Hindus Wearing The Kara

[StarStriker]

By 'peddled' with your own history I'm talking about Kesh.

My entire family knows why Sikhs keep their hair uncut, yet I wonder why all traces of this information has been wiped out of the history books.

i dont know wat on earth ur trying to say here.

They were saying, not changing. That's their belief, but as long as they don't forcibly re-write history, they haven't harmed Sikhism in any way. We all know that these figures were Sikhs.

Recreated history? Did we ever once edit history and recreate history? No. It's only a minority who are "saying" this, but not "changing". I don't know why you guys think that it's all of us.

Are u seriously deluded or wat? Have u actually seen wat indians have been taught? Just look at ur own poor information on the sikh religion being a good example. BOOKS and Information on the sikhs HAVE BEEN edited in the indian school curriculum, and in general literature online too. Stop trying downplay something as crucial as misinformation on sikhs. This is deliberate propaganda.

I was mainly talking about Khalsa Sikhs, the Hindus who converted during Sri Guru Gobind Singh ji's time. Before then, there was no such thing as Sikhism, from what I heard from a Sikh. Sikhism back then was just a "reformed movement of Hindus", which is what the Sikh wrote. It was only when Sri Guru Gobind Singh ji created the Khalsa that Sikhism came into existence. Before blaming me and accusing me of being an RSS agent here, this is what a Sikh wrote online and I'm just repeating it.

During Guru Nanak Dev ji's time there was no Sikhism either. His followers may have called themselves "Sikhs", as in "disciples", but they were Hindus and Muslims.

Proof: after Sri Guru Nanak Dev ji died, his Hindu & Muslim followers were arguing whether to cremate him or bury him. So, no, there was no Sikhism before the last living Guruji's time, it was only a reformed movement.

This is wat im talking about, u have written pretty much wat the enemies of our dharam have spread, so much so, newer generations write the rubbish u have above! A sikh supposedly wrote that? Yea course he did mate, i think hindu taqqiah is at work here.

There were no sikhs at guru nanaks time?LOOOOOOOOOOOL. For goodness sakes, please tell me u dont believe this? Sikh religion was NOT a reformist movement, it was a religion created by god themself. When sikhs converted during guru nanak to guru tegh bahadurs time, they used to drink charan amrit (feet amrit) from our gurus. Guru Gobind singh then changed it to khanda amrit (sword). U kno wat i dont need to waste my time explaining it all to u, watch these 2 short videos, jagraj singh does it better.

watch this video, if u genuinely want to learn about sikh dharam, it answers most of the common misinfo that has been spread by the enemies of the sikhs.

And no im not a jatt, im a sikh.

[jkvlondon]

Actually, those Sikhs who were re-converted were born SIKHS, so I believe it was righteous to re-convert them.

It was in no way a forced conversion, they openly claimed that they wanted to re-convert.

If Sikhs had no part in it, then what's the problem?

I read in several places that he was a RSS member.

And you know, it's not good to use the same username in multiple sites, people can easily recognise who you are.

I am not scared of being recognised for my views , I am a Sikh of Guru Granth Sahib ...maybe people who have nefarious plans and agendas want to give me advice now?

the problem dear sir is you cannot convert or become a sikh without Guru Granth Sahib and Panj Piare ...I want to know who they were, which Gurudwara they were sent from , if they were fake RSS clones then I am sorry for those wishing to stay in Guru ji's panth that they are being swindled ... they cannot simply state hum SIkh hain and that's it ...they have to do pesh in front of Guru Granth sahib ji and Guru Panth Panj piarey, give account for themselves and receive punishment then they are free to have amrit once they have had amrit they are truly Guru's sikhs.

[ghettosikh]

My family weren't living in India when all the trouble in the 1980s, before and after, were happening, so we had no connection to that. In facts, thousands of Hindus weren't even living in India around that time. Trust me, I know.

Most Punjabi Hindus actually respect Sikhs, the only reason they're "backstabbing", as you say, may be because they themselves feel backstabbed.

Most Punjabi HINDU families teach their children all about how Sikhs are their saviours and that they saved them from the evil 'malecha', and I guess when some extremists started wanting their own country, they felt backstabbed. I really don't know, but that seems the logical reason. I'm really sorry about what happened in the events before, during and after the 1980s.

If Punjabi Hindus are all really backstabbers, then why did they shelter Sikhs inside their homes when the mobs were going crazy?

Please don't generalise...

I remember one Punjabi Hindu saying that back in 1947 his grandfather and many other Hindus alongside Sikhs fought against the 'bad guys'. He then said how Sikh extremists forced his family to leave Punjab and his grandfather was shot to death, the very same one who fought with the Sikhs against the 'bad guys' back in 1947.

That could also be another reason for some Punjabi Hindus "backstabbing". But I'm going to bet that you'll ignore that part and continue calling Hindus "backstabbers".

"Or heres a personal fave of mine, "it was EVERY 1st born hindu, who was made into a khalsa, that started ur religion off" blah blah t@tti. As soon as u correct them of their warped/incorrect history, they label u as seperatists/extremists! U tell them, that actually only khatri/rajputs gave their eldest sons towards khalsa, look at the tirade of abuse that follows from these gangus. Ive met a lot of HP's in my life, n are nice ppl, but fact is, history has proven never trust gangus, ever!"

Khatris and Rajputs ARE Hindus. It wasn't every first-born Hindu, I know, but back then the Sikh population was extremely low, it's only because of Hindu families (yes, Khatris/Rajputs) who made their first-born Sikhs and because of the "Hindu-need for revenge against the invaders" that Sikhs got a bigger population.

Let me ask you this: are you willing to accept that your ancestors were Hindus who wanted revenge, and that's the reason they converted?

If you don't accept that, then you've got problems because that is the truth.

If you do accept that, then I'm asking you: if that's the case, why are you so full of hatred towards your own Hindu brothers?

"Hindus r 30% of panjab, n always try to pass off that we r all the same, yet behind r backs, they r more vile and full of hatred towards sikhs, than even paks. Jus go online on forums/youtube n c how many have fake online ID's n c the gandh they write. Panjabi hindus r also the 1s who have peddled so much $hïte bowt sikh history,"

Behind your backs? Have you ever talked about behind our backs? At home lots of you Sikhs are taught hatred against Hindus as well. What was it? "Hindus are slaves"? "Hindus are weak and they needed someone to save them"? "Sikhs rescued Hindu women from sucking the lullas of the invaders"?

Dude, just go to YouTube or Topix and see how much my fellow Sikh brothers, the very ones I use to believe were worthy of my utmost respect, love me and my community.

Every time I replied to a Sikh PEACEFULLY, every time I apologised for 1984, every time I was on the side of Sikhs over my own Hindus and over the 'malechas', what I got back was abuse from my own Sikh brothers. I defended their religion, and in return they attacked mine. Even then I didn't abuse Sikhism back when they were abusing Hindus, Hindu women and Hinduism (Sanatana Dharma).

And you're talking about "fake IDs", when most of these IDs are actually the ones who want revenge for Bangladesh. If you know what I mean. They pose as Hindus and abuse Sikhs. I've seen their lies myself.

No we haven't peddled with Sikh history, you guys have peddled with your own history. Don't ask me for proof, because if you do I'll give it to you.

And one last thing. Around less than two years ago I was learning about Sikhism, the sacrifice Sri Guru Tegh Bahadur ji gave, how Sikhs saved North India from becoming something else. I never once considered the Gurujis as Hindus. I considered them as my own Gurujis. At the gurdwaras I'd look at the portraits of the Gurujis in respect.

Then a year ago, I actually considered becoming a Sikh myself. From childhood to a year ago, I considered myself "Half Hindu, Half Sikh" (I'm not even lying here, I considered myself as much a Hindu as a Sikh) so I decided to increase my knowledge by visiting a Sikh forum in Topix.

When I read those disgusting abuse and comments lots of Sikhs made about Hindus, Hindu women and Hindu beliefs, I wanted to puke.

I thought you Sikhs were actually cool. Because of stupid people like you in the Sikh community, I renounced calling myself "Half Sikh".

I still have respect for all the Gurujis, especially Sri Guru Gobind Singh ji, I still respect Sikhism. But it's not the same as a year ago, thanks to guys like you.

Well done on shooing me from Sikhism.

it's actually Hindus who write filth about sikhs on topix

[DTF]

You're right. I refuse to call myself a Hindu. I would call myself a Sikh if I could, but recently I came upon a new term "Sanatani", which is a native word instead of the foreign word. But really, what can we do? No effort has been taken to remove the word Hindu and replace it with a more native term.

And again, you're right. I don't follow the caste system, neither does my brother. We just want unity.

And again, you're right. Yes, I don't pray or worship stones or idols. Neither do any other Hindus. Other Hindus don't worship the idol, they only do what they do because they don't know how God looks like and they need a clearer image. I haven't done that thing for a long time now.

No human being can stop a sehajdhari Sikh who attends Gurdwara from considering himself or herself a part of the Sikh Panth. The Dharmic faiths - Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhi - are all Sanatan faiths, however, you have to ask your conscience as to which is the Truth and which faith truly seeks to usher in a just society for all of justice and equality and service to humanity, whereas Hinduism as we all know is built upon the edifice of caste discrimination scripturually and Hindutva's motto is divide and rule.

Sanatani's by their very definition are Sikhs. As of the above four Sanatan (Dharmic) ideologies I believe only Sikhi to be the Truth though I do have full respect for Buddhism and Jainism. I simply cannot take Hinduism seriously and view it more as a collection of various indigenous and pagan faiths that have survived amidst illiteracy via support from the Hindutva elite but ought not to in the face of education. If you don't believe in the caste system, you attend Gurdwara, you don't worship stone idols ... it all translates to me that your heart and soul is naturally aligned with Sikhi ... so no point in even calling yourself Sanatani ... call yourself a (sehajdhari) Sikh ... encourage others to do the same ... and remember no one can take Sikhi away from you. If you allow some Pakistani trolls to sabotage your faith in Sikhi it would be a crying shame. Think of even StarStriker as your brother and how unitedly we can all play a part in fighting to make the World a better place for all those billions that are currently suffering (irrespective of their beliefs).

By 'peddled' with your own history I'm talking about Kesh.

My entire family knows why Sikhs keep their hair uncut, yet I wonder why all traces of this information has been wiped out of the history books.

= Amritdhari Sikhs keep unshorn hair as a consequence of Vasakhi 1699. The reason why knowledge of Vasakhi 1699 is hidden from wider knowledge in India is that the Hindutva elite are frightened of the wider public realising that one of the Punj Pyare was Gujarati, that one was from Orissa, yet another was a South Indian Dravidian and this destroys Hindutva's policy of divide and rule. They realise that if more non-Punjabi's turn to Sikhi their tenuous and corrupt hold on power will begin to loosen and eventually will disintegrate.

They were saying, not changing. That's their belief, but as long as they don't forcibly re-write history, they haven't harmed Sikhism in any way. We all know that these figures were Sikhs.

= Though these lies by polemists against Sikhi are harmful, I'm glad you are one that knows and acknowledges the truth about Banda Singh Bahadur, Bhai Mati Das, Bhai Sati Das and others all being the great Gursikhs they were.

Recreated history? Did we ever once edit history and recreate history? No. It's only a minority who are "saying" this, but not "changing". I don't know why you guys think that it's all of us.

= Agreed. It is a minority of HP's that distort history (because they fear the societal change Sikhi can effect with greater numbers within the Sikh Panth) yet sadly the perception becomes that it is more than a minority of HP's with an anti-Sikh outlook - when my whole life I have witnessed the opposite. I strongly believe that it was a minority of wealthy HP's (strongly connected to the Congress Party) that celebrated June 1984 and the subsequent Genocide of Sikhs.

I was mainly talking about Khalsa Sikhs, the Hindus who converted during Sri Guru Gobind Singh ji's time.

= Khalsa Sikhs were drawn from those with parents whose faiths were Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, Jainism, Christianity, etc, you name it.

Before then, there was no such thing as Sikhism, from what I heard from a Sikh.

= Not so. This is merely an accusation by ignorant anti-Sikh authors. Sikhi existed before 1699 with the coming of Guru Nanak Dev Ji Maharaj's message of Gurmat (Sikhi) in the 15th century over 500years ago. Bhai Mardana Ji, whose parents were Muslims was the first Sikh in history.

Sikhism back then was just a "reformed movement of Hindus", which is what the Sikh wrote.

= Please ignore what the ignorant Sikh may have written. Sikhi is a global faith for one and all. The first Sikh - Bhai Mardana Ji - proves that Sikhi cannot be considered as the ignorant person has wrongly termed it considering that central pillars of Hinduism such as the caste system and stone idols or God in human form (avtars) are so roundly rejected by Sikhi.

It was only when Sri Guru Gobind Singh ji created the Khalsa that Sikhism came into existence.

= Not so. The Khalsa Panth was primarily moulded by Dhan Dhan Guru Gobind Singh Ji Maharaj but Sikhi did not come into existence in 1699. This narrative is all part of the anti-Sikh plot to exclude those sehajdhari Sikhs without kes from the wider Sikh Panth. And I can tell you it's a blatant lie. Sikhi has existed since the 15th century.

Before blaming me and accusing me of being an RSS agent here, this is what a Sikh wrote online and I'm just repeating it.

= Please ignore what ignorant Sikh authors, Mughal writers and Hindutva authors may have written against Sikhi as this is their typical false diatribe against Sikhi.

During Guru Nanak Dev ji's time there was no Sikhism either.

= Not at all. Sikhi completely rejects Islam and Hinduism and has always been a different path of universal brotherhood, service to humanity, rejection of fasts, rejection of pilgrimages, rejection of noble lineage (for example, the Quraishi caste), rejection of the caste system and so forth.

His followers may have called themselves "Sikhs", as in "disciples", but they were Hindus and Muslims.

= This is utter nonsense spread by anti-Sikh authors who first were in the employ of the Mughals, then those who worked for the British Empire and since 1947 that are in receipt of financial support from Delhi. Guru Nanak Dev Ji's disciples were Sikhs plain and simple. The religion of the disciples parents' does not mean that the Sikh themselves continued to believe in Islam or Hinduism when they would consciously reject the same as Guru de Sikh. On such a basis one could argue that all Hindu's are merely pagans, similarly as were all Arabs who followed the Prophethood of Muhammad due to their parentage. This thinking is an insult to Sikhi (but it's a very common insult) and please don't allow yourself to fall for such crooked anti-Sikh lies.

Proof: after Sri Guru Nanak Dev ji died, his Hindu & Muslim followers were arguing whether to cremate him or bury him. So, no, there was no Sikhism before the last living Guruji's time, it was only a reformed movement.

= Not at all. There is no evidence such an argument took place. The metaphor used was merely to show that half of Guru Nanak Dev Ji's followers were of Muslim ancestry and half were of Hindu ancestry. Why would Guru Nanak Dev Ji who roundly rejected and disproved Hinduism and Islam ever be considered as anything other than a reflection of the light of Ik Onkar that they were. Guru Sahib certainly were not Hindu and certainly were not Muslim. Cremation itself pre-dates Hinduism and surely there is no point in turning the whole world eventually into giant cemetry with the passage of time.

Wait, one question before I end this post, what clan are you from? Jatt?

= Sikhi is clear cut that we should strive to eradicate affiliation of ourselves with any caste or clan so your question to any Sikh is not relavant in all honesty. Only Muslims and Hindu's are proudly able to theologically observe distinctions between humanity on the basis of so-called high or low lineage. Sikhi is clear that slaves and generally the most despised and oppressed in general society are closer to Ik Onkar than so-called royal kings and emperors.

I mean during the last living Guruji's time. The majority of the converts converted for revenge and to protect their 'country' or 'land', during the ceremony.

= Not so. Not at all. People turned to Sikhi due to their faith in Sikhi being the Truth. Not because some warped author has claimed they did so for revenge. Could the said revenge seekers not have sought revenge in the guise of their original faith? The whole accusation is absurd in the extreme.

Yeah, I'm shocked at that too (in reference to "the central government's census officials deliberately wrongly classifying tens of millions of Sikhs as Hindu's in order to inflate Hindu population whilst minimising Sikh numbers"). But the reason is that Sikhism denies any relation with Hindus, which is why these groups are considered Hindus. They practice bits of Sikhism mixed with Hinduism, which is against Sikhism from what I've heard.

The argument that these tens of millions of non-Punjabi Sikhs should be considered Hindu's simply for having slightly unorthodox beliefs as a consequence of their separation from mainstream ideolgy over the course of the primarily last 300 years of British and Nehru-Gandh family rule was a clever ruse by Hindutva academics ie getting shorted-sighted Sikhs at the SGPC to do their dirty work of minimising the number of Sikhs in independent India.

RSS, VHP and other Hindu groups that seek Hindutva are against casteism, they've recruited Dalits too.

Nonsense, my friend don't believe the Hindutva lies these people want you to believe. Analyse the senior leadership of RSS, VHP and other Hindutva groups and you will find that the so-called forward castes run the show ... all primarily of Brahmin-Bania-Rajput background. Consider these groups akin to mafia kingpins in the USA, who may well employ African American drug dealers at street level (but nevertheless despise the same in their hearts). And the same goes for the Hindutva elite, they realise that they need numbers from castes other than simply Brahmin-Bania-Rajput backgrounds at lower level but have no sincere desire to end social stratification within India and indeed they encourage the promotion and perpetuation of Hindu caste system. This is exactly why the Hindutva groups fear the rise of a casteless Sikh Panth with hundreds of millions of Sikhs challenging them in the future and are determined to do anything they can to stop Sikhi from blossoming in India, as Sikhi's vision is Begumpura for all rather than exploitation of the many by the few (which is the driving ideology at the core of Hindutva).

[jkvlondon]

DTF veer ji,

you made a big mistake , Bebe Nanaki was the first sikh , the first disciple of Guru Nanak Dev ji and she broke the fresh ground by being a woman disciple ... please don't forget your history ...

Kesh Rehit was started by Guru Nanak Dev ji , he was asked by Bhai Mardana what was required for him to become a sikh , first rehit was to be Sabat surat and stay in Akal Purakh's hukam by not cutting his kesh (this also broke with islamic tradition of hijamat trimming of kesh) to remember Akal Purakh -Jap Naam, earn an honest living by the sweat of one's own brow - Kirt karna and to share what one had with others less fortunate - vand ke chakna.

[StarStriker]

DTF veer ji,

you made a big mistake , Bebe Nanaki was the first sikh , the first disciple of Guru Nanak Dev ji and she broke the fresh ground by being a woman disciple ... please don't forget your history ...

Kesh Rehit was started by Guru Nanak Dev ji , he was asked by Bhai Mardana what was required for him to become a sikh , first rehit was to be Sabat surat and stay in Akal Purakh's hukam by not cutting his kesh (this also broke with islamic tradition of hijamat trimming of kesh) to remember Akal Purakh -Jap Naam, earn an honest living by the sweat of one's own brow - Kirt karna and to share what one had with others less fortunate - vand ke chakna.

Also remember, NO prophet ever ever ever was instructed to cut their hair on their body by god, and thats wat they were supposed to teach their followers that . I believe proph muhammed broke the trend, wen his muccha (tashe), was cut off by angel gabriel for pervin at a lady. Its like sant jarnail singh said, that it doesnt matter wat family ur born into, if ur remain as u are frm birth (uncut hair/foreskin intact), then u r a sikh by default.

[DTF]

JKV Bhenji there are different schools of thought; some regard Bebe Nanaki Ji to be the first Sikh, whilst others believe Bhai Mardana Ji to be the first Sikh. The fact is both were great Gurmukhs of equal stature who stood alongside Dhan Dhan Guru Nanak Dev Ji Maharaj every step of the way. Bhenji you're absolutely correct to point out that Bhai Mardana Ji never cut their kes as the first recorded Sikh in history.

And StarStiker Paji you're absoluely right that all humans are Sikh by default and its only societal and parental conditioning that can direct certain people away from the Truth of Sikhi, though overall Sikhi must be believed in (via conviction and actions towards Sarbat Da Bhalla) rather than considered a birthright.

[Sanatani]

This comment is in reply to StarStriker...

Okay, guys, clearly you don't get the point.

I created the topic to tell other Sikhs out there that Hindus, whether they be Sehajdhari or not, do in fact wear the Kara BECAUSE they attend the gurdwara, not mainly because they want to show off, which lots of people seem to think.

But because of some bias-ness and anti-Hindu elements in this forum, clearly a simple topic like this gets diverted to "betrayal" and history, because you can't handle the fact that Hindus are just normal people who share a great load of respect for Sikhs and share no hatred against Sikhs, unless provoked, like what some people in this forum are trying to do with me.

And my information about early Sikhism (Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji - Sri Guru Teg Bahadur Ji) being an early reformist movement to alter the evils of Hinduism and go back to the Vedic roots, I got that from a comment a Sikh made on "Daily Sikh Updates" on Facebook, on the topic of whether Sikhs are Hindus. I saw another comment almost similar to this as well, written by another Sikh though.

At the end he concluded that Sikhs practice Hinduism in the Sikh way, and therefore Sikhs are not Hindus.

If you think I'm lying, good for you. Lying like that just isn't my style. If you still don't believe me, then...

Hindu taqiyya? Lying? Wait, who lies to others that they love the "Mallesh" (if you know what I mean) when in fact they still hold a 300 year-old grudge on them?

Oath. That ring a bell?

And you're talking about the Indian government changing Sikh history, I just heard about that now. But again, that was the previous government.

Furthermore, if you think that "Hindus" or "Hindutva agents" are changing Sikh history, clearly you're wrong.

The previous Congress government didn't teach Indians about the atrocities the Mughals committed on the local Indians, instead they "glorify the Mughals" and make it seem as if before the Mughals India was an uncivilized place. So how can you say that Hindus are altering Sikh history? It was the Congress.

But because you don't live in India, and neither do I, and because you're biased against your own country, you refuse to research and keep an open-mind. Not only SIKH history is being distorted, as you say, Hindu & Indian history is also being distorted.

Just wait for the BJP. I believe that they will change the history to suit the reality.

You can keep on hating on Hindus for all your life, but there are Hindus like me out there who love Sikhs and a minority of Hindus who know the truth about the oath who also love Sikhs.

[Sanatani]

And nope, I didn't get my facts from a warped author.

I remember my grandfather talking about how Punjabis are born-warriors who rejected being oppressed and took the sword to annihilate the bad guys.

He himself came to the UK half a century ago, travelled around England and met a Sikh man who gave him a book about the origins of Sikhism.

What that book said about why Hindus converted to Sikhism changed his point of view of Sikhs. This information about why Hindus converted isn't in Sikh history any more... why?

That's where a part of my information derives from.

And bhai, I already know why Sikhism was created mainly. To protect Hindus from the invaders. If you reply to this post then I'll explain how I know.

[jkvlondon]

JKV Bhenji there are different schools of thought; some regard Bebe Nanaki Ji to be the first Sikh, whilst others believe Bhai Mardana Ji to be the first Sikh. The fact is both were great Gurmukhs of equal stature who stood alongside Dhan Dhan Guru Nanak Dev Ji Maharaj every step of the way. Bhenji you're absolutely correct to point out that Bhai Mardana Ji never cut their kes as the first recorded Sikh in history.

And StarStiker Paji you're absoluely right that all humans are Sikh by default and its only societal and parental conditioning that can direct certain people away from the Truth of Sikhi, though overall Sikhi must be believed in (via conviction and actions towards Sarbat Da Bhalla) rather than considered a birthright.

be real Bebe Nanaki was Guru ji's follower from his childhood whereas Bhai Mardana was only after Guru ji reached maturity.