Why didn't Khalsa have its field day ? Or is it yet to come ?

[MisterrSingh]

3 hours ago, dallysingh101 said:

I'm talking about the interactions with the general Sikh population in your highlighted bit. I think the interaction with the inner circle (which included his mama Kripal Singh) was very different. That was heavily spiritual/intellectual/tactical and serious in tone. Those guys knew war was upon them. They weren't just foot soldiers. Some of them were very interested in metaphysical stuff. 

Look at what kind of things are being discussed in that Chapua Singh rehat extract I posted earlier for instance. War against a larger better resourced and experienced enemy (the state no less), corruption within the panth, the expansion of the panth, different types of Sikhs and their motivation, preserving high ethics and morals in all this. That's serious stuff. 

That inner circle was different to the general populace in my opinion. They were the leaders and influencers. And I believe they had a deep love of Guru ji and his mission. That's why they all became shaheed for it. 

Ah, I see. My mistake. I'm sure it'll be clearer in my mind once I've thoroughly read up on that particular period.

[Guest]

10 hours ago, dallysingh101 said:

Where is Bhojpuri? 

Bhojpuri is like a poorer cousin of Brij Bhasha I think . well atleast some words are similar. Bhojpuri is speak by poorer,  rural dwellers of UP and Bihar area in india. It is considered a pendu, unrefined language.  Elsewhere the language is kinda ridiculed or seen in a funny way, barely taken serious except by poorer people from Bihar and UP who speak it amongst themselves. BUT , educated/rich UP and Biharis refrain from speaking bhojpuri and tend to speak hindi . 

Some examples of bhojpuri are : "Kahaan jaawat hai" (where are you going), "Tuhaar ladakva" (your boy),  "Hamaar gaddiya" (our vehicle) . 

"Tuhaar" (yours)  or "Tohra" is a common word  . But 'tuhaar' is often found in gurbani , which is why I am often dumbfounded that why sikhs tend to look down upon biharis when infact their language or its somewhat similar form is quite pervasive amongst sikh literature. Sikhs have pretty much refused to accept "Bihari singhs" convert sikhs from surrounding areas of Patna Sahib. When I was a kid and would ask why the ardas in hindi gutkas had hindi words instead of punjabi, my dad quipped "These gutkas are made by bhaiyye people" 

[dallysingh101]

15 hours ago, MisterrSingh said:

Ah, I see. My mistake. I'm sure it'll be clearer in my mind once I've thoroughly read up on that particular period.

Remember, the Singh Sabha stuff (of which Macauliffe is a perfect exemplar) is very unlikely to highlight important political/sovereignty/military issues that were discussed by Guru ji and his Sikhs, because there was some sort of implicit agreement that they wouldn't stir Sikhs up in this way, so that they may overtly challenge british rule and try and remove it, like they did with moghuls previously. That's why SS got so much patronage from the brits.

I only really discovered this after decades of being influenced by SS literature when I finally pulled my unglee out and brushed up on Gurmukhi and started hitting lesser know pre-annexation texts. There is a whole different story in those. Which I hope you'll see someday.  

[MisterrSingh]

14 minutes ago, dallysingh101 said:

Remember, the Singh Sabha stuff (of which Macauliffe is a perfect exemplar) is very unlikely to highlight important political/sovereignty/military issues that were discussed by Guru ji and his Sikhs, because there was some sort of implicit agreement that they wouldn't stir Sikhs up in this way, so that they may overtly challenge british rule and try and remove it, like they did with moghuls previously. That's why SS got so much patronage from the brits.

I only really discovered this after decades of being influenced by SS literature when I finally pulled my unglee out and brushed up on Gurmukhi and started hitting lesser know pre-annexation texts. There is a whole different story in those. Which I hope you'll see someday.  

That makes sense. This rajneeti maneuvering is fascinating. Makes me wonder how things would've been if Guru Sahib had directly dealt with the British.

[dallysingh101]

25 minutes ago, MisterrSingh said:

That makes sense. This rajneeti maneuvering is fascinating. Makes me wonder how things would've been if Guru Sahib had directly dealt with the British.

He would have called them out for their scheming, evil, deceitful ways directly I imagine. Like he did with Aurenga in Zafarnama. 

[dallysingh101]

2 hours ago, MisterrSingh said:

That makes sense. This rajneeti maneuvering is fascinating. Makes me wonder how things would've been if Guru Sahib had directly dealt with the British.

Plus all the the false propaganda (sneakily introduced by brits) of some Sikh 'prophesy' of impending gora rule would have been demolished too.

The Gurus' were on top of false writings. They would have challenged and exposed these false, motivated, concocted tales. Notice how Macauliffe includes them too. 

Make sure you read J. D. Cunningham's book too when you get time. It's much shorter (one volume) but less biased and not as politically motivated like Macauliffe's. He died for the revelations of his people's unhonourable duplicity in war. It's a shame the first edition is so hard to get a hold of. 

[mahandulai]

On ‎3‎/‎7‎/‎2019 at 3:40 PM, AjeetSinghPunjabi said:

Sikhism as a community is one of the richest in terms of martyrs. Looking at our own history, especially of the 18th century , one would have thought that with so many martyrs , we might have had a bigger success in the temporal domain.

But today , forget about spreading our dominion in a number of countries, we don't even have one. Well atleast the jews have israel. 

But Sikhs have a history richer than Jews I reckon, atleast in sense of martyrdom. We remember them everyday in our ardas "Jinna Singha Singhnia ne dharam het sis dite , Band Band kataye , Khopria luhaiya, Charkhadiya te chadhe" all are prime examples of jewels of the Sikh community from 18th century. 

To be a Shaheed , a martyr was in itself such a hallowed position , higher than being an emperor . 

But I wonder where did all that blood of martyrs go ? Or is it still somewhere ? I mean in a mystical sense. Wait let me explain.

Jesus died and his followers were fed to lions for roughly 2 centuries until they finally conquered rome by converting emperor to christianity . But then ever since christianity spread by tip of sword

Islam struggled in earlier years , but later on it too covered swathes of territory and spread by tip of swords.

Hindus have dominated indian subcontinent since antiquity it seems.

But what about the sikhs ?  Why were we not able to spread our religion ? why didn't god bless sikhi with many nations  as he blessed the hindus, muslims and christians ?

the whole point is to avoid a field day - a field day is bad news