Some home truths for Ravi Singh Khalsa Aid

[Kau89r8]

4 hours ago, proudkaur21 said:

And akal takht is free? Nope everything is under control of India.

Badals right..? To be more specific 

4 hours ago, proudkaur21 said:

. They have been infiltrated at every level. Indians and their intelligence agencies are in different countries and keep eyes on us Sikhs everywhere. 

Yes and No...because they'd been caught in Germany years ago spying on Sikhs and arrested ....also most Gurudwaras have pics of Sant Ji and Shaeedes and years ago they'd come with their news channels and be like 'omg Khalistani in UK Gurudwaras' but they stopped because they know they have no control over Sikhs in the West and their views..however i know in Canada yrs ago they put pic of  pammer and others who were under terrorists in Canada and that caught alot of heat ..this is down to mostly lack of intellects leadership in our panth...we need Deep Sidhu intellects leadership

But if they get caught spying then you can take legal action 

[proudkaur21]

1 hour ago, Kau89r8 said:

Badals right..? To be more specific 

Yes and No...because they'd been caught in Germany years ago spying on Sikhs and arrested ....also most Gurudwaras have pics of Sant Ji and Shaeedes and years ago they'd come with their news channels and be like 'omg Khalistani in UK Gurudwaras' but they stopped because they know they have no control over Sikhs in the West and their views..however i know in Canada yrs ago they put pic of  pammer and others who were under terrorists in Canada and that caught alot of heat ..this is down to mostly lack of intellects leadership in our panth...we need Deep Sidhu intellects leadership

But if they get caught spying then you can take legal action 

These countries trade with India. I dont know if they would collude with the Indian govt against us. Like can we guarantee it would not happen? Just see jaggi. I dont trust anyone anymore. Money makes the world go round.

[MisterrSingh]

21 hours ago, proudkaur21 said:

And akal takht is free? Nope everything is under control of India. It might seem to us that our gurudwaras and organizations are freee but they are not. They have been infiltrated at every level. Indians and their intelligence agencies are in different countries and keep eyes on us Sikhs everywhere. 

Amusing to hear this when there's upcoming non-Congress Indian intellectuals who are arguing the same about their own Hindu temples not being free.

There's apparently certain laws embedded in Indian legislation that prioritise secularism at the expense of the integrity and autonomy of Hindu religious practices, i.e. the immediate surrounding land on which Hindu temples are built in India isn't owned by the outfit that runs the day-to-day matters of the temple. That's why you get Muslims able to buy beef processing factories on that same land in order to pi55 off these Hindus. And we all know that in a country where secularism is publicly espoused while being home to millions of a specific sand-dwelling religion and its followers, secularism will lead to Islamisation if left unchecked. Eventually, that beef factory will become a mosque. That's the plan.

Open your eyes to the nuance. Don't get your ideas on India and politics from uncles sipping on tea, sharing conspiracy theories from the 80s and 90s in the gurdwara langar hall.

[Ranjeet01]

53 minutes ago, MisterrSingh said:

Amusing to hear this when there's upcoming non-Congress Indian intellectuals who are arguing the same about their own Hindu temples not being free.

There's apparently certain laws embedded in Indian legislation that prioritise secularism at the expense of the integrity and autonomy of Hindu religious practices, i.e. the immediate surrounding land on which Hindu temples are built in India isn't owned by the outfit that runs the day-to-day matters of the temple. That's why you get Muslims able to buy beef processing factories on that same land in order to pi55 off these Hindus. And we all know that in a country where secularism is publicly espoused while being home to millions of a specific sand-dwelling religion and its followers, secularism will lead to Islamisation if left unchecked. Eventually, that beef factory will become a mosque. That's the plan.

Open your eyes to the nuance. Don't get your ideas on India and politics from uncles sipping on tea, sharing conspiracy theories from the 80s and 90s in the gurdwara langar hall.

You see the similar tactics employed in the UK.

Wherever there is a muslim owned businesses, they tend to have a prayer room attached to it and it becomes a defacto mosque.

[MisterrSingh]

18 minutes ago, Ranjeet01 said:

You see the similar tactics employed in the UK.

Wherever there is a muslim owned businesses, they tend to have a prayer room attached to it and it becomes a defacto mosque.

It does beg the question regarding India of all places: why would Indian law create a backdoor for a group such as Muslims to almost colonise a land (over the imperceptible course of decades) through legislation that was originally created, supposedly, as part of a secular constitution? Who or what decided that was a good idea, and more importantly why?

[Ranjeet01]

7 minutes ago, MisterrSingh said:

It does beg the question regarding India of all places: why would Indian law create a backdoor for a group such as Muslims to almost colonise a land (over the imperceptible course of decades) through legislation that was originally created, supposedly, as part of a secular constitution? Who or what decided that was a good idea, and more importantly why?

Secularism in India does not mean the same thing that we know it as the west

There is a reason in India Secular is called Sickular. 

In the west, Secularism means separation of religion and state. In India it means separation of Hindu and state.

The Indian secularists are the dhimmis. 

 

[proactive]

3 minutes ago, MisterrSingh said:

It does beg the question regarding India of all places: why would Indian law create a backdoor for a group such as Muslims to almost colonise a land (over the imperceptible course of decades) through legislation that was originally created, supposedly, as part of a secular constitution? Who or what decided that was a good idea, and more importantly why?

It was the attempt to prove that Jinnah's two nation theory was wrong even after he had managed to snatch away the Muslims' share of south Asia, the secularists still held on their dream that India was one nation. This was the reason that MK Gandhi and Nehru begged the Muslim Meos who had migrated to Pakistan to return to Mewat. They sent police to get back their Meos' land which was being taken over by locals. The fact that these Meos could see that they would never get any land in Pakistan in exchange made the majority of them return and the problem of Muslim majority Mewat was created. 

This was also to reason why Nehru never really took the two nation theory to it's logical conclusion that of the complete exchange of populations. He never understood that the creation of Pakistan had proved the two nation theory and what was needed was now acceptance of that fact. This was why the constitution was framed so that Muslims would feel at home in India and not want to migrate in the years after the creation of Pakistan. 

[MisterrSingh]

37 minutes ago, Ranjeet01 said:

In the west, Secularism means separation of religion and state. In India it means separation of Hindu and state.

The Indian secularists are the dhimmis. 

I've come to accept, on principle, this isn't a negative once the shackles of secular and enlightenment emotional blackmail is discarded.

In a hypothetical Sikh state, would you want these same dhimmis advocating for a secular Sikh state that will - 100+ years in the future - come to resemble an Islamic or non-Sikh land? There's no point in any of the struggle if a group just breeds their way into demographic change.

Eventually, a government will need to stand up and say, "We don't want ANY of this particular religion / group in this country. We don't wish you any harm, but you can't come in, and those who are already here need to leave." There's no other possible way to overcome this issue in a peaceful way before letting the "problem" grow roots.

[dallysingh101]

12 minutes ago, MisterrSingh said:

We don't wish you any harm, but you can't come in, and those who are already here need to leave."

How would you get rid of people who refuse to go? 

This is actually a pertinent question in europe, because if things do get more right wing, some people  might face a similar circumstance in future. 

Plus it's not like intimidating people into leaving wasn't tried in the UK just a few decades ago. I saw it with my own eyes. 

[proudkaur21]

9 minutes ago, dallysingh101 said:

How would you get rid of people who refuse to go? 

This is actually a pertinent question in europe, because if things do get more right wing, some people  might face a similar circumstance in future. 

Plus it's not like intimidating people into leaving wasn't tried in the UK just a few decades ago. I saw it with my own eyes. 

They should have just not let Muslims enter. Now they are done for. Same mistake low iq Sikh liberals have been making. I guess western euors didn't have a taste of Islam yet unlike Southern Euros. They are dying to see what it feels like to live under sharia so let it be. We should worry about our own land.