Jump to content

Can Sikhs be friendly with Muslims?


Big_Tera
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Ranjeet01 said:

The irony is that Bhappe are Khatris who came from Kshatriya. 

They are the warrior class tradionally in India, if there is anyone who should know how to fight it is them.

Indian agencies know  that a monnaa druggy pendu in punjab is more dangerous and could become a kharrku one day but chances of a turbaned gurdwara going bhappa becoming a kharrku is almost zero.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Ranjeet01 said:

The irony is that Bhappe are Khatris who came from Kshatriya. 

They are the warrior class tradionally in India, if there is anyone who should know how to fight it is them.

Exactly, Guru Gobind Singh and Hari Singh Nalwa were both Khatris in fact most prominent Sikhs have been Khatris.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Ranjeet01 said:

The irony is that Bhappe are Khatris who came from Kshatriya. 

They are the warrior class tradionally in India, if there is anyone who should know how to fight it is them.

yh its silly isn't it    how they just dumped their warrior tradition  that was something to cherish    they should of kept their shastr vidiya tradition. it would of been great if they kept that practice alive. 

Kshatriyas/khatris have taken on the roles of the Vaishyas, while jatts have throughout sikh history taken on the role of the Kshatriyas and have been the backbone of sikh militancy. 

during the time of the gurus there were many amazing warriors of Rajput/Kshatriya background, but during the 18th century Jatts took over the sikh militancy  with soorme like Nawab Kapur Singh Virk and later the Sikh misl leaders who were mostly Jatts. And then recently once again it was Jatts who became kharkus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, puzzled said:

yh its silly isn't it    how they just dumped their warrior tradition  that was something to cherish    they should of kept their shastr vidiya tradition. it would of been great if they kept that practice alive. 

Kshatriyas/khatris have taken on the roles of the Vaishyas, while jatts have throughout sikh history taken on the role of the Kshatriyas and have been the backbone of sikh militancy. 

during the time of the gurus there were many amazing warriors of Rajput/Kshatriya background, but during the 18th century Jatts took over the sikh militancy  with soorme like Nawab Kapur Singh Virk and later the Sikh misl leaders who were mostly Jatts 

Many Jatts are becoming Vaishya like.

I think maybe Mazhabi will step up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Ranjeet01 said:

Many Jatts are becoming Vaishya like.

I think maybe Mazhabi will step up. 

yh they've become sloppy now. But i think its only like a dormant stage. some ethnicities just have that inherited rebellious spirit. with the right leader again and when pushed to the edge im pretty sure they will get that spirit back. It was only in the 80s and 90s when kharkus were patrolling the punjab countryside and blowing politicians and policemen up. 

mazbhi sikhs are really strong hard working people. They definitely can be made into shers. A lot of singhs in the west have been working with the siklighar sikhs for a long time now and improving their lives, they just need to be made bahadur now. would be nice to see them in neela dummala and chola. i also give money to british sikh council who help the sikligars 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think siklighar sikhs historically used to make shastars and sarbloh objects      i think i read somewhere they had been doing that since the time of Guru Hargobind Sahib Ji. 

it would be great if that warrior spirit is adopted by them again

Singhs at Hazur sahib and very fiery and brave! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, ChardikalaUK said:

Ok this isn't good to slate an entire community. It's very casteist. 

We all tell non Sikhs that Sikhism doesnt believe in casteism but the sad fact is that 90% of Sikhs do.

It's not casteist at all. It's not a value judgement. He's highlighted an observable phenomenon. It would be casteist if he then went on to say, "Such and such are inferior and low because they marry cousins." 

It's like if someone said, "Jatts have a preponderance for boisterous behaviour." That's not casteist, it's a popular perception that has roots in reality. If someone said, "Jatts are scummy idiots who can't talk quietly" then that crosses into casteism.

Denying reality is unhealthy. If you censor thought that's inoffensive and objective because the subject itself is controversial, you can't solve problems. Confronting an idea is not endorsing the idea itself.

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


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use