Balkaar

Members
  • Content count

    898
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    39

Everything posted by Balkaar

  1. 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.
  2. Learn your maa boli bro
  3. 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.
  4. 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'.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. Sant Ji's advice hearkens back to the way puraatan Sikhs waged war. Sikhs were outnumbered then, as they were outnumbered in the 80's (and now), and the most effective way for an outnumbered, outgunned group to fight against steep odds is to employ hit and run tactics. This was why virtually every Sikh soldier of the misl era fought in a singular way, mounted on a nimble horse and armed with a matchlock rifle. The motorcycles of today are like the horses of yesteryear, allowing Singhs to pick off their enemies with deadly precision from a distance, and then beat a swift retreat to continue the fight later. Sikhs would never have won in a plain firefight against the GOI, the motorcycle enabled kharkus to eliminate strategically important targets quickly and easily, and then flee, threading through narrow gaps in the streets and gallis in a way that a gaddi just can't. Basically it was the perfect vehicle for guerilla warfare and the assassination of panth dhokiaan.
  8. That is true Singh, I use the term in my posts to refer to the army of the Sikh Panth. I stress this definition because it reminds the Khalsa not to shirk his or her military obligations, as well as the importance of being trained shastardhari. The Singh Sabha threw the baby out with the bathwater in my opinion bro. One of the movement's preoccupations was dealing with corrupt mahants, but it failed to apprehend that Mahant does not equal Udasi/Nirmala. Moreover, it hardly succeeded in this aim in the long term. So many of the 'Khalsas' currently running Sikh institutions are basically mahants come again, allowing manmat to take place in Guru ghars just as their predecessors in the 19th century did.
  9. I did indeed forget. Nevertheless those initiated by charan pahul were not khalsa.
  10. Obviously I can't begin to imagine what it's like to live your life feeling as though you are trapped in your own skin. I feel so sorry for those who are forced to live this way. But there's no arguing with biology, the fact is there simply are only two genders and they are defined very easily - by our chromosomes. If your chromosomes read as XX, you're a woman. XY, you're a bloke, and nothing anyone says or does, no cosmetic alterations to the surface of their skin, will change the basic configuration of their cells. A case can be made that biological hermaphrodites constitute a third gender, but someone with XY chromosomes who believes they are a woman doesn't in my opinion merit the distinction. We Sikhs keep our kes because we do not believe in interfering with the god-given form, so how could we possibly support gender-reassignment surgery? Believing something about yourself does not make it true. A man can believe he's a dragon, that doesn't make him a dragon. Similarly, just because a man believes he is a woman, doesn't mean he is one.
  11. That forum will never be a place for meaningful discussions (as far as Sikh issues are concerned, meaningful usually coincides with 'controversial', hence the censorship) if they're not willing to extend almost total openness to their forum users. Ofc this'll mean some 'indecent behaviour' every now and then, but if someone wants to dig for gold they're always going to have to dig through mitee too.
  12. The turban is very important.There are several very useful life lessons which wearing a dastaar can impart to someone: - Helps teach you not to care what people think (CONFIDENCE). I don't need to remind anyone that wearing a dastaar can be tough for a Sikh. Some people will immediately dislike you, laugh at you, abuse you or refuse to associate with you. But if you keep an open mind and learn to ignore this, you can build up a lot of confidence in yourself and in your identity. This is a very useful and very advantageous trait in a world full of sheeple who derive their entire sense of self-worth from how people they don't even care about perceive them. A person who is comfortable in their own skin can run rings around this weak-minded lot. - Forces you to stand by your principles. Another trait which puts you at an advantage over the billions of principle-prostitutes who aren't guided by anything other than personal greed and small-minded 'ambitions'. - Gives you a discipline. - The world is hectic, lots of people are in competition for jobs and resources. Many of these people are also quite lazy, avoiding hard work whenever they can, lacking meaningful or useful structure/regimes in their lives. Keeping kesh rehat forces you to be disciplined, this discipline is very useful in adult life and in the world of work. Of course one can acquire these traits without a dastaar, but I believe it gives a person a huge leg up. This also isn't to say that everyone who does wear a turban possesses these qualities.
  13. Strikes a good balance between being informative and being entertaining. I put it down to the diversity of members, which isn't really the case with the other forums. And the comparative lack of censorship. Ten minutes on the Sikhnet message boards are enough to make me feel like I've been living in North Korea my entire life.
  14. I don't think so. It is good we are focusing on 'panthic' issues, because Sarbat Da Bhalla will automatically follow from the strength and unity of the Sikh Qaum. A powerful, cohesive Sikh Panth is the best thing for the future of the world in my opinion. Once we are in a position to carry Guru Granth Sahib Ji's Jot to all four corners of the Earth, once our religion becomes as well known as Christianity or Islam, I do believe the oppressed peoples of the world - women, the poor, lower orders/castes, victimized minority groups - will flock to it because they will see it is clearly superior to Islam/Hinduism/western neoliberalism, the ideologies which keep them in chains. Sikhi is the only major world religion which was founded on the premise of overturning tyranny and social injustice, which is why I think Sikhi speaks to the soul of the Modern Age better than crusty relics like Christianity, Islam and especially Bahmanism ever could or ever will again. Sarbat Da Bhalla will come easily once we complete the monumental task of getting our internal affairs in order.
  15. Veeray a Sikh is anyone who adheres to the precepts of Guru Nanak Dev - oneness of god, equality of humankind, sewa, vand chakna and simran. Bhai Mardana, Baba Buddha and several other mahapurash were Sikh, but not Khalsa, as they had not taken Amrit, for reasons I don't have to explain to anybody except perhaps a drunk child. Nevertheless, they were Sikh and followed Sikhi. This definition of 'Sikh' was very inclusive. It included men and women with kes and without it, people who identified as Hindus and Muslims - Bhai Mardana never stopped being a 'Muslim', his request to go on Hajj was exactly the thing which led to Guru Ji's Westward Udasi - but abandoned those parts of their old faiths which did not conform to the Sat Bacchan of Guru Nanak. This is what Sikhi is, and what a Sikh was, until very late on in the 19th century. The Khalsa Panth was created to protect this Sikhi, and Sikhs, all those described above - Sufi disciples of the Gurus, the followers of ravidas and kabir, Nanakpanthi Sindhis and Punjabis. The Panth of Guru Nanak Dev was always vulnerable in India because it was small, and staunchly opposed to the ritualism/casteism/priesthood of the Brahmins and the fanaticism of the maulvis. The Hindu and Muslim elite decided it has to be crushed for this reason, which was why Guru Hargobind Sahib became miri piri da malak and first armed the Sikhs. Guru Gobind Singh Sahib fully realized this spirit of bir ras in creating the Khalsa Panth. The Khalsa was, first and foremost, an army. The Khalsa is a fortress, and Sikhi is the treasure hidden inside it. The warrior's life is not for everyone, because dharam is not the same for each person, but different according to the whims of Akaal Purakh. Some are warriors, some help in other ways. The Khalsa mans the walls of the fort, the Sikh does seva of the people inside. A Khalsa can be a Sikh and Khalsa at once.
  16. It isn't, but that's rarely the narrative put forward by parchariks, kathavachiks and camp sevadars. The much more common one runs along the lines of 'these Sikhs died rather than remove a single hair, what excuse does the mona have?". It's negative reinforcement. How we treat language matters, the phrasing of a sentence is often much more decisive in convincing someone of its correctness than the intellectual merit of its contents. This assumes that amritdharis, simply by being amritdharis, are honoring the meaning of Sikhi and showing allegiance. As well as being demonstrably wrong, this is a very toxic notion - the idea that somebody in a turban is immediately believed to possess virtue in greater measure than someone with cut hair, has certainly assisted snakes-in-turbans like the badals in their rise to power (because their turbans act as a kind of political smokescreen, something to impress the rural folk who are so easily awed by the sight of a white bearded man in a dastaar). These seemingly harmless ideas can have dire consequences. If we wish to judge someone's allegiance to Sikhi we ought to look at their actions, not their roop.
  17. I agree to an extent, teach uneducated sehajdharis Sikh values first, make sure they are entrenched, and a point will come in their lives when they cannot fail to see the value of the Khalsa lifestyle. But alienating them by casting aspersions on their loyalty to their Guru: and guilt-tripping them with stories of our ancestors, which make them start keeping their hair out of a sense of shame or inadequacy: are extremely counterproductive methods which will only lead to more and more people forsaking the Khalsa identity. These methods are also way too common, particularly in so-called 'Sikhi' camps, where many kids come away feeling estranged from Amritdharis whom they begin to regard as fanatics. This is very dangerous for someone in the formative years of their life. A lot of Amritdharis seem to be completely unaware of the psychological effect they have on non-Khalsa Sikhs. Those who wear Guru's roop, are considered to be representatives of the Guru, the way they behave has a direct impact on Guru's reputation in the eyes of the beholder. So when we get Amritdharis who are cold and exclusionary towards uninformed monaay, how could they not start believing the same about Guru, and drift further and further away from him? If we show unconditional pyaar to our sehajdhari brothers and sisters, they will begin to feel pyaar for us, and by direct implication, for the Guru and his bana/rehat. I don't blame monaay for the extent of hair-cutting in the qaum. The onus is on the Khalsa, as the steward of the Sikh nation, to rectify this.
  18. What actual good is going to come of this question? There are 25 million Sikhs across the planet, as compared to the 1 billion+ adherents of Islam, Christianity, and Hinduism, all three of which harbor malicious designs against Gursikhi, and you actually wanna reduce the number of Sikhs even further. 'Sikh' and 'Singh' were never even considered to be the same thing up until very recently. Those arguing otherwise should investigate historical accounts from the era of the Sikh confederacy/empire and base their judgement on these itihaasic facts rather than 20th century prejudices. In particular the distinction between 'Khalsa' and 'Khulasa' Sikhs. Just as Sikhs are being whitewashed out of the history of India, the contributions of Sehajdhari Sikhs are also being whitewashed out of the history of the qaum.
  19. 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
  20. 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.
  21. 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.
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. 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.
  25. 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.