Jump to content

Balkaar

Members
  • Content count

    949
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    39

Balkaar last won the day on February 26

Balkaar had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,430 Excellent

2 Followers

About Balkaar

  • Rank
    Hamraa Taakur Sabh Thay Oochaa

Recent Profile Visitors

1,552 profile views
  1. Funniest video I have seen - Britain First

    Very true, but their Sikh chamchaay will continue to let themselves be manipulated and used as pawns in British conflicts just like they always have, little realizing that they consider the sight of a man in a turban just as alien as the sight of a Muslim woman in a hijab. The sharabi, gender-bending, narcissistic/materialistic/mayadhari values of Western civilisation are no more in line with Gurmat than Sharia. So why do Sikhs get so worked up about the supposed erosion of 'British values' by Muslim radicals? If they spent half as much energy upholding Sikh values as they do British values we'd be on levels right now. If communal conflict ever breaks in the future out I believe Sikhs should do the smart thing for once by staying out of it, helping anyone who needs our help, but without taking any sides. In the meantime we should all make attempts to move to Sikh majority areas so that we can guarantee our political representation and our safety.
  2. Veeray you're gonna use them as a stick to beat 'pappus'? The Sikhs of that generation were the biggest pappus and angrezi boot-lickers in the whole of the subcontinent. This the same generation of Sikhs that was so utterly loyal to the empire which scraped the Sikh nation off the face of the earth that they became worm food by the tens of thousands to preserve its existence. And you're gonna hold these men up as role models and paragons of 'character' and 'self-respect' for Sikhs today? No self-respecting Sikh would fight and die for the empire which destroyed the Khalsa Raj you allude to in your post. They had little self-respect, most of their sense of self-worth was based on the praise they got from their angrezi masters, particularly that manipulative 'martial race' nonsense, and they wagged their tails in gratitude for these cheap flatteries for decades. The letters to Brit officials from Sikh representatives of the time are so nauseating and syrupy that they should make us flush with shame/embarrassment. And look what their toadying antics got us. Nothing at all. They let themselves be played by the Brits, utterly. One of the most shameful eras in our qaum's history in my opinion, not one to get nostalgic over. Who cares what they would have had to say about Khalsa Aid? I think the opinion which should matter most to a Sikh is Maharaj's, as enshrined in Bani and the sakhiaan surrounding their lives, and it's my personal belief that Gurbani and the sakhiaan both ratify the work being done by Khalsa Aid. You will probably interpret them differently, but I am utterly convinced of this.
  3. Sikh boy marries muslim girl

    Agreed completely. If the definition of a Sikh is what the SGPC claims it is, then none of the Sikhs who existed before Dashmesh Pitaa's time were Sikhs. Why do Sikhs consult these committees and man-made institutions before they consult Maharaj? He should be the first one we look to for answers. Maharaj himself tells us exactly what a Sikh is: gur siqgur kw jo isKu AKwey su Blky auiT hir nwmu iDAwvY ] gur satgur kaa jo sikh akhaa-ay so bhalkay uth har naam Dhi-aavai. One who calls himself a Sikh of the Guru, the True Guru, shall rise in the early morning hours and meditate on the Lord's Name. audmu kry Blky prBwqI iesnwnu kry AMimRq sir nwvY ] udam karay bhalkay parbhaatee isnaan karay amrit sar naavai. Upon arising early in the morning, he is to bathe, and cleanse himself in the pool of nectar. aupdyis gurU hir hir jpu jwpY siB iklivK pwp doK lih jwvY ] updays guroo har har jap jaapai sabh kilvikh paap dokh leh jaavai. Following the Instructions of the Guru, he is to chant the Name of the Lord, Har, Har. All sins, misdeeds and negativity shall be erased. iPir cVY idvsu gurbwxI gwvY bhidAw auTidAw hir nwmu iDAwvY ] fir charhai divas gurbaanee gaavai bahdi-aa uth-di-aa har naam Dhi-aavai. Then, at the rising of the sun, he is to sing Gurbani; whether sitting down or standing up, he is to meditate on the Lord's Name. jo swis igrwis iDAwey myrw hir hir so gurisKu gurU min BwvY ] jo saas giraas Dhi-aa-ay mayraa har har so gursikh guroo man bhaavai. One who meditates on my Lord, Har, Har, with every breath and every morsel of food - that GurSikh becomes pleasing to the Guru's Mind. ijs no dieAwlu hovY myrw suAwmI iqsu gurisK gurU aupdysu suxwvY ] jis no da-i-aal hovai mayraa su-aamee tis gursikh guroo updays sunaavai. That person, unto whom my Lord and Master is kind and compassionate - upon that GurSikh, the Guru's Teachings are bestowed. jnu nwnku DUiV mMgY iqsu gurisK kI jo Awip jpY Avrh nwmu jpwvY ]2] jan naanak Dhoorh mangai tis gursikh kee jo aap japai avrah naam japaavai. ||2|| Servant Nanak begs for the dust of the feet of that GurSikh, who himself chants the Naam, and inspires others to chant it. ||2||
  4. Post Your Favorite Kirtan

    ਰਾਗੁ ਧਨਾਸਰੀ ਮਹਲਾ ੧ ॥ रागु धनासरी महला १ ॥ Rāg ḏẖanāsrī mėhlā 1. Raag Dhanaasree, First Mehl: ਗਗਨ ਮੈ ਥਾਲੁ ਰਵਿ ਚੰਦੁ ਦੀਪਕ ਬਨੇ ਤਾਰਿਕਾ ਮੰਡਲ ਜਨਕ ਮੋਤੀ ॥ गगन मै थालु रवि चंदु दीपक बने तारिका मंडल जनक मोती ॥ Gagan mai thāl rav cẖanḏ ḏīpak bane ṯārikā mandal janak moṯī. Upon that cosmic plate of the sky, the sun and the moon are the lamps. The stars and their orbs are the studded pearls. ਧੂਪੁ ਮਲਆਨਲੋ ਪਵਣੁ ਚਵਰੋ ਕਰੇ ਸਗਲ ਬਨਰਾਇ ਫੂਲੰਤ ਜੋਤੀ ॥੧॥ धूपु मलआनलो पवणु चवरो करे सगल बनराइ फूलंत जोती ॥१॥ Ḏẖūp mal▫ānlo pavaṇ cẖavro kare sagal banrā▫e fūlanṯ joṯī. ||1|| The fragrance of sandalwood in the air is the temple incense, and the wind is the fan. All the plants of the world are the altar flowers in offering to You, O Luminous Lord. ||1|| ਕੈਸੀ ਆਰਤੀ ਹੋਇ ॥ कैसी आरती होइ ॥ Kaisī ārṯī ho▫e. What a beautiful Aartee, lamp-lit worship service this is! ਭਵ ਖੰਡਨਾ ਤੇਰੀ ਆਰਤੀ ॥ भव खंडना तेरी आरती ॥ Bẖav kẖandnā ṯerī ārṯī. O Destroyer of Fear, this is Your Ceremony of Light. ਅਨਹਤਾ ਸਬਦ ਵਾਜੰਤ ਭੇਰੀ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥ अनहता सबद वाजंत भेरी ॥१॥ रहाउ ॥ Anhaṯā sabaḏ vājanṯ bẖerī. ||1|| rahā▫o. The Unstruck Sound-current of the Shabad is the vibration of the temple drums. ||1||Pause|| ਸਹਸ ਤਵ ਨੈਨ ਨਨ ਨੈਨ ਹਹਿ ਤੋਹਿ ਕਉ ਸਹਸ ਮੂਰਤਿ ਨਨਾ ਏਕ ਤੋੁਹੀ ॥ सहस तव नैन नन नैन हहि तोहि कउ सहस मूरति नना एक तोही ॥ Sahas ṯav nain nan nain hėh ṯohi ka▫o sahas mūraṯ nanā ek ṯohī. You have thousands of eyes, and yet You have no eyes. You have thousands of forms, and yet You do not have even one. ਸਹਸ ਪਦ ਬਿਮਲ ਨਨ ਏਕ ਪਦ ਗੰਧ ਬਿਨੁ ਸਹਸ ਤਵ ਗੰਧ ਇਵ ਚਲਤ ਮੋਹੀ ॥੨॥ सहस पद बिमल नन एक पद गंध बिनु सहस तव गंध इव चलत मोही ॥२॥ Sahas paḏ bimal nan ek paḏ ganḏẖ bin sahas ṯav ganḏẖ iv cẖalaṯ mohī. ||2|| You have thousands of Lotus Feet, and yet You do not have even one foot. You have no nose, but you have thousands of noses. This Play of Yours entrances me. ||2|| ਸਭ ਮਹਿ ਜੋਤਿ ਜੋਤਿ ਹੈ ਸੋਇ ॥ सभ महि जोति जोति है सोइ ॥ Sabẖ mėh joṯ joṯ hai so▫e. Amongst all is the Light-You are that Light. ਤਿਸ ਦੈ ਚਾਨਣਿ ਸਭ ਮਹਿ ਚਾਨਣੁ ਹੋਇ ॥ तिस दै चानणि सभ महि चानणु होइ ॥ Ŧis ḏai cẖānaṇ sabẖ mėh cẖānaṇ ho▫e. By this Illumination, that Light is radiant within all. ਗੁਰ ਸਾਖੀ ਜੋਤਿ ਪਰਗਟੁ ਹੋਇ ॥ गुर साखी जोति परगटु होइ ॥ Gur sākẖī joṯ pargat ho▫e. Through the Guru's Teachings, the Light shines forth. ਜੋ ਤਿਸੁ ਭਾਵੈ ਸੁ ਆਰਤੀ ਹੋਇ ॥੩॥ जो तिसु भावै सु आरती होइ ॥३॥ Jo ṯis bẖāvai so ārṯī ho▫e. ||3|| That which is pleasing to Him is the lamp-lit worship service. ||3|| ਹਰਿ ਚਰਣ ਕਵਲ ਮਕਰੰਦ ਲੋਭਿਤ ਮਨੋ ਅਨਦਿਨੋੁ ਮੋਹਿ ਆਹੀ ਪਿਆਸਾ ॥ हरि चरण कवल मकरंद लोभित मनो अनदिनो मोहि आही पिआसा ॥ Har cẖaraṇ kaval makranḏ lobẖiṯ mano anḏino mohi āhī pi▫āsā. My mind is enticed by the honey-sweet Lotus Feet of the Lord. Day and night, I thirst for them. ਕ੍ਰਿਪਾ ਜਲੁ ਦੇਹਿ ਨਾਨਕ ਸਾਰਿੰਗ ਕਉ ਹੋਇ ਜਾ ਤੇ ਤੇਰੈ ਨਾਇ ਵਾਸਾ ॥੪॥੩॥ क्रिपा जलु देहि नानक सारिंग कउ होइ जा ते तेरै नाइ वासा ॥४॥३॥ Kirpā jal ḏėh Nānak sāring ka▫o ho▫e jā ṯe ṯerai nā▫e vāsā. ||4||3|| Bestow the Water of Your Mercy upon Nanak, the thirsty song-bird, so that he may come to dwell in Your Name. ||4||3||
  5. How To increase Sikh population in UK

    It is a good idea. Perhaps we should not ape the Jehovah's witnesses, as they've come to be regarded more as a nuisance than anything else, but setting up stalls in public with eye-catching signs demonstrating Sikh precepts and history may be a good idea. Also we need to increase our publicity generally. Make sure Sikhi is given a fair and even-handed coverage in schools' religious study curricula (it only receives very rudimentary coverage in most schools currently), get more Sikhs into television, the media and the arts in order to make us seem like a part of the British culture and landscape, because at the moment we are a bit irrelevant, exist in sort of a bubble. But we should also be aware that Western culture is not really receptive to religion of any sort anymore. Most people will be too caught up in the pursuit of their petty vices (drinking - HUGE part of the culture here, trying to get laid) to give parchaariks the time of day, particularly if they aim to discourage people from the materialistic pursuits which form the bedrock of their lives and ambitions. We should not set our hopes too high and expect any miracles is all I'm saying. Make a difference in every little way we can, if one of your friends for instance expresses an interest in learning about Sikhism, make sure you know what to say to them. Furthermore every Sikh needs to be on their best behaviour at all times - if they behave like tw4ts then this will reflect badly on our entire qaum and potentially put people off Sikhi.
  6. 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.
  7. 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?
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. Where in his Bani or his writings does Guru Gobind Singh give any indication of having that motive for helping Bahadur shah? You should not impose your own motives/agenda on Guru Sahib and assume that you speak for him, particularly when there is zero scriptural evidence for your position. Neither is there any historical evidence that I'm aware of - the histories say that Guru Sahib's motivation for allying with him was the condition that non-Muslims would be treated fairly under his regime. So, I ask you, how do you know that was Guru Sahib's motive for helping Bahadur Shah?
  11. 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).
  12. Very true, Sikhs need to read their actual history rather than imbibing Indian Government propaganda which endlessly regurgitates the trope that Sikhs are the predestined enemies of Musalman. Puraatan Sikhs and Maharaj themselves did not keep grudges forever and ever. Jahangir was ultimately responsible for the execution of Guru Arjan Dev, and yet he and Guru Hargobind Sahib eventually became friends. Guru Tegh Bahadur was executed by Aurangzeb, Guru Gobind Singh Ji could've embarked upon some blood feud against all Musalman and the entire Mughal dynasty after this but he actually supported Bahadur Shah's bid to become emperor. The Sikh Misls also formed periodic alliances with the Afghans, who had earlier wronged them on so many occasions. You are right, Sikhs are not and must never become the enemies of Hindus or the enemies of Muslims, this is a perversion of Dashmesh Pitaa's vision for us. We are supposed to be the enemies of the oppressors, that is all. I agree. But when has any group of our meager size ever risen to prominence without allies? Sikh Raj didn't just fall out of the Sikhs' rear ends, it's emergence was enabled by the constant shifting of alliances which Johnny has alluded to - sometimes with Marathas, sometimes with Kashmiris, sometimes with Rohillas and sometimes with Afghans. There aren't enough of us for us to go it alone, not yet anyway I hope.
  13. absolute vs relative morality

    I do not believe in an absolute morality, dharam is not the same for each and every individual. This is not to say that dharam does not exist, only that it doesn't exist in a monolithic form. This concept is reflected very well in the life of the Mahapurakh Sant Baba Thakur Singh, 14th jathedar of Damdami Taksaal. Babaji was a strict vegetarian like all members of Taksaal, so for him eating meat was a great sin. However when he visited the chaunis (encampments) of Nihang Singhs around Chowk Mehta he would often bring offerings of goats to be jhatkaa'd by the nihangs and later consumed. Because eating meat was not a great paap for them as it was for babaji, rather it was their tradition and he respected that the role they were given by the Almighty was different from his own. Satguru's Hukam affects each person differently. Eastern dharams tend not to impose moral codes on the whole of humankind, as though such codes apply to everybody. Yes there are certain basic guiding principles of human morality - don't murder, don't rape, but most sane people don't really need to be told not to do these things by a religion because they feel an inherent revulsion towards them. However beyond this things can get quite flexible. Some people are meant to be householders and provide for a family, whilst others are meant to be celibates and devote their lives and all their energy to Akaal Purakh and Seva of the Panth. If God creates someone with the intention that they will become a warrior, battle becomes dharam for this person, a righteous deed. If however God creates a man and by his hukam determines that this man is to be peaceful saint, battle is adharam for him, not righteous. This is why different sampardas/jathebandiaan exist in Sikhi. Guru Ji is not/was not anti-samparda or anti-jathebandi, if they were, they wouldn't have created or blessed so many of them themselves. I don't know if what I'm saying is right, but this is the conclusion I have arrived at from my study of Sikhi. Others will have arrived at different conclusions, and good thing too - Sikhi is a garden full of many diverse flowers. I do not believe Guru Ji aspired to make all Sikhs, or all people, identical in their religious outlook and practice.
  14. I sympathize with a lot of what you are saying, but 'divide and rule' seems like a highly inaccurate and misleading phrase in this situation. You can only 'divide' something, a country or a people, if it was united in the first place. 'India' was never united, no such country existed before 1947. The bengali troops who fought against the Sikh soldiers in the Anglo-Sikh Wars were not Indians fighting their fellow countrymen, but foreign invaders attacking somebody else's country. Indian nationalists often sling mud at the Sikhs for giving into this supposed 'divide and rule' by refusing to participate in their so-called 'war of Indian independence'. They completely skim over the fact that it was not a war for pan-Indian independence at the time, but a Mughal restoration. This narrative, like the narrative of divide and rule, gained most of its currency with postcolonial Indian scholars - after the Brits had left India - who attempted to construct a completely mythological narrative of India as a once united country which was later 'divided' by scheming Brits. This was done in part to discredit the various separatist urges which had sprung up in parts of India after independence, among peoples who understood that it had never been one country - Kashmiris, Sikhs, Nagas, Tamils etc. I think the divide and rule myth is actually harmful to the cause of Sikh independence, because it allows Hindu supremacists and Indian nationalists to explain away our genuine grievances against their terrorist state as the seeds of 'division' planted in our minds by the Brits. Whilst the British undoubtedly supported Pakistan over the Republic of India, the divisions between India/Pakistan and Hindus/Muslims were more the children of Gandhi than of Jinnah or the Brits. In other words the product of home-grown errors and prejudices, not British innovations. Jinnah remained committed to the idea of a united India right up until around the time Gandhi was made the figurehead of the Congress Party. Congress purported to be a party for a secular, united India, so it ought to have had a secular leader who could have bridged the gap between communities. Instead what it got was an unambiguously Hindu sadhu/fakir type. Moreover, the language of this fakir and of the avowedly secular congress movement smacked of Hindu supremacy - the country which they wanted to create was personified as 'Bharat Mata' a Hindu goddess, Gandhi's justification for the unity of India in his work Hind Swaraj was the presence of Hindu temples across the breadth of the subcontinent, and he made attempts to have Indians of all faiths start revering the Hindus' sacred cow as a symbol of India. Of course Jinnah and Muslims were going to feel alienated by this figure, who barely managed to conceal his chauvinistic ideas beneath layers of euphemism. The tension which formed as a result of this, between Jinnah on the one hand and Nehru/Gandhi on the other, was perhaps the decisive cause in Jinnah's 180 degree turn from supporting Hindu-Muslim unity to advancing a Muslim homeland. This was a highly convenient turn for the Brits, yes, but it was not of their design.
  15. I personally think WAAAY too much is made of British 'divide and rule'. The British didn't really cause the divisions which exist in the subcontinent, they identified and exploited them. The divisions between Hindu/Sikh/Muslim, this caste and that caste, this country and its neighbor, have extensive historical precedents reaching back centuries before the Raj. Where the Brits succeeded was in preserving these divisions - come 1947, it was almost as if India had been in a stasis for 200 years. I think this notion of some omnipotent, endlessly scheming white devil is a convenient myth for a lot of South Asians, Hindu, Muslim and Sikh to absolve themselves of personal accountability for their own circumstances. In particular blaming the goraay for current problems such as Indian/Pakistani poverty is a very convenient way for the corrupt, money-grubbing elites of the two nations to continue their exploitation of their countrymen and simultaneously throw them off their trail. In my opinion bhenji most of the serious problems in South Asia are due to radical Islam or Brahminism/caste-Hinduism, and the mutually reinforcing relationship between the two. The Brits created neither of these things.
×