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

[BhForce]

17 minutes ago, YOYO29 said:

mainstream ?

 

Yes, mainstream, as in believing in Akal Purakh (God), 10 Gurus from Guru Nanak ji to Guru Gobind Singh ji, the bani of the 10 Gurus, Guru Granth Sahib ji, and the Amrit of the 10th Guru.

[TejS]

On 5/6/2018 at 1:16 AM, BhForce said:

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.

What you say is true, however the ones that do marry out and retain their children into the Sikh faith are usually very well versed in the doctrines and have very strong faith in it. These people are rare though, and that's why most "Sikhs" that do marry out don't really pass on their values. What we need to do grow the population of the former Sikhs, and diminish the latter through parchar and parents have a role to play as well.

Parchar and marriage with non-Sikhs who adopt Sikhism and subsequently numerous children is the only way our people can increase their population in the present climate. The days of forceful conquests are gone, and even if it were present, our doctrines never allowed for it. So in a sense, going by the nature of our faith, now is the perfect time to substantially grow, but as you said, wishy-washy Sikhs bring in their nonsensical arguments which I can never understand how they come up with, in the first place.

[californiasardar1]

On 5/6/2018 at 8:13 AM, BhForce said:

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.

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. 

 

Great post.

 

I agree with all of this.