Panjab marriages and exodus

[Suchi]

4 hours ago, GurjantGnostic said:

From Guru Nanak Dev Ji it's called Nirmal Paanth to Guru Gobind Sungh Ji Maharaja when it is called, in same fashion, Khalsa Paanth. The entirety of Gurbani, Vaaran, and Ithias indicate the seperate intended and actual nature of Sikhi. To be both seperate and above all other Dharams by the way in the command chain. 

Glad I have you here bro. Can you explain more about how all the Dharams have been squished into Hinduism? And to what degree any of the original Dharams are functioning?

And beyond tending their own Dharams, to be ready to follow our lead in Dharam Yudh, are they applying the teachings contained in the current living form of Sat Guru, Shabad Guru Granth Sahib Ji? Left for us by the incarnations of Vaheguru Akal Purakh themself, the Nehkalank above all things doing his work as only he can in this Kalyug, the previous Devte having failed now three Yughs?

Are the Dharmis fit? Are they resonnating with the Devte and seeing to surpass their previous limitations?

Are Hanuman's forces ready to join in action behind the Khalsa?

Or is hinduism a nationalized political mechanism that both erases all Dharams contained therein, as well as forms the poplace into a violent nationalized mob gone mad reminiscent of the Nazi party?

Like what is hinduism and what Dharam is being demonstrated? 

 

Dharam is demonstrated by one's morals, actions, perceptions and levels of success. If a teaching is not successful then it can be deemed to be either imperfect initself or being imperfectly followed or taught. 

So it is up to us how/what we follow. And if it is incorrect then we are free to change it according to our conscience. 

Hence making it a living philosophy and the reason there are many different thoughts and teaching within Sanathan Dharma. 

At present we are under an attempt to make a One World Religion seemingly based on Islamic teachings. These teachings are dictatorial and probably most suitable for the AI Slavery System being forced on us. 

That is the threat and challenge we are all (non Muslims and even some Muslims) facing and one we must prepare to counter if we are to continue to enjoy Freedoms given to us by our creator. Such as Freedom of Thought and Conscience along with many other freedoms mentioned in our shastras. 

 

 

 

 

 

[proactive]

On 2/3/2022 at 3:32 AM, Suchi said:

Hindus saw/see (now to a lesser extent) Sikhs as a warrior caste so not everyone needed to convert.  Only when they were needed to boost the numbers hence the eldest son was converted or when they were under threat they joined to fight the oppressors. That much is clear from the history. 

Whilst they are culturally close Sikhs themselves have more recently insisted they are a distinct and separate religion which was rejected by most Hindus. 

Hindu Punjabis in particular are less rigid, and more tolerant of Sikhs. Hinduism is also very broad so they are attached to their culture and teachings of Yoga, Ayurveda, Vedic rituals, Gita, Ramayana and the many festivals make them more inclined to stay within Hinduism. 

Sikhism was never meant to be a new religion but an additional Dharmic path. 

 

The Punjabi Hindu has been in decline since the 1880s. Although they like to claim that they are rooted to Punjab, they are mostly landless. The higher caste Hindus are urban dwellers while the lower castes own very little land. Each decadal census from 1881 to 1941 commented on the decline of the Punjabi Hindu. The decline was actually greater because the Punjabi Hindu population was artificially boosted by the Hindus of Haryana and Himachal which were a part of Punjab during British times. If we look at the core Punjab areas - all of west Punjab and the present east Punjab historically, the Hindu population was declining on a large scale.

The only reason that Hindu population in Punjab has increased  in the last two decades is due to the migration of Bhaiyas from Bihar and UP. So from a declining population the Hindus in Punjab have had their population artificially boosted by migration into Punjab.

Punjab has nearly 2.5 million migrants which is 9% of the total population.  If we take that 100,000 of these could be Sikhs who migrated to Punjab from the rest of India after the genocide of 1984. After 1984 there was also an outmigration from Punjab of Punjabi Hindus who settled in Delhi and Haryana but the numbers were small possibly 20,000 at most and many came back to Punjab in the 1990s. 

If we take off another 200,000 who are Muslim Bhaiyas so that leaves 2.2 million Hindu Bhaiyas who have migrated to Punjab and who are included in the census figures for 2011. 

In 1971 when there were very few Bhaiyas in Punjab the population of Sikhs in Punjab was 60.22% and the Punjabi Hindus were 37.54% after 40 years of migration of Bhaiyas into Punjab in 2011 the Sikh population was 57.69% and the Hindu population was 38.49%.  The population of Punjab was 27.7 million in 2011. 

In absolute numbers Punjab's Hindu population in 2011 was 10.7 million and the Sikh population was 16 million. 

If we deduct these Hindu migrants from the total population of Punjab 27.7 - 2.2  millions bring Punjab's population to 25.5 million. 

Deducting the Hindu Bhaiya population from Punjab's Hindu population 10.7 - 2.2 million bring the Hindu population of Punjab to 8.5 million. 

So without the migration of Hindu Bhaiyas the Punjabi Hindu population was 33.3% and Punjab's Sikh population would have been 62.7% a slight increase from 60.22% 

If we take into account the larger number of Sikh migrants leaving Punjab for abroad compared to the number of Hindus leaving this would make the Sikh population percentage even greater. 

 

 

[proactive]

On 2/3/2022 at 3:32 AM, Suchi said:

 

Sikhism was never meant to be a new religion but an additional Dharmic path. 

 

Every Hindu FU.DHU is an expert on Sikhi. 

[Suchi]

8 hours ago, proactive said:

Every Hindu FU.DHU is an expert on Sikhi. 

That's because they are generally better educated as they follow their faith that tells them to become twice born. Hence why Hindus dominate in all fields that require education rather than physical strength. 

And don't forget the Sikh Gurus were all Hindu Khatris so their numbers would automatically reduce as many chose to join the new Panth. 

Many others were forced to boost the numbers to replace the Faujis lost in battle. So there is no Sikh without the Hindu. 

[proudkaur21]

13 hours ago, proactive said:

The Punjabi Hindu has been in decline since the 1880s. Although they like to claim that they are rooted to Punjab, they are mostly landless. The higher caste Hindus are urban dwellers while the lower castes own very little land. Each decadal census from 1881 to 1941 commented on the decline of the Punjabi Hindu. The decline was actually greater because the Punjabi Hindu population was artificially boosted by the Hindus of Haryana and Himachal which were a part of Punjab during British times. If we look at the core Punjab areas - all of west Punjab and the present east Punjab historically, the Hindu population was declining on a large scale.

The only reason that Hindu population in Punjab has increased  in the last two decades is due to the migration of Bhaiyas from Bihar and UP. So from a declining population the Hindus in Punjab have had their population artificially boosted by migration into Punjab.

Punjab has nearly 2.5 million migrants which is 9% of the total population.  If we take that 100,000 of these could be Sikhs who migrated to Punjab from the rest of India after the genocide of 1984. After 1984 there was also an outmigration from Punjab of Punjabi Hindus who settled in Delhi and Haryana but the numbers were small possibly 20,000 at most and many came back to Punjab in the 1990s. 

If we take off another 200,000 who are Muslim Bhaiyas so that leaves 2.2 million Hindu Bhaiyas who have migrated to Punjab and who are included in the census figures for 2011. 

In 1971 when there were very few Bhaiyas in Punjab the population of Sikhs in Punjab was 60.22% and the Punjabi Hindus were 37.54% after 40 years of migration of Bhaiyas into Punjab in 2011 the Sikh population was 57.69% and the Hindu population was 38.49%.  The population of Punjab was 27.7 million in 2011. 

In absolute numbers Punjab's Hindu population in 2011 was 10.7 million and the Sikh population was 16 million. 

If we deduct these Hindu migrants from the total population of Punjab 27.7 - 2.2  millions bring Punjab's population to 25.5 million. 

Deducting the Hindu Bhaiya population from Punjab's Hindu population 10.7 - 2.2 million bring the Hindu population of Punjab to 8.5 million. 

So without the migration of Hindu Bhaiyas the Punjabi Hindu population was 33.3% and Punjab's Sikh population would have been 62.7% a slight increase from 60.22% 

If we take into account the larger number of Sikh migrants leaving Punjab for abroad compared to the number of Hindus leaving this would make the Sikh population percentage even greater. 

 

 

I think migrants are 50% population of Punjab. Even in the villages of Punjab I dont see any punjabis anymore the last time I visited.

[5aaban]

On 2/5/2022 at 11:03 AM, Suchi said:

I think many made the eldest son due to Britishers favouring only Kalsa Sikhs with 5 kakkars (replacing 5 hatiar) with jobs, land and opportunities abroad so it was probably an economic decision after they came into power. 

Read about this theory before 

[proactive]

17 hours ago, Suchi said:

That's because they are generally better educated as they follow their faith that tells them to become twice born. Hence why Hindus dominate in all fields that require education rather than physical strength. 

 

Better educated in RSS and HIndutva BS.

Most of what comes out of a Hindu Punjabi's mouth about Sikhi and Sikh history is compete falsehood. 

Quote

Many others were forced to boost the numbers to replace the Faujis lost in battle. So there is no Sikh without the Hindu

The vast majority or at least 70% of those who became Sikhs especially at the time of Guru Gobind Singh and the Misls were Jats who were never Hindus and were tribal Jathera worshippers or Sultanis. The Khatris in fact for the most part disowned Sikhi after 1699, the ones is Delhi were split between those who  wanted to become Khalsa and those who didn't. The ones who didn't were lukewarm followers still following Hindu traditions like Mundan (shaving of head after the death of ones father, shaving of head of a child) and because the Khalsa was to keep their Kesh, they strongly objected to the Khalsa. The Khatris who became Khalsa were smaller in number than the Khatris who still aligned with the Mughal state and wanted to retain their Hindu customs. The small number of Khatris that became Khalsa did contribute a great deal to the Sikh struggle and some were leaders of Misls. Nearly all Jathera worshipping and many  Sultanis Jats never had this issue with becoming Khalsa Sikhs as they never practised Mundan. The Sultani Jats who did not become Sikhs opposed the Khalsa, but when the Khalsa took over power, many more Sultanis became Sikhs and in the British times and with the Singh Sabha and Akali movement the vast majority of Sultani Jats became Sikhs as well. 

You being a Punjabi Hindu, I assume you come from either the Brahmin/Bania or Khatri/Arora background. The Brahmin/Bania were never supporters of Sikhi and the Khatri have already been shown to have a lukewarm belief in Sikhi so your views of Sikhi doesn't really amount to much as you subscribe to the Hindu falsehood of all Sikhs were Hindus prior to becoming Sikhs. 

[proactive]

On 2/5/2022 at 12:03 AM, Suchi said:

I think many made the eldest son due to Britishers favouring only Kalsa Sikhs with 5 kakkars (replacing 5 hatiar) with jobs, land and opportunities abroad so it was probably an economic decision after they came into power. 

Again complete BS.

During the mutiny the British recruited former Khalsa army troops to their ranks and when they wanted to expand the Sikh numbers after 1857 they relied on these as well as their sons to join the newly reorganised army. There would be very few cases of 'Hindu' Jats being former Khalsa army veterans because very few Hindus were in the army apart for non-Punjabi Gurkhas and Poorbiyas.

The army factor only came into play in the first world war when the British undertook intense recruitment in the years 1917-18. By then most of the Jathera/Sultani Jats had already become Sikhs. The only districts where Jathera/Sultanis were still around in large numbers was in Hoshiarpur where the British did not even recruit heavily and these Jats became Sikhs during the Akali movement. During WW1 The British favoured Jat and Mazhabi Sikh recruits because they had proven themselves in battle. The only Khatris and Brahmins they would recruit would be a few hundred mainly for administration work due to their higher rate of literacy. There is no doubt that small numbers of Jathera/Sultani Jats did join the army and become Sikhs but not in the numbers that justify your 'eldest son' BS. 

In my village the only known case of an actual Hindu becoming a Sikh after joining the army was of a Brahmin who became a Sikh during WW2 but upon being demobilised he cut his hair again and became a Hindu. His family were the only Hindus in the village and they maintained a family Mandir in the village. His son was a police officer and was killed by the Kharkoos in the late 80s.His other son migrated to Ludhiana. There are other Brahmin families in the villages but they had taken to farming at some stage and although still Brahmins they had become Sikhs probably around the 1930s and they are virtually indistinguishable from the Jats in the village. 

[proactive]

On 2/5/2022 at 5:03 AM, proactive said:

Every Hindu FU.DHU is an expert on Sikhi. 

And  I submit as evidence -;

On 2/5/2022 at 4:39 AM, Suchi said:

Who is the enemy and whom are you fighting? First define the enemy according to Sikhi. 

As far as I understand the teachings of Guru Nanakji,  the enemy is within as he embraced the teachings of both Islam and the Hindus.  I believe he was enlightened and declared 'There is No Hindu. There is No Muslim'.  I personally know this to be true. 

I have read that he might have converted to Islam as only declared Muslims are allowed in the Kaaba and that his body was taken by his Muslim followers and buried as a result. We know it was never found.

If this is true, then with whom do the allegiance of Sikhs lie as later they were forced to fight and kill the very same people. 

It is interesting that the Sikh symbol today is the exact same as on the Iranian flag. So why would that be? 

Could it be that the origin of Guru Nanak ji was indeed Persia (I understand he hailed from the Bactria region that has Persian ancestry). Or he became attracted to Sufi Islam and hence converted?  If so, it would certainly be problematic for Hindus and their Dharmic faith as they have spent almost a thousand years to get rid of this menace which they are still facing. 

Would it shake your faith if, indeed, this were true?  Where would your allegiance lie? Where would this put the position of GGSji who was actually forced to form a Fauj against the people that Guru Nanakji had, in good faith, embraced? 

 

On 2/5/2022 at 1:11 AM, Suchi said:

Hinduism is a living philosophy. It is Not a Fixed entity. We believe that everything is subject to change and we must move with the flow.  

Before Islam Hindus didn't fight after sunset probably due to lack of light. So we followed rules. 

Hence we were caught by surprise by the Islamic hordes attacking during the night. To respond to this challenge we had to create a new policy to deal with this menace.

Hence probably why Sikhs are required to wake after midnight to pray so they are ready for any impending attack. Furthermore, Sikhs are required to never remove their Kirpan, hence be ever ready for battle. These rituals are still practised today according to my understanding. 

However, in my view there is a fundamental flaw in the teachings. That is to help the enemy who is down in battle, in the belief we are all One. The other was not to take land that had been captured from the enemy. Hence it seems more of a suicide mission as most, if not all, the fighters were killed and more Hindus were forced to join to boost the Fauj. 

That was until Banda Bahadhur joined the Khalsa, who was a Khatri versed in battle with proven spiritual powers that he used in battle following his agreement to come out of retirement and fight for GGSji.  He vanquished the enemy very quickly and recaptured stolen land for which he was reprimanded by GuruGobind Singhji wife who had made a pledge with the Moghul ruler who had promised her son would be rewarded. 

Furthermore, as Guru Nanakji had already attempted to appease the Muslims by declaring 'We are All One' and creating a new panth based on Sufi/Bhakti philosophy, this edict was followed by Guru Gobind Singhji which he could not veer from. 

The Bhakti teachings are not suitable for a Fauj/Army that has to protect its population and secure its borders.  War is about killing the enemy not helping them when they're losing! 

I'm aware that Maharaja Ranjit Singh did capture alot of land but it seems he was outmanoevered by the British who infiltrated his army, double crossed him and destroyed his entire family. 

The reality is that the British were joined at the hip with their European partners via their various secret societies which we are only just learning about. Hence why French, German and other nationals were working in tandem to overthrow Indian hegemony using any number of subversive tactics in a total transfer of wealth and assets to the whole of Europe and then USA. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Premi5]

On 2/3/2022 at 3:32 AM, Suchi said:

 

Whilst they are culturally close Sikhs themselves have more recently insisted they are a distinct and separate religion which was rejected by most Hindus. 

 

Sikhism was never meant to be a new religion but an additional Dharmic path. 

 

Hindus can 'Hindu' if they want to. Maybe Sikhi did not start off as completely separate, but that I think is why, Dasam Patshah established the Khalsa, to make it very clear that Sikhs are distinct from 'Hindus' even if they share a lot in common. Just as you would not say to a Muslim/Christian/Jew that they are all the same. 

On 2/5/2022 at 12:19 AM, Suchi said:

It is certainly Not Hindus that are anti Sikh. It is Muslims and Christians (esp British) that were responsible for the destruction of the Sikhs. Hindus have always treated it as one of the Dharmic Paths. None of the 10 Gurus declared a separate religion. All took much of the teachings from texts that were already present. 

However with the rise of China and Islam there is a need to ensure the unity of India that the breaking India forces are determined to destroy. This is understood by the majority of all Indians. 

 

Again, the Khalsa Panth ? And the Hindus in India would be happy for Sikhs to be on the frontline of any battles/wars. 

On 2/5/2022 at 1:11 AM, Suchi said:

 

Hence we were caught by surprise by the Islamic hordes attacking during the night. To respond to this challenge we had to create a new policy to deal with this menace.

Hence probably why Sikhs are required to wake after midnight to pray so they are ready for any impending attack. Furthermore, Sikhs are required to never remove their Kirpan, hence be ever ready for battle. These rituals are still practised today according to my understanding. 

However, in my view there is a fundamental flaw in the teachings. That is to help the enemy who is down in battle, in the belief we are all One. The other was not to take land that had been captured from the enemy. Hence it seems more of a suicide mission as most, if not all, the fighters were killed and more Hindus were forced to join to boost the Fauj. 

That was until Banda Bahadhur joined the Khalsa, who was a Khatri versed in battle with proven spiritual powers that he used in battle following his agreement to come out of retirement and fight for GGSji.  He vanquished the enemy very quickly and recaptured stolen land for which he was reprimanded by GuruGobind Singhji wife who had made a pledge with the Moghul ruler who had promised her son would be rewarded. 

Furthermore, as Guru Nanakji had already attempted to appease the Muslims by declaring 'We are All One' and creating a new panth based on Sufi/Bhakti philosophy, this edict was followed by Guru Gobind Singhji which he could not veer from. 

The Bhakti teachings are not suitable for a Fauj/Army that has to protect its population and secure its borders.  War is about killing the enemy not helping them when they're losing! 

I'm aware that Maharaja Ranjit Singh did capture alot of land but it seems he was outmanoevered by the British who infiltrated his army, double crossed him and destroyed his entire family. 

The reality is that the British were joined at the hip with their European partners via their various secret societies which we are only just learning about. Hence why French, German and other nationals were working in tandem to overthrow Indian hegemony using any number of subversive tactics in a total transfer of wealth and assets to the whole of Europe and then USA. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's for Amritvela to do Paath and Simran primarily. 

The underlined paragraph is interesting, I think someone better versed should respond. 

I don't think the Gurus cared for 'appeasing' Muslims. 

On 2/5/2022 at 1:37 AM, Suchi said:

 

At present we are under an attempt to make a One World Religion seemingly based on Islamic teachings. These teachings are dictatorial and probably most suitable for the AI Slavery System being forced on us. 

 

Would be interested to know more on this. Not heard this before. 

On 2/5/2022 at 4:39 AM, Suchi said:

 

I have read that he might have converted to Islam as only declared Muslims are allowed in the Kaaba and that his body was taken by his Muslim followers and buried as a result. We know it was never found.

If this is true, then with whom do the allegiance of Sikhs lie as later they were forced to fight and kill the very same people. 

It is interesting that the Sikh symbol today is the exact same as on the Iranian flag. So why would that be? 

Could it be that the origin of Guru Nanak ji was indeed Persia (I understand he hailed from the Bactria region that has Persian ancestry). Or he became attracted to Sufi Islam and hence converted?  If so, it would certainly be problematic for Hindus and their Dharmic faith as they have spent almost a thousand years to get rid of this menace which they are still facing. 

Would it shake your faith if, indeed, this were true?  Where would your allegiance lie? Where would this put the position of GGSji who was actually forced to form a Fauj against the people that Guru Nanakji had, in good faith, embraced? 

 

 

 

 

Nope. Guru Nanak Dev Ji went in the appearance of a Haaji but it was known to those there, that they had come from India. 

I think the remainder of your post is trolling. 

@Suchi