Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest

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

Recommended Posts

Guest

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 

Share this post


Link to post
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?

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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?

 

Share this post


Link to post
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 .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
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 

Share this post


Link to post
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? 😅

Share this post


Link to post
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
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 

 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, AjeetSingh2019 said:

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

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 

 

Trying to understand human nature solely in the terms of karmic consequences can drive a person crazy. Believe me, I've tried! 😀

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, ChardikalaUK said:

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.

He's no good for us (Sikhs). BUT if I were in HIS shoes, I'd be doing the same to protect my people from the obvious Islamic threat. Of course, if I were a Muslim then I'd be doing everything to advance my cause at the expense of Hindus. That's how the game works. It's one big mess, lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, MisterrSingh said:

He's no good for us (Sikhs). BUT if I were in HIS shoes, I'd be doing the same to protect my people from the obvious Islamic threat. Of course, if I were a Muslim then I'd be doing everything to advance my cause at the expense of Hindus. That's how the game works. It's one big mess, lol.

Exactly. Its human nature. If Christian missionaries became even more powerful in Punjab you can bet your bottom dollar that Sikhs would a Sikh version of Modi to stand up to them.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

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

hopefully the waiting process will weed out the dogale loki but  nehru, Badals , Majithia, Captain , Dogra kandaans, Ram Rahim gang, Nakli nirankaris, Naam dharis if they refuse to let go of their deh guru,  RSS will never be given panaah . where to start with islamic/hindu duplicity suppose will have to include pscyhological testing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, ChardikalaUK said:

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.

rss has roots in arya samaj which is about brahmin supremacy which that felt was undermined by British laws , arya samajists just wanted to return to the bad old days of brahmin raj over the whole of society . Rss is just the thugs thieves and scum collected together to take advantadge of the masses , not to bring  about  hindu raj  necessarily despite the proaganda. They created a false spectre of muslim menace within India like 14 million poor muslims will be able to do anything against 1 billion hindus (if they believe so they must have a severe inferiority complex)  Remember scene in a bug's life when the crickets are in the bar ? .yes the bullies were scared of the tide being turned and guess what it still happened despite their aggression.

Modi did nothing except murder and protect murderers just like Indira did to us . Pakistan and bangladesh suited the Arya  Indians it got the muslims out without having to fight and spill their own blood and reduced the influence of sikh polity in one fell swoop.

best offence against love jihad is become alphas , educate the women in history and reality of muslim thought vs Sikh thought (not much difference between Hindu and muslim treatment of women)

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
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...
Sign in to follow this  

  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • It's quite silly of Hindus to start provoking Sikhs in the West, they won't exactly have Modi saving them. I wonder how interfaith families deal with these tensions? like Sikhs with Hindus partners/spouse? they probably just bury their heads in the sand, I guess ...   
    • Wrong. Shoker was not the "bad boy" that she liked. Read this article (and others). She friendzoned him, but he was still deeply infatuated with her, even stating that he was ready to go to prison for 20+ years for her.   Shoker was another desperate, thirsty singh. His thirstiness and desperation made him completely lose touch with reality to the point where he committed a heinous crime and is now spending the prime of his life behind bars all to impress some girl who just used him as a low-rent thug.
    • Update they have not banned them Hindu have strong lobby   
    • https://www.nationalheraldindia.com/india/australian-senator-flags-issue-of-violence-by-extremist-right-wing-hindu-nationalists   They desperately want to seethe us and tarnish our reputation, so they can play 'victim' and any chance to scream 'Sikh extremism'  This is why we need to be careful, DONT SCOOP to their level and instead play by law and order and get them BANNED ! If we confront or take matter our own hands (which they want) then we lost like they did 80s 90s...need to be smart.  
    • We're drawn to honest physical labour despite being devious and calculating in our own social groups, yet if we were truly intelligent we would bypass the blue collar grafting, and want to head the various trucking unions and dependent organisations in white collar environments. In our case, every successive generation of immigrants start at the bottom instead of building on the efforts and sacrifices of the previous generations. There's a mentality of, "I suffered when I first came here, so why shouldn't they?" This creates a culture and ethic that remains firmly rooted in the same social dynamic with every generation. An intelligent community uplifts its own by creating opportunities for advancement. We seem to relish seeing our own facing adversity and having to struggle. Fundamentally, that's why we'll never achieve anything of note.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use