Hinduization Of Sikh Faith & History

[Balwinder Singh]

Simran9 ji, I dont think jathedar(akal takhat) hold the same position as pope(its debateable).

Anyways, I think its responsibility of every sikh to fight against people who disrespect their guru.

I totally agree with u that the jathedars are not acting accordingly but we should not rely on them. We should act on individual basis.

If we now start blaming each other then things will go against us.

Just my thoughts.

Waheguru ji ka khalsa,

Waheguru ji ki fateh.

[Heera Singh]

one thing i'm curious about... even the hindu gov't has proclaimed Sikhi as a 'sect' of hinduism... why hasn't any party outright DENIED and CORRECTED them.?? i.e. akal takht, sgpc etc... (i'm not sure if anybody has..)... and even if sum1 has... we need to keep at it... i's not just a one time thing and we stop sayin things after that... we need to make a GLOBAL statement that Sikhi is NOT a sect of hindiusm.... even somethin maybe at the Conference of world religions or whatever its called... we need to make the world realize that these clowns don't know what they talkin bout...

and yes... more effective parchaar needs to be done as well..

:TH:

(btw i haven't read most of the responses... so if i seem totally off-topic or confused.. tha's why... hehehe)

[mann_kaum_layee_qurbaan]

"even the hindu gov't has proclaimed Sikhi as a 'sect' of hinduism... why hasn't any party outright DENIED and CORRECTED them.?? i.e. akal takht, sgpc etc... (i'm not sure if anybody has..)..."

well in typical jatt mentality every time Badal is asked about this, he says we don't need a certificate to tell us that sikhs are not hindus, we know sikhs are a distinct quam...well someone needs to ask our Leader-4-life why we don't need a certificate for it but the GOI needs a CONSTITUTION to state it?!

Bibi Jageero made a push to re-enact the anad karaj marriage act but that issue has also died back down as do all sikh-related issues.

[Raju]

There are still many hindus who just want to destroy sikhi. RSS is an organisation which is full of those kinda people.

BTW what do u think after reading this article? Inquisitive minds would like to know

126019[/snapback]

Well if the RSS would want to 'dilute' sikhi and turn it into a sect of hinduism, then that would be not that clever of them, would it?? because then even the sikhs would turn out to be 'softies' like the hindus. And I don't know why a militant organization like the RSS would want that ?? I feel they are just trying to broaden their votebank in punjab by making all these noises about sikhs being basically hindus etc because the votebank of the RSS-led religious right consists entirely of rightwing hindus.

I think if the sikh leadership asks the RSS/BJP where to draw a line in such matters then they will have no option but to comply. I doubt if Badal or Jagir Kaur would tell the RSS anything because they have many skeletons in their closet and cannot afford to make any more enemies than they already have. You know how Amrinder Singh had given Badal a brief glimpse of what all he was capable of soon after Congress came into power in Punjab when Capt launched a witchunt against Badal. I don't think those probes were meant to seriously dislodge Badal but just to send a few warnings of what Capt was capable of if he got down to it.

So now if Badal is seen to be 'not sympathetic' to the hindus by RSS/BJP then he loses even their popular support, where does that leave him ?? There will be absolutely no one to stand in the way of his corruption cases being probed hunna !!

Every Christian in the world knows the name of their Pope.

Not necessary ! The Pope is the leader of the Roman Catholics and those belonging to other sects in Christianity do not have any pressing need to memorize the name of the RC pope. Though the RC pope being the head of the largest sect of Christianity does have a special place.

[Bijla Singh]

Is this not a practice among some hindu families ?? Why do they do this ?

Someone asked me a similar question and my response was:

Hindus did not raise their first child to be a Sikh so he could join the Sikhs and sacrifice for the right cause. Their action was nothing more than personal gain. During British Empire, Sikhs were given the title of ‘Martial Race’ (not that Sikhs needed it). They were enlisted in the army in large numbers and their family members were given benefits. Their education in convent schools was less expensive and government provided many facilities just for the families of those serving in the army. Their retirement plan ensured their rich lifestyle after their service. Hindus were given nothing. Why would they be? Hindus fought against Hindus. One kingdom helped British take over another. How could British help those who betrayed their own brothers and countrymen? To get special services Hindus would raise their first son as a Sikh. After 1947 this was stopped. If their intentions were to contribute something in the freedom struggle then they would’ve continued to do so after India’s independence. And why did they not do this during Mughal Empire? Why only one son? Why not entire family? Was fighting for freedom not good enough cause for hindu families to join the struggle? Hindus fighting for faith and nation has never been real and never will.

[ms514]

Sat Sri Akal:

Hindus are humans...they are people. Unfortunately, the country which houses the largest number of Hindus is under the control of people who would sell their mothers and religion for a vote. To keep themselves in power, they spew propaganda against minorities like the Sikhs, the Christians and the Muslims...yet give little care to their "fellow Hindus" because a large percent of the Indian population is very much poor. There are bags of food rotting in the Punjab every year and yet there are people starving in South India...the government does not care about anything except their chair. The Sikhs pose a special threat because they are very much alive. They refuse to live like slaves in India and still maintain a distinct identity. That is the problem...you cannot implement Manu Simriti and exert control over the entire sub-continent until everyone is homogenized into a "Hindu". So far, everyone except the Sikhs offered little problem. But you...those darn 2% of the population believing in a distinct identity and were instructed to defend their faith with physical means if necessary...threw a wrench into the whole plan.

I pity the day when Indians wake up from the propaganda and the foreign shot films that are pumped into their brains daily. It will be a sad day for anyone sitting on the Delhi throne and all religious leaders that sold their souls.

[Raju]

There are bags of food rotting in the Punjab every year and yet there are people starving ...the government does not care about anything except their chair.

That is very true, but that is the fault of the breakdown of the PDS (ration shops) which was believed to be a monolith of the socialist era. And trust me there are no people dying of hunger in South India, because S. India is way ahead of any other part of India in all the living indices. If farmers are committing suicides in certain parts of S.India, it is due to the adoption of World Bank policies of cultivating cash crops to 'get rich quick' and thus ignoring and at the expense of crops that form part of the staple diet of the region. (In Punjab one can see the madness that this policy is bringing because dry and arid regions are cultivating 'paddy'. Of all things 'paddy' is so water intensive crop. I am sure most of punjab will run out of ground water sooner than later at this rate). Access to foodgrains though is a problem in states like bihar, orissa, some parts of M.P. because of problems of naxalism, general lawlessness and lack of proper governance in those regions and thus a resultant 'lack of easy access' to those parts. Currently the Indian foodgrain godowns are busy feeding rats and other rodents like there is no tomorrow. There is enough in those foodgrains to feed half-the-world and too at highly subsidised rates and at no big cost to the govt.

Their action was nothing more than personal gain. During British Empire, Sikhs were given the title of ‘Martial Race’ (not that Sikhs needed it)

....

After 1947 this was stopped.

so do you mean to say that this phenomenon of the hindu families giving up one child for sikhi was strictly a phenomenon between 1880 to 1947 ??

It was in 1880 that Lord Roberts, commander-in-chief of the Bengal Army, and Lord Kitchner, commander-in-chief of the Indian army in 1903 penned the 'doctrine of martial races' after the second afghan war.

[dreamman]

Is this not a practice among some hindu families ?? Why do they do this ?

Someone asked me a similar question and my response was:

Hindus did not raise their first child to be a Sikh so he could join the Sikhs and sacrifice for the right cause. Their action was nothing more than personal gain. During British Empire, Sikhs were given the title of ‘Martial Race’ (not that Sikhs needed it). They were enlisted in the army in large numbers and their family members were given benefits. Their education in convent schools was less expensive and government provided many facilities just for the families of those serving in the army. Their retirement plan ensured their rich lifestyle after their service. Hindus were given nothing. Why would they be? Hindus fought against Hindus. One kingdom helped British take over another. How could British help those who betrayed their own brothers and countrymen? To get special services Hindus would raise their first son as a Sikh. After 1947 this was stopped. If their intentions were to contribute something in the freedom struggle then they would’ve continued to do so after India’s independence. And why did they not do this during Mughal Empire? Why only one son? Why not entire family? Was fighting for freedom not good enough cause for hindu families to join the struggle? Hindus fighting for faith and nation has never been real and never will.

126126[/snapback]

I dont agry with u bijla singh ji.... this is not the case coz if this would be the case why they still practise the same (some hindus)... coz now they are not getting any benefits etc... why they are following that tradition... this is not a fair statement to say... the reason is there faith and nothing else.... in everywhere u will find alot of hindus in sikh temples... they come there and not go to mandir and their whole fanmily do the same... on the other hands u will find alot of sikhs going to hindu temples, vaishno devi etc etc.... this is all faith anf ur manya...

Fateh

[Bijla Singh]

I dont agry with u bijla singh ji.... this is not the case coz if this would be the case why they still practise the same (some hindus)... coz now they are not getting any benefits etc...

Of course you can disagree but that doesn't change the truth. Hindus started raising their first son to be a sikh for the purpose of getting benefits. In any case, this tradition does not benefit the Sikh community because you get many people who look like Sikhs but do not follow Sikhi. You don't actually think hindus taught their first sons to reject idol worship and bipran ki reet, do you?

why they are following that tradition... this is not a fair statement to say... the reason is there faith and nothing else....

Provide sufficient evidence that there are hindu families who want their first sons to take Amrit and follow Sikhi and reject hindu rituals. On the contrary, hindu government passed laws just to make sure that 30 lower castes group stay within hindusim just to get their special benefits. British gave special benefits to Sikhs so hindus started becoming Sikhs. Now, hindu government gives special benefits to lower castes and 30 out of 34 groups joined hinduism. rest 4 were labeled as sikhs. So your reason is not a reason but a mere assumption.

in everywhere u will find alot of hindus in sikh temples... they come there and not go to mandir and their whole fanmily do the same... on the other hands u will find alot of sikhs going to hindu temples, vaishno devi etc etc.... this is all faith anf ur manya...

Hindus in Gurdwaras means nothing. When I used to go to Darbar Sahib I used to meet many visitors from Europe but that didn't mean they came there because of their faith. Hindus might be visiting or maybe they come there thinking that since Sikhi is part of hinduism it is their temple. If Hindus love Sikhi they would become Sikhs. I am sure those kind of people can be found in Sikhi. Mehtab Singh is one example and ask him how much his family supported him. Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh

[khadkoosingh]

please keep on discussing the problem than curing it.hats of to all of u participating.