Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


jashb last won the day on June 14 2017

jashb had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

232 Excellent

1 Follower

About jashb

  • Rank
    Gur Pooraa Milaavai Mayraa Preetam

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

750 profile views
  1. The lost Sikh turban style

    Neither am I, but you haven't half dragged this out, theeye. Like I said, all the best.
  2. The lost Sikh turban style

    You'd find that so do most of the lot round here. Your "joke" just simply wasn't funny though, which I hoped you'd have clocked onto by now. It clearly had you in stitches however. No sh1t sherlock. Thanks, for stating the bleeding obvious though. Like I said, I don't agree, so let's leave it at that funnyman. Likewise. All the best.
  3. The lost Sikh turban style

    On this occasion, I humbly disagree. Lol, obviously I read the "whole thing". I only highlighted the part I'm referring to. It's only five words short for gods sake. Depends on who's the subject of the said "humour". I'd venture to say it's generally a good policy to leave any mention of Guru Sahiban out of jokes. As for bajjar kurehats, what is or isn't one is no business of mine.
  4. The lost Sikh turban style

    Easy geezer. There's a line between banter and taking the p1$$.
  5. The lost Sikh turban style

    Agreed. It is one person's imagination. I think it's a good idea overall to view some of these artists depictions with a healthy dose of scepticism. Especially considering some of their (Non-Sikh) backgrounds. Don't forget that male artists generally gravitate towards the effeminate side of the spectrum. Art and painting aren't skills that come naturally to most blokes. It's no surprise then that some of these artists might want to depict their subjects wearing things like earrings, and even ankle bracelets(!).
  6. Sikhs and celebration?

    I don't think we do to be honest. I would say that we commemorate it, or at least that's what I think we do. To say that we celebrate it carries the wrong kind of connotations for this pivotal moment in Sikh history, and is imho inaccurate. The whole month of June in particular is shahadat da mahina. In this month, I salute the heroic nature of their selfless sacrifices, their defiance of state tyranny, and their defence of Gurbani and Guru Panth. I remember Pancham Patshah Guru Arjan Dev Ji, Banda Singh Ji Bahadur, Sant Jarnail Singh Ji Khalsa Bhindranwale, Bhai Amrik Singh Ji, General Subheg Singh Ji and the 1984 Shaheeds. I pay respect to the way they all stared down the barrel of death without fear. I don't however think I could honestly say that I celebrate the shahadat of my Guru Ji or thousands of innocent pilgrims. To say that we celebrate these events, in the manner that others might celebrate festivals, weddings and birthdays (although I know you're not suggesting that), is a bit of a stretch. We don't necessarily have to be sad, but one can vow vengeance on one's enemies. I think the best way to really "celebrate" all the Shaheeds is to remember them, never forget them, bow down to their selfless sacrifices, and disseminate as much information as we can about them so that we can prepare and train current and future generations for the difficulties that lie ahead, in order that they can follow in the footsteps of the Shaheeds and their sacrifices that we commemorate.
  7. Completely inconsequential. Every politician is power hungry. No they were not. This premise is entirely incorrect. Indra gundhi abused the electoral process to gain her seat in the lok sabha. It was the janata dal in 1975, the forerunner of the BJP, not the "Akali Sikhs", that took the case of her fraudulent election to court and won. The high court ruled her election to lok sabha void due to electoral malpractice. The judgment disallowed her holding the office of prime minister. She was ordered to make way and step down in a matter of days. In response to the prospect of being unseated, she imposed the "emergency" and conveniently handed herself draconian powers as a result. Following her imposition of "emergency", it was again the janata dal, not the "Akali Sikhs", that was foremost in opposing it across india, amidst a wider background of resentment against her rule. The "Akali Sikhs" were by no means "the most rebellious to central govt in 1977 emergency", though that may well be their own present line of propaganda. It seems you are trying to downplay or brush aside the widespread desire for the congress party led Sikh Genocide by attributing it to some sort of minor political dispute between political factions that subscribe to the same overall anti-Sikh policy. However that is not the case. The "Akalis" were in fact wholly accommodative of the Sikh Genocide and were in league with the congress party at this point and they have been ever since. If anything, it is clear that we tend to carelessly (or deliberately) undermine it. Either wishful thinking, or ignorance is bliss. Perhaps the proximity of indra gundhi's ancestry to the same "aurangzeb" is underestimated. Perhaps one should investigate the lineage of this litter. Besides being the product of a b*****d jawahar lal nehru that shares its birth in a muslim (mughal) brothel of Allahabad with the other b*****d zulfiqar ali bhutto, the so-called "gundhi" clan traces directly via its paternal line through moti lal nehru and further raj kaul-nehru to gangu bahman. So if Hitler appointed self-hating Jews as nazi army generals, which incidentally he did, then I suppose his actions couldn't remotely be determined as anti-Jewish could they? Lol This is equivalent to the kind of simple logic that the quoted statement represents. One can only make that juvenile assertion if one chooses to close their eyes to the fact that he (and she) might have intended to provide their regimes with the convenient camouflage of a veneer of secularism in so doing, whilst charging those very self-hating cretins appointed with the act of rounding up and indiscriminately slaughtering members of their own race and faith. Other than the Sikh Genocide, what exactly did she provide to the Sikhs? This sense of "nostalgia" that is felt by some waylaid Sikhs for the inherently anti-Sikh congress party that executed the 1984 pogroms and the 1980s Panjab genocide that eliminated 250,000 youths, turned Panjab into a government sponsored slaughter house, and forced over 1 million Sikh males off the register of india within a decade between 1981 and 1991, which leads them to retrospectively rewrite contemporary events in the congress party's favour, is due to anti-incumbency sentiments against the BJP. It is mostly because a hindutva government led by another dictator is in power and is clearly the result of aggression by the RSS and BJP. However no Sikh should ever try to downplay the anti-Sikh actions of the kaul-nehru litter and the congress party in particular. The two opposing political factions are both thoroughly brahmanical and biparvadi. They differ in approach only, not in degree.
  8. The so called "anti-fascists" are inherently more intolerant, fascist and racist than those they pretend to oppose. The complete stupidity, incoherence and lack of any kind of skill of the women in this "debate" speaks volumes. If these are the kind of degenerates that eulogise and form the base of support of Jeremy Corbyn, I'm glad Labour didn't win. In truth, what these communists really oppose is the right of anybody to criticise islam.
  9. Internal Atrophy of Sikh Autonomy

    I don't think this should realistically be played down like this. The problem with this kind of behaviour by the leaders of any nation/society is that they don't live in a vacuum. If they did, they could theoretically get up to whatever kind of depraved anti-Sikh debaucheries they felt inclined to as far as I'm concerned. As long as these didn't adversely affect their rule in particular and the behaviour of society as a whole. Which, in itself is a pipe dream. The reason why that's not advisable policy in any event in the real world is because leaders possess a very real and powerful signalling function. This can be highly beneficial in the right hands and potentially seriously dangerous in the wrong hands. Public perception of a leader's behavior is hugely magnified, and, inevitably, it filters all the way down society. Therefore, leaders have a strict duty and responsibility to their subjects to set them a healthy and positive example to follow. They need not only to possess the correct morals, but more importantly, to be seen to possess the correct morals. This is more or less dharam, to which the Maharaja appeared to give wild abandon towards the end of his life. Now these kinds of restrictions could well be deemed a bit of a straightjacket for a red-blooded ruler, and I suspect that the one being referred to here felt that to be the case. But, quite frankly, that is the price of the job. Either accept it, or leave it to someone with greater self-restraint. At this point, it should be self-evident that any form of widespread addiction to the baser sensual pleasures is seriously detrimental to the future existence as a going concern of any nation. I shouldn't need to explain how these addictions encourage and normalise the very vikaars that produce a society of weak, shallow, easily manipulable individuals, low in morals, and crippled by a complete absence of the family values that are required to maintain a healthy strong and growing nation. However, by the Maharaja and most (though not all) of his close leadership indulging in this exact kind of downright utter gundh, it gave a green light to the rest of society that this stuff was strictly A-OK. So you could get drunk, get high, sleep with multiple partners that you never intend to get married with, and still call yourself a practising Sikh. All with the endorsement of the Maharaja. Happy days. Ironically, the Maharaja, increasingly brazenly in his latter days, got up to the very kind of anti-Sikh rubbish that the Khalsa was instructed and mandated to eradicate. So much for Khalsa Rahe Niara. Consequently, I think that the roots of the current simplistic, unsophisticated, promiscuous, and shallow "balle balle" drinking/dancing/bhangra culture (which is incidentally a totally mughal imitation) that our society is currently infested with can be traced back to this era. As a result, I believe that Guru Maharaj gave us a good and well deserved lesson when the Khalsa Raj that was abused in this fashion came crashing down. Yet, apparently we've learnt nothing, and some people appear to actually fantasise about returning to an age where this exact same gundh can be repeated and replicated with impunity, whilst somehow avoiding the side-effects that are bound to accompany it. It's impossible. No serious nation ever prospered whose rulers gave into cheap pleasures, sensual thrills and hedonistic debauchery.
  10. Maybe this is because you're, more or less, so resoundingly simple? Try to recognise that there is more than one dimension, and try to accept there may even be positive aspects, to the people you don't like. People want to listen to someone that stimulates them intellectually, not someone that reduces everything to a couple of soundbites. Perhaps this is also something to do with their impression of you? Maybe you're perceived as being, rightly or wrongly, someone not worth listening to? Sadly, no matter how high truthful and beneficial the message, in this case, even the path of Gurmat, people tend to judge the messenger before they pay any heed whatsoever to the message. To provide you with an example, you could do much worse than look to Shaheed Sant Jarnail Singh Ji Khalsa Bhindranwale for guidance in this respect. Sant ji was, on the face of it, identical to nearly every other parcharak. He wasn't the only bhujangi educated in the Taksal, and he wasn't the only Amritdhari Singh. Others were given far better stages and opportunities to influence Panjab, nay bharat, for the commonwealth good. Yet, despite these obvious similarities, ungint numbers of bharatis felt raised, inspired and compelled to step onto the path of Sikhi due to hearing Sant Ji's bachans, but at the same time, next to nobody and his dog listened to the other parcharaks even though they encouraged effectively the same thing. Now go figure why. And don't try to reduce the reasons for this to a simple catchphrase or two when you do.
  11. Internal Atrophy of Sikh Autonomy

    That's your whole explanation for misquoting me? You are so one-dimensional it's unbelievable. You reduce the complexity of everything you see to black and white, without caring for the finer, sometimes hidden, message that lies in shades of grey within. Have you ever bothered to discover the background to these assassinations? For example, where the conspirators came from, and what were their several, complex motivations? How they managed to obtain such power that they were able to effectively collude with each other to cause the assassinations of the sons of Maharaja Ranjit Singh, and consequently suck the Kaum dry during the resulting chaos? These aren't events that can be dismissed in a single sentence - nothing is ever that simple. You can't do justice to this period by simply declaring "Maharaja bad". Things don't work like that. Moreover, the events that we are referring to possess relevance and importance of the highest magnitude for the Kaum right now. They have shaped the destiny of the Kaum for the last 170 years, and if we're not careful, they will continue to do so for a long time more. Fail to understand what went wrong before, and you'll keep on committing the same mistakes over and over again. I can see the exact same things occurring within the Panth right now, but you can't correct what you don't see. Too many evidently don't.
  12. Internal Atrophy of Sikh Autonomy

    Where have I said there's anything wrong with having "Non-Punjabi Sikhs"? You are deluded if you believe that non-Panjabis and "Non-Punjabi Sikhs" are the same thing. The entirely reasonable and justifiable position in this respect is that putting non-Sikhs and furthermore non-Panjabis in charge of the destiny of Panjab was an incredibly poor, stupid, and myopic decision by Maharaja Ranjit Singh. Moreover, it treated with utter contempt the very Guru Sahiban in whose name he claimed to rule. This does not in anyone's wildest imagination equal the kind of anti-Sikh discrimination you have tried to allege. What is there about the distinction between these two disparate groups of people that you don't understand? Are you one of those people that have been brainwashed into believing that Panjabis and Sikhs are equivalent terms? Or do you simply believe the retarded equation that "Panjabi = Sikh"? Explain yourself. There are 90 million reasons why you and others like you are wrong. You really need to read about the demise of Khalsa Raj from an objective, authentic, and truly Sikh source (stress applied on the latter factor being operative), then come back here when you're ready. I can help to point you in the right direction. But only if you're willing. Frankly speaking, it was a stupid and nepotic mistake. But it was by no means his worst decision. I'm no fan of Kharak Singh. But that doesn't mean he shouldn't have been given the opportunity to rule once appointed. Moreover, this wasn't the incredibly poor, stupid, and myopic decision I referred to that so strictly and brazenly violated Guru Ji's hukams. Understand this. There were then, and there remain, certain non-Sikh elements, that we have stupidly permitted, in our blind sleep, to infiltrate our society, that walk the walk, and talk the talk, yet do not hold the authentic Sikh ethos and interests in the form of Khalsa Halemi Raj in any way shape or form at heart. It is not that sincere Sikhs that existed at the time of the events being referred to didn't have the parkh to recognise this fact. It is, that, to a large extent, their hands were tied by a regime that started more or less as a Sikh democracy, and ended definitively as an anti-Sikh autocracy. It was these non-Sikh, nay, anti-Sikh elements that had no intention of ever letting a Sikh, even one like Kharak Singh, from succeeding to rule.
  13. Internal Atrophy of Sikh Autonomy

    For me, there is no more complex a figure in Sikh history, no greater a paradox, no other man that evokes a more diverse range of opinions emotions and feelings within the Kaum, than Maharaja Ranjit Singh. If the Kaum were to properly consider, and with balance, assess the life, successes and failures of this remarkable man, I have no doubt that this would provide great lessons that would help us manage the future. Maharaja Ranjit Singh, for the first time in history, so successfully defended Panjab from foreign invasion that he was able to take the fight against the islamic onslaught into the very regions from which the jihadis emerged. He countered and comprehensively defeated the jihadis of his time, people with the same ideology as modern day islamists, those who can reasonably be said to be the antecedents of the present day ISIS and taliban. This was no mean feat. While assessing his achievements one has to bear in mind that the overwhelming majority of the citizens of Khalsa Raj belonged to the same mindset as the Panth's enemies. Yet, he actually managed to earn their respect, admiration and loyalty, even after he defeated them, to such an extent that they welcomed him. Whether this was the result of his sense of tolerance, his political expediency, or his weakness in excessively pandering to the islamic population to the detriment of the entire region, is not definite. I suspect the answer lies somewhat in degrees of all three. Now, having said all that, it would be a matter of pure dishonesty if one did not provide balance and address the fact that in so doing, he committed the very serious transgressions against Guru Ji's hukams that would eventually consign Khalsa Raj to history. What troubles me the most about the way he went about this is that Khalsa Raj did not belong to Maharaja Ranjit Singh, nor was it his creation, nor was it for him to throw away. In this respect, the speech delivered by General Hari Singh Ji Nalwa, the greatest and most successful General of his time, in response to Maharaja Ranjit Singh's announcement that his son would succeed him, is particularly poignant and relevant. When assessing the life and achievements of Maharaja Ranjit Singh, we must never overlook the fact that Sadde das lakh Sikh fought and died in multiple genocides in order to achieve Khalsa Raj. Khalsa Raj was built on the foundation of these shaheedis of huge numbers of Sikhs over several generations for the cause of Sikhi and out of love for Guru Maharaj. It did not belong to a single family alone. But by choosing to pass on his reign to his son, Maharaja Ranjit Singh consigned the Kaum to a fate that we are still reeling from 170 years later. This nepotism was acted out in an almost nonchalantly shameless and neglectful manner. General Hari Singh Ji Nalwa was entirely correct when he said that Kharak Singh, whilst being his friend and brother, was unsuitable and incapable of shouldering the responsibility of running Khalsa Raj. Yet this advice, which merely repeated what was by then already apparent among sincere Sikhs who cared about the future of the Kaum, had little to no effect on a man that started off his life as a Gursikh in the true sense of the term, and ended it as something quite different, as a creature that sought to ape the myopic rajputs of old. Furthermore, by appointing non-Sikhs and worse still even non-Panjabis to the government, he committed the fatal mistake that made the collapse of Khalsa Raj inevitable. These outsiders had no stake whatsoever in the continuing future as a going concern of Panjab. Even a fool with no respect for Guru Ji's hukams should have been able to see what was forthcoming. Yet, the Maharaja apparently didn't. The result of his non-adherence is plain for all to see. Panjab, the sohni di chirri of our ancestors only a few lifetimes ago, was reduced to dust. The parasitic non-Sikh traitors that Maharaja Ranjit Singh passed control to leached off the Kaum in the same way that the jews profiteered off post-great war Germany. However, the Germans at least identified, opposed and later avenged this treason. We never have, and, due to deliberately planted defects in the transmission of our values to future generations, designed to protect our oppressors, we quite possibly never will. Nobody put a gun to his head and forced Maharaja Ranjit Singh to ignore, neglect, and dismiss Sikhi rehat in the brazen way he did. He did so purely of his own will. And yet, for all of that, I still possess an outstanding admiration for the man, who was at one point, one of the greatest Sikh leaders in history. He is one of the greatest paradoxes I have known. Maharaja Ranjit Singh is for me simultaneously a source of great inspiration and pride, and an object of revile and disgust. Whatever you think about Maharaja Ranjit Singh, and there is much to think about, we could do a lot worse than learn from both the positive and negative aspects of his example, of how to obtain sovereignty, and how to subsequently lose it. In conclusion, when faced with the sobering fact that we have yet to recover our stolen land, there are few better examples to look to in this respect than our own. I have faith that Guru Maharaj has greater things planned for the Kaum than we know at present. And I believe that we were given Maharaja Ranjit Singh to learn from his successes and failures for a reason.
  14. I would return to this point specifically. I believe this is more or less a fact, and one that requires more detailed examination. Two points. 1. I think what you have addressed here should be widely acknowledged, if it isn't already accepted by now. It made sense for the colonisers to do this. The colonisers had the motive, opportunity, and means. Given that 9 million out of 10 million Sikhs left the Panth in the ten years immediately post-annexation, very few Sikhs would have even known Sikhi as it was revealed by Guru Sahiban. This gave the colonisers pretty much a blank slate to dictate a distorted, inauthentic, and politically convenient/subservient form of religion to us. I think the early Singh Sabhias were understandably so alarmed at the rapid loss of numbers in the Panth that they unwittingly played into the colonisers' hands. However, we have the opportunity and duty to correct that. Having said that, had the Singh Sabhias not urgently done what was realistically achievable within the parameters of the critical situation the Panth was in then, you and I may not have known Sikhi today. The reasons for annexation have never been properly examined by the Kaum in my opinion, even until today. The Panth went into a state of shock at this time, and I believe we are yet to fully recover from this. But that is another matter. 2. In regards to the way this induced state of "lullooness" was enforced on us, I think we have to go back much further than annexation to truly get to the root of this. It is my sincere belief that the way the colonisers slyly encouraged and enacted this is analogous to the way the hindu priestly class dumbed down hindu society for thousands of years. They impressed the ordinary and somewhat simple and sincere hindus with their intellect and study, and used that intellectual superiority to preach to them the basic message that; "We know better than you. We know what's good for you, and what's bad for you. Do as we say". The ordinary hindus were banned from learning and advancing themselves politically. This enabled the brahmans to exploit them. And they did that brutally. Different sections of the hindus were each provided disparate instructions in ways to serve the brahmans, be that by fighting and dying for them, making money for them or feeding them. The brahmans termed the resulting disparate classes of society as jaatis. They are what have became known as castes. The ordinary and somewhat simple and sincere hindus succumbed to this exploitation, and this naturally led to the downfall of hindu society. They became the willing or unwilling unthinking pawns of the brahmans. They lost all sense of examination and introspection. They simply accepted what the brahmans told them. "Be honest and innocent in all your doings. Don't study, leave that to us. Keep what you need to feed yourselves and your families and hand over the rest to us". Notice how others, particularly Dalits, who resisted these instructions were ruthlessly dealt with in order to send down a firm message to the rest. The shameful and awful treatment, ostracisation, and consequent killing of Sant Shambook comes to mind. To this day, hindus conveniently manipulate and defend this atrocity with the sort of nonsensical, illogical, mythological bs that is known only to them and is their expertise. The colonisers didn't invent this concept at all. They found, as a result of their research, a religious system that was proven to have worked on the indigenous people for thousands of years. They understood that religion is probably the most effective medium with which to influence a population. They adapted it to suit themselves and deployed it to their own benefit. I don't mean to understate the colonisers' role in deploying this to their benefit. However, it was already there. All they did was ruthlessly take advantage of it. It's still there after they've gone, and to some extent it always will be, because it is and always will be woven into the fabric of hinduism. These problems are intrinsically intertwined. Although this is slightly different to what we were originally alluding to here, you can also see a parallel in the way they deployed the hindu caste system against us in a similar fashion. This can be seen in their propagation of different Sikh "caste" units in the british indian army, each stupidly competing with each other for the affection of the white master, to divide and control us. They didn't invent caste either, but it was the result of their study that they stumbled across the work of bahmans to divide the indigenous people over thousands of years, and that it was highly convenient to them. They simply ruthlessly put it to use. It's what I believe our Guru Sahiban pulled us out of when they banned the hindu caste system and instructed all Sikhs to become politically aware. It's at any rate partially down to the colonisers that we're once again mired in it. But those colonisers have long gone. We now need to look beyond that, and actually get out of this mess. If we don't, I fear there will be grave consequences for the Kaum. We have no right to dishonour the destroyer of hindu caste by hypocritical calling ourselves Sikhs if we don't do everything in our power to remove the stain of hindu caste from the Panth once and for all. This has to go. From our minds, from our mouths, from our Gurdwara Sahib.