Jump to content

Sikh Farmers vs Muslim Gujjar clash in Majitha, Amritsar


proactive
 Share

Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, BhForce said:

They already call Sikhi a branch of Hindu mat. They can continue to do so if they want to, but that doesn't mean that we will call ourselves that:

ਇਉ ਤੀਸਰ ਮਜਹਬ ਖਾਲਸਾ ਉਪਜਿਓ ਪਰਧਾਨਾ॥ ਜਿਨਿ ਗੁਰ ਗੋਬਿੰਦ ਕੇ ਹੁਕਮ ਸਿਉ ਗਹਿ ਖੜਗ ਦਿਖਾਨਾ॥ (Vaar 41)

This 3rd religion, Khalsa, sprouted up as Pardhan. Which by the command of Guru Gobind grabbed and showed the sword.

No, they won't "convert" to Hindus. But what we do need to do is go to the RSS and say, "We could support the Muslims or you. What are you going to give us to support you?" Make a deal with them.

There is 0 chance the Muslims could destroy the Hindus in India. The reverse is not true. So again, what are we going to get in return? (I'm not talking about a genocide of Muslims, just about suppressing their jihadi tendencies.)

Also, the RSS doesn't want Jains, Buddhists, and Sikhs to become janeu wearing Hindus. They just 1) don't want them to become Abrahamics, and 2) want them to call themselves Hindus.

Regarding #2: Unfortunately, we already call ourselves Hindus and no one but Simranjit Singh Mann has brought up this issue. (Sikhs are married according to the Hindu Marriage Act, and that's what it says on their marriage certificates.)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Kau89r8 said:

@proactive

i disagree had that scenario happened, then the world would not see the true nature of hindunazis....if anything whats happening with muslims vs hindus in India has helped shun light on what Sikhs have been saying..that being said never forget the alliance with muslims and hindus during 84 ... @proudkaur21 exactly what you said ...never no unity

 

What I am pointing out is that our community would have been in a much better position had the complete migration of Muslims been enforced. You are replaying what happened after 1947 without understanding what effect having no Muslims have on the politics of India after 1947. My personal feeling is that it would have been more regional focussed than religion focussed. There would have been no Hindutva, because it thrives on the fact that a large number of Hindus believe that Muslims are a pampered minority which harbours malice to them. Would the Hindus have been able to paint the Sikhs as such in the absence of Muslims, possibly but it would have been much more difficult because you can't paint a people as being your own one minute and then claim they present a existential threat to you the next minute. You can see this being playing out by Hindutva keyboard warriors online and they are getting nowhere. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, proudkaur21 said:

I dont see any unity with hindus. They took our land away in Gujarat why do you  think they couldnt have done the same in case the above scenario happened? Water would still be diverted. Hindi would still be imposed. History would still be distorted.

As long as we're playing alternative history, forget 1947. We should never have lost our kingdom, then we wouldn't have to begging from anybody.

Also, why didn't Sardar Baghel Singh simply take over the weakened Mughal Empire instead of just building a few Gurdwaras when he had hoisted the Nishan Sahib over the Red Fort in Delhi?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, proactive said:

What I am pointing out is that our community would have been in a much better position had the complete migration of Muslims been enforced. You are replaying what happened after 1947 without understanding what effect having no Muslims have on the politics of India after 1947. My personal feeling is that it would have been more regional focussed than religion focussed. There would have been no Hindutva, because it thrives on the fact that a large number of Hindus believe that Muslims are a pampered minority which harbours malice to them. Would the Hindus have been able to paint the Sikhs as such in the absence of Muslims, possibly but it would have been much more difficult because you can't paint a people as being your own one minute and then claim they present a existential threat to you the next minute. You can see this being playing out by Hindutva keyboard warriors online and they are getting nowhere. 

I agree scapegoating is requisite for these nationalist hate groups to form and feed, but without muslims...who would that be?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Kau89r8 said:

@proactive

i disagree had that scenario happened, then the world would not see the true nature of hindunazis....if anything whats happening with muslims vs hindus in India has helped shun light on what Sikhs have been saying..that being said never forget the alliance with muslims and hindus during 84 ... @proudkaur21 exactly what you said ...never no unity

 

Hindunazis. Definitely the best word for their whole....<banned word filter activated> show. Make my Shastar thirsty. I have a great deal of empathy. I don't like so much to hurt an insect. I once had to put a pigeon out of it's misery, give it Jhatka,after someone swerved to run it over on the block. Didn't relish it, but did it in fast. I don't like it. Don't like hurting things. Even all the security work. 99 percent tactfully handled without force, when I used force I did not hurt people in the conventional sense. 

But man. These hindunazis? Flips a switch in me to the setting "Jhatka for the world's good". Like, form a line, I got something for everybody. Oh a line not your thing? More a mob circle? Form that up then, I'd love to have the legal defense to line all your asses up myself and play a little game called button man. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, proudkaur21 said:

okay lets use RSS for our fight but then how will we drive them out? They have an entire nation backing them up. They are equally as bad as all these other communities.

Well, it would be best if it were just Punjabi Hindus who were members of RSS. Then we wouldn't need to "drive them out". After they accomplish their task, they'll just go back to their normal boring shopkeeper lives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, ChardikalaUK said:

Chandigarh has nothing to do with Punjab. The culture is extremely different. It's closer to Delhi and Mumbai than it is to regular Punjab.

Yeah, you're right about the culture. But what hurts is  it was built on Punjabi villages, and then populated by outsiders. That's why I want to give it back to the original villagers. (India wants reparations from UK doesn't it? Fair play.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, ChardikalaUK said:

The Hindus really messed up big time in 1947. That was their time to remove all Muslims from India (like we did in Punjab) and claim their Ram temple in Ayodhya but they and their leaders bottled it big time. It is because of their failings that muslims from UP and Bihar have come to Punjab.

Yeah, but then if we had to leave Pakistan 100%, what about Nankana Sahib? The real solution, that I see, would have been to not let the British win in the first place. Then we have all the major Gurdawaras, and make treaties with Patna Sahib and Hazur Sahib areas. (The Maharaja was friendly with the Nizam of Hyderabad.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, BhForce said:

Yeah, but then if we had to leave Pakistan 100%, what about Nankana Sahib? The real solution, that I see, would have been to not let the British win in the first place. Then we have all the major Gurdawaras, and make treaties with Patna Sahib and Hazur Sahib areas. (The Maharaja was friendly with the Nizam of Hyderabad.)

Today we would be around 10% of the population of that Empire, I highly doubt we would still be in charge to this day if we didn't lose to the British. Also a lot of modern day East Punjab wasn't even in Ranjit Singh's empire for example Ludhiana, Patiala. At the end of the day we had an empire that lasted a mere 50 years. The suls ruled over a lot of India for several hundred years, the British were in India for 250 years and in Punjab for 100 years, so even the Brits ruled Punjab for double the time we did. It's sad but true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ChardikalaUK said:

Today we would be around 10% of the population of that Empire, I highly doubt we would still be in charge to this day if we didn't lose to the British.

Bro, what % are the Sunnis of Bahrain? The population is Shia.

Secondly, there's nothing to say that the Mullahs would have had the same power without state support.

The Punjabis who became Muslims by force could have been told you don't have to follow the Mullahs anymore. Just reverting to folk religions would have been fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The title was changed to Sikh Farmers vs Muslim Gujjar clash in Majitha, Amritsar

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