Jump to content

What if Punjab was in Pakistan ?


puzzled
 Share

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, puzzled said:

Apparently in 47 there were around 40 million Hindus in pakisan mainly Sindhi but there now are only 3 million. Don't know how true this is or how exaggerated the figures are but I wouldn't be surprised if the paki hindu population hasn't seen a healthy steady growth since then. 

It's a known reported fact that many Sindhi hindu females get kidnapped and forced into conversion 

Yeah we have suffered a lot under the indian government perhaps it would of been worse under the Islamic government 

Whatever waheguru did he did it for the best ...

In a non-muslim majority countries , the Muslim population always grows and it grows fast.

In a muslim majority country, the non muslim population will shrink.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ranjeet01 said:

In a non-muslim majority countries , the Muslim population always grows and it grows fast.

In a muslim majority country, the non muslim population will shrink.

What about Hinduism in India? Hasn't it just engulfed any religion that has made contact with the subcontinent?  Even Islam in India is Hindufyed and more Sufi and grave/peer worshipping 

I think it's this ability to engulf that has made Hinduism last so long   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, puzzled said:

What about Hinduism in India? Hasn't it just engulfed any religion that has made contact with the subcontinent?  Even Islam in India is Hindufyed and more Sufi and grave/peer worshipping 

I think it's this ability to engulf that has made Hinduism last so long   

Hindus have lost Pakistan and Bangladesh. They probably lost parts of Afghanistan as well.

It may start of Sufi but it ends up more Arabic.

Look at those Sri Lankan muslims, twenty odd years ago, they would look like every other Sri Lankan now they have those black burkha,  their men are growing those moustachless Abraham Lincoln beards and wearing those outfits that make them walk like penguins. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Ranjeet01 said:

Hindus have lost Pakistan and Bangladesh. They probably lost parts of Afghanistan as well.

It may start of Sufi but it ends up more Arabic.

Look at those Sri Lankan muslims, twenty odd years ago, they would look like every other Sri Lankan now they have those black burkha,  their men are growing those moustachless Abraham Lincoln beards and wearing those outfits that make them walk like penguins. 

Lol that made me laugh.   Still you need to give Hindus credit for being over 5000 years old and surviving 1000 years of foreign invasion.  Perhaps it's their numbers that are doing them a favour. Or maybe it's just the flexibility of the hindu faith,  it's not exactly a organized faith so anything can be added. 

Those penguin outfits the Muslims wear probably came in with the Saudi funded Islamic schools and mosques. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, puzzled said:

Lol that made me laugh.   Still you need to give Hindus credit for being over 5000 years old and surviving 1000 years of foreign invasion.  Perhaps it's their numbers that are doing them a favour. Or maybe it's just the flexibility of the hindu faith,  it's not exactly a organized faith so anything can be added. 

Those penguin outfits the Muslims wear probably came in with the Saudi funded Islamic schools and mosques. 

If the Hindus have had any brains, they wouldn't just absorb absorb absorb they should have hit back.

Their dharmic influence was far more widespread. 

They lost Malaysia and Indonesia as well.

A lot of Asian countries look for dharmic leadership from India but they are just blooming id****

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ranjeet01 said:

If the Hindus have had any brains, they wouldn't just absorb absorb absorb they should have hit back.

Their dharmic influence was far more widespread. 

They lost Malaysia and Indonesia as well.

A lot of Asian countries look for dharmic leadership from India but they are just blooming id****

Hinduism had a huge influence in asia, and it was mostly through trade. Ashoka spread dharmic philosophy to Afghanistan and sent missionaries to China and other countries. Many countries in asia have stories of hindu God's interpretated in their own way. Even today random islands like bali are hindu. 

They spread it but failed to sustain in and now it's narrowed down to India, Sri Lanka and Nepal and a few other random buddhist countries. 

The biggest problem was the lakh of structure and the social divisions. The bhramins and preists are to blame for missguiding the masses for their own benefit. 

Even a European traveler said that after seeing how the masses are divided by caste based superstitions it's no surprise that they masses are being ruled over by a tiny % of Muslims. 

India about 1000 years ago and before that without a doubt was one of the greatest countries on earth. It was among the richest in the world. The people and society was progressive. 

We should look at how the other dharmic faiths collapsed and what was their downfall. Guru ji narrates the history of dharma in bachitar natak and it's downfalls. Sikhi is a dharmic faith so it's important that the history of dharmic faiths is discussed as guru ji did and learn from history.  Lets try not to make thr same mistakes.  Right now our leaders are no different to the bhamans who pimped out their own people to the muslim invaders and turned religion into a business.  We are heading the same way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, puzzled said:

Hinduism had a huge influence in asia, and it was mostly through trade. Ashoka spread dharmic philosophy to Afghanistan and sent missionaries to China and other countries. Many countries in asia have stories of hindu God's interpretated in their own way. Even today random islands like bali are hindu. 

They spread it but failed to sustain in and now it's narrowed down to India, Sri Lanka and Nepal and a few other random buddhist countries. 

The biggest problem was the lakh of structure and the social divisions. The bhramins and preists are to blame for missguiding the masses for their own benefit. 

Even a European traveler said that after seeing how the masses are divided by caste based superstitions it's no surprise that they masses are being ruled over by a tiny % of Muslims. 

India about 1000 years ago and before that without a doubt was one of the greatest countries on earth. It was among the richest in the world. The people and society was progressive. 

We should look at how the other dharmic faiths collapsed and what was their downfall. Guru ji narrates the history of dharma in bachitar natak and it's downfalls. Sikhi is a dharmic faith so it's important that the history of dharmic faiths is discussed as guru ji did and learn from history.  Lets try not to make thr same mistakes.  Right now our leaders are no different to the bhamans who pimped out their own people to the muslim invaders and turned religion into a business.  We are heading the same way. 

I always thought the rejection of rigid caste notions was one of the aspects that made Sikhi unique and dynamic and that this also made India eventually militarily weak and inflexible which led to centuries of subjugation. How can anyone of us claim we aren't doing the same now? Look at how many  people (who've been socially oppressed) are converting to xstianity in Panjab now. Like that's not going to cause big demographic/political problems for apnay in the near future.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, puzzled said:

Hinduism had a huge influence in asia, and it was mostly through trade. Ashoka spread dharmic philosophy to Afghanistan and sent missionaries to China and other countries. Many countries in asia have stories of hindu God's interpretated in their own way. Even today random islands like bali are hindu. 

They spread it but failed to sustain in and now it's narrowed down to India, Sri Lanka and Nepal and a few other random buddhist countries. 

The biggest problem was the lakh of structure and the social divisions. The bhramins and preists are to blame for missguiding the masses for their own benefit. 

Even a European traveler said that after seeing how the masses are divided by caste based superstitions it's no surprise that they masses are being ruled over by a tiny % of Muslims. 

India about 1000 years ago and before that without a doubt was one of the greatest countries on earth. It was among the richest in the world. The people and society was progressive. 

We should look at how the other dharmic faiths collapsed and what was their downfall. Guru ji narrates the history of dharma in bachitar natak and it's downfalls. Sikhi is a dharmic faith so it's important that the history of dharmic faiths is discussed as guru ji did and learn from history.  Lets try not to make thr same mistakes.  Right now our leaders are no different to the bhamans who pimped out their own people to the muslim invaders and turned religion into a business.  We are heading the same way. 

If you ask a Hindutva person, they will blame the Buddhists. 

They will say that it was Buddhists that introduced ahimsa and it was Buddhists traders in Sindh that allowed bin qasim into the subcontinent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ranjeet01 said:

If you ask a Hindutva person, they will blame the Buddhists. 

They will say that it was Buddhists that introduced ahimsa and it was Buddhists traders in Sindh that allowed bin qasim into the subcontinent.

Maybe they had easy entry into India because of the Buddhists, I don't know much about the early Islamic invasions, but they were able to sustain their rule for centuries because of the bhamans and the caste system that they created. The bhamans allowed the Muslims to rule over India because it only strengthened the bhamans grip over indian society. 

The invaders needed the bhamans because the bhamans kept society divided with the caste system, the caste system made it easier for the invaders to rile of indian society 

The Islamic invasion of india was a collaboration between the indian elite and the invaders.

************************

Jean-Baptiste Tavernier, a 17th-century French merchant who wrote about his travels in the Mughal Empire, corroborated Srivastava’s 20th-century conclusion that the caste system enabled India’s subjugation by foreign invaders.

“The idolaters of India are so numerous that for one Muhammadan there are five or six Gentiles,” writes Tavernier. Nevertheless, their numerical superiority did not empower them to resist invasion. He continues, It is astonishing to see how this enormous multitude of men has allowed itself to be subjected by so small a number of persons, and has bent readily under the yoke of the Muhammadan princes. But the astonishment ceases when one considers that these idolaters have no union among themselves, and that superstition has introduced so strange a diversity of opinions and customs that they never agree with one another. An idolater will not eat bread nor drink water in a house belonging to any one of a different caste from his own"

Foreign occupation was irresistible by a society divided into castes. Even then, however, the occupation might have inspired the common people to jettison caste and unite in resistance to the invaders. Yet this was prevented by the high-caste — the Brahmans — who ingratiated themselves with the conquerors, secured privileged positions in the courts of the foreign Emperors, and used the occupation as an opportunity to entrench Brahmanism. According to Theertha, the caste system took deeper root as Brahmans collaborated with the occupiers. The disappearance of Buddhism and the passing of political power into the hands of Muhammadans, though they meant the extermination of national life, was a still triumph for Brahmanism. . . . One prominent result of the invasion of India by the Muhammadans was that, so far as Hindu society was concerned, Brahmans became its undisputed leaders and law-givers. . . . When the Muhammadans had overcome all opposition and settled down as rulers, unless some of them were fanatically inclined to make forcible conversions, they left the Hindus in the hands of their religious leaders and, whenever they wanted to pacify them by quiet methods, they made use of the Brahmans as their accredited representatives. Another great advantage was that, for the first time in history, all the peoples of India, of all sects and denominations, were brought under the supremacy of the Brahmans. Till then, they had claimed to be priests of only the three higher castes and did not presume to speak for the Shudras and other Indian peoples except to keep them at a safe distance. The Muhammadans called all the non-Muslim inhabitants, without any discrimination, by the common name “Hindu,” which practically meant non-Muslim and nothing more. This simple fact . . . condemned the dumb millions of the country to perpetual subjection to their priestly exploiters. Indians became “Hindus,” their religion became Hinduism, and Brahmans became their masters. . . . Brahmanism became Hinduism, that is, the religion of all who were not followers of the Prophet of Mecca. Fortified thus in an unassailable position of sole religious authority, Brahmans commenced to establish their theocratic overlordship of all India.19

Friedrich, Pieter. Captivating the Simple-Hearted: A Struggle for Human Dignity in the Indian Subcontinent (Kindle Locations 264-281). Sovereign Star Publishing. Kindle Edition. 

Friedrich, Pieter. Captivating the Simple-Hearted: A Struggle for Human Dignity in the Indian Subcontinent (Kindle Locations 256-264). Sovereign Star Publishing. Kindle Edition. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, puzzled said:

Maybe they had easy entry into India because of the Buddhists, I don't know much about the early Islamic invasions, but they were able to sustain their rule for centuries because of the bhamans and the caste system that they created. The bhamans allowed the Muslims to rule over India because it only strengthened the bhamans grip over indian society. 

The invaders needed the bhamans because the bhamans kept society divided with the caste system, the caste system made it easier for the invaders to rile of indian society 

The Islamic invasion of india was a collaboration between the indian elite and the invaders.

************************

Jean-Baptiste Tavernier, a 17th-century French merchant who wrote about his travels in the Mughal Empire, corroborated Srivastava’s 20th-century conclusion that the caste system enabled India’s subjugation by foreign invaders.

“The idolaters of India are so numerous that for one Muhammadan there are five or six Gentiles,” writes Tavernier. Nevertheless, their numerical superiority did not empower them to resist invasion. He continues, It is astonishing to see how this enormous multitude of men has allowed itself to be subjected by so small a number of persons, and has bent readily under the yoke of the Muhammadan princes. But the astonishment ceases when one considers that these idolaters have no union among themselves, and that superstition has introduced so strange a diversity of opinions and customs that they never agree with one another. An idolater will not eat bread nor drink water in a house belonging to any one of a different caste from his own"

Foreign occupation was irresistible by a society divided into castes. Even then, however, the occupation might have inspired the common people to jettison caste and unite in resistance to the invaders. Yet this was prevented by the high-caste — the Brahmans — who ingratiated themselves with the conquerors, secured privileged positions in the courts of the foreign Emperors, and used the occupation as an opportunity to entrench Brahmanism. According to Theertha, the caste system took deeper root as Brahmans collaborated with the occupiers. The disappearance of Buddhism and the passing of political power into the hands of Muhammadans, though they meant the extermination of national life, was a still triumph for Brahmanism. . . . One prominent result of the invasion of India by the Muhammadans was that, so far as Hindu society was concerned, Brahmans became its undisputed leaders and law-givers. . . . When the Muhammadans had overcome all opposition and settled down as rulers, unless some of them were fanatically inclined to make forcible conversions, they left the Hindus in the hands of their religious leaders and, whenever they wanted to pacify them by quiet methods, they made use of the Brahmans as their accredited representatives. Another great advantage was that, for the first time in history, all the peoples of India, of all sects and denominations, were brought under the supremacy of the Brahmans. Till then, they had claimed to be priests of only the three higher castes and did not presume to speak for the Shudras and other Indian peoples except to keep them at a safe distance. The Muhammadans called all the non-Muslim inhabitants, without any discrimination, by the common name “Hindu,” which practically meant non-Muslim and nothing more. This simple fact . . . condemned the dumb millions of the country to perpetual subjection to their priestly exploiters. Indians became “Hindus,” their religion became Hinduism, and Brahmans became their masters. . . . Brahmanism became Hinduism, that is, the religion of all who were not followers of the Prophet of Mecca. Fortified thus in an unassailable position of sole religious authority, Brahmans commenced to establish their theocratic overlordship of all India.19

Friedrich, Pieter. Captivating the Simple-Hearted: A Struggle for Human Dignity in the Indian Subcontinent (Kindle Locations 264-281). Sovereign Star Publishing. Kindle Edition. 

Friedrich, Pieter. Captivating the Simple-Hearted: A Struggle for Human Dignity in the Indian Subcontinent (Kindle Locations 256-264). Sovereign Star Publishing. Kindle Edition. 

In most nations, no matter how despotic the rulers are, they will alway defend their country, even the elites. 

India is the only nation I know of that the elites will collaborate against their own for a foreign power. 

Other countries would execute their traitors for treason.

India on the other hand, traitors get rewarded.

What a rotten society it truly is.

Link to comment
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...
 Share


  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • yeh it's true, we shouldn't be lazy and need to learn jhatka shikaar. It doesn't help some of grew up in surrounding areas like Slough and Southall where everyone thought it was super bad for amrit dharis to eat meat, and they were following Sant babas and jathas, and instead the Singhs should have been normalising jhatka just like the recent world war soldiers did. We are trying to rectifiy this and khalsa should learn jhatka.  But I am just writing about bhog for those that are still learning rehit. As I explained, there are all these negative influences in the panth that talk against rehit, but this shouldn't deter us from taking khanda pahul, no matter what level of rehit we are!
    • How is it going to help? The link is of a Sikh hunter. Fine, but what good does that do the lazy Sikh who ate khulla maas in a restaurant? By the way, for the OP, yes, it's against rehit to eat khulla maas.
    • Yeah, Sikhs should do bhog of food they eat. But the point of bhog is to only do bhog of food which is fit to be presented to Maharaj. It's not maryada to do bhog of khulla maas and pretend it's OK to eat. It's not. Come on, bro, you should know better than to bring this Sakhi into it. Is this Sikh in the restaurant accompanied by Guru Gobind Singh ji? Is he fighting a dharam yudh? Or is he merely filling his belly with the nearest restaurant?  Please don't make a mockery of our puratan Singhs' sacrifices by comparing them to lazy Sikhs who eat khulla maas.
    • Seriously?? The Dhadi is trying to be cute. For those who didn't get it, he said: "Some say Maharaj killed bakras (goats). Some say he cut the heads of the Panj Piyaras. The truth is that they weren't goats. It was she-goats (ਬਕਰੀਆਂ). He jhatka'd she-goats. Not he-goats." Wow. This is possibly the stupidest thing I've ever heard in relation to Sikhi.
    • Instead of a 9 inch or larger kirpan, take a smaller kirpan and put it (without gatra) inside your smaller turban and tie the turban tightly. This keeps a kirpan on your person without interfering with the massage or alarming the masseuse. I'm not talking about a trinket but rather an actual small kirpan that fits in a sheath (you'll have to search to find one). As for ahem, "problems", you could get a male masseuse. I don't know where you are, but in most places there are professional masseuses who actually know what they are doing and can really relieve your muscle pains.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use