General Zorawar Singh Kahluria

[TheFancyBanana]

Um buddy you do realize that sikhs mostly come form hindus right.... or did u come from the sky? u do know that identity is based on bloodlines and tribes not religion... also, i never said that the individuals u mentioned were "hindus". and listen you little girl , im not whoever ur sayign you are. im a rajput i live in brampton and you can find out who i am pretty easily. im not the type to hide my identity. i would really like to see the so called evidence dr udhoke has about hsi family being sikh... he just said and u beleived it cus your scared. if you still believe in the idea of "conversion" your a lost soul. and i uno who your talking about like "you guys" buddy im tired of people like you who think they got some balls cus your amritdhair or something lmao what a joke. im tired of people with your mentality thinking having 5 Ks makes you a soorma. ask about me Iv foughtt for amritdhari kids who ended up cutting their hair ANYWAYS after i got suspended for fighting for them.jatt kid too with the got HANS. i dont know how you think your some new type of people. your either jatt, tharkhan or saini etc... and its not about "castE" were all tribal people stop trying to run from it. hell the gurus didnt even run from it i dont know why your trying so hard. show me one sikh kahluria. show me his actual family and prove to me hes sikh the whole world other than you losers who try to make a new sikh history of sikhs being from the skies who descended upon earth to save hindus...

[UKLondonSikh]

Hello Everyone,

Just wanted to clear this up with everyone. General Zorawar Singh Kahluria was Hindu.... the idea of him being Sikh is a recent concoction. Please all fake, brainwashed Sikhs, Stop trying to divide Hindus and Sikhs. People afraid of accepting his hindu faith are trying to label him as a Sikh now.

UKL = If someone ever bows before Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji Maharaj they are thus Sikh (including yourself). Even the name Zorawar Singh should be instructive to you given that in those times the Hindu Rajputs of the Kahluria clan from Bilaspur region would not generally keep names as closely associated with Sikh history as Zorawar. The fact is that it is Hindu Rajputs who are afraid of the wider public recognising Zorawar Singh (Kahluria) as a Sikh General of the Khalsa Fauj. My understanding is that even the name Zorawar Singh was taken by him upon Amrit (at which point he shed his erstwhile clan ancestry forever).

Im not trolling. The video you uploaded is wrong about his religion. He was a hindu rajput. Its so funny how this guy is trying to label him a sikh. This idea is a recent concoction. He was a hindu dogra and he fought under gulab singh. This documentary is another sad desperate attempt to make him seem lkke a sikh to take away the glory of a hindu rajput, this guy cant stand a hindu rajput being so elevated in ranjits army. Kahlurias are hindus even now.

UKL = Kahluria's mainly being Hindu nowadays (as they always were) does not mean that those of Kahluria ancestry did not become Sikh and renounce their erstwhile ancestry as members of united casteless Khalsa Panth. Zorawar Singh was not a Dogra and nor from Jammu, as i understand, since he was born in the area between Bilaspur and Sri Anandpur Sahib. The ancient name of Bilaspur is Kahlur of course and thus Kahluria is a geographic name indicating that he was not was neither Dogra and nor from Jammu and in likelihood not Hindu at the end of his life either.

The funniest thing about this dr is when he talks about banda singh bahadur savig sikhs and how sikhs are so great for saving hindus as if sikhs came from the sky and were not sving their own people.

Saving hindus*

UKL = The Khalsa Panth is there for the service to the defenceless within ALL of humanity (Sarbat Da Bhalla). If Hindu's were the innocent victims of Aurangzeb in Kashmir, for example, that does not mean that the Khalsa Panth did not defend Jains or Budhhists or even innocent Muslims elsewhere for that matter.

i dont know how you think your some new type of people

UKL = The Khalsa Panth are exactly that. The first Panj Pyaaray arose across all of present day India and Pakistan from one of our first Khalsa being from a Dravidian background in South India ... to another of the Panj Pyaaray being from Gujarat ... and yet another being Orissa ... and another from Hastinapur ... all of our Panj Pyaaray and all subsequent members of the Khalsa Panth believe in the ideology of "kul nash" i.e. no belief or attachment to one's erstwhile clan or caste or tribal identity.

http://www.sikhsangat.com/index.php?/topic/66388-four-of-the-5-pyaaray-were-not-punjabi/

hell the gurus didnt even run from it i dont know why your trying so hard

UKL = Guru Sahib themselves advocated kul nash and created the Khalsa Panth according to Gurmat which totally opposes pride in one's ancestry.

show me one sikh kahluria

UKL = Amritdhari Sikhs cease to belong to their erstwhile ancestry grouping upon become members of the Khalsa Panth.

u take a dogra hindu general

UKL = How could Zorawar Singh be a Dogra when born in the area between Bilaspur and Anandpur Sahib and especially so since the Kahluria clan are not from Jammu

you do know that there are sikh bhattis, muslim bhattis and hindu bhattis right

UKL = The vast majority of Bhatti's are Pakistan Muslim Rajputs.

Even my family were originally Hindu only a few generations ago. No one is saying Hindus are bad and Sikhs are good.

But Jonny Paji i think the logic being used by our Bachittar Natak believing friend is that because your ancestors were Hindu a couple of generations back, until the parchaar by Giani Ditt Singh Ji's Singh Sabha then you must likely be Hindu as well despite it being 2014 (despite your opposition to Hindu Mahants as Sardar Kartar Singh Jhabbar bravely exemplified).

http://www.sikhsangat.com/index.php?/topic/73676-why-dont-we-have-a-gurdwara-with-dasam-granth-sahibji-parkash-in-ontario/

anyways, from my perspective sikhs are REAL hindus.. i believe that sikhism is re-established hinduism as it was meant to be. the gurus came and clarified everything.

UKL = Ok that's good that you belief Sikhi to be true Sanatan Dharma whereas you consider Hinduism a corrupted form of Sanatan Dharma. Then why not accept that you are Sikh and that all Hindu's should ditch usage of the Arabic term (for a dark-skinned slave/thief) of Hindu and define themselves by the Sanskrit term of Sikh whose motto is Sarbat Da Bhala, Naam Japo, Kirat Karo, Vand Chhako.

the other thing is that nowadays sikhs are anti-hindu like 1million of your comments pronounce you to be.

UKL = Sikhs are not anti-Hindu in any way, shape or form. Most so-called Hindu's are actually natural born Sikhs (albeit they may be sehajdhari). If you have bowed before Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji Maharaj that makes you yourself a Sikh. Since you accept Sikhi to be a true faith, whereas you believe modern Hinduism to be a corrupted form of the original faith then you should be at the forefront of declassifying as many so-called Hindu's as possible outside of association with the word Hindu and more rightly identify yourself and others as Sikh regardless of if you keep kes or not.

The identity of every Amritdhari Sikh is the same. Once a person has taken the Khanday baatay ki pahul of Sri Dasmesh Pita Jee, their identity is no more defined by or dependent on which place their mortal body was born, or which family it was born into, or what language they spoke, or what religion they followed, or what culture they were part of, or what ancestral lineage they had allegiance to, or which was their ethnic homeland.

UKL = Perfectly stated as usual Mehtab Singh Ji

Regarding Sikhs being the best Hindus, LMAO indeed.

UKL = I think what our friend meant was that Sikhi is the only true Sanatan Dharma (with Hinduism being a false corrupted excuse for a religion). If he did mean that then that shouldn;t be laughed at as the logical conclusion is that he himself should declare himself as a Sikh and also encourage more so-called Hindu's to correctly define themselves as sehajdhari Sikhs. Given that RanaBharatVaasi is a big supporter of Bachittar Natak having parallel parkash with Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji Maharaj it seems he may well have faith in Guru Sahib but is just scared of abandoning the Hindu identity which has been foisted on to him.

Likewise in all probability Gen Zorawar singh was a Hindu Dogra.

UKL = Zorawar Singh was not born in Jammu and was not a Dogra Hindu when he died as a casteless Sikh. However, that is not to deny that prior to him becoming Sikh he may possibly have been a Hindu Rajput in his youth.

But he was leading army of khalsa kingdom and pinned khalsa falg in Tibet. Leh and Ladakh are part of India because of him.

UKL = Agreed

Now this udoke had once gone to Makhan shah lubana Gurudwara in New York and was telling per his research Makhan shah Lubana had flourishing

business in Australia and had big warehouses there.

UKL = I think that was an urban myth cooked up against Sukhpreet Singh (who did not state such a fanciful story) on account of his support for Gurpreet Sumra's video on Charitropakhiyan.

[Sid15]

Ok, man this whole conversation is irrational to begin with from both to and fro parts.

Both of you are trying to satisfy their ego through historical figures instead of doing something better ignoring that these figures were from entirely different time frame and won't fit in your modern insights and beliefs

From Hindu Zorawar Singh Kalhairua party your argument is simply referring to his Rajput status to call him non Sikh showing your ignorance that Sikhs exist from diverse backgrounds and castes, their are still lot of Rajput Sikhs as well as Dogra Sikhs and not all Sikhs are Jatts, Sikkhism is a religion not an ethnicity or caste.

Now I am an ethnic Dogra but a Brahmin not a Rajput llgl and I am not taking any sides because I believe ultimate logic not anyone's fragile ego.

The fact is that the seperate status that Sikkhism and Hindusim has developed is a very recent phenomenon which took place after death of Maharaj Ranjit Singh after some people from Arya samaj begin defaming Sikhs, before that Sikkhism and Hindusim both were mutually intelligible identities and no one has to choose between them exclusively.

Now no figure is as confusing as Zorawar Singh Kalhairua but one thing is sure that he definately wasn't born in family which had any association with 5 K's, his family was Pahri strictly Hindu Rajputs of then Punjab region (region between 5 rivers) which comprises of  Punjab States, Western Himachal, Jammu and Harayana.

Now simply because he wasn't born as a Sikh doesn't mean he can't adopt Sikkhism later and probably he did atleast loosely because as I said Sikkhism at that time wasn't a seperate identity from records, to statues to potraits it becomes obvious that he got influenced by Sikkhism somewhat because Turban he spot was not typical to Hindus or Rajputs but looked like a Sikh Turban moreover his beard also looked like he stopped trimming it for quite some time, his appearance can be matched with Hindu Dogra Rajputs like Gulab Singh but it can be seen his Turban was more like Sher Singh (a Sikh warrior) then Gulab Singh (A Hindu Dogra Rajput) thus it's obvious that he defiantly got quite influenced by Sikkhism but never became strict Amritdhari Sikh like say Banda Singh Bahadur (another Dogra Sikh warrior) or Hari Singh Nalwa.

Now this the most sane argument that can be derived from current available historical records because concrete information about Zorawar Singh and his ideology does not exist and all the people who want to put him in water tight container of Hinduism and Sikkhism are just trying to feed their ego and lazy asses because he was warrior before anything else.

[Sid15]

Ok, man this whole conversation is irrational to begin with from both to and fro parts.

Both of you are trying to satisfy their ego through historical figures instead of doing something better ignoring that these figures were from entirely different time frame and won't fit in your modern insights and beliefs

From Hindu Zorawar Singh Kalhairua party your argument is simply referring to his Rajput status to call him non Sikh showing your ignorance that Sikhs exist from diverse backgrounds and castes, their are still lot of Rajput Sikhs as well as Dogra Sikhs and not all Sikhs are Jatts, Sikkhism is a religion not an ethnicity or caste.

Now I am an ethnic Dogra but a Brahmin not a Rajput llgl and I am not taking any sides because I believe ultimate logic not anyone's fragile ego.

The fact is that the seperate status that Sikkhism and Hindusim has developed is a very recent phenomenon which took place after death of Maharaj Ranjit Singh after some people from Arya samaj begin defaming Sikhs, before that Sikkhism and Hindusim both were mutually intelligible identities and no one has to choose between them exclusively.

Now no figure is as confusing as Zorawar Singh Kalhairua but one thing is sure that he definately wasn't born in family which had any association with 5 K's, his family was Pahri strictly Hindu Rajputs of then Punjab region (region between 5 rivers) which comprises of  Punjab States, Western Himachal, Jammu and Harayana.

Now simply because he wasn't born as a Sikh doesn't mean he can't adopt Sikkhism later and probably he did atleast loosely because as I said Sikkhism at that time wasn't a seperate identity from records, to statues to potraits it becomes obvious that he got influenced by Sikkhism somewhat because Turban he spot was not typical to Hindus or Rajputs but looked like a Sikh Turban moreover his beard also looked like he stopped trimming it for quite some time, his appearance can be matched with Hindu Dogra Rajputs like Gulab Singh but it can be seen his Turban was more like Sher Singh (a Sikh warrior) then Gulab Singh (A Hindu Dogra Rajput) thus it's obvious that he defiantly got quite influenced by Sikkhism but never became strict Amritdhari Sikh like say Banda Singh Bahadur (another Dogra Sikh warrior) or Hari Singh Nalwa.

Now this the most sane argument that can be derived from current available historical records because concrete information about Zorawar Singh and his ideology does not exist and all the people who want to put him in water tight container of Hinduism and Sikkhism are just trying to feed their ego and lazy asses because he was warrior before anything else.