Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 95
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

No use trying to explain this to a person who has convinced himself that sun shines out of the white man's arse. References and names of sources are listed if he really wants to learn but instead he c

and you SIr have only one response to anyone who looks at what you say and actually exposes its weird flaws ...to personally insult...and of course everyone knows the first to sling slurs does it out

*sigh* not this again. Simply by writing LOL does not make your point correct. I don`t even know where to begin with what you have written. It`s no use trying to debate with a person who is ignorant o

I think he spoke more than I was expecting him to. The others on his side spoke less than him. He did ok in my opinion. And confronted the other speakers when they said that the British empire stopped sati, informing them that it was actually the Gurus that did.

The Dr Singh on the left, oh tha railways ch fasea reha. The Kohinoor topic was brought up by the Muslim guy at the end.

Nice one, will watch it later on.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Big Questions -

Series 9: Episode 16

Nicky Campbell presents the moral, ethical and religious discussion series live from Oasis Academy, Salford. In this episode Nicky asks: Should we be proud of the British Empire?

http://bbc.in/1OiM2Ag

Would appreciate it if someone could upload it to YouTube as non-UK folk can't view it.

THanks for sharing

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say, I think even in this program, there was (yet again) another subtle attempt to undermine Sikhs by mainstream British media. It's like they suspected what Jagraj was going to come out with (which represents an increasing consciousness amongst young Sikhs of how their community and religion was manipulated by the British for their own ends), and placed this stale olde pudh in a turban to undermine that. Luckily, Jagraj played it out well by pointing old that ole crusty's thinking was the consequence of the mindset colonialists pushed onto (many gullible) Sikhs. The dirty looks that buddha was giving Jagraj when he basically said that we should be grateful to goray for invading the country, and that Jagraj should know this as a Sikh, says it all.

You're right. They clearly resent the possibility of losing their loyal dogs, which the Sikhs have been for some time now. Hindus will always reserve their primary loyalty for their precious Bharat Mata even if they live elsewhere, and most Muslims despise Britain for constantly shoving itself into Muslim affairs, I think the establishment is aware of these truths. But we Sikhs, having no country of our own, could always be counted upon to wave the union jack like good little ghulaams because there is nowhere else for us to direct our national loyalty. There hasn't been since the Sikh Raaj was dismantled and our people displaced. This, and the knowledge that they can always use Sikhs as pawns in the event that there is some trouble with Muslims, is what Jagraj is threatening with his common sense.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right. They clearly resent the possibility of losing their loyal dogs, which the Sikhs have been for some time now. Hindus will always reserve their primary loyalty for their precious Bharat Mata even if they live elsewhere, and most Muslims despise Britain for constantly shoving itself into Muslim affairs, I think the establishment is aware of these truths. But we Sikhs, having no country of our own, could always be counted upon to wave the union jack like good little ghulaams because there is nowhere else for us to direct our national loyalty. There hasn't been since the Sikh Raaj was dismantled and our people displaced. This, and the knowledge that they can always use Sikhs as pawns in the event that there is some trouble with Muslims, is what Jagraj is threatening with his common sense.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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...



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use