Jump to content

Two streams of thought started in India in the 19th century . One has had its day !


Guest
 Share

Recommended Posts

The nehruvian - gandhian which is an older strain of indian thought in indian politics has ruled over india for almost 60 yrs , sometimes interrupted but never challenged directly . For the sikhs in particular, this thought system didn't really cause much issue. Yes the issue was with congressis like Indira and Rajiv , even nehru earlier but that was more of a political nature. There weren't deeper agendas except petty politics of preserving one's chair

However the second stream of thought that erupted , especially as the counter to the former sees India in a different way that nehruvian philosophy did . They see India as a hindu nation , something which hindus have the right to hegemonize. In this framework, hinduism and indian nationalism cannot be seperated and are infact two sides of same coin. And that the india is essentially a "hindu" nation, for hindus, by hindus, and of hindus 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AjeetSingh2019 said:

The nehruvian - gandhian which is an older strain of indian thought in indian politics has ruled over india for almost 60 yrs , sometimes interrupted but never challenged directly . For the sikhs in particular, this thought system didn't really cause much issue. Yes the issue was with congressis like Indira and Rajiv , even nehru earlier but that was more of a political nature. There weren't deeper agendas except petty politics of preserving one's chair

However the second stream of thought that erupted , especially as the counter to the former sees India in a different way that nehruvian philosophy did . They see India as a hindu nation , something which hindus have the right to hegemonize. In this framework, hinduism and indian nationalism cannot be seperated and are infact two sides of same coin. And that the india is essentially a "hindu" nation, for hindus, by hindus, and of hindus 

Devil's Advocate (i.e. I don't agree but I'm trying to think through the idea from both sides): if we ever gain a Sikh nation, shouldn't it be for Sikhs, by Sikhs, and of Sikhs? If not, then what's the point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, MisterrSingh said:

Devil's Advocate (i.e. I don't agree but I'm trying to think through the idea from both sides): if we ever gain a Sikh nation, shouldn't it be for Sikhs, by Sikhs, and of Sikhs? If not, then what's the point?

Yes. But Khalsa Raj has total protection and respect of non Khalsa, their cultures, rights and freedoms built fundamentally into it. 

Nationalisms on the other hand, even ones that dress themselves up religously, only seek to benefit a dominant group at everyone elses expense. 

More like by Sikhs, of Sikhs, for everyone. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, GurjantGnostic said:

Yes. But Khalsa Raj has total protection and respect of non Khalsa, their cultures, rights and freedoms built fundamentally into it. 

Nationalisms on the other hand, even ones that dress themselves up religously, only seek to benefit a dominant group at everyone elses expense. 

More like by Sikhs, of Sikhs, for everyone. 

The opportunity for a Slippery Slope scenario to develop is a risk that I wouldn't be wiling to entertain. If Sikhs don't explicitly establish that there will NOT be any push back against the fundamental Sikh character and ethos that represents the character of the country, there's no point to any of it. Knowing what we do of external intelligence services that stir up rebellions and coups using a minority population to topple regimes and nations, what's stopping something similar from happening in a Sikh nation?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, MisterrSingh said:

The opportunity for a Slippery Slope scenario to develop is a risk that I wouldn't be wiling to entertain. If Sikhs don't explicitly establish that there will NOT be any push back against the fundamental Sikh character and ethos that represents the character of the country, there's no point to any of it. Knowing what we do of external intelligence services that stir up rebellions and coups using a minority population to topple regimes and nations, what's stopping something similar from happening in a Sikh nation?

 

agreed that this time all citizens must adhere to the ethical standards set by Guru Sahiban irrespective of creed or lack of it , gender, or previous cultural norms i.e. they would have to sign a declaration of intent to follow them and if they fail to honour them they can be expelled , this is of course having undergone a probationary period before being invited to become full  citizens , during which they will be taught how Guru Sahiban taught them to live etc . and they will have to put it  into practice .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, MisterrSingh said:

Devil's Advocate (i.e. I don't agree but I'm trying to think through the idea from both sides): if we ever gain a Sikh nation, shouldn't it be for Sikhs, by Sikhs, and of Sikhs? If not, then what's the point?

I find the respondents here funny that they're jumping to what the citizens should be doing and not. That's like putting the cart before the horse ! 

My point of creating this thread is just to let you know that India is changing in a way deeper than you might imagine. It's not merely a switch of parties. but a switch of ideological frameworks . It will change everything , for everyone living in india , and minorities too .

The hindutva strain of thought doesn't see recognize sikh identity , disdains the singh sabha/tat khalsa movement as having cut the umbilical cord that linked sikhi to hinduism , thats their own imagination lol . They see us as a branch, and not a tree in itself. They will revere you , but only as long as you're a convenient tool , esp against muslims. 

Hindutva is to hinduism what zionism is to judaism I guess. a religious part mutated into something political which was originally never there. Painful Irony is sikhi always had a politcal component of khalsa into it , and it has become more like a religious thing now 

You don't know how much of a heartache it is when you see muslims got away with pak from subcontinent in 1947, some of them stayed back in india and multiplied many folds, and now the agitated baahman pisssed off and alarmed at the growing muslims wants whole of india as hindu rashtar . Then that beggars the question "what did sikhs get out of all this ?" 

The mess that sikhs have landed themselves into is of biblical proportions. waheguru mehar kare . 

EDIT --

We often do feel about things that they can't become as bad, but we fail to realize that frogs can get boiled if you only raised the temperature of water very slowly but steadily .

Earlier there used to be no open discussions on whether india should continue being secular or not, but now you have those discussions on reputed youtube channels . and top comments being like "future of india is saffron" . 

this saffron is not the kesari rang of khalsa btw 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I try to avoid justifying or explaining historical and social phenomenon by purely metaphysical means, but I finished reading History of the Sikhs by Dr. Sangat Singh. His is the only book I've come across so far that tries to contextualise Indian suffering under the Mughals to be a karmic consequence of Hindu savagery and barbarism during their attempts to wipe Buddhism out of existence a few hundreds years prior.

Hindus did nothing less to Buddhists than what Mughals later did to Hindus. 

Although that doesn't explain why we suffered under both of those regimes. Maybe some of us were Brahmins in previous lives? ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jkvlondon said:

agreed that this time all citizens must adhere to the ethical standards set by Guru Sahiban irrespective of creed or lack of it , gender, or previous cultural norms i.e. they would have to sign a declaration of intent to follow them and if they fail to honour them they can be expelled , this is of course having undergone a probationary period before being invited to become full  citizens , during which they will be taught how Guru Sahiban taught them to live etc . and they will have to put it  into practice .

Is there any group or religion you'd bar from entry?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, MisterrSingh said:

His is the only book I've come across so far that tries to contextualise Indian suffering under the Mughals to be a karmic consequence of Hindu savagery and barbarism during their attempts to wipe Buddhism out of existence a few hundreds years prior.

Hindus did nothing less to Buddhists than what Mughals later did to Hindus

OMG ! Someone out there believes in the exact same thing as I do . 

Quote

Although that doesn't explain why we suffered under both of those regimes. 

Maybe because we made some mistakes too ! but I don't know which ones exactly , except obviously massacring muslims enmasse as retaliation to what they were doing to us in 1947 during partition 

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only reason for the rise of Hindutuva is the threat Hindus feel from Muslims. If Hindus did what Sikhs did in 1947 - get rid of all Muslims from their areas then no one would care about or vote for the likes of Modi. In Pakistan they dont have a right wing Islamic party because there is no threat from another religious group. The muslim league collapsed for this reason, no Hindus to fight against.

Look at it from a Hindu's perspective - the Muslims got their own countries Pakistan and Bangladesh, pretty much all Hindus were removed from Pakistan in 1947 and the number of Hindus in Bangladesh has decreased a lot.

However despite getting Pakistan and Bangladesh, a whopping one third of all subcontinent Muslims remained in India and they have been breeding like rabbits going from 9% of the population in 1947 to 14% today. Put simply the Muslims got their cake and ate it. They were the number one benefactors of partition.

Pakistan has Sharia Law which prevents non muslims to marry Muslim women or convert them, a non Muslim can never be Prime Minister in Pakistan. So this is how Muslims behave when in a majority. What will happen if Muslims keep growing in numbers in India. Look what they did in Kashmir, kicked out all of the minorities.

There are also many cases of love jihad where muslim men seduce hindu women for conversion. This is the over confidence and aggression of Muslims, they do this even when in a minority.

The Hindus have simply had enough of muslim aggression and the only way they can fight back is through Hindutva and the likes of Modi instead of muslim appeasement like Gandhi and Nehru, it's basic survival.

I'm no fan of Modi at all but you can't blame Hindus for voting for him. He seems to be the only one who is standing up against Muslims.

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