones views differ on his.

Admin, if you did this you would see who is suppoprting some of these missionary nindaks on this forum.

On 23/09/2017 at 6:20 PM, BhForce said:

Well, I find it quite interesting that you have people (including Sant Dhadrianwale's retinue and possibly including NKJ) who support Dhadrianwale for years. Presumably they support the stuff that Sant Dhadrianwale preached at that time, like Naam Simran. Now, suddenly, he turns around and basically says Naam Simran is manmat. And his followers don't abandon him, they cling even tighter to him.

Because they are in acult and they dont know it yet. Their focus has become Dhadrianwala rather than Gurmat.

On 24/09/2017 at 4:44 AM, BhForce said:

This is basically what he said (a transcription of Dhadrianwale's video above). I'll reply later on below in another post:

Who is he talking about with regard to those questions? Which Sikh beleives that God is separate from him/her?

I remember him a few years ago talking about "daya" and saying the nihangs who did jhatka had no daya. The man has completely abandoned the teachings of the Nanaksaris.

3 hours ago, YOYO29 said:

. I think you are being confused seeing Jalandhar painted green in map.It is Kapurthala state spreading in Jalandhar district.

No bro, I'm not confused thanks.I have read tariq's work before and shared some discussions with him via email. Kapurthala was princely state. I have stated 3 or 4 times now, that the Princely states decision came down to one person: The tuler. Why you keep on going back to the princely states I don't know. The common man had no input there, nor did the British.Please tell me at the fourth time of reading you have understood this.

3 hours ago, YOYO29 said:

 This state was ruled by Sikh but had Muslim majority of 56 % .

Quite similair to Kashmir, non-muslim ruler with majority muslim subjects. But in the partition it still didn't mean a thing.

3 hours ago, YOYO29 said:

 There is another factor ; 5.4 million Muslims found themselves on Indian side whereas there were only 3.6 million HIndus and Sikhs on Pakistani side who had  to move. 30.27 % of Muslims found themselves on Indian side compared to 26.90 % Sikhs in West Punjab and 22.39 %Hindus who found themselves in West Punjab.  Bottom line is , since we have more muslims on east side hence we lost more people than hindus and sikhs. So we lost more people and you lost more property. This factor is often ignored by many people.

Those figures do not seem correct. The movement of Panjabi muslims from east to west was slightly higher than non-muslims from west to east. The figures if can remember correctly were around 3.5 from west to east and 3.25. But this was only Panjab. It was not counting the Muslims from Delhi or other provinces.

2 hours ago, proactive said:

Once the migrations had begun, the GOI should have made all Muslims move to Pakistan. In that case the Muslims would have been the losers out of partition as Muslims would have lost more land than Sikhs and Hindus and gained less land than they were entitled according to their population. The lands of the Muslims in UP who would have been forced to leave India could have been used to compensate the Sikhs and Hindus from West Punjab. These refugees could also have settled in Jammu and Kashmir as that state should have been treated the same as Kapurthala state in Punjab where the Muslim majority was forced to leave because the Maharaja was a non-Muslim. The refugees from West Punjab would have got the same amount of land as they lost in Pakistan and the commercial classes would have got Muslim commercial establishments.

As it was Muslim still managed to keep their land and properties intact in many areas of East Punjab such as Malerkotla and Gurgaon. 

Yes the Muslims all should have made to move, but not for just those points. The fact is that jinnah stood by his two-nation theory only in word and not in practice. It was a successful tool in pushing the british to give pakistan. But then nehru wanted the muslims to stay in India to prove the two nation wrong.

Over 90% of muslims voted for the muslim league for the formation of Pakistan. So they were responsible for the creation of Pakistan and they should have been told to live in Pakistan. Whats is so funny is that once the Muslims started turning up in Pakistan, a country they voted for, they were told by the Pak govt to stay in India. The natives of pakistan didnt want them there either. Isn't that so incredible? You build your country on the dreams and votes of these people but yet won't let them live there.

Jinnah himself said it would be unfair for either Hindus or Muslims to live in each others countries as a minority. "we are different in religion, dress, food , language etc...so we shold have a seperate country." What a disappointment this man turned out to be for his voters.

Even today the mohajirs are a despised people.

2 hours ago, YOYO29 said:

Perhaps Nehru was not wise man like you. If ruler's religion was to be held a criteria then there were many muslim ruled states in India.Bhopal in central India ,Hyderbad the largest state in India was also ruled by Muslim.All these muslims states should have been given the same choice then.This would have created a whole other mess in India.Muslim states in every corner of India lolzz

If any of these states shared a border with Pakistan, then it obviously they could have joined Pakistan. These states deep inside India knew that there was only one viable option.

2 hours ago, YOYO29 said:

Why should not they be included ? They suffered the same fate as people living in British territory

Dont' make me repeat myslef bro.

1 hour ago, YOYO29 said:

No comparison between Kapurthala and Jammau and Kashmir. Kapurthala was a tiny stae whose muslims population was barely over 2 hundred thousand. Jamm and Kashmir was a larger stae. Here Muslims were dominat in most regions. Like valley had more than 90 % population and still does. Gilgit and Baltistan area was also entirely muslims very few non muslims. In Jammu divison , there were Hindu dominated district in eastern side.Here Muslim minority was expelled and hindu and sikhs from west punjab were settled. Jammu district's muslim population was reduced from 36 percent to just 2 % .

The thing in common is that they were princely states. No matter what statistics you bring, the fact remains.

1 hour ago, YOYO29 said:

.Also,Nehru was on good terms with Sheikh Abdullah.He knew he can count on Abdullah to keep Kashmirs in India that's why he even offered referendum in Kashmir.

Nehru offered a referendum on Kashmir because of the international pressure on india through the UN. But the UN recognised the legailty of the instrument of accession and accepted that pakistan must return to Indian control that part under its occupation. Pakistan should have obliged and then the referendum could have decided. Personally  beleive this is the way to go. States in India like Kashmir, and Panjab should be able to have a referendum to see whether they wasnt an independent state. So should Pakistan with Balochistan and NWF. Bringing too many different ethnicities together under one umbrella was never going to work.

The Bengalis recognised that fact pretty soon.

4 hours ago, YOYO29 said:

If you take into consideration princely states , most of them were in East Punjab. Including princely states in East Punjab our share reduces to 58.97 % . And your land is fertile whereas we have two big deserts in Punjab and one plateau. Have a look at these stats.

Bro, you keep barking up that tree! Forget Princely states, there is no discussion there in terms of fairness, democracy, etc. The Kings were the only ones who could make that choice.

Now coming onto fertile land, the canal colonies were the best and most productive land in Panjab. It's no wonder the Sikhs were reluctant to leave these. After this the best land are the Jalandhar doab but that is small compared to the bars.

11 hours ago, akaltaksal said:

They don't believe in Sri Dasam Granth Sahib and kautak/Chamatkaars. They haven't cursed or insulted their any of the 10 Patshahees. That may be an insult to us, But not from a non-partisan persepective. Turkrreya di Haami ehna toh behatar ja faidemand nahi. Turkus have no qualms with insulting our Gurus, in any manner. Missionaries are more favorable than Musalmaans, As objectionable as they be.

Has this "turk" insulted our Gurus? No, so just leave him alone. He is only sharing info and learning new things as well. And it's all historic anyway. I would rather have him on than these missionary dogs who claim that the Gurus were ordinary people like ourselves. They have insulted the Gurus through their distorion of history.

Listen to this dog dhapali:

https://www.facebook.com/nirmaljitsingh.nimma/videos/636750243194518/

and this dog dhundlu:

https://www.facebook.com/nirmaljitsingh.nimma/videos/637304313139111/

and then listen to this:

https://www.facebook.com/nirmaljitsingh.nimma/videos/636750553194487/

You would rather have these dogs on here ?

4 hours ago, YOYO29 said:

Clearly they were wrong to believe that.There was no such precedent in recent history where such factors were taken into consideration for division of land.If you have gotten all the areas which congress and sikhs claimed then we would have left with nothing but chankana.

4 hours ago, YOYO29 said:

Interesting subject you have brought it up.May I know how you got so much information about this ? From gazetteers or from books ? Pardon my ignorance about this.I have always focused on 1941 census and so i don't know what was the situation before 1941 census took place.It would be good if u can suggest some good books on this migration.

Sikh and local (Jalandhar) history.

2 hours ago, YOYO29 said:

See the ares claimed by Sikhs/Congress and Muslim league.You will have no difficulty knowing who was being unreasonable here.If you have been granted all areas which you have asked. fer saday kol ki reh jana c ? see the map

Yes from it is clear that the Sikh demand was unreasonable. What the Sikhs were looking for in that map was to keep the majority of our religiously historic shrines and the canal colony lands as much as possible.

But one thing I want to tell you about that map, it shows the majority community, not if the community was in an outright majority itslef.

eg in Amritsar Muslims were 47%. They were the majority community but not the majority. Same with Jallandhar and Hoshiarpur. So that map is not accurate in terms of outright majority but only of majority community. Mi fehmi?

10 hours ago, akaltaksal said:

Rüm is used to refer to many regions across Europe-Asia.

Such as?

On 19/09/2017 at 7:13 AM, proactive said:

I did not state that the Kashmiris were part of a demographic jihad. They migrated to Punjab but the fact remains that they were not Punjabis and their numbers did boost the Muslim population in some districts. 

Lahore is an interesting example of how unfair the partition line was. Apart from the Sikhs owning a majority of the land in the district Lahore city was virtually all owned by the Sikhs and Hindus and they dominated the economic life of the city. Sikhs and Hindus owned over 67% of all the shops in the city, 80% of the registered factories, paid 10 times the sales tax compared to the Muslims, 13 out of 16 colleges etc. 

The reason that a part of Kasur tehsil of Lahore district was given to East Punjab was for a couple of reasons. Radcliffe probably wanted the make both Amritsar and Lahore equidistant from the border and to make more cities more defensible. Kasur tehsil had an even greater Sikh imprint than the other tehsils of Lahore district. The Sikh population was 29.7% in the tehsil compared to 18.3 % for the whole of the Lahore district. Sikhs also owned 63% of the total land in Kasur tehsil compared to 57% for the Lahore district. So it is natural that given the need to make both Lahore and Amritsar defensible Radcliffe chose to take a chunk of the majority Sikh owned Kasur tehsil and give it to East Punjab. 

 

It wasn't just the Kashmiris who boosted muslim numbers in Panjab. It was Pathans as well. Kasur was a major Pathan stronghold. Anyone who knows anything about Jalandhar will know that there were 12 pathan bastis surrounding Jalandhar city. This and Kasur's area had a great Pathan population.

If you want to know how Kashmiri numbers boosted muslim percentages do a google search for "Kashmeri Mohalla Panjab" and that will tell you how many areas kashmeris went into, in Panjab. Lahore and Amritsar were the main two centers but it there were many more.

11 hours ago, YOYO29 said:

That's debatable. We might have lost the little bit of Azad Kashmir that today we have

I'm not sure about that. Kashmir had an elected assembly and given how monarchies are viewed in todays times I'm sure that muslim-majority Kashmir would have been much better.

11 hours ago, YOYO29 said:

This instrument of accession was disputed by Pakistan.There is strong evidence to suggest Indian reached Kashmir before the instrument was signed. This original instrument was not produced and shown.

From what I've read nehru insisted on getting this accession signed before he would commit any troops. Of course he had troops ready for this occasion. Nehru was a man who cared a lot about his international image. I do not think he would have conjured up some accession document to stake his claim knowing that if he were to be exposed in the international arena it would be worse than a death sentence for him.

Of course if he had made it up then King hari Singh woould have spoken up. But he didn't.

11 hours ago, YOYO29 said:

You knew this all along when the subject of partition was brought up by Muslim League. This was bitter choice which you had to make.

What the Sikhs were led to beleive was that religious and economic factors would play a part in the division of Panjab. The new border came as a very shock to the Sikh political leadership as they had never thought that Sri Nankana Sahib, Lahore and the canal Colonies would be in Pakistan.

11 hours ago, YOYO29 said:

. For Sikhs joining Pakistan was out of question.

Absolutely. The first nail in the coffin of Muslim-Sikh unity in Panjab was driven in by the Muslim League and their refusal to support the minorty Sikhs in gaining a higher represntation in state government. the ML had succesfuly argued for higher representation in several states on the basis of being a minority. The Sikhs had asked for the same status to applied to them in Panjab but the ML opposed this. This was in the 1920s. After that the Sikh political leadership did not see the ML as likely political partners.

11 hours ago, YOYO29 said:

Bro,whether you like it or not. Population matters and it definitely matters when dividing a country. Personally I don't see any problem with boundary drawn by Sir rad cliff. The reason I insisted on Gurdaspur is because it was no ordinary district it gave India a physical link with Kashmir.

Population does matter. I have never said it didn't matter. What I have always said that it was unfair for the Muslims to recieve 61% of the land mass when they were around 55% of the population. As I said earlier why would it be fair if the 10 muslim labourers could claim the land of 1 Sikh landlord just because they outnumbered him?

There are 6 border villages, which have historically religous Gurdwaras in them on the border. Radcliffe could have included these in our side so we could at least keep these Gurdwaras from turning into dust. Quite why the Sikhs didn't take this action themselves  in 47 is also puzzling.

Gurdaspur isn't the only route into kashmir, it's the easiest. there are other routes as there was in 47 but more difficult.

11 hours ago, YOYO29 said:

 Losing a few Muslim majority tracts of land is though a loss but considering the fact it is first time we Punajbi Muslims got any real power and control of our own areas.Even during Mughal era no Punjabi Muslim was appointed Punjab's governor apart from Adina Beg of Jalandhar. So taking into consideration all these facts i think partition was worth it though not to our complete satisfaction.

Panjabi Muslims controlled a lot of their own areas in the Moghal times, but they weren't the rulers. Even under Maharaja ranjit Singh the Muslim tribes still controlled their own lands but they had to pay tribute to Maharaja.

Nobody was satisfied with partition. But the HIndu and Muslim communities have moved on better than the Sikhs. Our hearts still yearn for our heritage in Pakistan.

3 hours ago, akaltaksal said:

Yeah, because missionaries are Sikhs, at the end of the day. 

What kind of Sikh insults their own Guru?

1 hour ago, BhForce said:

Is this in the Janam Sakhi? Can you post it?

No at the moment this is still being researched that Guru Nanak and Bhai Mardana visited Rome. There are some interesting documents in the Vatican archives that state that two people of such names came from the East and spent some time in Rome.

On 13/09/2017 at 3:29 PM, YOYO29 said:

I have been on this forum for quite a long time now and gradually I have developed a keen interest in Sikhism.So,I was just wondering what does Sikhi say on slavery ? Does it condemn openly or it is silent on this issue ? Please give your answer with reference from Sikh scriptures.Thank you

Right from the start more or less, the Gurus views on slavery were clear. Babur when taking over Eminabad, where Guru Nanak Sahib was at the time, took the townsfolk prisoner as slaves  (Inc Guru Sahib). Soon after he realised who Guru Nanak was and on Guru Sahib's rebuke, he released all the people and promised he would not repeat that again.

On 15/09/2017 at 5:30 PM, YOYO29 said:

As per the partition of India it was supposed to go with Pakistan.

No it wasn't. I'm repeating this for the third time here. The princely states had the option to choose between India and Pakistan. Kashmir was a princely state. If Kashmir was supposed to have gone to Pakistan, there would have been no dispute from Nehru. He had already resigned himself to Kashmir choosing Pakistan. Pakistan was a more viable choice than India for Kashmir. The Pakistanis just needed to exercise a little patience and Kashmir would have come to them in some form or another.

On 15/09/2017 at 5:30 PM, YOYO29 said:

.About law of agreement you're right but nobody gave a damn about it.

Well the UN certainly gave a dammn about it. It was a legal document. Whether it was right or not, that is subjective. But there is no way in a any legal definition that it could be anything else than legal.

On 15/09/2017 at 5:30 PM, YOYO29 said:

.It was also against the democratic principles.

Agreed. But if there were no proviso for a democratic choice then what can you do? The choice was in the matter of one person only. Democratic principles have no place in authoratative setups. We both know that.

On 15/09/2017 at 5:30 PM, YOYO29 said:

 India did not accept Junagarh's accession to Pakistan even though ruler of that state had signed instrument of accession to Pakistan but here India insisted on princple of democratic rights and they maintained that Muslim ruler had no right to accede to Pakistan only people of that state will decide their future.

You're right. India was very hypocritical in its own actions. The only difference here, as with some other states, was that these states that wanted to join Pakistan has no land connection with Pakistan.

On 15/09/2017 at 5:30 PM, YOYO29 said:

 

Which right you're talking about ? You're being emotional. Everyone knew that muslim majority areas would go with Pakistan and non muslim areas would go to India. Any neutral person can look at the demographics and tell India got favorable deal in both Bengal and Punjab.

Bro, over our Sikh heritage in Pakistan, any Sikh would get emotional. It was a vibrant part of our history and now its majority dust. We cannot go there and repair our shrines. We cannot protect them anymore. It feels like half of our body has been cut away. I'm sure you will understand why Sikhs get emotional over it.

"majority areas" is the problem. If you look at the places like Lyallpur and Montgomery (Faislabad and Sargodha) these places were barren deserts. The british through their water engineering turned these deserts into places of cultivation. Sikhs (amongst others) bought huge swathes of land to cultivate.

Take this as an example. For one Sikh landlord in a village there would be 10  people working for him. Most of the labourers were Muslims. But take a consensus and there are 11 people in that village. The majority are Muslims. Under the division of Panjab, now that area belongs to the Muslims. So the Sikh landlord has to leave and will get on average 40% of his land back in India. That is how Panjab was divided.

The stats vary a little, as I said earlier from 52% to 57%. I always go for the middle figure of around 55% Muslim majority. That is how the land should have been divided. Along percentage figures. Being in a majority shouldn't mean you can claim everything.

On 18/09/2017 at 2:10 AM, akaltaksal said:

Yeah, but this forum is for Sikhs. You have no contribution or use here. 

Leave him alone. He is not doing any harm here but discussing things that are intersting to him and us.

I dont see you having any problem with the missionarys and their lies on this forum.

1 hour ago, YOYO29 said:

  So you gotta tolerate my presence for a few months at best till my interest in sikhism/sikhs fades.

Absolutely.

8 hours ago, kcmidlands said:

 really man, it's a terrible shame that people think like this, it's like seeing someone injured on the road and saying "Nah man, leave it, someone else can help them".

Fair enough but if there 10 others in front of you, then do you need to push to the front to help?

The Rohinhgyas are getting a lot of international aid, and have been helped by golbal Muslim community for the last 2 or 3 years at least. Where did the Rohingyas get the weapons to attack over 30 police posts and other army posts to start this current phase of violence?

6 hours ago, superkaur said:

 

Guru Ji also said create an area of self rule because without political sovereign power with all the functions of a state you cant help your own people properly nor you can help needy others from other communities. Liberal far left ideology that tries to brainwash Sikhs into thinking rush out to foreign far flung lands to help everyone is wholly wrong, against logic and common sense and I would put it its wholly against the future progression of spreading Sikhi. As at the moment Sikh populations in important key area's are dwindling cos Sikhs are not helping them meanwhile abrahamic populations are increasing at an alarming rate in dharmic lands aided by their rich abrahmic political states while stupid Sikhs with no idea of future demographically impact are helping them survive and thrive at our own expense.

Absolutely.

5 hours ago, proactive said:

 What is looks like is that Khalsa Aid are pig headed by going there knowing this fact and is only there for publicity. Also asking for donations for Rohingya from the sangat when they have £ 2.5 million in the bank as well as knowing the international community will spend nearly £ 50 million there also shows their lack of common sense.

It looks like this to me as well. The fact is that every day, people all over the world starve to death. In India their own govt figures say that 7000 people, yes thats seven thousand people died on average every day from wont of food. And KA has 2.5 million in bank?

4 hours ago, proactive said:

 We all know what a demographic Jihad is. Bangladesh has been trying to move it's excess population into areas of the North East like Assam and Burma in order to eventually create a Greater Bangladesh. 

It has been proved by Kosovo. These Albanians infiltrated that land to such a degree that they outnumbered the Serbs and took over the land and threw the Serbs out.

Also remember that there was a fair population of Kashmeri Muslims settled in Panjab swelling their number up and taking away so much land they were not entitled to .

2 hours ago, jkvlondon said:

 but NOBODY was helping rohingya , yezidis and others when Khalsa aid got involved

That is not true at all. For some years now I have seen on Muslim Tv channels very regular fund-raising schemes for Rohingyas.

35 minutes ago, YOYO29 said:

You don't want to help Rohangya that is fine.

Help Rohingya? We can't help our own, how can we help anyone else?

Just before coming on the forum about 10 mins ago, I had a flick through the Sky Tv Channels. At least 8 channels are fundraising for Rohingyas.  I'm pretty sure that the Muslim community will be able to hold their own on this. There are thousands of poor Sikhs (and others) in India who could benefit from that KA help.

I dont want to be mean but there is no doubt in my mind that the international Islamic community would never come through to help the Sikhs.