Jagraj Singh On Beeb This Sunday @ 10am

[DailyMail]

There is of course, an alternative viewpoint. There always is.

One can not ignore the fact that, whilst the guru's through social reforms, pioneered banning the practice of sati, it took legislation from the British to enforce such a reform. It was wrong for Dr Lalvani to claim that the British pioneered such reforms, but he wasn't wrong to infer that despite such reforms led by the guru's, many Indians still practised this barbaric act. What he was trying to say ( I assume) is that it took legislation to bring about the termination of sati.

Forward this to 2016. As we speak, the anti-caste lobby (Castewatch and the like) are petitioning MPs to introduce caste legislation into English law, effectively making caste discrimination an offence in England & Wales. Astonishingly, Sikh Council UK, who should be leading such a lobby, are actually against this piece of legislation from becoming law! [Apparently, caste discrimination doesn't occur in Sikhi.....hmmmm]. It will surprise no on this forum that the Hindu forum of Britain, led by Brahmins, are also against the legislation.

In years to come, when caste discrimination will be accepted as punishable by law, an academic will come onto TV shows such as Big Questions and say "it took English legislation to stop certain castes discriminating against other castes...", and the Sikhs will say "oh no it didn't, the guru's abolished caste discrimination in 1699!"

So, what I'm trying to say, is whilst the guru's brought about social reforms and no one can argue against it, many Sikhs don't follow them unless it's forced by legislation. I used an example of caste, but we could extend this to gender equality.

As uncomfortable as it is, as a community we must acknowledge that there is a difference between Sikhi and Sikhs. Sikhs are by no means perfect. Sikhi on the otherhand, is.

[jkvlondon]

There is of course, an alternative viewpoint. There always is.

One can not ignore the fact that, whilst the guru's through social reforms, pioneered banning the practice of sati, it took legislation from the British to enforce such a reform. It was wrong for Dr Lalvani to claim that the British pioneered such reforms, but he wasn't wrong to infer that despite such reforms led by the guru's, many Indians still practised this barbaric act. What he was trying to say ( I assume) is that it took legislation to bring about the termination of sati.

Forward this to 2016. As we speak, the anti-caste lobby (Castewatch and the like) are petitioning MPs to introduce caste legislation into English law, effectively making caste discrimination an offence in England & Wales. Astonishingly, Sikh Council UK, who should be leading such a lobby, are actually against this piece of legislation from becoming law! [Apparently, caste discrimination doesn't occur in Sikhi.....hmmmm]. It will surprise no on this forum that the Hindu forum of Britain, led by Brahmins, are also against the legislation.

In years to come, when caste discrimination will be accepted as punishable by law, an academic will come onto TV shows such as Big Questions and say "it took English legislation to stop certain castes discriminating against other castes...", and the Sikhs will say "oh no it didn't, the guru's abolished caste discrimination in 1699!"

So, what I'm trying to say, is whilst the guru's brought about social reforms and no one can argue against it, many Sikhs don't follow them unless it's forced by legislation. I used an example of caste, but we could extend this to gender equality.

As uncomfortable as it is, as a community we must acknowledge that there is a difference between Sikhi and Sikhs. Sikhs are by no means perfect. Sikhi on the otherhand, is.

our Guru Sahiban and their piare gursikhs did much to reform society ...they are the ones who condemned Sati, opened darbar for Women of all religions, removed Purdah restriction (Dhan Dhan Guru Amar Das ji!) their gursikhs removed zamindhari in Punjab to remove shackles on people and allow those who tended the land own their labour's fruit. When the Sikh raj was crumbling under Hindu /bhekhi sikhs influence that is the first thing they tried to reverse , however the british recognised a good thing and made laws to restrict the hindu moneylenders again. I will take it that they saw the good aspects of Sikh rules and tried to enshrine it in law to maintain its absence in that region and spreading the idea further.

[Quantavius]

Oye! Quantavius!

Was that retarded old, boot-licking Singh like your old man by any chance? Seriously.

I'd always imagined people like you were the offspring of people like that.....

I'm warning you. If this continues, I'm going to be reporting you to the moderator. You're already on a short lease.

[MisterrSingh]

How would Sikhs be used as pawns when Sikhs are barely a million in the UK? Based on the following website, Sikhs barely number half a million. http://www.oxfordsikhs.com/SikhAwareness/Sikh-Population-Around-The-World_159.aspx

I think you're getting caught up in the literal logistics of the situation, as opposed to the broader, sociological aspects of it. Clearly, Sikh numbers are low in the UK. But when people talk about using Sikhs as pawns, it's not in terms of gathering a bunch of Singhs together who'll then go on the rampage against huge numbers of Muslims. It's more to do with drumming up ill-feeling in Sikh minds; some of that will invariably lead to skirmishes. But when people refer to Sikhs being used as pawns in these modern times, I believe it's not a literal act of battles breaking out on the streets IMO.

[Quantavius]

I think you're getting caught up in the literal logistics of the situation, as opposed to the broader, sociological aspects of it. Clearly, Sikh numbers are low in the UK. But when people talk about using Sikhs as pawns, it's not in terms of gathering a bunch of Singhs together who'll then go on the rampage against huge numbers of Muslims. It's more to do with drumming up ill-feeling in Sikh minds; some of that will invariably lead to skirmishes. But when people refer to Sikhs being used as pawns in these modern times, I believe it's not a literal act of battles breaking out on the streets IMO.

Yes, but what can half a million people do? Please tell me in clear language how are the Sikhs going to be used as pawns?

Ill feelings towards Muslims? They were already like that before any British set foot in India. The various posters in the Gurdwara does a far better job then any white man could ever do.

I think many here are suffering from illusions (delusions is better...ha ha) of grandeur.

[MisterrSingh]

Yes, but what can half a million people do? Please tell me in clear language how are the Sikhs going to be used as pawns?

Ill feelings towards Muslims? They were already like that before any British set foot in India. The various posters in the Gurdwara does a far better job then any white man could ever do.

I think many here are suffering from illusions (delusions is better...ha ha) of grandeur.

i've already explained it to you. It's not about "doing," it's merely enough to create or stoke already existing divisions. If, hypothetically speaking, physical unrest does develop in the distant future, it will be enough to know that Sikhs will be against Muslims. Numbers and outcome aside, that's enough. Stop taking everything so literally.

[Quantavius]

i've already explained it to you. It's not about "doing," it's merely enough to create or stoke already existing divisions. If, hypothetically speaking, physical unrest does develop in the distant future, it will be enough to know that Sikhs will be against Muslims. Numbers and outcome aside, that's enough. Stop taking everything so literally.

And I have already explained it to you that division already exists. Our Gurdwaras do a far better job then any white man could ever do. Therefore this 'whitey' trying to get Sikhs riled up against Muslims is pure nonsense.

Stop imagining stuff. Whites are not drinking goblets of wine, laughing and then planning our demise. We don't even register on their radar.

[dallysingh101]

I'm warning you. If this continues, I'm going to be reporting you to the moderator. You're already on a short lease.

I'm real scared. What's next? You're gonna tell your mommy?

When the Sikh raj was crumbling under Hindu /bhekhi sikhs influence that is the first thing they tried to reverse , however the british recognised a good thing and made laws to restrict the hindu moneylenders again.

I think that's gibberish. I believe they did that (and prevented nonjuts from owning land) just because they knew juts are real easy to manipulate and use when you hand them a few things and throw them a few compliments. The irony is that whites from abroad were simply redistributing Panjabi wealth/resources (that they confiscated from true freedom loving Sikhs who fought against their hegemony),and making a big profit too. Not exactly putting their hands in their own pockets or noble. It was just an effective strategy to control people and make money. If contemporary jut habits are anything to go by, those juts of the past probably spunked away their money on ostentatious stuff trying to show off to everyone (or drinking), and eventually ended up going to the hindu money lenders to keep up the facade, then the money lender probably saw that the jut was an unparh pendu, who was innumerate too, and started to exploit the situation.

In any case, Anglos manipulated the scene to have the (then) profitable agricultural sector under wraps as well as accessing a steady stream of non-questioning 'storm troopers' to help them push their colonialism on other communities abroad.

[MisterrSingh]

And I have already explained it to you that division already exists. Our Gurdwaras do a far better job then any white man could ever do. Therefore this 'whitey' trying to get Sikhs riled up against Muslims is pure nonsense.

Stop imagining stuff. Whites are not drinking goblets of wine, laughing and then planning our demise. We don't even register on their radar.

Change the record, Q. I wasn't even alluding to "whitey" or any of the other nonsense you've got a chip on your shoulder about. The other posters you were interacting with may have mentioned something along those lines, I don't know, I hadn't read that far back. I was replying to your "numbers" argument; nothing more.

You're either being deliberately obtuse (a troll) or you're in need of a history, psychology, and sociology lesson. Since I don't have time for any of that, I'm sure you'll understand if I cease this nonsensical back-and-forth. Having a debate with someone in a mature manner with some give and take is preferable to the game-playing you seem to revel in on a regular basis. You can't stand Sikhs and brown people so much, then there's a straight-forward solution to your problem: leave this forum.

Therefore this 'whitey' trying to get Sikhs riled up against Muslims is pure nonsense.

As an aside, this might dispel some misconceptions you possess on the above subject. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/mar/16/zac-goldsmith-leaflet-british-indians-heirlooms

The Guardian's a regressive-leftist rag, but even a stopped clock is correct twice a day.

[dallysingh101]

And I have already explained it to you that division already exists. Our Gurdwaras do a far better job then any white man could ever do. Therefore this 'whitey' trying to get Sikhs riled up against Muslims is pure nonsense.

Stop imagining stuff. Whites are not drinking goblets of wine, laughing and then planning our demise. We don't even register on their radar.

We register on their radars quite high here. As useful, easy to manipulate idiots. I remember one SP brother telling me how the police 'accidently' left the files (with the home addresses) of some sullay that were kicking off with Sikhs unattended for a while during an interview. "I'm just going to the toilet, I'm going to leave these here, don't look at them." <wink wink>

You have to realise, history has given the impression (to goray) that Sikhs are easily malleable and readily manipulable. They especially love trying to play the Sikh vs Muslims angle in media. That's part of the reason they downplayed all the grooming that went on for decades and blamed Sikhs for being unreasonable. That's why they always try and point the finger at Sikhs for initiating violence at partition.

The tactic they use is called 'lightning rod' - the idea is to cause a deflection of Muslim anger onto Sikhs to take the heat off them. Luckily, these days, even fundamentalist sullay aren't falling for that one, or probably more accurately, they are seeing Sikhs as small fry right now and concentrating on the people that have been attacking their lands and causing mass death and destruction as a consequence (i.e. western Europeans).