Leaderboard

I don't think that something like Khalsa Aid as it now could have existed in WW2. The Sikhs of that generation would have been perplexed at Khalsa Aid if they were going around the world helping German or Japanese refugees. Those Sikhs had stronger character and self belief than the pappus that run Khalsa Aid have today. Khalsa Aid and other such 'disaster relief at the drop of a hat' type organisations within the Sikh community are a product of the puppufication of Sikhs ever since 1947. We have accepted outright lies like Mian Meer laid the foundation stone of Harmandir Sahib and that Sikhi is just a religion like all the others and that we don't seek converts and that quality rather than quantity. Some even think that Khalsa just means pure so hence Raj Karega Khalsa just means the pure ones will rule and that the pure ones can be a person of any religion. This pappufication is there for all to see. There is a facebook account which is run by Khalistanis and they posted a video of a Hindu girl being slapped by a BJP women councillor because the post stated that she had been 'just having a coffee in a restaurant with a Muslim boy' . The truth was that the Hindu girl was openly having an affair with a Muslim boy which she admitted. Now look at how even Pappufication has taken over those who claim to be Khalistanis! They will lie in order to show Hindus oppressing the Hindu girl because she was innocently with a Muslim boy. The same account has more stories about the so-called oppression the Rohingyas than anything about Sikhs or Khalistan. This is how far the rot has spread. When I commented and stated what the truth was and if the other people commenting how bad the slapping was would be ok with their daughters or sisters opening having an affair with a Muslim boys. The comments I was on the lines of 'What is it to you, it's her life' and these comments were from Sikhs! I could expect such rubbish from Muslims or Goray but Sikhs stating this rubbish just showed how much pappufication has taken deep roots on todays Sikhs. The same Pappu Sikhs will think that it's great that Khalsa Aid is wasting the sangat's money in Burma while Sikhs in need are ignored a few miles from where these pappus live.

Offering to educate the children around your area can be a good start. If you can teach mool mantra and a few sakhis, for a start, then you can add punjabi language and japji sahib as well. Its just like tuition. One lesson per week can make a big difference to educating the community around you. This can create closer communities which means greater support. It is a great way to share your knowledge. Meeting to watch a religious video and discussions can help too.

Right now britian is in utter turmoil. It is greatly divided by race and religion. White people hate muslims and vice versa. But there is a great opportunity on the horizen for Sikhs to spread our faith in the UK through moral methods. At the moment Sikhs generally have a good image. We are seen as peacefull and respectfull people not like many muslims who are considered scum by many whites. The key question is how do we do it? We should have a tons more followers then we do at the moment as Sikhism is a very attractive and intellectual faith. There are no absurdities in there like many other faiths have. I was thinking one idea is to do door to door knocking similar to jehovas wittnesses. This will kill two birds with one stone. We can educate people that we are not Muslims aswell as telling them about our faith at the same time. Areas to do this need to be chosen with research and know how of the ethnic make up of the locations. This needs to be done by well spoken and learned Sikhs. They need to have the gift of the gab. Its a bit like a sales men . you have to be good at tallking and selling. but you wont be selling anything. Just educating people about our beliefs. Do non Sikhs feel more welcome at a mosque then a gurdwara. Many eat langar then just leave. Why dont we make the effort to have a chat with them next time we see one in the Gurdwara. Lets look at the muslim tactics. They go for weak and vulnerable people who are easily swayed by some sweet words. Why dont we have events were non muslims can come and have info on Sikhi. Ie at the gurdwara. Or is the gurdara just a place were old aunties can give everyone dirty looks at gossip?

I always wanted to know. If Khalsa Aid were around during WW2, after Germany was obliterated and Nagasaki/Hiroshima was atomic bombed I am sure there would have been many refugees and people needing help. Would Khalsa Aid still provide aid and supplies for people even though Germans/Japanese may have been involved in many atrocities. Do they really consider humanity as one and think of everyone the same or would they have softer spot for certain people's. Would they show impartiality between a Jewish concentration camp survivor and a homeless German POW?

Having more kids would help.

You are most welcome. I have studied both Christianity and Sikhism to some depth. Any more questions, simply ask away.

I'm still about bhen ji. I'm just busy as hell with work. And frankly speaking, when I read so many people defending their backwards -a55 penduistic casteism here recently I realised that in reality I'm mainly dealing with lost causes here.

ignore the music, or try to. We need to use Social Media and Youtube as a way to reach out This guy has 30k Subs and 72,000 views, that's 72,000 people educated + part 2 original video has 248,000 views and 353,000 Subscribers

Why not combine these two ideas with the idea of open days. Have a stall in the high street and approach non-Sikhs by inviting them to the local Gurdwara open day. The British are interested in knowing about non-Abrahamic religion as they have rejected the old angry guy in the sky type of religious belief. Islam is no different and the only Brits who convert to that religion are prisoners or women because their Muslim husband demands that they do.

True but the mistake we make as Sikhs is that we always get thinly spread out and then when the storm comes we suffer. Around the world now we are spread out just as the Sikhs were pre-1947. The only Sikhs that survived were the one who lived in areas where Sikhs were a good percentage of the population or those how were able to flee to those areas. Some Sikhs have the mentality that they want to move away from areas that have a large Sikh population such as those those who moved from Southall to Iver, Ickenham, Reading etc. So they have spread themselves thinly and when the proverbial will hit the fan which it will in the next decade or so they will be sitting ducks. Sikhs in Europe should really be thinking of moving to UK if possible. Hate crimes against Sikhs aren't many compared to USA and they will always be a minute minority is Europe whereas in UK they can still live in Sikh dominated areas as by moving to the UK they can contribute to make these areas more stronger. I have noticed many Sikhs from Italy, Portugal and Belgium have been migrating to UK after getting citizenship of these countries. This needs to increase.

that's really true. I grew up with a bunch of kids who were pretty westernized, hair cut, didn't even know the names of the 10 Gurus let alone anything else. Fast forward about 5-6 years they're all in Sikhi saroop, can do Nitnem and are pretty good guys.

Guru Nanak kirpa so we can disagree as ONE LOVING KHALSA FAMILY, to know we are different due to our minds, but our jot is VAHIGUROO Jio Jot, thus, should not disrespect anyone's family, because Japji Sahib reminds we would not indulge in ego if we know Truth Jio_/\_ bhul chuk muaf so i too can also be as our Vahiguroo Jio Guru Sahibaan Jot SADA NIRLEP, ocean of life full of tumultuous waves_/\_, but Dhan Sikh Kaum Vadey Bhaag that we have Naam atey Gurbani under umbrella of Khalsa Panth Family, BLISS JIO_/\_

Lies, lies and all lies. My only crime was to defend Baba Banda Singh Bahadur from your venomous Nindya. And you replied to me by insulting my parents. You did the same thing to another member who came in support of me. Due to this repeated misbehavior you are no longer allowed to post here freely by the admins. I no longer even read your posts here. So don't quote me in future.

"Ehna Di Problem Ki Hai"? | Sant Ranjit Singh Dhadrian Wale explains !! San Jose, CA | 2017 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_N5XrTz3d-8 This is basically what he said (a transcription of Dhadrianwale's video above). I'll reply later on below in another post:

His posts are always on positive and good !

Hanji this is what I felt. But it's the extras that put me off listening to them more often. Had a quick look at their fb page, and no offence to anybody that does good parchar of Sikhi, but the themes for the parchars aren't bringing me in. Like guilt trips to the sangat. Once in a while is ok, but it's all the time now. There's doesn't seem to be any positive words for anybody. ?

Prominent UK Muslim leader Anjem Choudary encourages Muslims to get on state welfare benefits because that's a form of Jaziya tax being paid by kaffirs to Muslims: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/9875954/Muslim-preacher-urges-followers-to-claim-Jihad-Seekers-Allowance.html He goes on to make fun of people who work a 9-5 job, waking up at 7am. I guess he must wake up at 10 or 11am, having spent most of the night browsing Osama bin Laden's recommended porn collection.

Are you able to read? Go back and read my post again quoting exactly where I'm advocating Islamification of non-muslim area's and a Muslim take over.

It would be interesting if someone did a cost-benefit analysis of Muslim immigration into the UK. I am sure that the cost has far outweighed any benefit.

Kashmir was not different to other states where the Maharaja was of a different faith than the majority of its inhabitants. The Maharajas were given the choice of either joining Pakistan or India. Hyderabad which was a Muslim state but with a Hindu majority should have gone to Pakistan but what complicated the issue was that it was surrounded on all sides by British India and Hindu states. If it had a outlet to the sea then it would have been able to join Pakistan without and problems but then Pakistan would have had to accept Kashmir joining India. Pakistan really has not right in demanding Kashmir as the Maharaja signed the instrument of accession. It uses some discrepancy over when it was signed as a way for asserting it's right to Kashmir. Nehru made a major error in putting forward the case for a referendum if Pakistan vacates so-called Azad Kashmir. Pakistan claims should have been rejected as illegitimate as they run counter to the partition agreement.

I've always found Jonny101's posts informative and enlightening. I don't know what thread you think he did nindya in but I highly doubt he would say anything against Mata Sundri. or Sant Jarnail Singh unless you inferred this. FYI Rattan Singh Bhangu and Giani Gian Singh were writers and not brahmgianis so their writings can be challenged and as such this does not make one a nindak.

Jesus said the same things to the Pharisees as Guru Nanak did to the Brahmins. Read this and you will find similarities in him telling the pharisees that they will suffer too, though he did not specify hell. e does talk about punishment, which we will assume in offered only in hell or on earth. It cannot be in heaven as he talks about them blocking the gates of heaven for others too. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+23&version=CEV

DELETED.... a few weeks ago he did nindiya of mahapursh Baba Binod Singh Ji by wrongly accusing Baba Ji of being a 'mogul collaborator'..... and now he comes on here calling for relationships to be forged with Muslims.... DELETEDo back up his false allegations. DELETED implied that Mata Sundri Ji, Rattan Singh Bhangu, Sant Jarnail Singh & Giani Gian Singh were all nindaks because they held a different opinion then him.... ? When myself & others like @13Mirch first challenged his views a few months back he DELETED DELETED Accuses a mahapursh of being a moghul collaborator then says we should forge relationships with Muslims....

Maharaja Ranjit Singh made some mistakes which ensured that his kingdom did not last long after him and to be honest we have never recovered from his mistakes. It is unfortunate that the Maharaja was not born a decade earlier because when the British took over Delhi and started to make inroads towards the Satluj river, the Maharaja was still not well established in his rule and thus he had to relinquish some of the areas he had conquered in Malwa in 1809 under threat of war with the British. Had the British come a decade later or the Maharaja been born a decade before he would have subdued the Malwa area years before and the British would have faced a united Sikh kingdom rather than being given the golden opportunity to expand into Punjab through the fears of the Malwa Rajas for Maharaja Ranjit Singh. Rather than the Satluj, the border between the British and Maharaja Ranjit Singh's kingdom would have been the Yamuna and Ghaggar. Maharaja Ranjit Singh's secular policy while helping his secure his kingdom ensured that when the British won the first Anglo-Sikh war, they dealt not with a Sikh ruling elite but a mixed elite of couriers of various religions. Also because of his secular policy and not using the state machinery to propagate Sikhism is ensured that the Sikhs were a small minority in the kingdom rather than a significant minority or even a majority. One thing we have to understand is the the Muslim Jat and Rajput tribes although they like to claim that they became Muslim due to the preaching of the Sufis, the fact is that most became Muslim due to forcible conversion policy of Aurangzeb. So they had only been Muslim for 4-5 generations. Had the Maharaja used the state machinery for propagation of Sikhism among these tribes then it is possible that some may have come over to Sikhism. During the British times the Suddhi movement had brought many Rajput and other tribes back to Hinduism because even then in the 1920s these tribes though Muslim on paper were still using Brahmins as priest and still following many of the rites of Hinduism. This was also the case with the Muslim Jat and Rajput tribes in Punjab in the 1800s. The kingdom should have financed various schemes to bring the numerous lower castes into Sikhism. The other mistakes he made was farming out whole districts to rich administrators who would then pay the treasury a certain amount each year and would be responsible for the collection of the revenue. Such forms of administration do not allow these districts to become integrated into the kingdom and hence when war occurs with outside powers these administrators will look at their own interests rather than the interests of the state. In the same way rather than amalgamate Jammu into the kingdom he installed a corrupt and disloyal soldier of fortune as the Raja of Jammu who then betrayed the Sikhs during the Anglo-Sikh wars and in the end bought Kashmir valley from the British and became a Maharaja. Maharaja Ranjit Singh should have set up a well staffed and professional administrative and civil service to manage and integrate the different areas of his kingdom. The Maharaja's other mistake was not to nominate a strong successor. He knew that Kharak Singh would not be an able Maharaja and should instead have nominated his grandson Naunihal Singh as his successor during his lifetime. Perhaps if the Maharaja had not made the mistakes the Sikh kingdom would have survived into modern times and our national condition would not be such as it is today.

Yes, and simply being a non-Sikh doesn't mean you had a hand in the downfall of the Sikh Empire. The overwhelming majority of the Sikh Empire's population were non-Sikh and committed to their country. Shah Muhammad's Jangnama Hind Punjab encapsulates this mood well, this was a non-Sikh writing of his patriotism for the kingdom of the Sikhs. They were not responsible for its downfall, the intriguing of the court was, and most of the people at court were Sikh. You can't just absolve our people of all responsibility every time they goof up and don't act in the way you think Sikhs should by saying they aren't actually Sikhs.

I didn't respond because I didn't need to. You were right. And you never asked me to. Still haven't answered my question. Banda Singh Bahadur has nothing to do with this. Changing the subject again. For what seems like the umpteenth time to me, you said - "Bahadur Shah is proof that these enemies should never be trusted, Guru Sahib decided to help him because he knew he could teach a lesson to the Sikhs in the future." On what basis have you decided that Guru Sahib's motive for helping Bahadur Shah was to teach a lesson to future Sikhs not to trust these enemies (by which I presume you mean Muslims), given that there is no scriptural or itihaasic source corroborating you?

Extremely wishful thinking. Sahib Singh of Patiala, the other cis-Sutlej Sardars, Ajeet Singh Sandhawalia and his family, etc were definitely Sikhs and they had no aspirations in the direction of theocracy I assure you. Neither did anyone else at the court of Lahore. You need to hit the history books. Tons of the people that joined the Khalsa under Baba Ji did it in order to acquire power (as Sikhs were rulers), out of fear of being plundered (also, forced conversions to Sikhism were rare but not nonexistent) or to join the army and participate in the sacking of Mughal Punjab. Bro you need to read actual Sikh itihaas instead of regurgitating the usual fluffy Sikhi camp myths. Many Puraatan Sikhs after Guru Gobind Singh Ji's departure were never the angels we have slowly turned them into by a process of historical whitewashing and rewriting - a byproduct of British tinkering with Sikh tradition which led us to impose Western notions of chivalry and heroism on our historical figures. Often they weren't very different from you and I.

Total non-sequitur, I never suggested that Guru Granth Sahib and Muhammad exist on equal terms. Don't try and dodge the question by turning it around on me and putting words in my mouth. You said "Guru Sahib decided to help him [Bahadur Shah] because he knew he could teach a lesson to the Sikhs in the future." I pointed out to you that Guru Sahib makes no such claim in his own Bani, and that no itihaasic source makes such a claim either, rather they say that Guru Sahib helped Bahadur Shah in order to secure the religious rights of non-Muslims in his kingdom. So on what basis have you decided that this was Guru Sahib's motive for doing what he did? You have no right to say this.

The Dogras were the most immediate cause of the empire's downfall, but the fundamental cause for the collapse of the Sikh Kingdom was Ranjit Singh's fatal decision to make himself king of the Sikhs and replace the Khalsa's republicanism (Sarbat Khalsa, Gurmatta, Jathedari) with a system of absolutist monarchy which centralized all power in his hands - this had no place in a 'Sikh' nation. His miscalculation ensured that the kingdom would all but fall apart his death and be vulnerable to vultures, particularly in light of the uselessness of his heirs. I disagree veerji. This Sikh kingdom would never have become as powerful as it did if not for non-Sikhs. The Sikh Empire was so successful while Ranjit Singh was alive precisely because he managed to integrate and secure the loyalty of the Punjabi musalman who constituted most of his subjects - and thereby ensured economic productivity and public order. The Khalsa army of the Lahore durbar was also not just made up of Sikhs - all cavalry were Sikh, but virtually the whole of the artillery was Muslim, as was a significant portion of the infantry of the regular army (included Pathans, Punjabi Muslims and Gurkhas). Secondly if not for the induction of non-Sikh European officers into the Sikh army, it would never have relinquished its fixation with irregular cavalry or its revulsion at the idea of infantry. Without the innovations of these non-Sikhs, therefore, the Fauj would never have advanced to first rank among the armies of Asia. An army composed entirely of cavalry is fine when you're fighting a guerilla war, not so much when you're building and defending an empire against men with guns and artillery. Furthermore not all non-Sikhs in the kingdom were disloyal to the durbar, and not all Sikhs were loyal. The Muslims of Punjab routinely resisted the calls of the Afghans (and later, the mutineers of 1857) to join them in jihad against the infidel Sikhs. The Fakir brothers (Muslims) were loyal to Ranjit Singh's memory to the last, as were several of the other Hindu Dogra generals of the Khalsa army (Dogras are a race, not a family. It was one family of Dogras in particular which caused most of the trouble). And while there were good, loyal Sikh nobles such as the Attariwalas and the Nakkais, there were many more who were fickle and treacherous. Rani Jindaan was notoriously corrupt , as were the Sandhawalias, who murdered Sher Singh, the only successor of Ranjit Singh with even a shred of competence, by blowing him to pieces with a shotgun. I think your stance is way too absolute bro. An empire is by definition multicultural and cosmopolitan. The Vatican is not the most apt comparison here (It is a country in name only).

Nobody said that Sikhs don't commit crimes. But nice try at trying to use the figures for one prison to represent it as a norm. If you look at the national prison figure they tell a different story. On 30 June 2004 there were 6571 Muslims in prison out of a total prison population of 74.488 so Muslims were 8.9% of the prison population whereas Muslims were only 3% of the total population. On 30 June 2014 the respective numbers were 12,106 Muslims out of 85,509 total prisoners making Muslims 14.2% while being only 4.8% of the UK population. For Sikhs the numbers were 498 in prison in 2004 being 0.68% of prisoners while being 0.6% of the UK population. In 2014 the figures were 732 Sikhs making 0.85% of all prisoners while Sikhs were 0.8% of the UK population. So Sikh prisoners are roughly the same percentage as the Sikh population as a whole. HOWEVER Muslims are three times their number in prison as in the total population. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31794599

The difference is that in Sikh and Hindu dominated areas the whites would never have felt physically threatened as they do in Muslim dominated areas today. There was none of the hostility towards whites in Sikh/Hindu areas as there are in Muslim areas now. Although Sikhs and Hindus would have felt a sense of belonging to their areas there was never a sense that these areas were now exclusively theirs. This is the case with Muslim areas now. There is a lot of talk about 'no go areas' for the police and I doubt any of these areas are Sikh or Hindu. Again these areas will be Muslim areas.

Why's it okay for white people to live in predominantly white areas or to migrate from racially diverse areas to predominantly white areas, but it's not okay for Muslims to live in predominantly Muslim areas? There's a lot, lot more to it. When our people first came to this country, they did the same. Take a look at Southall Birmingham Coventry. Safety in numbers. A sense of community which we all know plays a huge role in Islam. A better environment (in their case an Islamic environment) to raise your children in. Mosque prayer congregation. Etc etc I think you've a lot left to examine before coming to any sort of conclusion on white flight and muslim migration. It might be an idea to leave aside your racial biases for a start. Very interesting topic though... "And where once hard working friendly hindu's sikhs whites dominating these high street shops and areas where I lived now I only seen halal food outlets, women in burka's and muslims and black and mixed race council estate hooded face covered chav's bringing a dark threatening environment." Utterly hilarious btw! ^

It should not really really matter that areas become 'overun with muslims'. in fact its best to leave these areas. let the muslims be with their own kind. Muslims will alway be hostile to non muslims and vice versa. Think about the amount of grooming cases that would happen if Sikhs and hindus stayed in predominately muslim areas. It would increase tenfold. Its best Sikhs stay away from gehtto muslim areas. Do muslims like to live in Sikh dominated areas? no they want to be with their own kind. so let them. This is the fact of modern britian, america, canada and india. just about anywhere. people want to live with their own kind.

She's a typical loud mouthed racist person. I took alot of abuse from this vile human being who is not good enough to be called a woman and I thought I will just walk away from the job peacefully without saying anything and then she was the one who had the last dig at me as I was leaving. I feel like going back there and giving her my 2 cents. for all the abuse she has given me and alot of the other staff members. I am not the kind of person who looks for confrontation. Infact I try and avoid it. She took me by suprise as I was talking to another manager. She butted in with her comments about my stay there. The cheek of the person. I could report her for her behaviour.

Www.ukindia.com - is the website I learnt Hindi and Urdu from. It took a few weeks.

We need to think why our guru sahib ji invented 35 akhar instead of adopting any other readily available language? Our guru sahib inventing a language naturally means that we sikhs need to learn how to read, write and speak Punjabi regardless of where we resides. It must be one of the qualification of calling ourself Sikh. We also should (after learning Punjabi) to try to learn other languages as well like Urdu etc.

The guy (jet-black beard liquor-selling "Amritdhari" uncle) is just going around randomly hitting people who are calmly sitting down. Did he down a few pegs before the divan? Hitting people who did not hit you is assault. It doesn't matter if you own the gurdwara, like I think he does. Will he also be booked for assault? Or just the Singhs for shouting a few jaikaras?

Before I start, I was one of supporter of the current management’s supporter whether they have any program/event or elections. Even, we had their help in setting up Punjabi school locally. But anyway, everything goes away when it comes to make a stand on truth. They always invite him. They also sponsored him legally to become the permanent resident of United States. They took that back last year (as I heard). Ranjit got his visa denied and this same management went to national congressman to get his visa approved. Mix of different type of folks. There are few good men but main players had trouble past. Main sponsor who is also main spokesman of gurughar is amritdhari but blackens his beard pitch black and owns many liquor stores. Same guy is also president of akali dal badal (us). Group of few singhs who were once good in terms with them. They went to ask for a meeting with Ranjit Singh a day before his program. That was their request. MGMT didn’t want to but somewhat agreed but never replied and ignored their repeated attempts to reach them days after meeting. They went back on their words. They didn’t want any meetings but one or two management members were on singhs side and made the meeting possible about one week before ranjit’s diwan. 35 to 40 singhs went on Friday (working day). Management was fully prepared. They were asking for id’s near entrance. Anyhow singhs were sitting in the diwan hall. All of them were of mix backgrounds. The liquor store owner guy was the stage host. He is also the secretary of the gurughar. He announce please keep peace. An hour before Ranjit came in, liquor store owner guy along with hired security and his goons went to lift singhs up to take them off the gurdwara hall. Remember there was nothing happening when they went to Sangat area to remove them. One of their management person stopped this and sat with Sangat to keep peace. Ranjit came in afterwards- he did kirtan 30 mins, nobody said anything. When he started his usual lecture, Sangat started jaikaras and their folks also started to do same and then one of their guy who now caught on video came in and took off one singhs turban and then you know what happened. Most of the singhs who came were mature middle age folks. In my personal view, management is in hankar and too proudly. They are bound to fail by making such reckless decisions.

No, brother, this is my transcription of Sant Dhadrianwale's 10min video. From my post: "This is basically what he said. I'll reply later on below:" I don't know if Gurpreet Singh from California made a recent refutation video, but I know that he does a lot of that sort of thing. Quite interesting that Dhadrianwale did not address any substantive points made by Gurpreet Singh, but merely homed in on the number of protesters and supporters.

Are you saying above or someone else? Because I know everything that happened there because I’m involved in it - first hand experience from day one meetings till today. Any questions?

How relevant is that in a Sikh forum?