Why Are So Many Moderate Sikhs Against Khalistan

[pedrorizzo]

Sorry had to post this quote then you guys can continue:

"You can take taksal out of nirmalai, but you cannot take nirmalai out of taksal"

Thats an interesting point. I dont know much about this. What is the link between the two?

[Only five]

It must be difficult for yourself as a Taksali Singh, that follows Taksali maryada to listen to views that are different to yours since you accept your own views as the supreme truth.

Someone has a very hard time reading. I have already said i am not a Taksali Singh, so instead of making things out of thin air maybe try to read what a person writes. I have listened to your views and they clearly don't show any spiritual wisdom in them, which is required when speaking about how Raj Keraga Khalsa and Khalistan are connected and are real events that will be taking place in the future. The part you hate here is that your views are being challenged with rational thought.

However, this is not uncommon in other small cult-like groups as well. I'm not really here to try and persuade you away from your beliefs, however, delusional they may sound to me.

Instead of coming up with a rational way to respond, you insult what you don't like. When a person can't come up with a reason to hold on to their views, then they start attacking the other hoping the other will start attacking back. But your own foolish behaviour has shown how much you actually know about this topic.

Probably we will go around in circles like we normally do when you and I debate. My take home message, though, would be that the Taksal is not the Panth and its views are not gospel. It is a part of the Panth, like all the other groups and jathebandian that make up the Panth. ' Taksalism' is not mainstream Sikhi as propogated by the Akal Takhat Sahib and it is not mainstream Sikhi in terms of numbers of followers. Actually it is a marginal force. No doubt the Taksal does play an important part in the Panth. After all, we need Babas to do parchaar in the villages in a style that will suit the villagers. We also need paathis and kathavachiks. So yes, the Taksal has a role.

We are talking about Khalistan and Raj Keraga Khalsa and instead of discussing the topic, you start attacking Sant ji and then Taksal, for which you don't know nothing about any of them. Satguru Sri Guru Gobind SIngh Sahib ji Maharaj gave katha of Satguru Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji Maharaj to Baba Deep Singh ji. Baba Deep Singh ji is the first Jathedar of the Taksal and he passed on the Katha to other Singhs which this Katha continued throughout the Taksal with the Jathedars. After listening to the Katha Baba Deep Singh ji became Jivan Mukht. Satguru has taught us first we need to step on to the path of being a Saint before we can even understand what a Soldier is. Sant Baba Jarnail SIngh ji Khalsa did exactly as Satguru taught us and attained the goal of Sikhi. You imply that Taksal is just good enough to teach villagers. The fact of the matter is that Sant Baba Jarnail Singh ji Khalsa had a top ranking Army official sit down and follow Sant ji's command. We all know who this top ranking army official is.....its Major General Shubeg Singh ji. Now we know you will be saying your much smarter than everyone in this world. Also since your so smart and Taksal is just villager teachers, then lets see your understanding of Gurbani. Obviously you are smarter and understanding Gurbani is very easy for a textbook person like yourself. But i have not seen one post coming from you which explains Gurbani.

It doesnt take someone with a great jeevan or a brahmgiani to work out that preachers, should stick to preaching and everybody else should also stick to what they are good at.

Actually it does because Gurbani tells us to become a soldier first we need to take up the Saint life, which is what Taksal Singhs do same with Nihang SInghs and same with every other Panthic jatha. It is only you who rejects the teachings of Satguru Sri Guru Gobind Singh Sahib ji Maharaj. Just for the record...it's SaintSoldier, not Soldier Saint.

Hence, I shall quote your finishing paragraph that, 'those that want to plan can keep on planning and receive the fruits of your labor. Those that want to follow the instructions of Satguru can start by doing bhagti.'

The above is actually a profound and pivotal statement in this debate. However, my only addition to this would be that the two are not mutually exclusive, and it is possible to do both, if so inclined.

I corrected the so called quoted post of mine. Textbook 101, when you are quoting someone, that means you change none of the quote at all. If it is changed in anyway, then it is not called quoting. Also when i mean recieve the fruits of your labor, that means go by manmat.

Don't expect me to respond to you after this post. You are one angry little kid that can't control himself from slandering respected Sikhs.

[hgsingh]

india is a messed country were you have

hindus that attack inocent sikhs

sikhs that attack inocent hindus

hindus attack inocent muslims

muslims attack inocent hindus

hindus attack inocent hindus

alot of the mess is left from the british

[pedrorizzo]

Someone has a very hard time reading. I have already said i am not a Taksali Singh, so instead of making things out of thin air maybe try to read what a person writes. I have listened to your views and they clearly don't show any spiritual wisdom in them, which is required when speaking about how Raj Keraga Khalsa and Khalistan are connected and are real events that will be taking place in the future. The part you hate here is that your views are being challenged with rational thought.

Instead of coming up with a rational way to respond, you insult what you don't like. When a person can't come up with a reason to hold on to their views, then they start attacking the other hoping the other will start attacking back. But your own foolish behaviour has shown how much you actually know about this topic.

We are talking about Khalistan and Raj Keraga Khalsa and instead of discussing the topic, you start attacking Sant ji and then Taksal, for which you don't know nothing about any of them. Satguru Sri Guru Gobind SIngh Sahib ji Maharaj gave katha of Satguru Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji Maharaj to Baba Deep Singh ji. Baba Deep Singh ji is the first Jathedar of the Taksal and he passed on the Katha to other Singhs which this Katha continued throughout the Taksal with the Jathedars. After listening to the Katha Baba Deep Singh ji became Jivan Mukht. Satguru has taught us first we need to step on to the path of being a Saint before we can even understand what a Soldier is. Sant Baba Jarnail SIngh ji Khalsa did exactly as Satguru taught us and attained the goal of Sikhi. You imply that Taksal is just good enough to teach villagers. The fact of the matter is that Sant Baba Jarnail Singh ji Khalsa had a top ranking Army official sit down and follow Sant ji's command. We all know who this top ranking army official is.....its Major General Shubeg Singh ji. Now we know you will be saying your much smarter than everyone in this world. Also since your so smart and Taksal is just villager teachers, then lets see your understanding of Gurbani. Obviously you are smarter and understanding Gurbani is very easy for a textbook person like yourself. But i have not seen one post coming from you which explains Gurbani.

Actually it does because Gurbani tells us to become a soldier first we need to take up the Saint life, which is what Taksal Singhs do same with Nihang SInghs and same with every other Panthic jatha. It is only you who rejects the teachings of Satguru Sri Guru Gobind Singh Sahib ji Maharaj. Just for the record...it's SaintSoldier, not Soldier Saint.

I corrected the so called quoted post of mine. Textbook 101, when you are quoting someone, that means you change none of the quote at all. If it is changed in anyway, then it is not called quoting. Also when i mean recieve the fruits of your labor, that means go by manmat.

Don't expect me to respond to you after this post. You are one angry little kid that can't control himself from slandering respected Sikhs.

GCSE level English, assuming you studied in the UK, is a high enough level of study to know that it is possible to change a quote provided you entered your addition in brackets to make it clear that you have made a change and to help it fit better into the sentence that you are writing.

I havent really got enough time to go through each of your mumbo jumbo points and tear them to shreds. But since you have decided to now leave the debate, there is no point anyway.

However, for someone who claims not be a Taksali Singh, your views are very Taksali-like wouldnt you say? The fact is, you and I are on completely different planets with totally differing view points and we are not really getting anywhere.

Unless you enjoy debates that go around in circles, its probably better that you dont engage in responding to my posts in the first place and try to pass your great spiritual judgements upon them. However, I suspect that you will probably come out of your bhagti-cave at some point in the next few weeks and will be ready to do it all over again lol.

[11Gurus1Jot]

india is a messed country were you have

hindus that attack inocent sikhs

sikhs that attack inocent hindus

hindus attack inocent muslims

muslims attack inocent hindus

hindus attack inocent hindus

alot of the mess is left from the british

Yes but there is one massive difference. The Hindus massive majotity have got their own government, Legal System, Army and Police Force, and economical national media network which they can use against the Sikhs whenever they like. Like they did for the Sikh Genocide in the 80s and 90s. At the moment when the rulers of the Siks in India, the Hindus, start to kill the Sikhs, the Sikhs have got nowhere to go to. Their is no nation on this earth that will support the Siksh. Whereas, Muslims have got loads of Countries where the own people, the Muslims, rule and therefore they can turn to those nations for help (even Pakistan, right next door). There are Muslims in the UN and everything. So your point fails on the fact the the Hindus are the rulers and majority and totally protected by a their own ruling Government, laws, Army and Police force, and national media and economic network in India. So please do not make the Hindus look like the Victims/Slaves like the Sikhs are in reality! Muslims, Hindus, Christians, Jews, have all got their own nation on this earth. Only the Sikh Religion has not got it;s own nation and is ruled by another religion (the Hindus) on this earth and the Sikhs have no country, no land, no government, no army, no police force, of their own who they can turn to when they are being persecuted! The fact that 10,000 known murderers of Sikhs in November 1984 in delhi alone walk the streets of Delhi today with total immunity proves that Hindus are not the victims or slaves in India, it is the Sikhs who are the Victims/Slaves!

Let's not fall in the trap usually put forward by some Hindus which is to try and blame the British and the Muslims for the 1980s and 1990s Sikh Genocide in India when it was only the Hindu Central Government of India that was carrying out the Sikh Genocide!!!! The Hindus always try to make the Sikhs think of the British or the Muslims when Sikhs talk about the 1980s and 1990s masacre carried out by the Hindu Government on the Sikhs

[West London Singh]

UkLondonSingh, I think the best way to cure you of your phobia of Pakistan / Muslims is if you actually visit Pakistan. I guarantee you'll come back with a totally different outlook to the one you currently have, through misguidance.

I've mentioned on this forum, over the years, many times about my visit to Pakistan. Started of in a village in lahore district as it was my friend's wedding, but also took an excursion to Faisalabad (Lyallpur) district to see the villages where my my clan were located. In both these districts, I can categorically state that the Jatt clans were a small minority of the landowners / farmers. In both areas (and bear in mind that the Faisalabad landowners were refugees from district Jalandhar) there were far more Arain and other villages than jatt ones. Go there and see for yourself how the jatts are only a small minority of the Pakistani Punjabis.

As I stated before, you have the capability of writing some very good posts but you spoil them with the sinister anti-jatt undercurrent you hide in each of your messages.

I just can't trust any 'Sikh' that tries his best to portray the muslim / pakistani as the bad guy. To me, that 'Sikh' is just playing straight into the hands of the Indians. When Sikhs waste time making enemies of the muslim, there is only one winner : India. For Indians its a win win situation. Not only do they get to sidetrack the Sikhs from the fight against India but they even get the Sikhs to do their dirty work for them.

Oh....and on another thread you mentioned 'how the landowning sikhs exploit the migrant workers with very low wages'. My friend, you could not be more wrong. The only people who are exploiting the migrant workers with low wages are the non-landowning groups based in the cities and towns. In the rural areas, these migrant workers are like gold dust. With such a shortage of workers they can name their price to the highest bidder. Most landowning Sikhs, at harvest time, are even forced to drive towards Bihar and fight for the right to be able to get some workers ahead of the other farmers. Each offering the migrant workers more money to come and work for him. In this type of market the worker can sell his services to the highest bidder.

Its up to you now my friend. You can either carry on with your ill-informed anti-jatt rhetoric or you can start educating yourself about the reality of things.

[UKLondonSikh]

UkLondonSingh, I think the best way to cure you of your phobia of Pakistan / Muslims is if you actually visit Pakistan.

>>SSA Paji. I'm afraid to say that's one thing I would never do. I don't believe in spending money in a country responsible for killing 300,000 Sikhs or 10% of the Sikh population in 1947. Like I said, I may not believe naaray for azad Punjab are tactically in our best interest at present. But make no mistake if Congress had killed 10% of our Qaum off in 1984, I would never rest until we got Khalistan myself. The money that all the Sikh yathrees spend benefits the local Pakistani economy and please realise that the taxes raised by Pakistan as a result of Sikh pilgrims visiting Pakistan ... in part filter down to the ISI ... with which they send tonnes of drugs over the border to get the Punjab youth addicted (in addition to which you should be aware of Pakistan ISI's role with the Taliban in ethnically cleansing our people from Afghanistan ... and they would do the same in Kashmir if given half the chance ... check out how the Sikhs of Tibetan ancestry have been targetted in Ladakh). I strongly advise no Sikh brothers or sisters to spend their money in Pakistan ... we Sikhs don't need to do pilgrimages like other religions ... and we should concentrate any spending we do in East Punjab (avoiding that wretchedly named airport in Delhi may I add, where possible).

I guarantee you'll come back with a totally different outlook to the one you currently have, through misguidance. I've mentioned on this forum, over the years, many times about my visit to Pakistan. Started of in a village in lahore district as it was my friend's wedding, but also took an excursion to Faisalabad (Lyallpur) district to see the villages where my my clan were located. In both these districts, I can categorically state that the Jatt clans were a small minority of the landowners / farmers. In both areas (and bear in mind that the Faisalabad landowners were refugees from district Jalandhar) there were far more Arain and other villages than jatt ones. Go there and see for yourself how the jatts are only a small minority of the Pakistani Punjabis.

>>Paji, respectfully, i'm aware of localised dominance of the Arain caste near Faisalabad ... with Zia from the Arain caste being from Jalandhar himself ... but my position remains the same. We should not spend any money in Pakistan, where the land is soaked in the blood of 300,000 plus innocent Sikhs that were killed there in 1947. By all means if Muslims want to visit their ancestral villages in East Punjab let's welcome them with open arms regardless of if they be Muslim Jatt, Rajput, Arain(Kamboh+Saini), Sheikh(Khatri+Arora), Butt(Brahmin) or whatever. It's all about the tourist dollar right and I am in favour of anything that can boost the economy of east Punjab.

As I stated before, you have the capability of writing some very good posts but you spoil them with the sinister anti-jatt undercurrent you hide in each of your messages.

>>Think about it Paji, as to why I deliberately try to always link the word Jatt with Muslim Jatts and Hindu Jatts who as proved in 1947+1984 are the sworn enemies of Sikhs. I urge you to do the same, as it will help us mentally detach that particular ancestry from ourselves as Sikhs. If I was to go through all the Sikh legends who came from a certain ancestry before they were Khalsa ... we would be here all day ... i'm fully aware of the ancestry of most of our Misaldars, Bhai Dharam Singh, Mai Bhago, Ranjit Singh ... the list is absolutely endless ... my respect for OUR valiant warriors is absolutely untinged by my deliberate association of a certain word with other religions. I stand shoulder to shoulder with any honest Sikh regardless of their background.

I just can't trust any 'Sikh' that tries his best to portray the muslim / pakistani as the bad guy.

>>Given that Pakistan supply a lot of the drugs in Punjab and killed 300,000 of our people 3 decades before the fake Nirankari baba killed 13 of our people ... i wonder if are you as positive minded towards the Ram Rahim types etc? Or are Pakistani's much better than the Dera crew?

To me, that 'Sikh' is just playing straight into the hands of the Indians. When Sikhs waste time making enemies of the muslim, there is only one winner : India.

>>Perhaps you're right. Perhaps we should have been friends with the Muslims of Malwa, Doaba and Majha in 1947, as after all they were just as populous (if not more so) as us Sikhs in those 3 areas in 1947 and we should have stayed cool with all the people that voted for Pakistan in 1947 and who were ok with the ensuing Sikh suffering and losses that caused. Or perhaps because they now realise the value of our tourist dollars, that's why they welcome Sikhs now, when in 1947 they wanted Nankana Sahib ilaqa for themselves as part of an apartheid (islamicly pure) nation.

For Indians its a win win situation. Not only do they get to sidetrack the Sikhs from the fight against India but they even get the Sikhs to do their dirty work for them.

>>I don't really care two hoots about GOI's interests. I care about where the best interests of our Sikh Qaum lie. I've always been convinced our best interests do not lie in co-operation with those that revere butchers like Aurangzeb or those that inflicted the 1947 ghallughara on us that lost 300,000 plus innocent Sikh lives.

Oh....and on another thread you mentioned 'how the landowning sikhs exploit the migrant workers with very low wages'. My friend, you could not be more wrong. The only people who are exploiting the migrant workers with low wages are the non-landowning groups based in the cities and towns. In the rural areas, these migrant workers are like gold dust. With such a shortage of workers they can name their price to the highest bidder. Most landowning Sikhs, at harvest time, are even forced to drive towards Bihar and fight for the right to be able to get some workers ahead of the other farmers. Each offering the migrant workers more money to come and work for him. In this type of market the worker can sell his services to the highest bidder.

>>Paji i'm fully aware that the migrant labour is vital to the economy in rural Punjab (as well as all of Punjab more generally). I'm aware that migrant farm labourers were becoming difficult to source because of improving economic conditions in their home states. I don't really consider that Sikh landowners are exploiting them (it's a symbiotic relationship). I did say that they get paid low wages (in relative terms for Punjab) and are not what could be considered rich. We should definitely try to introduce them into the fold of Sikhi given Guru Gobind Singh Ji Maharaj's birthplace being in Bihar as well and Takht Sri Patna Sahib. I fully agree that if anything urban industrialists pay them far less in terms of the commercial benefit the industrialists accrue from their labour. The industrialists contain a high percentage of Hindu's (if not a majority) as I'm sure you're aware too.

Its up to you now my friend.

You can either carry on with your ill-informed anti-jatt rhetoric or you can start educating yourself about the reality of things.

>>Paji, with respect, i'd say that any opinions I personally have about the Muslim Jatts and Hindu Jatts, that proudly (along with their other co-religionists) killed so many Sikhs in 1947 and 1984 respectively, should not be misconstrued as being against the interests of our Sikh Qaum. I actually urge you to join me for tactical purposes to de-link all negative aspects of Punjabiyat from our Qaum. The day we succeed in doing that brother, we will be stronger than the strongest steel. If you are serious about true freedom for our Panth, Unity amongst ourselves is a vital pre-cursor and I hope you can understand my deliberate use of loaded rhetoric.

>>Bhul chuk maaf. Respect to you still, and please understand I am not in any way against you personally even if we disagree.

>>Rabh Rakha

[RebelSingh]

@UKLondonSikh - by the way, the sikh population at 1947 was 6million, not 3million, so by my crap maths, that makes it 5% of sikh population killed in 1947. Nevertheless we killed muslims by the max, so well done 2 our grandparents showing ppl whats what. only 13% sikhs dealt with 56% ppl

- http://ir.emu.edu.tr...20partition.pdf (page 7)

- http://books.google....million&f=false

- BBC partition documentary aswell

i thought id provide u stats/sources, incase u start crying like a janani

[UKLondonSikh]

@ RebelSingh ... What you're forgetting to account for is how many Sikhs were in Pakistan in 1947 and how many were in India. So by a rough assumption that 50% of the 6 million lived on the Pakistan side (when in fact the percentage was lower than 50%) ... 300,000 of 3million means at least 10% of the Sikh population there were killed. There are studies to indicate that the percentage of Sikhs killed on the Pakistan side were actually far higher than even the arbitrary 10% i ascribed of the Sikh population there at the time, possibly as many as 1 in 5 Sikhs in Jinnah's Pakistan got slaughtered. The equivalent of if our enemies were to kill 5 million plus Sikhs today.

[RebelSingh]

@ RebelSingh ... What you're forgetting to account for is how many Sikhs were in Pakistan in 1947 and how many were in India. So by a rough assumption that 50% of the 6 million lived on the Pakistan side (when in fact the percentage was lower than 50%) ... 300,000 of 3million means at least 10% of the Sikh population there were killed. There are studies to indicate that the percentage of Sikhs killed on the Pakistan side were actually far higher than even the arbitrary 10% i ascribed of the Sikh population there at the time, possibly as many as 1 in 5 Sikhs in Jinnah's Pakistan got slaughtered. The equivalent of if our enemies were to kill 5 million plus Sikhs today.

oh well, dont wanna sound horrible, but atleast we got them back eh. The reason also why muslims had higher casualties than sikhs, was because sikhs comin from the west were better prepared 2 leave (i suppose coz they knew there lands were ending up in pakistan), than ,muslims in the east who were 2 slow n laboured around, wich ultimately resulted in the khalsa doin away with there heads and unfortunatley their women too