India war Pakistan bomb India

[Big_Tera]

20 hours ago, puzzled said:

look at this! the remains of a destroyed ancient mandir on the edge of a mosque constructed my aurangzeb!  they didnt even bother demolishing the whole mandir but just started building the mosque!

Yep it is silly that India glorifies these buildings. Maybe its to get get the tourist revenue though. 

Think about it. Would as many tourist visit India if it were not for monuments lile taj mahal, kutab minar and other such monuments even though they have a bloody and gruesome history. 

If they destroyed them. Who would come to India? 

I know there are many non muslim temples and gurdwaras that draw the crowds. 

I was actually amazed when In Dehli. The number one monument was Bangla sahib Gurdwara. So many white tourists were there. 

[Big_Tera]

6 hours ago, MisterrSingh said:

Greatness in a temporal sense, in part, derives from strength. How "great" were the Indians who couldn't fortify and defend themselves from repeated foreign excursions and invasions, which lead to the embarrassing situation where the Indian mentality is characterized by a weasly, self-interested subservience to various invading administrations over the centuries. You can't erase that type of mealy-mouthed treachery by declaring independence. That stuff remains deep in the collective psyche of certain "leading" Indian communities no matter the hot air exhaled to the contrary. 

One only has to look further east to the Japanese to recognise true anakh, honour, and strength from the perspective of resisting invaders. 

Its easy to say this. But when you have people being killed and beheaded all around you. It is difficult. The main fault is. That Indians were to divided amongst themselves. 

They should have formed a strong unified group to attack the invaders. but they did not have the brains to do this. 

Instead even though they outnumbered the invaders. they did not have the tactical nouse. 

Middle eastern people are very crafty and intellegent. They were unified with their faith islam. 

[Guest]

On 3/2/2019 at 4:16 AM, puzzled said:

yeah you can see how beautiful it must of been

yes  people of the subcontinent should never forget the islamic invasion and genocide in India. 

Isn't it the original theory of Hinduism that "no reaction happens without an action" . So if Islamic invasion and genocide of India did happen, there must have been a karmic cause for it .

I suspect persecution of buddhists and shudras.

[Guest]

On 3/2/2019 at 7:43 PM, MisterrSingh said:

Greatness in a temporal sense, in part, derives from strength. How "great" were the Indians who couldn't fortify and defend themselves from repeated foreign excursions and invasions, which lead to the embarrassing situation where the Indian mentality is characterized by a weasly, self-interested subservience to various invading administrations over the centuries. You can't erase that type of mealy-mouthed treachery by declaring independence. That stuff remains deep in the collective psyche of certain "leading" Indian communities no matter the hot air exhaled to the contrary. 

One only has to look further east to the Japanese to recognise true anakh, honour, and strength from the perspective of resisting invaders. 

"Ditta laiye aapna anditte kichh hath na aawe" (We receive what we give unto others. Without giving , one doesn't receive) .

So if hindus did get many centuries of destruction by invaders, they might have committed same against someone else at one point. Buddhists were killed roughly 500 - 1000 years before the islamic invasions started happening . And lets not even talk of desecration of Jain temples in south by brahminical forces and they being snatched away as "hindu temples" . One theory suggests the reason why south indian god's faces are so covered is because they were originally jain idols  and still are and revealing faces might lead to scandal . I wouldn't be surprised considering Jainism still has presence in south and lets not even talk of humilating shame that Buddhists had to face in india.

They were beaten and kicked out of their own country of origin. Don't you think the fact that buddhism is majority religion in some countries nieghbouring to india but not in india where it doesn't even form 0.5% of population raise eyebrows ??

Japanese had anakh till the days of samurai I think . Those two nukes by murica destroyed it I think. No wonder it allies with the west with which it bears little semblance than partnering with its immediate neighbors (china and koreas) with whom it shares ancient cultural ties.  I doubt most japanese today even know what a samurai katana (sword) is , let alone wield it . 

[MisterrSingh]

31 minutes ago, AjeetSinghPunjabi said:

Japanese had anakh till the days of samurai I think . Those two nukes by murica destroyed it I think. No wonder it allies with the west with which it bears little semblance than partnering with its immediate neighbors (china and koreas) with whom it shares ancient cultural ties.  I doubt most japanese today even know what a samurai katana (sword) is , let alone wield it . 

When two nuclear bombs are dropped on your head, you tell me how much akhar you've got left, lol! But joking aside, they rebuilt their cities from scratch, making them more successful and beautiful prior to the American attacks. And never do you hear from them, "Boo, hoo, we can't move on because of the nuclear attacks. We may as well go die in a ditch due to the fallout."

[puzzled]

3 hours ago, AjeetSinghPunjabi said:

Isn't it the original theory of Hinduism that "no reaction happens without an action" . So if Islamic invasion and genocide of India did happen, there must have been a karmic cause for it .

I suspect persecution of buddhists and shudras.

Well we believe in that theory too

But I think guru ji says the invaders came to india because the people of India had forgotten waheguru. Guru ji in babur bani says that waheguru has sent the mughal as the messenger of death. The women had forgotten the worship of God and started praying when the mughals were causing destruction but by that time it was too late! 

If anything the Brahmins actually benefited from the invasions.

The Afghans looted India and carried out genocides but look at the state of Afghanistan today, they are living in a country destroyed by the American/British invaders who razed their country down to dust and rubble. 

[Guest]

On 3/8/2019 at 1:31 AM, puzzled said:

If anything the Brahmins actually benefited from the invasions.

 

how would they benefit ? their mandirs were destroyed by invaders. Brahmanical influence in indian society today is too weak compared to thousand years ago when invaders had not yet invaded. Then , manusmriti was in full swing and shudra had no right to listen to vedas and if they did , molten tar was put in their ears. Its all present in manusmriti which the brahmins expected kings to implement

[Guest]

On 3/2/2019 at 7:43 PM, MisterrSingh said:

Greatness in a temporal sense, in part, derives from strength. How "great" were the Indians who couldn't fortify and defend themselves from repeated foreign excursions and invasions, which lead to the embarrassing situation where the Indian mentality is characterized by a weasly, self-interested subservience to various invading administrations over the centuries. 

But we're in a worse state today than hindus. Because if we call them slaves of 1000 years of colonial foreign powers, then we're worse because we are today "slave of slaves" . I mean sikhs today don't have any political hegemony and whatever is left of in punjab is slowly eroding away. We're increasingly producing a newer "sikh" generation which looks nothing like what a sikh ought to look like or behave like.

Whether we like to admit it or not, Sikhs are in far deeper trouble right now than anyone else

[MisterrSingh]

2 hours ago, AjeetSinghPunjabi said:

how would they benefit ? 

How have they not benefitted? They played the long game, and see where they are now. Mughals: Brahmins sidled up to them to serve in their administrations. Gave their daughters to Mughals in marriage to maintain relations and strengthen ties. Sikhs: sidled up to Sikhs to serve in their adminstration; very close to power and decision-making. British: sidled up to them to seize high-ranking positions of influence, ensuring when the eventual and inevitable power vacuum arrived, they'd be in prime position to fill the void and assume control of the country. I'd say that's the arch definition of benefitting.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, MisterrSingh said:

How have they not benefitted? They played the long game, and see where they are now. Mughals: Brahmins sidled up to them to serve in their administrations. Gave their daughters to Mughals in marriage to maintain relations and strengthen ties. Sikhs: sidled up to Sikhs to serve in their adminstration; very close to power and decision-making. British: sidled up to them to seize high-ranking positions of influence, ensuring when the eventual and inevitable power vacuum arrived, they'd be in prime position to fill the void and assume control of the country. I'd say that's the arch definition of benefitting.

thats also whats called brown-nosing. 

They knew how to appease the ruling class during various empires. Thats it ! Is that a talent ??

Sikhs just knew how to call a spade a spade ? we didn't had chaturai in us . I wonder if thats a moral principle or is it a burden ?

I , like most sikhs used to believe it was the former , but now I am beginning to wonder if Sikhs have always burdened themselves with it . Perhaps compromising with the ruling class would have save us a lot in history , but then again, if you're going to bow your head to avoid collateral damage to your people,  then you can't wear a turban on your head, like the hindus don't wear any longer !