Maharani Jind Kaur plaque

[californiasardar1 821]

5 hours ago, puzzled said:

Unless he had written the essay before his meeting but the British decided to publish it afterwards, to make it look like he died an atheist so Sikhs won't be inspired by him, it's the kind of thing the British would have done. 

 

Because he definitely has a joora in the last photo taken.

 

That wasn't his last photo taken. It was taken years before his death (i.e before he cut his kesh)

 

 

 

[puzzled 4,297]

4 hours ago, californiasardar1 said:

That wasn't his last photo taken. It was taken years before his death (i.e before he cut his kesh)

 

 

 

Ooh ok, I always thought it was his last photo. 

[puzzled 4,297]

When it comes to historical figures and empires, for many communities, their future aims/goals are inspired by the past or the past is a reminder of what they're aiming for.

Like why do Muslims all over the internet constantly remind Hindus/Indians that they ruled them for '1000 years'  now and then they even boast about how Sikhs were persecuted by the Mughals. Many of Pakistans missiles are named after Muslim kings, while one of the biggest tv dramas currently in Pakistan is an Urdu dubbed Turkish drama about the Ottoman empire. Why do Muslims still talk about the caliphates 1000 years later?  Its because all if this reminds them of the good old glorious days when they were going around jihad-ing. 

It's the same with Hindus, why do Hindus go on about Shivaji Maratha and the Maratha empire, including the politicians? So many Hindi movies and tv dramas have been made about Hindu kings and empires in the past 10 years. Its because the Maratha empire replaced the Muslims Kings, which is what Hindus are currently aiming to do, get rid of Muslims from India. 

And it's the same with us. Ranjit Singhs raj was a time when we were a free people in our own country, which is what we are currently aiming for. 

I was surprised when a Sri Lankan Buddhist woman told me that in Sri Lanka they learn about Emperor Ashoka and that his history is a part of the curriculum in schools, even though Ashoka had nothing to do with Sri Lanka.

Notice how Hindus hardy ever boast about Ashoka, even though he probably is Indias greatest king, they even hardly mention ancient Hindu kings who were far greater and wealthier than the Marathas. These ancient kings existed way before Islam, so their history no longer serves a purpose in what the Hindus are currently trying to establish, that's why its the Marathas that they always bang on about. 

When it comes to historical Sikh figures, many of them obviously were far from being perfect Sikhs. But it's a bit thoughtless of us to overlook their contributions simply because they weren't good enough Sikhs in our eyes.

Like Shaheed Kartar Singh Sarabha cut his hair, should we overlook what he did because of that?

Shaheed Udham Singh, who is loved by many Sikhs, he cut his hair, drank alcohol and had many "lady friends" on his travels, should we just judge him and then ditch him because of these things? And forget the fact that he was the sher that assassinated the then governor of Punjab.

It's the same with Ranjit Singh. For the first time after decades of genocide we were finally living in our own country as a free people without any fear. We can't just narrow him down to an alcoholic fornicating good for nothing whatever. 

In that case then there's many Sikhs of the past who the Sikhs of today will look down at because they weren't good enough. 

[Jai Tegang! 753]

6 hours ago, puzzled said:

When it comes to historical figures and empires, for many communities, their future aims/goals are inspired by the past or the past is a reminder of what their aiming for.

Like why do Muslims all over the internet constantly remind Hindus/Indians that they ruled them for '1000 years'  now and then they even boast about how Sikhs were persecuted by the Mughals. Many of Pakistans missiles are named after Muslim kings, while one of the biggest tv dramas currently in Pakistan is an Urdu dubbed Turkish drama about the Ottoman empire. Why do Muslims still talk about the caliphates 1000 years later?  Its because all if this reminds them of the good old glorious days when they were going around jihad-ing. 

It's the same with Hindus, why do Hindus go on about Shivaji Maratha and the Maratha empire, including the politicians? So many Hindi movies and tv dramas have been made about Hindu kings and empires in the past 10 years. Its because the Maratha empire replaced the Muslims Kings, which is what Hindus are currently aiming to do, get rid of Muslims from India. 

And it's the same with us. Ranjit Singhs raj was a time when we were a free people in our own country, which is what we are currently aiming for. 

I was surprised when a Sri Lankan Buddhist woman told me that in Sri Lanka they learn about Emperor Ashoka and that his history is a part of the curriculum in schools, eventhough Ashoka had nothing to do with Sri Lanka.

Notice how Hindus hardy ever boast about Ashoka, eventhough he probably is Indias greatest king, they even hardly mention ancient Hindu kings who were far greater and wealthier than the Marathas. These ancient kings existed way before Islam, so their history no longer serves a purpose in what the Hindus are currently trying to establish, that's why its the Marathas that they always bang on about. 

When it comes to historical Sikh figures, many of them obviously were far from being perfect Sikhs. But it's a bit thoughtless for us to overlook their contributions simply because they weren't good enough Sikhs in our eyes.

Like Shaheed Kartar Singh Sarabha cut his hair, should we overlook what he did because of that?

Shaheed Udham Singh, who is loved by many Sikhs, he cut his hair, drank alcohol and had many "lady friends" on his travels, should we just judge him and then ditch him because of these things? And forget the fact that he was the sher that assassinated the then governor of Punjab.

It's the same with Ranjit Singh. For the first time after decades of genocide we were finally living in our own country as a free people without any fear. We can't just narrow him down to a alcoholic fornicating good for nothing whatever. 

In that case then there's many Sikhs of the past who the Sikhs of today will look down at because they weren't good enough. 

What you state is very important for us to understand. I think growing up we learn a sanitized and glossed version of our historical figures because that is what the audience can absorb. Majority of our  community simply didn’t have the depth (arguably still doesn’t) to see the multi dimensions of any personality. We want them boxed and presented as saints, warriors, or villains. That’s the depth previous illiterate, semi-literate generations had.

We had a simplistic worldview and limited political acumen and our top leadership is a prime example. Whereas Muslims could rally behind and appreciate non-practicing figures like Jinnah, and Nehru for Hindus, we stumble and limit ourselves. It doesn’t matter what these individuals were up to in their personal lives, what matters is what they could offer their respective communities. They were the top tier educated class of their time and could understand where the world was heading and where their communities would end up.

One of the posters in this thread criticized our eulogizing of figures like MRS and Jind Kaur. It’s valid that we don’t share the full story in Gurdwaras, but the reasons are obvious. The setting doesn’t allow for the vices of these figures to be shared, and for simple minds it would be difficult to reconcile the wretched lives of these figures with their impressive accomplishments.

Only now that a whole new generation of matured minds has emerged that can appreciate history with warts et al. We can look towards history and not loose faith when we encounter our normal narratives being challenged. Instead of abandoning it all, we can learn and decern what is needed for us now.

[puzzled 4,297]

1 hour ago, Jai Tegang! said:

What you state is very important for us to understand. I think growing up we learn a sanitized and glossed version of our historical figures because that is what the audience can absorb. Majority of our  community simply didn’t have the depth (arguably still doesn’t) to see the multi dimensions of any personality. We want them boxed and presented as saints, warriors, or villains. That’s the depth previous illiterate, semi-literate generations had.

We had a simplistic worldview and limited political acumen and our top leadership is a prime example. Whereas Muslims could rally behind and appreciate non-practicing figures like Jinnah, and Nehru for Hindus, we stumble and limit ourselves. It doesn’t matter what these individuals were up to in their personal lives, what matters is what they could offer their respective communities. They were the top tier educated class of their time and could understand where the world was heading and where their communities would end up.

One of the posters in this thread criticized our eulogizing of figures like MRS and Jind Kaur. It’s valid that we don’t share the full story in Gurdwaras, but the reasons are obvious. The setting doesn’t allow for the vices of these figures to be shared, and for simple minds it would be difficult to reconcile the wretched lives of these figures with their impressive accomplishments.

Only now that a whole new generation of matured minds has emerged that can appreciate history with warts et al. We can look towards history and not loose faith when we encounter our normal narratives being challenged. Instead of abandoning it all, we can learn and decern what is needed for us now.

I think its a very Indian thing, everyone is either a hero or a villain. Just look at how one dimensional the characters in Indian movies and dramas are. While in Western literature and cinema its not the case. So we ended up doing the same with our historical figures. Some Sikh writers used make Ranjit Singh into some sort of saintly figure!

I think living in the west has allowed us to explore our history with an open mind, and not pigeonhole people into "good guy" and "bad guy"  and it has given these historical figures a lot character and personality, which I think is a good thing. 

 

[MisterrSingh 8,100]

1 hour ago, Jai Tegang! said:

What you state is very important for us to understand. I think growing up we learn a sanitized and glossed version of our historical figures because that is what the audience can absorb. Majority of our  community simply didn’t have the depth (arguably still doesn’t) to see the multi dimensions of any personality. We want them boxed and presented as saints, warriors, or villains. That’s the depth previous illiterate, semi-literate generations had.

Brilliant post in general, but this above i think is very important. If we don't change this mentality we are in serious trouble. There's very little point in you or I understanding these points in isolation. This needs to be a widespread or mainstream mentality. 

[Jai Tegang! 753]

1 hour ago, MisterrSingh said:

Brilliant post in general, but this above i think is very important. If we don't change this mentality we are in serious trouble. There's very little point in you or I understanding these points in isolation. This needs to be a widespread or mainstream mentality. 

The good news is our religious traditions and history don’t have same level of reconciliatory challenges others encounter. For example, Islam uses the sledgehammer approach to enforce, while Hindus take pride in being able to mould and adapt their beliefs, or completely reinvent ideologies to suit their political survival.

We have similar strains in our community to be fair. But I personally believe we can look our history in the eye and not worry about burning pages. If it makes one uncomfortable, it only reveals there’s a crucial human reality that you were missing out on.

I think one of the reasons for groupism and splintering that occurs in the ever so small practicing portion of our community is our inability to handle historical truths, or atleast grow our understanding, as more aspects of it come into clearer focus.

[MisterrSingh 8,100]

5 minutes ago, Jai Tegang! said:

The good news is our religious traditions and history don’t have same level of reconciliatory challenges others encounter. For example, Islam uses the sledgehammer approach to enforce, while Hindus take pride in being able to mould and adapt their beliefs, or completely reinvent ideologies to suit their political survival.

We have similar strains in our community to be fair. But I personally believe we can look our history in the eye and not worry about burning pages. If it makes one uncomfortable, it only reveals there’s a crucial human reality that you were missing out on.

I think one of the reasons for groupism and splintering that occurs in the ever so small practicing portion of our community is our inability to handle historical truths, or atleast grow our understanding, as more aspects of it come into clearer focus.

I think we sometimes heap unnecessary pressure on ourselves by trying to assume the role of one or the other religions as a template of behaviour or being. We shouldn't do this because to outsiders it seems as if we're insecure, when we shouldn't be, because we have our own set identity.

Our religious history is not a distant, ancient matter of myth that cannot be verified, but neither is it a modern-day, superficial cult-like outfit that lacks weight. There's some definite layered substance to it that is sometimes unwittingly pushed to the background when the straight-forwardness of certain factions takes centre stage. They tend to strip the overall philosophy of nuance in order to make the message digestible to the masses, which is understandable, but it also tends to alienate some of the more thoughtful onlookers who have a little more yearning for that substance. I think this is mostly due to the kind of place that India is and the kind of people it produces.

As for the "burning pages" aspect of it, I completely agree. I was mentioning this issue to somebody a few days ago. I feel that we can hold our heads high when we look back on the way our spiritual masters conducted themselves. But even this aspect of it is in the process of being undermined in terms of the Hindutva element gradually getting their paws dirty with slanderous propagandising that they've taken cues from evangelical western Christian efforts to seriously undermine and deconstruct Islam and its prophet. But whereas the Christians simply take what's admittedly unconcealed in Islamic scripture and unfurl it for exposure, the Indian approach seems to be a little more devious and calculating.

[Jai Tegang! 753]

57 minutes ago, MisterrSingh said:

I think we sometimes heap unnecessary pressure on ourselves by trying to assume the role of one or the other religions as a template of behaviour or being. We shouldn't do this because to outsiders it seems as if we're insecure, when we shouldn't be, because we have our own set identity.

Our religious history is not a distant, ancient matter of myth that cannot be verified, but neither is it a modern-day, superficial cult-like outfit that lacks weight. There's some definite layered substance to it that is sometimes unwittingly pushed to the background when the straight-forwardness of certain factions takes centre stage. They tend to strip the overall philosophy of nuance in order to make the message digestible to the masses, which is understandable, but it also tends to alienate some of the more thoughtful onlookers who have a little more yearning for that substance. I think this is mostly due to the kind of place that India is and the kind of people it produces.

As for the "burning pages" aspect of it, I completely agree. I was mentioning this issue to somebody a few days ago. I feel that we can hold our heads high when we look back on the way our spiritual masters conducted themselves. But even this aspect of it is in the process of being undermined in terms of the Hindutva element gradually getting their paws dirty with slanderous propagandising that they've taken cues from evangelical western Christian efforts to seriously undermine and deconstruct Islam and its prophet. But whereas the Christians simply take what's admittedly unconcealed in Islamic scripture and unfurl it for exposure, the Indian approach seems to be a little more devious and calculating.

It does make you wonder about the vision of our straight forward thinkers back in Punjab when they try to prune off every branch and stem of Sikhi, when in reality the masses are after the mystical spiritual escapes for their worldly troubles, for which, ironically, Sikhi presents a mix of spiritual and real world solution to. The Christians get it. They have revved up their game in this sphere; they’re offering miracles at your local pind church, which in some cases our short-sighted goodhearted fools have helped build, or at least refrained from objecting, not realizing this real-estate business is only going to grow and spread. Not hard to buy land and prop up a church or mosque if the locals aren’t objecting. There's no big requirement like langar, palki, and the whole works, just an empty square room will do. While hordes of poor sections of society head towards peers and the like for miracles, our guys are busy bringing down the spiritual authority of the Guru.

Coming to our Hindutva elder brothers, they’ve mastered their craft with previous trials and successes. There was a wonderful article on the Caravan news site that touches on this. It’s interesting to read how the founders of modern Hindutva like Sarvakar viewed us, and what drives their strategy for the Sikh Solution (it’s my own term btw, not in the article). https://caravanmagazine.in/religion/rss-threat-sikh-assertion-farmer-protests-savarkar-golwalkar

The strategy is multipronged. Two aspects I’ve picked up on: Repeat unsubstantiated fabricated stories that at the very least will create a lingering suspicion in impressionable minds ( they love doing this especially with Guru Teg Bahadur Ji, and Banda Singh Bahadur). Retell slightly tilted versions of our well understand history to create trust in our ranks while simultaneously steering the narrative.