Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
13Mirch

Societal Segregation Versus Sikhi

Recommended Posts

Part II of Tisarpanth's Misconceptions Series. Here two main misconceptions are answered:

1.) Sikhi survived due to the sole efforts of the Jats and,

2.) Sikhi was a reaction against contemporary economics.

To quote a few portions:

'Sikh history, and tradition, substantiates that no lapse was ever tolerated from the faith’s ideology. The names of Baba Atal Rai and Baba Ram Rai are only some of the many examples which depict the penalties imposed upon those who, for one reason or another, deviated from established norms. The former resurrected a victim of snakebite and was so sternly reprimanded by his father, the sixth Guru, that he discarded his mortal frame whilst the latter intentionally changed a line of Gurbani and was excommunicated by his own father, the seventh Guru. Summarily we can easily conclude then that it is impossible to assert that the sixth Guru who was more than satisfied to witness his own son’s demise, but could not tolerate any deviation from the faith’s ideology would concede to any demands made by the Jats.'

'Non-Sikh records mention the respect with which the Sikhs treated women, even extending courtesy and safety to those who were of their sworn foes. (19) If compared with Jat practices, historic and present, than these contrast starkly as the Jat objectification of women is a well known fact. Secondly, the Sikh ability to unite in face of a common threat historically is a well-established fact. This principle emerged out of two factors namely a channeling of all energies towards achieving a singular goal, and a singular interpretation of the faith. The Jats were and still are avid worshipers of Jatheras or shrines dedicated to some Sisyphean ancestor(s). (20) With each locality, tribe, clan, village espousing a different ancestor any ideological unity and singular channeling of energy is impossible. The establishment of Bharatpur can only be called a miracle as the Jat unity forged for it’s establishment soon disintegrated afterwards.'

https://tisarpanthdotcom.wordpress.com/2016/04/24/misconceptions-ii/

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt

Part II of Tisarpanth's Misconceptions Series. Here two main misconceptions are answered:

1.) Sikhi survived due to the sole efforts of the Jats and,

2.) Sikhi was a reaction against contemporary economics.

To quote a few portions:

'Sikh history, and tradition, substantiates that no lapse was ever tolerated from the faiths ideology. The names of Baba Atal Rai and Baba Ram Rai are only some of the many examples which depict the penalties imposed upon those who, for one reason or another, deviated from established norms. The former resurrected a victim of snakebite and was so sternly reprimanded by his father, the sixth Guru, that he discarded his mortal frame whilst the latter intentionally changed a line of Gurbani and was excommunicated by his own father, the seventh Guru. Summarily we can easily conclude then that it is impossible to assert that the sixth Guru who was more than satisfied to witness his own sons demise, but could not tolerate any deviation from the faiths ideology would concede to any demands made by the Jats.'

'Non-Sikh records mention the respect with which the Sikhs treated women, even extending courtesy and safety to those who were of their sworn foes. (19) If compared with Jat practices, historic and present, than these contrast starkly as the Jat objectification of women is a well known fact. Secondly, the Sikh ability to unite in face of a common threat historically is a well-established fact. This principle emerged out of two factors namely a channeling of all energies towards achieving a singular goal, and a singular interpretation of the faith. The Jats were and still are avid worshipers of Jatheras or shrines dedicated to some Sisyphean ancestor(s). (20) With each locality, tribe, clan, village espousing a different ancestor any ideological unity and singular channeling of energy is impossible. The establishment of Bharatpur can only be called a miracle as the Jat unity forged for its establishment soon disintegrated afterwards.'

https://tisarpanthdotcom.wordpress.com/2016/04/24/misconceptions-ii/

WJKK WJKF

Yea sounds about right....still today within sikhi the jat strives for some form of supremacy over other sikhs within sikhi continuously taking it back to their leanage. A jatt what took Amrit and became Khalsa will always be considered Khalsa, until they then marginlise themselves as a "jatt sikh" and marry within caste and continue to do so misunderstanding and misinterpretating the gurus sikhi for caste supremacy. Usually justifying it with ridiculous notions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WJKK WJKF

Yea sounds about right....still today within sikhi the jat strives for some form of supremacy over other sikhs within sikhi continuously taking it back to their leanage. A jatt what took Amrit and became Khalsa will always be considered Khalsa, until they then marginlise themselves as a "jatt sikh" and marry within caste and continue to do so misunderstanding and misinterpretating the gurus sikhi for caste supremacy. Usually justifying it with ridiculous notions.

Can you confirm if Sikhs of non Jatt background also marry "within caste" or is it just Jatts who do this.

Does a Sikh of Tharkan/Ramgharia background consider themselves superior to some who is a chamar or Mazhabi background or is it just Jatts that does this?

Is this perceived superiority of Jatts happen to be due to the fact that Sikhs of Jatt background just happen to be numerous?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you confirm if Sikhs of non Jatt background also marry "within caste" or is it just Jatts who do this.

Does a Sikh of Tharkan/Ramgharia background consider themselves superior to some who is a chamar or Mazhabi background or is it just Jatts that does this?

Is this perceived superiority of Jatts happen to be due to the fact that Sikhs of Jatt background just happen to be numerous?

WJKK WJKF

Obviously the other groups you mentioned do.....without going into the usual debate that's the usual caste based issue again. But when have you watched a film with a "Tharkaan sikh" (a contradiction in itself) being the pinnacle of what a sikh should be?

However no group claims sikhi to be their own more than the jatts. You only hear jatts claiming mahaan shaheed as jat and not Khalsa. Just look at the topic to do with the film "Ardas" a few weeks back...and watch the YouTube clip of ghughi and his views on Shaheed Baba Deep Singh as "Jatt" lol.

It's not the number of jatts what causes the superiority complex, it's what they think and say before and after accepting Amrit what is the problem. If one believes they are "better" than someone genetically and ethically just because of their ancestry, it's wrong right?

That's the problem. Alil like the Nazi Ideology of the supremacy of the Arian Race.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you confirm if Sikhs of non Jatt background also marry "within caste" or is it just Jatts who do this.

Does a Sikh of Tharkan/Ramgharia background consider themselves superior to some who is a chamar or Mazhabi background or is it just Jatts that does this?

Is this perceived superiority of Jatts happen to be due to the fact that Sikhs of Jatt background just happen to be numerous?

Numerical preponderance is not the root cause here, it is more of a chain effect. When Jat-vaad is given more credence than a chain effect occurs where others also feel entitled to do the same.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Numerical preponderance is not the root cause here, it is more of a chain effect. When Jat-vaad is given more credence than a chain effect occurs where others also feel entitled to do the same.

Is anything stopping others doing the same?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is anything stopping others doing the same?

WJKK WJKF

It's kinda sounds like your justifying it due to other groups now doing the same caste segregation. Again other groups segregate themselves onto castes however it is only the jatts what act as supremacists.

Why don't you just condemn the jatts and the others for doing any caste segration rather than in away say " they do it, so will we"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WJKK WJKF

It's kinda sounds like your justifying it due to other groups now doing the same caste segregation. Again other groups segregate themselves onto castes however it is only the jatts what act as supremacists.

Why don't you just condemn the jatts and the others for doing any caste segration rather than in away say " they do it, so will we"?

How are Jatts supremists? Can jatts be arrogant, of course but you conflated Jatts to be nazi's. Unless jatts have invaded countries and put people into concentration camps, that is not a valid comparison.

If Jatts dominate areas of Sikhi, it could be because Jatts comprise a very large proportion of Sikhs.

If Jatts overwhelmingly take up higher positions of Sikh institutions they perhaps took initiative and the risks for the panth in a higher proportion than Sikhs of other background.

Would one call that segregation?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WJKK WJKF

Yea sounds about right....still today within sikhi the jat strives for some form of supremacy over other sikhs within sikhi continuously taking it back to their leanage. A jatt what took Amrit and became Khalsa will always be considered Khalsa, until they then marginlise themselves as a "jatt sikh" and marry within caste and continue to do so misunderstanding and misinterpretating the gurus sikhi for caste supremacy. Usually justifying it with ridiculous notions.

Can you please enlighten us and tell what caste were all our Guru's Maharaj? What caste women did they marry into?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ranjeet,

You've missed the point. Its not about invading countries. It's about defining a particular group as a "superior race" and somehow 'a cut above the rest'.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ranjeet,

You've missed the point. Its not about invading countries. It's about defining a particular group as a "superior race" and somehow 'a cut above the rest'.

No. Actually YOU are missing the point. Let's assume Jatts do consider themselves superior and you are right. How does that affect you? What actions have they taken in regards to feeling superior affected your well being?

Edited by Quantavius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. Actually YOU are missing the point. Let's consider Jatts do consider themselves superior. How does that affect you? What actions have they taken in regards to feeling superior affected your well being?

Quantavius, Jatt supremacism isn't some harmless quirk or bit of eccentricity, it directly affects many lives. It is no coincidence that so many of the anti-Sikh deras in the Punjab rely upon majhbi and low-caste former Sikhs to constitute the bulk of their following, or that Christian missionaries are specifically targeting these people. They have turned to these cults to find the acceptance which they are convinced that Sikhi denies them, because of the actions of bigoted Jatt supremacists - excluding them from Gurdwara committees, assaulting them when they agitate for their rights [this still happens from time to time in my nanke's pind Talhan), refusing to sell them land because of their caste. You appear totally disconnected from the reality of it. I don't know how often you visit Punjab, if at all, but the implications of casteism there are not the same as they are for Sikhs like you living in the West, in a society where these labels mean nothing at all.

Edited by Balkaar
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quantavius, Jatt supremacism isn't some harmless quirk or bit of eccentricity, it directly affects many lives. It is no coincidence that so many of the anti-Sikh deras in the Punjab rely upon majhbi and low-caste former Sikhs to constitute the bulk of their following, or that Christian missionaries are specifically targeting these people. They have turned to these cults to find the acceptance which they are convinced that Sikhi denies them, because of the actions of bigoted Jatt supremacists - excluding them from Gurdwara committees, assaulting them when they agitate for their rights [this still happens from time to time in my nanke's pind Talhan), refusing to sell them land because of their caste. You appear totally disconnected from the reality of it. I don't know how often you visit Punjab, if at all, but the implications of casteism there are not the same as they are for Sikhs like you living in the West, in a society where these labels mean nothing at all. Your last name still counts for something in Punjab.

surely selling punjab's land to our bretheren is better than outsiders because the local economy gets a big boost .They get land and independance they are happy, Punjab is looked after it's own children rather than getting asset stripped by outsiders and anyrevenue from crops going outside punjab's economy too. Problem with Punjabis is their NOSE is too easily cut ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ranjeet,

You've missed the point. Its not about invading countries. It's about defining a particular group as a "superior race" and somehow 'a cut above the rest'.

Jatts are no superior race nor are they cut above the rest.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  



  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Honestly, I don't know. I will look into the matter and see if some answers comes up. Bear in mind I was talking about regular Sikhs. Not the Gurus themselves. Even if there was a fire, it wouldn't have been Vedic in any sense. Well the difference is in what is meant and being suggested. To them "fire" means the whole Vedic shebang and a return to it. One can equally call out practises from Vedic times which are now obsolete and say "lets return to them!" right back to these groups. It's not hard to concieve in reality that certain things remained similar but the intention of disucssing the matter is important. In the case of weddings, there is very little information. Guru Sahib rejected the janeu for example, to which there is a Sakhi and Bani attached. But it is not until Guru Ramdas Ji that Sikhs get their own ceremony, and again I will repeat I was deducing with regards to the use of fire. Lots of ambiguity. Maybe the couple did just stay sitting or standing whilst Laavan were read by Sangat, maybe not. As for Sikhs such as my great-grandparents, that was just a matter of circumstance. One cannot use that argument to promote a return to Vedic style weddings.   Yes I'm aware that within Hindu weddings it is indeed Agni Devta. But we are talking about Namdharis, and from what I have seen, there is no invocation from Rig Ved - that's what I'm saying, we assume that the fire present in a Kooka wedding is considered as Agni Devta when in actual fact to me, it seems as though it's....just a fire. Which really has no particular meaning per se; just a continuation of one aspect of the ceremony. They read Suhi Mahalla 4. A fire is only Agni "Devta" if one believes and invokes.  
    • the fed is lying to all of us https://www.peakprosperity.com/the-fed-is-lying-to-us/
    • I have a english pdf of Rig veda , the oldest scripture of Hinduism, the oldest of the 4 vedas ,  and perhaps the most revered .  It starts with a hymn praising Agni and asks it to reside over the 'straw and fodder' of the havan. HYMN I. Agni. 1 I Laud Agni, the chosen Priest, God, minister of sacrifice,
      The hotar, lavishest of wealth.
      2 Worthy is Agni to be praised by living as by ancient seers.
      He shall bring hitherward the Gods. Looking at the index of the scripture , I am surprised , Agni is like everywhere in it almost. So , yes the marriage rites are basically asking Agni devta . "Agni devta" is the main witness of hindu marriage .    EDIT ---- A hymn in another mandal says  HYMN LIX. Agni. 1 THE other fires are, verily, thy branches; the Immortals all rejoice in thee, O Agni So , I think Agni may not be the "fire" as in flames, but rather the heat energy pervading the universe, be it in form of fire energy, metabolic heat in body, nuclear heat inside sun, power plants, etc or the latent fuel inside wood , etc. It basically refers to the "heat" form of god . I could be wrong though. and I don't think I have enough time to go through the vast expanse of the text . 
    • So during marriages of 4th guru onwards , they married by fire ? and that includes Guru Gobind singhji as well ?  I am genuinely curious because of the many claims made by RSS about "reminding sikhs of their past" , this is also one that one commonly encounters, that ancient sikhs and gurus married by fire and that it wasn't until those evil pesky britishers who drove a wedge between hindus and sikhs and voila Anand karajs started  Whats the meaning of 'laav ' ? perhaps it could mean something altogether then ?  Anyways , regardless , I would reckon Hinduism have had far, far more changes to it considering its almost 10 times older than sikhism is (500 vs 5000 !) . Hinduism is so old infact, that rig vedic deities like Indra, Asvins , Maruts,  etc are not even heard of today , let alone worshipped  Sikhi is more pristine in comparison in the turmoils of time. 
    • Just use this:
×

Important Information

Terms of Use