Low Sikh numbers kept us from getting our empire back in 1947 .

[ZorawarSinghSaini]

          It was always a problem, during the invasions of Abdali, the blind trust in dogra scums of Jammu , to whom Ranjit Singh just handed away Kashmir to not getting out Fauj in 1947. Sikhs in 1947 were barely 10 percent of Punjab. Hindus made up majority in the east and muslims in west , and because of that our sacred Gurdwaras are now in hands of Pakistan. Another problem in the Sikh kaum ever since it's inception has been " Gaddars " in the sikh Kaum . Since the start , the Hill Rajas against Guru Gobind, the house cleaner Gangu who handed the Guru's boys to mughals , to the cowards who abandoned Banda Bahadur in Sirhind , to the Dogra kuttay who fed vital info to the brits during the sikh - anglo wars to Ala singh , who led afgans to the sikh civilians in amritsar , to weak leaders like Tara Singh, who were chamcha of Nehru, to the gaddars who killed their own sikhs in 84 , scum like Beanta , Longowal , Kps gill , gen brar , to the leaches of current day punjab Fat pig CM Arminder and the the theif of punjab , mr Badal himself ... Just look at the amount of gaddari here . The Mullahs never had soo many traitors in their kaum for thousand yrs like the sikhs have had in 500, and mullahs had to unite non arabs in islam while our own punjabis have backstabbed the kaum . This on top the weak numbers on Sikhs , the failure to forceably convert non sikhs to khalsa has really hurt the kaum . We barely make up 60 percent of punjab while only making up 1.8 percent of india . Had there been a 20 perecent sikh pop in India  during the partation , we would control , all of modern pakistan , Kashmir , Haryana , Himachal , Uttarkhand , east punjab and large chunks of UP / Rajistan . Maybe even annex Afganistan , since we would've helped the russians during their invasion of afganistan unlike the americans whom the pakis helped. What can we do now , wish there was a  time machine in which i could go back and fix this . Our sacred punjab has been sullied by the overwhelming numbers of islamics , and because of that , not just punjab but all of pakistan is just another backwards , poverty stricken & education lacking  Sh^thole. 

[TejS]

Although this may sound silly to some, this is why we should have more children (5 will give a substantial increase per generation). Muslims converted a lot of people, but they had a lot of children as well to increase the numbers. Some of these dudes had hundreds of children, with Ibn Saud having 45 sons alone, not to mention the number of daughters. 

We should also be looking to marrying out other ethnicities and bringing them into our religious fold, not the other way around which is more common. I relegate this task to men as I've noticed Sikh women never tend to pass on Sikh values to their children as sexist as that may sound.

In the end, on a political level, its all about numbers as you've already mentioned. And in order to increase numbers, you either have to convert others through marriage/relation, or through children. And modern day Sikhs are failing at both.

[NadeemPunjabiUK]

My dad always said the Sikhs got the worst deal / no deal of any group during partition. My family lived in a majority Sikh area with no problems at all - although I do wonder about the experience of Sikhs living in the opposite situation. Perhaps history might have been different if there were more Sikhs in Punjabi?

Looking at what is happening in Europe today in much smaller counties, I don’t think China, India or Pakistan for that matter will be the same in a 100 years or so.  How can such diverse countries of these sizes not change? Both India and Pakistan are hurried creations using a stroke of a pen on a map.

Surely there will be a Sikh state in some shape or form? For now the focus should be on preserving Sikh history and monuments outside of India, but unfortunately in places like Afghanistan that could be challenging!

[Guest]

Too bad. Oh well.

[BhForce]

On 5/2/2018 at 10:49 PM, ZorawarSinghSaini said:

Had there been a 20 perecent sikh pop in India  during the partation , we would control , all of modern pakistan , Kashmir , Haryana , Himachal , Uttarkhand , east punjab and large chunks of UP / Rajistan .

Agreed and liked.

It's the head in the sand Sikhs who say "oh, quantity doesn't matter, just quality". So they're basically wanting to have like, maybe 1000 Sikhs in the entire world, and they'll be wearing blue cholas and have all of Guru Granth Sahib ji memorized, and they'll be content to let all the rest of the Sikhs slide into Abrahamic religions or Brahminism or atheism.

Great plan there.

I also agree that in our kaum it has been just one traitor after another. We have more traitors than devotees!

The one thing were I disagree with you is on forced conversions. Leaving aside the fact that that is doctrinally wrong (what distinguishes us from the Muslims, in that case?), it would also have been simply unnecessary.

All we needed to have done is to inform the populace (via heralds) that they no longer need follow Islam (or "Hinduism"/Brahminism). The Islamic death penalty for leaving Islam is no longer in force, so you can leave that yoke right now. And people would have. Follow that up with Sikh parchar. And reminding people that the only reason that they are Muslim is that a generation or two ago, the jihadis raped their mothers, etc.

On 5/2/2018 at 10:49 PM, ZorawarSinghSaini said:

Sikhs in 1947 were barely 10 percent of Punjab. Hindus made up majority in the east and muslims in west , and because of that our sacred Gurdwaras are now in hands of Pakistan.

Well, one strange thing is how, all of a sudden, the British became votaries of "democracy" and "majority rule", concepts which they never accepted during the time that they were in India. Now, if it was morally OK for a few tens of thousands of British to rule over crores of Indians, then what would have been the problem with a few million Sikhs ruling over, say, a tens of millions of Muslims?

AFAIK, the British were obligated by the Treaty of Amritsar to hand over the Sikh kingdom to us when they left.

We never pressed the point because none of our leaders had the guts and intellect to do so. 

[BhForce]

On 5/2/2018 at 11:27 PM, TejS said:

Although this may sound silly to some, this is why we should have more children (5 will give a substantial increase per generation).

No, it's not silly. (Though it does seem silly to wishy-washy Sikhs who would be just fine with the Panth of Guru Nanak Dev ji vanishing from this Earth.)

On 5/2/2018 at 11:27 PM, TejS said:

Muslims converted a lot of people, but they had a lot of children as well to increase the numbers.

Props to the jihadis where they deserve it.

On 5/2/2018 at 11:27 PM, TejS said:

We should also be looking to marrying out other ethnicities and bringing them into our religious fold, not the other way around which is more common.

OK, interesting idea, but the problem then becomes we're intellectual dummies who have no feeling for our religion nor do we understand its grand doctrines. Thus rendering the plan of marrying others and bringing them in useless.

[BhForce]

On 5/4/2018 at 7:52 PM, NadeemPunjabiUK said:

My dad always said the Sikhs got the worst deal / no deal of any group during partition.

Nadeem? Are you a Muslim? If so, what kind? Chill / jihadi / Sufi / Shia ?

[YOYO29]

58 minutes ago, BhForce said:

Nadeem? Are you a Muslim? If so, what kind? Chill / jihadi / Sufi / Shia ?

BhForce ? Are you a Sikh ? If so,what kind ? chill / nirankari / radha soami / namdhari / nirmala ?

[BhForce]

8 minutes ago, YOYO29 said:

BhForce ? Are you a Sikh ? If so,what kind ? chill / nirankari / radha soami / namdhari / nirmala ?

OK, touche.

I'm a Sikh. Chill type.

[YOYO29]

mainstream ?