Balkaar

Members
  • Content count

    907
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    39

Balkaar last won the day on February 26

Balkaar had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,429 Excellent

1 Follower

About Balkaar

  • Rank
    Saanth Paaee Gur Satgur Pooray

Recent Profile Visitors

1,396 profile views
  1. An excellent post, and the above point in particular is very insightful. Do not agree with the classic missionary stances on Sri Dasam Granth etc. at all but I can see how their fervor comes from a genuine desire to protect Sikhi as they see it. Just like all jathebandia do.
  2. Xmas has pretty much lost its religious connotations even for most Westerners, it's really just about getting together with family and friends, eating too much. I even know Muslims who celebrate it for this reason. Hindu threads on the other hand have inescapable, overtly religious meanings. Moreover these religious meanings are almost always highly negative and anti-Sikh. Rakhi enshrines inequality between genders, janeu inequality between the castes (caste system essentially amounts to slavery, even worse perhaps, a slave could at least escape his bondage), and various others are said to protect against poots and buri nazar and Cthulhu and 4uck only knows what else. Sikhs should not wear things which carry such negativity.
  3. LOL Your actual country (Punjab) was killed and buried in 1947, and you're here celebrating its murderer.
  4. What is a 'Sikh' name anyway? Most of the Guru Sahibaan and other Sikhs throughout history had Hindu/pre-Sikhism Punjabi names.
  5. I agree with the last bit, but what I take from it is that we should ignore their blatant attempts at baiting us. It has never been difficult for the GOI to understand the national psyche of the Sikhs, we are a highly emotional people. They assist the deraay in their schemes, knowing exactly how we will react, and when we do react exactly how they predicted we would they are furnished with the next bit of propaganda to be used against us. We cannot keep playing into their hands and giving them what they want Kaurji. We need to become less predictable if we want to be viewed with fear and respect instead of as a vaguely threatening nuisance. You're clearly aware that these deraay in Punjab are part of a much bigger game, our strategy towards them should reflect this. The Hindus expect and want us to attack these deraay. I believe we should do something unexpected and leave them alone, let it become clear to all who the real villains are. Those Brahmins in the media won't be able to put their spin on that.
  6. A step in the right direction. We should reach out to all the other subcontinental peoples disaffected by the Hindustani Brahmin regime. Nagas (NE tribals), Kashmiri Muslims, South Indians all have a troubled history with the GOI.
  7. That is true, The persecution of dera leaders and their followers, who, as others have pointed out, are usually suborned and supported by the GOI, presents the Indian government with the perfect excuse to tighten their control over Punjab under a pretext of safeguarding religious freedom. Not arguing that we necessarily should, but Sikhs are not in a position to be throwing their weight about in Punjab as if we were a secure, powerful community when the ground reality in India is that we are extremely few and vulnerable. We need to be more cautious in how we approach these deraay, because mistakes here have the potential to derail our entire freedom struggle. You've hit the nail on the head, but I'd take it a step further than you and say that I think we are to blame almost entirely. Throughout history, the oppressed have often appropriated the words, signs and symbols of their oppressors. In the case of our own community, the dastaar was made mandatory for Khalsa Sikhs in part because only Muslims were permitted to wear them by the rulers of the time- it was a middle finger to the Mughal establishment. So was the requirement that Sikhs, who were mostly of low caste origin, become 'Singhs' and 'Kaurs', these being the names of their Hindu Kshatri persecutors. Later, the Sikh misldars appropriated the Persian language of the Mughal nobles whose subas they seized. Symbolic actions such as these conform to a people's sense of having gone full circle as a community and of having overcome oppression - what better proof of this than the fact that you are sitting on the throne and wearing the clothes of the one who not long ago was the bane of your existence? As you have pointed out dera politics in Punjab are blatantly construed along lines of caste. The significant majority of dera followers are mazhbi Sikhs who have been alienated from mainstream Sikhi by the appalling casteism in mostly Jatt-administrated guru ghars and Sikh institutions .As far as dera followers are concerned, the practical reality of remaining part of the Sikh fold is that they will continue to be chained by casteism/jattwaad. I am utterly convinced this is why deras commit their 'beadbis' by apeing the Amrit Sanchaar or Guru Gobind Singh Ji's dress - they are taking the religious symbols of a community which they genuinely believe OPPRESSES them and making them their own. Just like our own ancestors did. Of course it is not Sikhi itself persecuting them, Sikhi if properly practiced and implemented would solve all their problems. It is we Sikhs ourselves who are their persecutors. Our response to a dera baba dressing up as Guruji should be shame, not anger. Who are we to get riled up and protect the izzat of Guru when we refuse to even follow his kehna and abandon caste?
  8. If they aren't physically committing beadbi of Guru Sahib or attacking their Sikhs, we should leave them alone. Ram Raiyas, Hindaliahs, Dhir Malias, our own Guru Sahibaan were beset by heresies and schisms from almost the beginning of Sikhi, but the only course of action they ever took against these groups was to prohibit their Sikhs from associating with them. Sikhs should understand better than anyone that persecuting a group only ever serves to strengthen it in the long run. Interfering with dera followers in the Punjab will only serve to make them more committed to their dehdari gurus.
  9. This argument put forward by several posters that women shouldn't be allowed in the Panj because it is tradition, as well as its unspoken suggestion that tradition=good 100% of the time, are both extremely shaky in my opinion. The masand system was also part of Sikh tradition right from the time of the earliest Gurus (the institution expanded massively under Guru Amardas), but it was abolished after it became clear that this 'tradition' had outstayed its welcome and was actually doing more harm than good. Guru Ji never advocated keeping 'traditions' just for the hell of it, just because they had some historical precedent, if they did we'd still be saddled with these serpentine masands and hell knows what else. Since Guru Gobind Singh Ji's physical departure from Earth, the twin pillars of authority in the Sikh world are Guru Granth and Khalsa Panth. The latter is represented by the Panj Piaaray. How can the institution of the Panj Piaaray represent the entire Panth by excluding 50% of that panth? Whilst I agree that the Sikh Panth and the Khalsa Panth are not exactly the same thing, the fact that all the Gurus Bhagats and Panj Piaraay were men can be explained with deference to their historical contexts. Reading historical granths has taught me many important lessons. One of the most important of these lessons was that the character of the Sikhs, of my people today, is not so different from that of our puraatan ancestors as we are told it is. Half-literate Sikh camp sevadars weaned on Angrezified histories like to pretend to children that every single puraatan Sikh was some shining tower of virtue. This is not true. They were just as human as us, just as likely to possess prejudices (casteism, sexism, as panth prakash and the oldest rehitnamas eg. Bhai Desa Singh show us) as we are, and I believe this explains the circumstances you have outlined above. There has always been an apparent scarcity of female mahapurakhs in our culture. Women are much less likely to pursue this path for various reasons. One of these is that it has always been a significant taboo in Punjabi culture for a woman to be alone, unmarried or independent. A female sadhni, bhakti or bhagat would've be an amalgam of all these traits, and therefore a threat to the established order. A woman's usefulness in Punjabi culture was, until very recently, directly proportionate to her capabilities as a broodmare. Female bhagats by definition refused to fit into this role which Punjabi culture provided for women, indeed, the only role Punjabi culture provided for women. Thus they were never allowed to become too numerous or too prominent, by their parents, by their nosy gwandiaan and rishtedhare, and by pandits and maulvis. Punjabis are bad enough with this casteist/sexist gandh in the 21st century, can you begin to comprehend what it must've been like for a woman in medieval India? Wanting to become a bhagat almost certainly against the wishes of her parents who wanted to marry her off and would probably murder or disown her if she refused? Women have historically done what they are told in our culture, never what they wanted. On the other hand it has always been far easier in our culture for a man to choose a role for himself, including that of a man of God. Still is. The 15 Bhagats were men because most Bhagats were men. Most Bhagats were men because it was only really possible for men to become bhagats. Also by the time of 5th patshaah, the Guru was effectively the God-King of the Sikhs, our political leader as well as our spiritual leader. This entailed making treaties and alliances with local leading men. Fact is the Muslim rulers and Hindu princelings of the time with whom any Sikh Guru had to play politics would never have accepted a woman as an equal in the Hindustani political arena, making the investiture of a female Guru politically unwise (politics is indivisible from faith in the Sikh Panth) particularly for a qaum as small and as vulnerable as the Sikhs of the Mughal era were. Actually I also don't dismiss the possibility that most Sikhs of the time, being riven with hypocritical prejudices in contradiction of Bani, would not have welcomed a female Guru either. The things you have mentioned are in my opinion historical coincidences, not timeless truths which should inform the way we view membership of the Panj Piaaray today.
  10. Kaurji, Taksali Maryada doesn't approve of meat eating, but Taksaal has never claimed to possess the sole, authoritative Sikh Rehat. It affords other Sampardas and other rehats their proper respect. To illustrate this, the vegetarian DDT Singhs including Sachkhandvasi Baba Thakur Singh often made offerings of goats for jhatka when they visited the chaunis of the Nihang Singhs based around Chowk Mehta. There were many jhatka eating or jhatka-supporting (Baba Nihal Singh Harienvela is a important example of the latter) Nihangs in Sant Ji's camp during the dharam Yudh morcha, and in the kharku outfits in the ensuing years. The Brahmgianis of the Taksaal have always realized the question of meat eating is irrelevant to Sikhi (as long as it is jhatka) and up to the individual Sikh, and that the heated arguments which others wage on behalf of their respective views endanger the ekta of the qaum. Taksaal has always, in my opinion, been the Jatha which works hardest for Panthic Ekta, which is why they maintain connections with groups as diverse as Nihangs, AKJ, Nirmalas and Udasis (particularly the latter two, which are shunned by most mainstream Sikhs). No other jatha/samparda casts their nets so wide. We should emulate the spirit of the great lion of panthic ekta, Sant Ji, and stand together, vegetarian or meat eater. This is what the Singhs of the 80's did, and look at what was accomplished.
  11. Learn your maa boli bro
  12. Agreed mostly Kaurji, but I don't think they're actively supporting as Islamic takeover, I think their support for leftist causes comes from the deep insecurity these people have surrounding their own identities. Palestine etc. as issues, are very popular with 'progressive' white people, and therefore a convenient way for coconuts and wannabe-whites to ingratiate themselves within wider white society. They ignore Sikh/Hindu refugee causes because they are not fashionable at all, and have ZERO currency with the bourgeois white hipsters whose approval these self-loathing Punjabans so desperately crave. Plenty of Punjabi guys doing the same too, although not nearly as many. They don't concern themselves with Sikh issues because they simply hate being 'Sikh' (usually because they literally don't know anything about Sikhi, confusing it with their parent's jattwaad/backwardness) and want to distance themselves from this part of their identity as much as they possibly can. They haven't yet realized that you can't run away from the khoon flowing inside your own veins.
  13. Think these two points of yours are very important Singh, and closely linked. Most British 'goodwill' for the Sikh people rests on our forebear's contribution during the two world wars. However Sikhs in Britain have been riding off the back off this legacy for FAR longer than we have any right to, over 7 decades, purporting to be a 'martial race' when I personally don't have a single Valaiti rishtadhar who's served in any sort of military force. Scandinavians don't pretend they're warriors just because their ancestors were, neither does any other former 'martial race'. We're literally the only ones still carrying this sh1t on. To any thinking person, which most apnaay in this day and age unfortunately are not, this history is clearly well past it's sell by date. Liberal whites may not be the cleverest, but they are clever enough to know that this bit of historical trivia means very little on the ground in 2017. The only major group of whites with whom the Sikh legacy of service in the British Armed Forces really resonates is a certain section of the far-right working class, because these people are living in the same nostalgic 1940's la-la-land as we British Sikhs are . The Brits only appreciate Sikhs when we're dying for them in their wars. Currently we aren't (and I'm not proposing that we should), and yet we still strut and posture - so it's inevitable that we've come to be seen as a bit of a joke by their leaders, a group that cannot be taken seriously because it refuses to take itself seriously. If they don't take us seriously, they're not going to take our problems (like the troubles of Afghan Sikhs) seriously either. Say what you will about the warriors of Islam, but there is serious bite behind their bark. Cannot say the same about our 'warriors'.
  14. I can't be 100% sure Singh, but I have my theories. Native religiosity has more or less collapsed in the West, but the people here still seem to be motivated by the very Christian sentiment of guilt. I've noticed that the third world crises and conflicts which antiwar/pro-refugee types tend to get most worked up about are those which their governments directly caused. This naturally includes almost all the Middle-East. When this is compared against the completely flaccid response from these people to things like the Rwandan Genocide, East Timor, Sikh genocide etc, catastrophes which the West didn't really have a hand in, I begin to feel increasingly certain of my view. Afghan Muslims were made 'refugees' directly because of the West, whereas Afghan Sikhs are made 'refugees' because of the centuries old prejudice against kafirs in this country which the West had no hand in creating. Whites therefore don't feel anywhere near as guilty about the latter as they do about the former, and this lack of guilt to motivate them to do something is why they take no action on behalf of Afghan Sikhs. Secondly, Middle-Eastern/pro-Muslim causes are very fashionable among certain segments of Westerners, in a way that the suffering of Sikhs is not. I'd like to hear your opinion and the opinions of the Sangat on this, but I believe certain Westerners (leftists etc) do not feel as sorry for Sikh refugees as they do for Muslim refugees, because the Sikhs with whom they are familiar are often quite wealthy (working as professionals, lawyers, engineers etc), whereas many of the Muslims with whom they are acquainted are quite poor (cab drivers, small restaurateurs). Sikhs in the UK are reportedly the second wealthiest religious community after the Jews, Muslims are at the very bottom of the list. It's hard to feel sympathetic for people who appear to be doing better than you. Obviously this is not the case - most Sikhs in the Punjab and Afghanistan are hardly wealthy, but their association with the rest of us appears to be working against them.
  15. Good on them, looking out for our people first above all. Couldn't care less about these goraay or coconut Sikhs whining about 'illegals'. Can't speak for the motives of the 'gang', but every Sikh family extracted from that hellhole is a victory in my opinion.