• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Balkaar last won the day on February 26

Balkaar had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,343 Excellent

1 Follower

About Balkaar

  • Rank
    Tav Charnan Man Rahay Hamaaraa

Recent Profile Visitors

1,246 profile views
  1. Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa, Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh, I'm looking into the historical usage of sukha by Sikhs, but I'm not sure where to begin. If anyone could help me out and point me in the direction of historical accounts (sikh, british, persian, anything really) or puraatan granths I'd very much appreciate it. Just a note, I'm not looking to begin a debate on the rights or wrongs of sukha maryada, my main concern is subjective historical study. I understand some people may not agree with this maryada but benti, please don't turn this thread into another clash of the titans and get it closed down. WJKK WJKF
  2. Precisely. It's no different to saying that in order to properly study the Vikings, you gotta start worshipping Odin. Some, but, I suspect, not nearly as many as the treasure trove of Islamic charchas on this forum might suggest.
  3. Because India is Hindu Raj, the Hindus possess most of the power and the wealth. Greedy people will always suck up to the rich and powerful in order to acquire some of their wealth and influence for themselves - history provides thousands of examples of people strategically marrying off their daughters for the purposes of economic/social advancement. Indian Sikhs permitting the marriages of their daughters to Hindus is yet another manifestation of this universal human phenomenon. When Sikhs start reading Bani and actually begin to comprehend the toxic nature of maya/daulat, we'll begin to see a reversal in this disturbing trend.
  4. 33 posts and nobody's thought to question the stunning leap of logic which maintains that the acceptance of Sikhi by one disciple of Sri Chand means that Sri Chand also accepted Sikhi? It's like saying Jesus wore sneakers because some of his disciples today wear sneakers. The only proof of Sri Chand's acceptance of Sikhi would be Sri Chand's acceptance of Sikhi, not Mehar Chand's or anyone else's.
  5. They're under attack in one respect and one respect only as far as I can tell - any complaint or grievance they have is automatically shut down as 'racist' by society at large. Saying that though, an examination of the thinking behind these complaints always throws up the same themes - "the immigrants are taking our jobs and our houses". If this were truly the case, then the solution would be a pretty obvious one - make more jobs and build more houses. But the greedy men currently in power in this country would rather not do this, thus they are constantly resuscitating these politically expeditious lies about immigrants, to avoid having to spend their money. The working class whites are being played by the rich whites, and they just can't see it.
  6. It's true, and unfortunate, but the British were at one point very keen on documenting the Sikhs (for purposes of recon I suppose, getting to know the enemy). We wouldn't know half the stuff we do about the era of the Sikhs Misls and Empire if not for their drawings and accounts - apnaay have always been notoriously bad at documenting and preserving their itihaas. Just look at all the historical buildings, frescoes and artworks which our lot have destroyed, painted over or replaced with their beloved tacky white marble. We seem to have lost most of our creativity as a people.
  7. Now that you mention it it is odd. Guru Tegh Bahadur appears to be the only Guru whose persona underwent a complete overhaul in Sikh art. I suppose since all art is a reflection of the imagination, and since Guru Tegh Bahadur was known more for his bhagti than for any military feat (to my knowledge he undertook no campaigns against foes), this is how Sobha Singh imagined he must have looked. An honest mistake probably. This is a trend in contemporary Sikh art, artists representing the figures of our history based on what they know of them - and this knowledge very rarely incorporates puraatan itihaasic sources. This must be why you get all these paintings showing Singhs decked out in flashy armor like the Desi Knights Templar, when historical sources are pretty unanimous that they dressed very lightly in that period - wore barely anything except their kakkars.
  8. I'm no expert obviously, but I suspect that may be the reason why Pahari art can at times appear rather generic - the subjects always appear in the same sorts of garb, positions and poses. Perhaps they were intended for easy reproduction. And as reproductions become more prominent, artists may have wanted to insert details here and there marking the pieces as their own.
  9. Of course Singhji, but Phula Singh was a member of the orthodoxy of the faith, not the mainstream or the secular aristocracy/nobility. He may have worn red, but if the sources testifying to his religious zeal are to be believed then I have my doubts. The mainstream of any faith on the other hand has always interpreted the tenets of their religion more loosely.
  10. The Guru Sahibaan may have worn earrings, I don't know enough about Sikh art to say and I don't really believe its a big deal. But art isn't always a mirror of the truth, rather a reflection of the artist. There is no certainty that the Gurus commissioned these paintings of themselves, or that they were even present as subjects for the painter. How else does one explain all the portrayals of the same Guru which look completely different from one another? As OP has said, there is not enough consistency in these images for us to come to a conclusion about this. Every one of these paintings was painted well after the decease of the Gurus they depict, as well as by Pahari Hindu masters. Just as European artists are always representing Christ as a white guy, why wouldn't a Hindu or Mughal painter depict Guru Sahib in the manner of a Hindu Raja? Accuracy clearly wasn't the intention of these artists - that painting of Akali Phoola Singh posted earlier shows him wearing red garments when we know for a fact that Akalis were forbidden from wearing red as per puraatan rehtinamaay.
  11. Marriage is supposed be a union of souls not a union of maya. It's about spiritual companionship, and provides a Gurmat-sanctioned way to control kaam. This is the Sikh basis for marriage bhenji, not all these superfluous secular determinations of ownership, inheritance, legitimacy of children etc. All these financial concerns are the things that destroy marriages, not the things that preserve them. There's an old adage about never going into business with a friend - seems to me like an even worse idea to enter into what is essentially a business contract with your spouse. I understand that what you're saying is the way the real world works though, and that is precisely the reason why I have no intention of getting married.
  12. As with most things, there are exceptions. But the majority of diaspora Sikhs and their representatives use this bit of their history as a political crutch very often - look no further than all the lump-in-throat recollections of Sikh involvement in the world wars.
  13. He's officially recognized as writing the song and directing the video, but I'm willing to bet this is yet another case of a parent helping out a useless kid by fabricating a claim of their involvement in their work. My mother did this all the time for my little brother to help him with job applications. In any case the personalities associated with this song aren't important, the message is. The views of the child are no reflection of the views of the parents. How many kuriaan do you know of who've taken drugs or shacked up with pakis, but have old-school or even Gursikh parents?
  14. Can't judge a father by the crimes of his son. Not saying Gurdas Mann is an angel but these sorts of comparisons have no place in a rational discussion. It would be like judging Guru Ram Das for the actions of Prithi Chand.
  15. Well look at our own cultural attitudes to race. The prevailing line of thought in India and the Punjab is that the fairer your skin is, the more beautiful you are, the purer is your bloodline, and the greater your worth as a person. This masochistic malarkey has a historical precedent reaching back milennia, and is intimately bound to the Hindu caste system, which Sikhs also haven't managed to shake off. So when men with genuinely white skin appeared on the scene in medieval India, of course the natives were awed by them, and immediately put them on top of a pedestal in their empty little heads. As for the Sikhs' particular love-affair with Anglo-Saxon people, it goes back to the mid 1800s and the implementation of 'martial-race' theory. Our people have never been lacking in vanity and simple-mindedness, thus when the English imperialists placed us firmly at the upper end of an Indian racial hierarchy, we were flattered as a collective. Not only that, it seems we were so grateful for this thumbs up from the people whom we perceived as our racial superiors - by virtue of their white skin - that we became their number one rentboys in the whole of the subcontinent. We stuffed ourselves into their army in disproportionate quantities to die for them in their wars, and even travelled to distant parts of their empire to supress other 'inferior' colored peoples on their behalf (Sikh policemen in Shanghai became infamous and despised for their brutality towards locals). All this because they essentially gave us a pat on the head. And this legacy of servility and exploitation is paraded around by Sikhs today as a wonderful thing? It's sick in my opinion. The Indian Sikhs are pretty bad in this respect, but the diaspora Sikhs, particularly we in the United Kingdom, are much worse.