Jump to content
puzzled

What if Punjab was in Pakistan ?

Recommended Posts

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
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.....

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Edited by puzzled

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/29/2019 at 10:55 PM, Ranjeet01 said:

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.

Well the bhamans have never recognised  other Indians as their own. The bhamans have kept Indians as slaves for 1000s of years. If you wanted liberation then you would have to feed the bhamans and give them money and other goods as the bhamans were supposedly the closest thing on earth to good.  Bhamans used tell Indians that if you want to achieve liberation then you should chant bhramin. 

Bhaman even created Islamic sharia like laws to torture other Indians. Chopping hands, pouring boiling hot oil into ears, punishing wife you they like etc

Bhamans made the Vedas, Sanskrit and other religious stuff exclusive to themselves, that's when they got power and became heads of society. 

Bhamans spread caste based superstitions and made shudras believe that they are cursed and made other castes beleived that their sins are washes if they serve the bhaman. 

Bhamans created superstitions to spread fear in society and a society that is full of fear is very easy to invade and rule over.

Muslim invasions only strengthened the bhamans grip on society.

Politically India was ruled by Muslims and sharia while socially/culturally it was ruled by bhamans and the laws of manu

They broke the backbone of Indian society to the the point where Indians gave up and accepted they are slaves.

This is why India was so easy to invade because the inhabitants were all ready slaves! They were already a enslaved society under bhamans. They didn't even bother fighting back. 

Physically being a slave is one thing but accepting the fact that your a slave is mental slavery which is the worst. 

A lot of the admins and advisors in the mughals court were actually bhamans 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, puzzled said:

Physically being a slave is one thing but accepting the fact that your a slave is mental slavery which is the worst.

Don't you think that was the mental state of most apnay pretty soon after the 'annexation'?

I'm still shocked that they helped Brits after Jallianwala Bagh in ww2 - only to be thanked by them with  partition....

How off the ball were our lot to let all this happen. This looks like a complete breakdown of ANY sort of adult political astuteness on apnay's part. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, puzzled said:

Well the bhamans have never recognised  other Indians as their own. The bhamans have kept Indians as slaves for 1000s of years. If you wanted liberation then you would have to feed the bhamans and give them money and other goods as the bhamans were supposedly the closest thing on earth to good.  Bhamans used tell Indians that if you want to achieve liberation then you should chant bhramin. 

Bhaman even created Islamic sharia like laws to torture other Indians. Chopping hands, pouring boiling hot oil into ears, punishing wife you they like etc

Bhamans made the Vedas, Sanskrit and other religious stuff exclusive to themselves, that's when they got power and became heads of society. 

Bhamans spread caste based superstitions and made shudras believe that they are cursed and made other castes beleived that their sins are washes if they serve the bhaman. 

Bhamans created superstitions to spread fear in society and a society that is full of fear is very easy to invade and rule over.

Muslim invasions only strengthened the bhamans grip on society.

Politically India was ruled by Muslims and sharia while socially/culturally it was ruled by bhamans and the laws of manu

They broke the backbone of Indian society to the the point where Indians gave up and accepted they are slaves.

This is why India was so easy to invade because the inhabitants were all ready slaves! They were already a enslaved society under bhamans. They didn't even bother fighting back. 

Physically being a slave is one thing but accepting the fact that your a slave is mental slavery which is the worst. 

A lot of the admins and advisors in the mughals court were actually bhamans 

Bhamans are indeed a parasitic bunch. 

However, no matter how cunning they are, they are a short sighted bunch. 

They have created a rod for their own back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, dallysingh101 said:

Don't you think that was the mental state of most apnay pretty soon after the 'annexation'?

I'm still shocked that they helped Brits after Jallianwala Bagh in ww2 - only to be thanked by them with  partition....

How off the ball were our lot to let all this happen. This looks like a complete breakdown of ANY sort of adult political astuteness on apnay's part. 

Well dont you think indians are still mentally slaves? 

We mock the Indian accent, anyone who can't speak english is seen as uneducated while anyone who speaks english is seen as better and educated. Western clothes are seen as modern while indian clothes are seen as old and associated with no education. 

India is one of the hottest countries on earth and yet you will still see indians wearing jeans, in cities wearing suits and ties, whats wrong with indian wear in india?    look at arab men, even the business men wear the traditional long white robe because that is appropriate clothing for the climate of arabia, not suits.   and then you have indian men wearing ties and suits in one of the hottest countries on earth. 

In urban india they now speak hinglish,  their language is half hindu and half english 

then there is obviously who whole skin colour thing

Anything that is indias is seen as old and uneducated while anything western is seen as modern and progressive

we still are slaves

someone who is a physical slave may be getting tortured but still believes he has hope, one who accepts that they are slaves and accepts the ways of their master is not only physically a slave but mentally one too 

The more western a Indian is the more progressive and modern he is considered by other indians

Indians will mock other indians who dont know english    

that says a lot about the indian slave mentality 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bollywood is a deluded representation of India 

 

Bollywood :

Image result for bollywood songs

Image result for kriti sanon raabta

 

 

real India :

Image result for indian villagers

Image result for indian rural family rajasthan

iv traveled by train from Punjab to Maharastra and the above is what i saw everywhere 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, puzzled said:

Well dont you think indians are still mentally slaves? 

We mock the Indian accent, anyone who can't speak english is seen as uneducated while anyone who speaks english is seen as better and educated. Western clothes are seen as modern while indian clothes are seen as old and associated with no education. 

India is one of the hottest countries on earth and yet you will still see indians wearing jeans, in cities wearing suits and ties, whats wrong with indian wear in india?    look at arab men, even the business men wear the traditional long white robe because that is appropriate clothing for the climate of arabia, not suits.   and then you have indian men wearing ties and suits in one of the hottest countries on earth. 

In urban india they now speak hinglish,  their language is half hindu and half english 

then there is obviously who whole skin colour thing

Anything that is indias is seen as old and uneducated while anything western is seen as modern and progressive

we still are slaves

someone who is a physical slave may be getting tortured but still believes he has hope, one who accepts that they are slaves and accepts the ways of their master is not only physically a slave but mentally one too 

The more western a Indian is the more progressive and modern he is considered by other indians

Indians will mock other indians who dont know english    

that says a lot about the indian slave mentality 

The thing that shocks me is that we still get apnay saying all this about Indians like apnay aren't and haven't been doing exactly the same. Let's keep it real. 

I think our lot are some of THE worse when it comes to that mental slavery you talk about. And I'm sure you know that hordes of apnay/apneean would crawl up a gora's gandh and have contempt for most of his own Sikh brothers/sisters.

I mean look at how many apnay fought for blighty when they had other apnay actively trying to free Panjab like the Ghaddarites. 

I seriously hope apnay don't try and jump on some high horse about Hindus or bahmunhs, and blind themselves to the reality of our own lot. Because if they do, WE are the modern day Hindus. At least them cow-worshippers have built up their country again - our lot are still struggle to mentally break out of some medieval feudal-economy mindset by the looks of it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, puzzled said:

Well dont you think indians are still mentally slaves? 

We mock the Indian accent, anyone who can't speak english is seen as uneducated while anyone who speaks english is seen as better and educated. Western clothes are seen as modern while indian clothes are seen as old and associated with no education. 

India is one of the hottest countries on earth and yet you will still see indians wearing jeans, in cities wearing suits and ties, whats wrong with indian wear in india?    look at arab men, even the business men wear the traditional long white robe because that is appropriate clothing for the climate of arabia, not suits.   and then you have indian men wearing ties and suits in one of the hottest countries on earth. 

In urban india they now speak hinglish,  their language is half hindu and half english 

then there is obviously who whole skin colour thing

Anything that is indias is seen as old and uneducated while anything western is seen as modern and progressive

we still are slaves

someone who is a physical slave may be getting tortured but still believes he has hope, one who accepts that they are slaves and accepts the ways of their master is not only physically a slave but mentally one too 

The more western a Indian is the more progressive and modern he is considered by other indians

Indians will mock other indians who dont know english    

that says a lot about the indian slave mentality 

Great points, bro. 

Indians have a 'monkey-see, monkey-do' mentality to various degrees and manifestations across society.

The urban middle and upper classes may consider themselves sophisticated and global in outlook, but if you analyse Indian culture in terms of its entertainment industries in the past 20 years (a country's entertainment output is always an accurate indication of where its "head" is at currently), they've gradually rejected various British colonial markers -- because like all former colonies, the constant reminder of being subservient to a foreign ruling power is not conducive to a healthy national identity and pride -- and graduated to a strange North American brand of global modernism almost as a FU to their previous British masters. This is reflected in the frankly cringeworthy cod-American speech inflection hat most educated upper (and some aspirational middle) class Indians have adopted as their default style of speaking English.

What they fail to realise by this embarrassing form of cultural flattery is they've discarded one colonial form of influence for another, only this time it's the American influence that's somehow seen as acceptable because it wasn't enforced via physical subjugation, and also due to the laughable desire to be seen as a possible equal or at least an upcoming ally to a superpower such as the United States. 

It may be a somewhat tenuous example of the Indian mentality, but it speaks volumes as to the innate insecurity and lack of scruples whereby they unwittingly discard their own perfectly adequate identity for one that is alien to their being. THAT'S why they'll never be respected, admired, and treated as equals, no matter how hard they wish to dine out at the top table. It's a country of sellouts in most senses of the word, and their history has proven that to be true time and time again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is just cringe 

 

Edited by puzzled

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dallysingh101 said:

The thing that shocks me is that we still get apnay saying all this about Indians like apnay aren't and haven't been doing exactly the same. Let's keep it real. 

I think our lot are some of THE worse when it comes to that mental slavery you talk about. And I'm sure you know that hordes of apnay/apneean would crawl up a gora's gandh and have contempt for most of his own Sikh brothers/sisters.

I mean look at how many apnay fought for blighty when they had other apnay actively trying to free Panjab like the Ghaddarites. 

I seriously hope apnay don't try and jump on some high horse about Hindus or bahmunhs, and blind themselves to the reality of our own lot. Because if they do, WE are the modern day Hindus. At least them cow-worshippers have built up their country again - our lot are still struggle to mentally break out of some medieval feudal-economy mindset by the looks of it. 

when i said indians i meant punjabis too 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×

Important Information

Terms of Use