Jump to content

YOYO29
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • 1 month later...

Zoravar Singh was a dogra general, workung for Raja of Jammu, who in turn was a principality under Lahore Darbar( M Ranjit singh). They couldnot start any expedition without permission and support of Lahore Darbar .Thus it was an expedition & territorial expansion of Sarkar Khalsa directly or indirectly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Zoravar Singh was a dogra general, workung for Raja of Jammu, who in turn was a principality under Lahore Darbar( M Ranjit singh). They couldnot start any expedition without permission and support of Lahore Darbar .Thus it was an expedition & territorial expansion of Sarkar Khalsa directly or indirectly

It was a direct expansion of Sarkar Khalsa.

And General Zoravar Singh was a Sikh.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aa1148bydh0

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the important bit to note is that the whole of what know today as the 'malwa' part of Punjab....i.e Ludhiana, Moga, Patiala etc, was not part of the Sikh Kingdom. That fact is more interesting than gilgit and ladakh. (sounds like a firm of Bombay lawyers)

What has that to do with the OP's question?

Are you always confused and cannot focus to the matter being discussed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would disagree to both jsinghz n jagsawsingh too. History tells us that zorawar singh was hindu, army commander of raja gulab singh of jammu ( gulabsingh was brother of dhiansingh the dogra pm of lahore durbar).And the territories won by him were added to jammu principality and whatever happened after demuse of maharaja ranjit singh is known for all. Even (it is saidthat)Dhian n Gulab singh became sikhs but only to dodge the maharaja .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jagsawsingh ,why donot yoy think that Patialas were not sikh? All thr rajas of malwa were sikhs , only that they were not agreeble to dictatorial unification of territories under misles and giving away the federal structure developed under misles

This thread has nothing to do with 'who is Sikh' and who is not. Its about the Sikh EMPIRE. Thats why I pointed out that Malwa was NOT part of the Sikh empire. Ludhiana, Patiala etc were sezerainties, allowed to exist, as long as they remained quiet and compliant, by powerfull 'powers' that existed to the north, south and south west of them, but part of none. So remind me again, how is this fact not relevant to a discussion about the Sikh EMPIRE ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread has nothing to do with 'who is Sikh' and who is not. Its about the Sikh EMPIRE. Thats why I pointed out that Malwa was NOT part of the Sikh empire. Ludhiana, Patiala etc were sezerainties, allowed to exist, as long as they remained quiet and compliant, by powerfull 'powers' that existed to the north, south and south west of them, but part of none. So remind me again, how is this fact not relevant to a discussion about the Sikh EMPIRE ?

Read the OP's question again and ask yourself where did he ask about the SIKH EMPIRE? Or are you finding it difficult to understand simple English.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read the OP's question again and ask yourself where did he ask about the SIKH EMPIRE? Or are you finding it difficult to understand simple English.

OK. So lets all take your advice and become 2 dimensional robots without personality :

The OP asks is such and such 'true' and the answer to that one question he puts is 'YES'.

End of discussion. The question has been anwsered. Close the thread down. In fact, lets go through every single thread that has ever appeared on this 'discussion' forum and delete every single post that came after the very first reply. Of course, we will also have to contact the Oxford and Websters dictionary specialists and ask them to officialy redefine the meaning of the word 'discussion' so it can fit into the wonderful JSinghnz' first class take on the matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • yeh it's true, we shouldn't be lazy and need to learn jhatka shikaar. It doesn't help some of grew up in surrounding areas like Slough and Southall where everyone thought it was super bad for amrit dharis to eat meat, and they were following Sant babas and jathas, and instead the Singhs should have been normalising jhatka just like the recent world war soldiers did. We are trying to rectifiy this and khalsa should learn jhatka.  But I am just writing about bhog for those that are still learning rehit. As I explained, there are all these negative influences in the panth that talk against rehit, but this shouldn't deter us from taking khanda pahul, no matter what level of rehit we are!
    • How is it going to help? The link is of a Sikh hunter. Fine, but what good does that do the lazy Sikh who ate khulla maas in a restaurant? By the way, for the OP, yes, it's against rehit to eat khulla maas.
    • Yeah, Sikhs should do bhog of food they eat. But the point of bhog is to only do bhog of food which is fit to be presented to Maharaj. It's not maryada to do bhog of khulla maas and pretend it's OK to eat. It's not. Come on, bro, you should know better than to bring this Sakhi into it. Is this Sikh in the restaurant accompanied by Guru Gobind Singh ji? Is he fighting a dharam yudh? Or is he merely filling his belly with the nearest restaurant?  Please don't make a mockery of our puratan Singhs' sacrifices by comparing them to lazy Sikhs who eat khulla maas.
    • Seriously?? The Dhadi is trying to be cute. For those who didn't get it, he said: "Some say Maharaj killed bakras (goats). Some say he cut the heads of the Panj Piyaras. The truth is that they weren't goats. It was she-goats (ਬਕਰੀਆਂ). He jhatka'd she-goats. Not he-goats." Wow. This is possibly the stupidest thing I've ever heard in relation to Sikhi.
    • Instead of a 9 inch or larger kirpan, take a smaller kirpan and put it (without gatra) inside your smaller turban and tie the turban tightly. This keeps a kirpan on your person without interfering with the massage or alarming the masseuse. I'm not talking about a trinket but rather an actual small kirpan that fits in a sheath (you'll have to search to find one). As for ahem, "problems", you could get a male masseuse. I don't know where you are, but in most places there are professional masseuses who actually know what they are doing and can really relieve your muscle pains.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use