• advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt

AjeetSinghPunjabi

Members
  • Content count

    566
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Everything posted by AjeetSinghPunjabi

  1. A basic analysis : If you look at most religions worldwide , it is only the core priestly class which follows the tenets of religion to fullest. The laymen are either not required or not bothered. Sikh gurus were of the vision that the priest and common man should have the same spiritual opportunity. For this reason, Guru Gobind Singh ji gave 5 kakkars to all of us, not just the granthi. He gave turbans to all of us , not just the political ruler. This is in stark contrast to both hinduism and islam. Most hindu men don't keep uncut hair or keep tilak , even though all rishis (who wrote vedas) did have uncut hair much like sikhs, the pandits do wear bodi and tilak. Some hindu communities require boys to pierce ears (one time childhood event). Most muslim men don't wear turban or keep beard like the prophet, even though the imams of mosques do. Islam requires boys to be circumcised (one time childhood event). Most hindu women are still expected to wear saree, sindoor, mangalsutar and other external signs of hinduism (life long) Most muslim women are expected to wear hijab (life long). So , as it is in both hinduism and islam, it is men who're let off lightly when it comes to religious discipline while women do have to carry the weight with them. Women are seen as flagbearers of culture. Also islam and hinduism both believe in mutilation of some sort as noted above. Sikhi on the other hand is so opposed to altering god's gifts that we don't even permitted to cut our hair . Carrying religious articles in sikhi is opposite . Men wear turbans and keep beards (life long) , while women can do eyebrows and no one cares. If a boy however cut his hair , it raises eyes. In sikh communities, men are the flagbearers of culture. It seems many (some?) of our boys nowadays don't bother much about it. Somewhere in the 70s, we started going down the slippery slope where our boys started shedding hairs faster than we could cope. And once a guy cut his hair , his son also wouldn't keep it , and then sikhi goes off in that lineage. Today, we face a horde of young sikh men who don't look sikh . They keep really short hair like models and don't wear turbans. Kada is convenient , so its always there in hand. But the larger question is "Is such a man sikh ?" If not, then what is he ? Are we ultimately going to become like other communities , where only the priests keep religious articles while laymen don't ?
  2. Lol like seriously ! how can these guys even think a sikh will become king for britain . Everyone knows Britain only passes monarchy into royal family . Is there a sikh in royal family ? No not talking about elizabeth's bodyguards . Seriously wake up sheeple. Considering most of you from this forum live in UK. how the feck can we be so juvenile man ?
  3. Who needs RSS and islamists to finish us off ? We will do it ourselves by fighting among ourselves. This thread is one example
  4. this is ridiculous uncle ! I think you're better than this homophobic trash you sometimes reveal in your posts. Also AIDS is nasty no matter how you get it . Claiming Jagsaw is throwing sikhs under the bus, now you're throwing gays under the bus . How ironic.
  5. LOL. The title of this thread and the idea by OP is truly ludicrous .. ! Lets dream and plan for something which is feasible !
  6. First, lets admit one thing straightforward : Our religion has somethings that make it difficult to follow in modern times , esp for men ! So unless we give sikhi to our kids , we're going to lose them from sikhi once they grow up . Its inevitable. But then our religion is very straightforward path to god , without involving any superstitions. Our kids need to be taught at modern age why they have to wear turbans or kes . Otherwise our kids will grow on to understand turban as "burden" (yes I have heard this word from sikh teenage boys). Khande di paahul or amrit ? In gurbaani, amrit means name of god which doesn't discriminate on bhek (outer appearance).
  7. I would be more than happy if this is the case ! but our quality is going down unfortunately because we have to target kids with sikhi . Kids , not adults have to be preached to !
  8. even whole of cheek is too much ! only the lower halfs of cheek its normal.
  9. Don't put everyone in same basket. I know many sikhs here in my own city who support bhindrawale Most of them also happen to be religious
  10. The only way i think that sikhs can get back their autonomy and political power back is if an external power attacks india leading to a state of anarchy! Even the first sikh empire was formed as a result of power void resulting from anarchy
  11. This is true. I simply love reading your posts. Indian state is like a leech that doesn't want anyone to go away from its clutches when infact india was nvr one country. Its more like european union. Every state has its own culture, language and diet. Our children are brainwashed by capitalist india and its glaze. When you are young and have a smartphone in ur hand nd so much entertainment nd things to do, reading sikh history and even more, fighting for sikh nation is the last thing that we are going to do. Reminds me of how chhote sahibzaade were not faltered by neither temptation nor fear of enemy. We fell into both!
  12. So finally some sikhs admit that we're losing a demographic war. Whether it's medieval battles or modern silent battles in democracies , demography is necessary for any community to survive. Heck ! even the two words sound same : "Demo"cracy and "Demo"graphy. Democracy favors people who're majority. No one , esp modern politicians , is going to care you fed homeless people on sundays , that you're extra nice with all the free food in langar for poor , how your religion believes in defending others even at cost of your own life. All they care for is whether you can vote for them. Then you could be the community which produces most of modern day terrorists, rally in public square asking the PM to be decapitated and bring your no-go sharia zones and you will still have an entire section of media and politics (lefties) to cater to you and pamper you. No matter how much we hate the muslims , they're waging a very successful one in pretty much everywhere. Even now that ramzan is going, I am constantly bombarded with media reports on how politicians are going to iftar parties . Why do these politicians rarely come to langar halls ? and why iftar parties are so common ? Why in India "minority" means "muslim" for politicians when infact sikhs are a much smaller minority . Why ?? because vote bank , because numbers. And then you tell a sikh about how we should have more kids and see how he scoffs your idea and runs away
  13. This question was raised by me just to invite discussion on how we can face the issue that our kaum is facing , namely the apostasy which is just as big a challenge in our "homeland" punjab for us if not more than drugs ! You just turn on the punjabi channel and see the environment of punjab. IIM amritsar was recently launched and in their batch photo, of 30 young men, I could barely see 2 turbaned ones. Where is our kaum heading to ? I have never hinted at alienating or guilt-tripping sikhs who cut their hair I have always said Khalsa is a panth in sikhi , much like a subset . There could be sikhs who're not khalsa . IMHO, if you believe in 10 guru sahibs and truly understand their message and believe in one god, then you're a sikh ! The guilt-trip camp was quite famous back in the 90s when we were kids . I always felt it made patit youth even more disinterested in sikhi , and those who were inspired, their inspirations were short lived because inspirations driven by fear are not the proper type.
  14. Wat stops those mona lisas from growing their hair then and keeping dastars or even taking amrit? If they are so good in their habits, and in alignment with sikhi values then i feel they're wasting wisdom by not implementing it. Keeping hair turban and taking amrit is not the end of it, but rather the beginning on a successful path.
  15. Finally someone spoke out the bitter truths . I am still astonished how many of us believe Jarnail Singh Bhindrawale is going to have a "second coming" to save us from the quagmire that we're in nowadays. I will agree with every single line of your post, except The Anandpur Resolution and other associated Sikh concerns were certainly borne from our side, but without any concrete support from the Pakistanis , these aims would've remained as vague, undeliverable philosophies. How could pakistan voice for sikh concerns even if they wanted to ? Indian rulers wouldn't have given a heed anyways.
  16. How do you know for sure that once punjab landed in anarchy by the absence of indian law , then Pakistan wouldn't have come forward and absorbed punjab via military seize ? and then even indian army could do anything in that case. Thats like jumping from hot pain into fire .
  17. This is common knowledge to most people. even hindus knew this ! Pakistan wanted to avenge 1971 (india splitting east pakistan away as bangladesh). We have been milked (blooded) , still are , but we never realize. In today's age, impulsiveness doesn't work. It might have worked in days of abdali and zakaria khan. Our enemies know we're hot headed (dil de saaf but not deep strategic cunning thinkers)
  18. I have always said britishers have only abused sikhs for their own selfish motives, without paying our dues in return. First they couldn't foresee sikh future in hindu homeland ? then their help to india in 1984 in op bluestar. and now borris <banned word filter activated> talks about whiskey in gurudwara. British kuttey aren't going to change. First we were soldiers of hindus , then of britishers , and now of whom ? I wonder ? oh its india If britishers had some thankfulness to sikhs for us fighting for them in WW1 and 2 , they would have given sikhs their due in 47 itself . But white skinned ones are not kknown to be nice to other races
  19. I seriously doubt britishers wanted to give sikhs a third country called "Sikhistan" in 1947 . Muslims got pakistan just because muslim league grew weary of the designs of RSS and hindutva and felt muslims might not have a safe future in independent hindu majority india. We , on the other hand had leaders like "Tara Singh" who not only were hindutva based but also in 1963 went on with others to found Vishwa hindu parishad . The reason britishers didn't even consider us is because we're too low in numbers and not that influential either. As Maskeen ji said "bahut bholi kaum haigi". And then in 1947 we had to side with either pakistan or india and we wisely so chose india . Had we chosen pakistan, we would have been obliterated by now .
  20. What might come as shock to sikh / punjabi wedding , a woman is seen with her turbaned groom husband , in only sweat shorts. On top she's wearing the usual choli , dupatta, but the lehenga is missing !! lol http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/everything-social/this-brides-wedding-ensemble-manages-to-set-twitter-on-fire/?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=TOI KI JALOOS KADYA !
  21. He does ! Even when he sits with his cabinet, there's a big maharaja ranjit singh painting backing him
  22. women in vedic period didn't use to wear blouse ! blouse is a recent invention to saree. 3000 yrs ago women just wore saree without blouse but still kept their nangez covered.
  23. Are you saying a man who has taken amrit shouldn't cover his kachhera with say cargo shorts or trousers ?
  24. Just imagine a guy going in shorts. Oh wait, patriarchy only wants women to dress skimpy
  25. Which bride poses for a photo in an underwear and how come her husband is cool with that. Lmao