Just Came Back From India....

[KKV]

can we for once stop judging people. What makes Sikh better than an Hindu? What makes Hindu better than a Sikh?

thats got nuffin 2 do with this debate Bhaji....its the fact that people go round labelling others as something there not....especially knowin the background of that specific faith - is disrespectful tellin someone who come from a background that did.....

I find it offensive when people act like they know me - am not tryna make it out like am some SPECIAL person - am nothin compared to all the bhaji's n bhenji's round the globe - but for what its worth - if i am to be labelled - i'd like to be labelled as what i AM....:TH:

[Raju]

India itself wasn't one country until 1947.

Sikhs had their raj, the Brits had their's, rajputs,marhattes, muslmaans, etc.

White man comes to India with a crayon in his hand and scribles lines on a map and there you have it--India, with more than half of Punjab thrown away and eventually made even smaller, a messed up Africa, and violence that still lasts today.

Maurya Empire

[jayd]

India itself wasn't one country until 1947.

Sikhs had their raj, the Brits had their's, rajputs,marhattes, muslmaans, etc.

White man comes to India with a crayon in his hand and scribles lines on a map and there you have it--India, with more than half of Punjab thrown away and eventually made even smaller, a messed up Africa, and violence that still lasts today.

Maurya Empire

Maurya lasted for 137 years (Hindu / Buddhist Empire)

Gupta Empire lasted for over 300 years - (Hindu Empire)

Kushan Empire lasted for 180 years - (Hindu/Buddhist/Zorastrianism)

Pala Empire lasted for over 400 years - (Buddhist Empire)

Mughal Empire lasted for 181 years (Muslim Empire)

And there were many many more. But only those combined make about 1100 -1200 years. Thats a lot of time to have a shared history and shared culture.

I am not trying to hindufy over here, but it is not a fact that India is a fake country created by the British. All through the ages, the indian subcontinent has been part of kingdoms that have looked like the present day India. The problem is that lot of people are feeding false facts inorder to make their point.

[Pakandi baba]

Only thing i liked in india were the Gurdwaras, they were marvellous. rest was tedious. UK is best. Hate laddoo and all that crap. Gol Gappe and katta pani hai hai.

[Pakandi baba]

Punjab is in India so therefore you are an Indian. and doesn't mean your an Indian you have to speak hindi.

Bakwaas - If you reside in London, you're a londoner, hence if you reside in Panjab = PANJABI. Sod india

[Harmeet Singh]

Dear Jayd and Raju,

Was the reason for the Indian Empires "a common shared cultural or religious values"? Nations and Nationalism existing today are Euro-centric concepts based on common ethnicity(race, language and comon history). It originated in the 18th century and certainly there were no nation-states before. Don't worry about Hindufying the history as there was nothing known as "Hindu" in India back then.

It was actually M.K gandhi who first started the idea of India existing as a political unity. He was the first to use nation with India. Remember he is known as the father of India. Certainly, a child can't be born before the father.

[mann_kaum_layee_qurbaan]

"Certainly, a child can't be born before the father. "

[jayd]

Harmeet Singh ji,

I have to disagree with you. The idea of India was not started by M.K. Gandhi and both of us know that. Neither was India an entity created by the British. However, Gandhi was some one who was lifted to god like status by the british media and british themselves. They were much happy dealing with a nanga fakir who was in their control rather than deal with the likes of Bhagat Singh and Bose. For examply, just look at how Musharraf is lauded now a days in the western media and how skilfully he is playing the balancing game at home. Gandhi was no different. He had some unique methods but he was a skillful tactician.

Coming to considering India or Hindustan as one land mass, I am reminded of this from Guru Granth Saahib Maharaaj:

khuraasaan khasmaanaa kee-aa hindusataan daraa-i-aa

Page 360, Guru Nanak Dev Ji.

Guru Nanak Devji clearly makes a distinction over here. He clearly states that Hindustan ( as a whole ) has been attacked by a foreign force. He could have easily stated Punjab, but he says Hindustan. So how can one argue the status of India as one country when it is a very old concept. Even our Guru aknowledges it....

Nobody is happy with the how the government functions in the centre. But our aim should be to revamp the whole system keeping the whole country in mind.

[mann_kaum_layee_qurbaan]

post a pic of the earliest known flag of india and i'll post the earliest known flag of the sikh nation. i bet the sikh nation's flag pre-dates the indian nation's flag.

hindustan was never a united nation but a region. a region made up of sovereign nation-states with distinct languages, customs, etc. This region was sometimes consolidated by various kings and dynasties, but never remained so.

let's not deny the sovereign sikh kingdom of punjab. If hindustan was one nation, then we wouldn't ahve the anglo-sikh wars, but rather the anglo-hindustani wars. the sikhs faught in the anglo-sikh wars defending their sovereign homeland. and hsitory which we just skip over and go back thousands of years before to hindu dynasties.

i have nothing against hindustan, but don't deny and twist history.

[jayd]

post a pic of the earliest known flag of india and i'll post the earliest known flag of the sikh nation. i bet the sikh nation's flag pre-dates the indian nation's flag.

Stop playing childish playground type dares mann. You are getting married now, so sianeyaan gallan kareya karr. You tell me earliest known reference to Khalistan and i'll tell you the earliest known reference to Hindustan according to Sikhs. I bet the the Hindustan reference will pre-date the Khalistan one.

khuraasaan khasmaanaa kee-aa hindusataan daraa-i-aa

Page 360, Guru Nanak Dev Ji

Our Guru is making a clear reference to hindustan as a seperate region, or nation, or area, whatever you may call it. Either you agree with that reference or you don't.

hindustan was never a united nation but a region. a region made up of sovereign nation-states with distinct languages, customs, etc. This region was sometimes consolidated by various kings and dynasties, but never remained so.

The sikh sovereign state was consolidated by Maharajah Ranjit Singh when he brought all the jathedars and misls under one flag, but it did not remain so.

By your definition, Punjab was also made up of sovereign nation-states like Kapurthala, Patiala etc etc. You want me to post the flags of these nation states.

let's not deny the sovereign sikh kingdom of punjab. If hindustan was one nation, then we wouldn't ahve the anglo-sikh wars, but rather the anglo-hindustani wars. the sikhs faught in the anglo-sikh wars defending their sovereign homeland. and hsitory which we just skip over and go back thousands of years before to hindu dynasties.

By your analogy, U.S.A, Canada, China, or UK, and many more should not be nations. A New Yorker has nothing in common with a Texan. A New Foundlander or a Quebecer has nothing in common with an Albertan. A Mongol has nothing in common with a Han. A scot has nothing in common with english.

i have nothing against hindustan, but don't deny and twist history.

Same here, but don't deny and twist the Guru's words.