Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Balkaar

Is Hindutva Worse Than Islamic Radicalism?

Recommended Posts

What follows are two extracts from the book We, Our Nationhood Defined written by M.S. Golwarkar, the second leader of the RSS:

"To keep up the purity of the Race and its culture, Germany shocked the world by her purging the country of the semitic Races - the Jews. Race pride at its highest has been manifested here. Germany has also shown how well nigh impossible it is for Races and cultures, having differences going to the root, to be assimilated into one united whole, a good lesson for us in Hindusthan to learn and profit by."[31] "Ever since that evil day, when Moslems first landed in Hindustan, right up to the present moment, the Hindu Nation has been gallantly fighting on to take on these despoilers. The Race Spirit has been awakening."

"The non-Hindu people of Hindustan must either adopt Hindu culture and language, must learn and respect and hold in reverence the Hindu religion, must entertain no idea but of those of glorification of the Hindu race and culture ... In a word they must cease to be foreigners, or may stay in the country, wholly subordinated to the Hindu nation, claiming nothing, deserving no privileges, far less any preferential treatment—not even citizens' rights."

These horrific offerings are distinct from Islamic fundamentalism in some very important ways:

1 - Islam is not an inherently racist creed. Hindutva on the other hand appears to take for its inspiration the same sort of racial theories propounded by the Nazis, and covertly advocates genocide in the pursuit of Hindu racial hegemony by recommending Hindustanis to adopt Nazi methods. Even the pictures of them in their uniforms and at their rallies in formation evoke echoes of the Third Reich.

2 - Shariah law is repugnant, there can be no doubt, especially in point of its treatment of unbelievers. But even non-Muslim dhimmis living beneath the aegis of the Dar-ul-Islam are afforded basic rights such as protection by their rulers. Hindutva would deny them even that. It would literally reduce them to a subhuman level.

3 - It is based on a dangerous hallucination. The forces of Hindutva have somehow managed to utterly convince themselves that the laughable Hindu record of defeats at Muslim hands was actually a 'gallant fight' (to take the words of Gokalwar himself). Only a person of breathtaking psychiatric imbalance could perform these sorts of mental gymnastics. The cause of Islamic Jihad is manned by stupid fanatics - the cause of Hindu nationalism is manned by insane fanatics.

This is scary stuff. I haven't yet decided whether it frightens me more than Islamism, but that there should even be a contest between the two says it all. Also, it bears mentioning that whilst Punjab hasn't really been affected by Jihad, the tentacles of the RSS have embedded themselves deeply and extensively.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets get our house in order before we try to solve world problems.

Hindutva and the RSS are a direct threat to Sikhi. They prop up Deras, undermine all our efforts for self-determination, and relentlessly try to assimilate our faith into theirs.

Dealing with them should be very high up on the Panth's list of priorities, I assure you.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both Islamic and hindu brahmin fundamentalists are bad as each other

The muslim usually stabs you in the front cos you know his faith hates all non-muslims you know what you getting with his moronic religion

With the Hindu Brahmin he doesnt care about his religion much because the knows its all rubbish so he is Hindu atheist so what he cares about is his land/nation (ie the land of Hind). If you oppose his hindutva agenda he will stab you in the back while plotting with your enemy and seeming to be your good friend. He will also pose as a Sikh to damage your reputation and to create trouble between you and the non-Sikh.

Hinduism/Hindus are tolerant of Sikhs and Sikhism as long as Sikhs dont have any political ambitions or authority.

Islam/Muslims are tolerant of of Sikhs and Sikhism as long as they are smaller number than muslims and dont convert them but they are allowed to convert sikhs.

So both religious agenda's are harmful to us but Islam is the greater danger as it will not tolerate our demographic numbers to rise to pose a threat to their authority hence they they always tareget kafir women cos they know you control the female breding stock you control the population.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got more respect for muslims, atleast they do it infront of u. Where as, gangus, especially panjabi gangus, r biggest backstabbers goin! S.indian n bangla gangus r nice ppl tho.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a term in Hindu thought called Purva Puksha, it means looking things through another's point of view or "reversing the gaze".

I think it is important that we get an idea from the Hindu or Brahmin elite point of view what they find threatening about Sikhs.

Hindutva has a problem with Islam (for obvious reasons) but also because it comes from outside India but Sikhi is a different kettle of fish.

We as Sikhs are oblivious to the impact we make on others. We challenge the authority of things because we work outside the yolk of Brahminism and we come from the subcontinent which confuses the Brahmin even further.They envy our chardi kala ness and wish they had it themselves which is why they always try to incorporate us into the Hindu fold. But at the same time they want to destroy who we are and keep what makes us useful for them. It's like schizophrenic behaviour.

They then try to rationalise things by saying " Sikhs are sword arm of India" or "Sikhs were there to protect Hindus" They try to control the narrative.

They see things in us that we don't see.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It probably spawned from the fact that Sikhs ended up protecting many of them during the Mughal campaign. Just imagine it like a playground. We have the Mughals as one big group (group 1) picking on the other group 2 (the hindus). Along comes group 3 (Sikhs) and starts sticking up for the victim group. Mughal group get's pushed back and dissolves. Group 3 's job is done but Group 2 feels they may be threatened again. What better protection than to have Group 3 as part of your group. So as a result they zealously try to take over. It's a very well established fact that Indians have a tendency of living in the past. Their afraid that if something happens again they won't have the same protection as they did before. If Group 1 and 3 make peace and get along, group 2 feels threatened.

Simple as that.

They want Protection but refuse to accept that Sikhs will protect anyone who needs helps. Their a force for the world, not just India.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jacfsing2

It probably spawned from the fact that Sikhs ended up protecting many of them during the Mughal campaign. Just imagine it like a playground. We have the Mughals as one big group (group 1) picking on the other group 2 (the hindus). Along comes group 3 (Sikhs) and starts sticking up for the victim group. Mughal group get's pushed back and dissolves. Group 3 's job is done but Group 2 feels they may be threatened again. What better protection than to have Group 3 as part of your group. So as a result they zealously try to take over. It's a very well established fact that Indians have a tendency of living in the past. Their afraid that if something happens again they won't have the same protection as they did before. If Group 1 and 3 make peace and get along, group 2 feels threatened.

Simple as that.

They want Protection but refuse to accept that Sikhs will protect anyone who needs helps. Their a force for the world, not just India.

It just happened to be Hindus, Guru Sahib would have protected anyone who came to him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It just happened to be Hindus, Guru Sahib would have protected anyone who came to him.

I'm well aware of that fact. the problem is radical organizations like this don't understand that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

rss considers sikhs buddhists jains as hindus they show our gurus as hindus and if anybody questions them then he is a terrorist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guru Sahib specifically warned the Khalsa from the Bammans.



'Jab lag Khalsa rahe nyaara, tab lag tej deyoon main saara,


Jab eh gahai BIPRAN KI REET, main na karon inn ki parteet".



Guru Sahib used the word Bippar which means bamman.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In India and wherever else Indian influence reaches, the danger of the Hindutva cause to Sikhs cannot be underestimated. The thing is they're quite subtle about it, so the danger seems less imminent or serious. They're content to play the long game, gently chipping away over years and decades as we've seen with the gradual attempts at distorting Sikhi and confounding the Sikh population in Punjab. What they do isn't smart or stealthy by any stretch of the imagination, but it's smart enough for our ignorant minds not to resist.

They've taken a page out of the old American social conditioning / subterfuge book that the likes of the CIA used against the blacks back in the day, and are hitting us on many fronts such as the obvious religious, political and social, but others such as popular culture which is where we are being hurt the most IMO.

Islamic radicalism can be spotted a mile away. We've only ourselves to blame if we can't resist their surges into our territory, figuratively speaking.

Share this post


Link to post
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...
Sign in to follow this  



  • Topics

  • Posts

    • the race relations act in UK protects the jews and sikhs as races ... and the definiton I gave is the one in the new US census . Sikhs are one race as Guru ji defined us , one varna , one race - human  chill dude.
    • They are a strange bunch. This sikh lady from chandigarh was surprised that I dont drink    she said how can you be a sardar and not drink alcohol.  I really was speechless. She then asked me why I dont tie my dhari up.    Sikhs/indians from the cities are weirdos 
    • Guest jagsaw-puzzled-singh
      Thing is though nobody is allowed to do anything about the dog problem which has now reached epidemic proportions. Indian criminal has strict punishment in place for anyone that harms a stray dog......which is all well and good if youre in a civilised country where there is civic pride and the authorities take care of the problem but...right now...things have gotten so bad babies and young children are getting mauled to death on a daily basis. Nobody anywhere is taking any responsibility. Obviously i havent taken any survey or anything but from what i saw i would guess that the population of wild crazy rabid dogs in Punjab has gone up by more than 1000% in the 3 year gap of me visiting there. And thats the thing that really bothers me about Sikhs in the west....they just dont care or at least choose not to hear. Wild dogs are killing more Sikhs than the Indian government and yet nobody cares. A while ago- on my things that white people do thread i once explained that more Punjabis die from inhaling soot from their rasooi kitchen than TB and the Indian army/police genocideadded together and how a simple tube that costs about $10 could prevent those deaths. Not one person here even bothered asking me how me and my dad went about fitting them into the homes of poor people. Instead, everyone just seems content going on and on about the same thing blaming the Indian govt and Badal / Captain for all their worries. I'm not even joking....the mad dog problem in Punjab prevented me from full enjoyment of my land more than Captain and Modi ever could. Lets get our priorities right. Lets kill those kuthe !!!
    • Why did you take my words out of context?   I said: "At the end of the day, you have a haircut, so whatever you think or say is meaningless. Through your actions you have renounced the Sikh religion." This means, his actions show what he thinks and what really matters to him.     It doesn't matter if I say something nice or say something that's not nice. It doesn't matter what you think or what I think or what he thinks.   EVERY TIME he shaves, EVERY TIME he gets a haircut, he is renouncing his faith in Sikhi   He has made it clear where he stands by his actions.
    • Guest CuriousReader
      Let's say. I'm a good-hearted person who is... Christian. Not a Bible-banger, but a run of the mill average Christian man of middle socio-economic status, or an average man who is not a Sikh. I do charity, good deeds, et cetera. I have a wife and kids and I do my best to raise them. I contribute to society the best I can and have a fear of God, in the truest sense, fearing that God does not like bad deeds. Am I a Manmukh, or a Gurmukh?  part 2: Why does a man need to keep his hair fully untrimmed, yet is encouraged to trim his nails, which, by definition of keeping with Nature's law, is an example of "God's perfection in his creation"? What marks the difference in hair, and nails? And finally, why are women encouraged, at the highest point of Sikh theology (I.e. Khalsa Amritshak Sikh of the Guru) to become recluse to the world? If they have upper lip hair, or even, God forbid, beard hair... what average man, or even Sikh man of any level of Gurmukhness (apologies for the made-up word but I mean to convey level of Sikh spiritual state), what man would like to have physical relations with a woman who looks, well... like the male of the species. Naturally, men are attracted to femininity as it is opposite to a man's natural look (growing beard hair easily, naturally and encouraged to look like an adult). So where does this leave the poor Sikh female who may have a problem of growing beard hair or moustache hair, who is following the Rehat Maryada of the Khalsa which means she cannot pluck or trim the hair? Is that not equivalent to a "Sanyasi" man leaving his hair in knots and not showering? It looks unclean to a man's eyes, naturally. That is all.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use