Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by chatanga

  1. Dhadrianwale exposed

    You're kidding right? Dhandrianwale says that it is against the nature of Waheguru to getr up in the morning and do naam simran as the human being is a nocturnal being. He says it clearly, "how can you win favour with Giod by breaking his laws." Not all the time, but in this case, there is no grey area. Dhadrianwale is wrong. Defending gurmat is haumai to you? What about you defending guru nindaks like dhunda and dhapali ? You don't want me to beleive that you are in a cult, then don't side with the cult on each and every thing. Esp those things you know to be wrong.
  2. Hey Bro. Just a piece of advice. Religion and culture may not be the same thing, but they are important to many people especially of our parents generation. You need to understand this. What you have described above is a serious error on your part. Nobody, even Panjabi Sikhs go up to a girls father and say "I want to marry your daughter." It's not the protocol in our culture. It's very insulting for the girl's father to hear this from anyone let alone an person of different community . In our community if a boy-girl liked each other they would most likely discuss it with their parents, and if that were not possible, then with a aunt or uncle, to get the ball rolling and get a vichola arranged, if they couldn't contact the family direct. Your direct approach, especially in a gurdwara, was something that can only be described as foolish. If you are still interested in her, you should try and arrange a vichola, or middle-man to do this. Failing that, the girl has to take the step and aproach her parents.
  3. This gurcharan is the same gurcharan from facebook. He is no-one to talk about Sikhs. https://www.facebook.com/gurcharan.singh.731 he uses the most abusive language for Sri Dasme Patshah's granth Sahib. @S1ngh Bro, you are a moderator here. Can you sort this OP out and approve his posts before they appear here. He is spreading a lot of nonsense from the Asia smachar group which is based in malaysia and are hard-core missionaries.
  4. Corruption Examples in Sikhism/Punjab?

    If you knew your history you would have seen that because of Master Tara Singh we saved some of Panjab. No-one in the world could have kept Panjab muslim majority areas from going to Pakistan. Do some research bro.
  5. Dhadrianwale exposed

    it's obvious this guy is a cult follower.
  6. Dhadrianwale exposed

    Well to be honest I don't think many people would have ever expected this.But lucky for you, at least you can recognise this cult leader. Others on here are still blind to the fact that they are in a cult.
  7. Dhadrianwale exposed

    He certainly doesn't look like he is comfortable with what is being said. Harinder Singh hasn't got the support base that dhadrianwale has, so knows he is more vulnerable. Whatever Baba Harnam Singh's political activities are, he doesnt tell lies about Sikhi. Why do you insist on supporting missionaries and their view of Sikhi? If their was anything correct woith what dhadrinwale had said in that video, you would have lead with it. Instead like me, you know he is wrong, but unlike me you will not admit it or accept it. Match our taste? You talking about Gurmat practices for the last 300 years? Why wouldnt Gurmat match our tastes? And why is this missionary nastik stuff that dhadrianwale is peddling matching your tastes? He doesn't tell everyone to read Gurbani for themselves. he tells them to listen to his own idiotic analysis of Gurbani. If this missionary dhadrianwala wanted everyone to read Gurbani then that would be the only thing he would say in his diwans. But no, he is telling all these cult followers of himself that "to wake up and do simran is against God's laws..." There is no dispute here that dhadrianwala is wrong here, but what worries me, is that he has access to thousands of his cult members who see his own stupidity as the truth and are blinded by his cult personality to be decide what is the truth. And then they are not able to stand up for the truth. A lot like yourself really...soul-less Singh.
  8. Dhadrianwale exposed

    This guy is going even deeper and deepr into his hole:
  9. Dhadrianwale exposed

    Admin, if you did this you would see who is suppoprting some of these missionary nindaks on this forum. Because they are in acult and they dont know it yet. Their focus has become Dhadrianwala rather than Gurmat. Who is he talking about with regard to those questions? Which Sikh beleives that God is separate from him/her?
  10. Interesting videos on Dadreanwala sect

    I remember him a few years ago talking about "daya" and saying the nihangs who did jhatka had no daya. The man has completely abandoned the teachings of the Nanaksaris.
  11. No bro, I'm not confused thanks.I have read tariq's work before and shared some discussions with him via email. Kapurthala was princely state. I have stated 3 or 4 times now, that the Princely states decision came down to one person: The tuler. Why you keep on going back to the princely states I don't know. The common man had no input there, nor did the British.Please tell me at the fourth time of reading you have understood this. Quite similair to Kashmir, non-muslim ruler with majority muslim subjects. But in the partition it still didn't mean a thing. Those figures do not seem correct. The movement of Panjabi muslims from east to west was slightly higher than non-muslims from west to east. The figures if can remember correctly were around 3.5 from west to east and 3.25. But this was only Panjab. It was not counting the Muslims from Delhi or other provinces. Yes the Muslims all should have made to move, but not for just those points. The fact is that jinnah stood by his two-nation theory only in word and not in practice. It was a successful tool in pushing the british to give pakistan. But then nehru wanted the muslims to stay in India to prove the two nation wrong. Over 90% of muslims voted for the muslim league for the formation of Pakistan. So they were responsible for the creation of Pakistan and they should have been told to live in Pakistan. Whats is so funny is that once the Muslims started turning up in Pakistan, a country they voted for, they were told by the Pak govt to stay in India. The natives of pakistan didnt want them there either. Isn't that so incredible? You build your country on the dreams and votes of these people but yet won't let them live there. Jinnah himself said it would be unfair for either Hindus or Muslims to live in each others countries as a minority. "we are different in religion, dress, food , language etc...so we shold have a seperate country." What a disappointment this man turned out to be for his voters. Even today the mohajirs are a despised people. If any of these states shared a border with Pakistan, then it obviously they could have joined Pakistan. These states deep inside India knew that there was only one viable option. Dont' make me repeat myslef bro. The thing in common is that they were princely states. No matter what statistics you bring, the fact remains. Nehru offered a referendum on Kashmir because of the international pressure on india through the UN. But the UN recognised the legailty of the instrument of accession and accepted that pakistan must return to Indian control that part under its occupation. Pakistan should have obliged and then the referendum could have decided. Personally beleive this is the way to go. States in India like Kashmir, and Panjab should be able to have a referendum to see whether they wasnt an independent state. So should Pakistan with Balochistan and NWF. Bringing too many different ethnicities together under one umbrella was never going to work. The Bengalis recognised that fact pretty soon.
  12. Bro, you keep barking up that tree! Forget Princely states, there is no discussion there in terms of fairness, democracy, etc. The Kings were the only ones who could make that choice. Now coming onto fertile land, the canal colonies were the best and most productive land in Panjab. It's no wonder the Sikhs were reluctant to leave these. After this the best land are the Jalandhar doab but that is small compared to the bars. Has this "turk" insulted our Gurus? No, so just leave him alone. He is only sharing info and learning new things as well. And it's all historic anyway. I would rather have him on than these missionary dogs who claim that the Gurus were ordinary people like ourselves. They have insulted the Gurus through their distorion of history. Listen to this dog dhapali: https://www.facebook.com/nirmaljitsingh.nimma/videos/636750243194518/ and this dog dhundlu: https://www.facebook.com/nirmaljitsingh.nimma/videos/637304313139111/ and then listen to this: https://www.facebook.com/nirmaljitsingh.nimma/videos/636750553194487/ You would rather have these dogs on here ?
  13. Sikh and local (Jalandhar) history. Yes from it is clear that the Sikh demand was unreasonable. What the Sikhs were looking for in that map was to keep the majority of our religiously historic shrines and the canal colony lands as much as possible. But one thing I want to tell you about that map, it shows the majority community, not if the community was in an outright majority itslef. eg in Amritsar Muslims were 47%. They were the majority community but not the majority. Same with Jallandhar and Hoshiarpur. So that map is not accurate in terms of outright majority but only of majority community. Mi fehmi?
  14. It wasn't just the Kashmiris who boosted muslim numbers in Panjab. It was Pathans as well. Kasur was a major Pathan stronghold. Anyone who knows anything about Jalandhar will know that there were 12 pathan bastis surrounding Jalandhar city. This and Kasur's area had a great Pathan population. If you want to know how Kashmiri numbers boosted muslim percentages do a google search for "Kashmeri Mohalla Panjab" and that will tell you how many areas kashmeris went into, in Panjab. Lahore and Amritsar were the main two centers but it there were many more.
  15. I'm not sure about that. Kashmir had an elected assembly and given how monarchies are viewed in todays times I'm sure that muslim-majority Kashmir would have been much better. From what I've read nehru insisted on getting this accession signed before he would commit any troops. Of course he had troops ready for this occasion. Nehru was a man who cared a lot about his international image. I do not think he would have conjured up some accession document to stake his claim knowing that if he were to be exposed in the international arena it would be worse than a death sentence for him. Of course if he had made it up then King hari Singh woould have spoken up. But he didn't. What the Sikhs were led to beleive was that religious and economic factors would play a part in the division of Panjab. The new border came as a very shock to the Sikh political leadership as they had never thought that Sri Nankana Sahib, Lahore and the canal Colonies would be in Pakistan. Absolutely. The first nail in the coffin of Muslim-Sikh unity in Panjab was driven in by the Muslim League and their refusal to support the minorty Sikhs in gaining a higher represntation in state government. the ML had succesfuly argued for higher representation in several states on the basis of being a minority. The Sikhs had asked for the same status to applied to them in Panjab but the ML opposed this. This was in the 1920s. After that the Sikh political leadership did not see the ML as likely political partners. Population does matter. I have never said it didn't matter. What I have always said that it was unfair for the Muslims to recieve 61% of the land mass when they were around 55% of the population. As I said earlier why would it be fair if the 10 muslim labourers could claim the land of 1 Sikh landlord just because they outnumbered him? There are 6 border villages, which have historically religous Gurdwaras in them on the border. Radcliffe could have included these in our side so we could at least keep these Gurdwaras from turning into dust. Quite why the Sikhs didn't take this action themselves in 47 is also puzzling. Gurdaspur isn't the only route into kashmir, it's the easiest. there are other routes as there was in 47 but more difficult. Panjabi Muslims controlled a lot of their own areas in the Moghal times, but they weren't the rulers. Even under Maharaja ranjit Singh the Muslim tribes still controlled their own lands but they had to pay tribute to Maharaja. Nobody was satisfied with partition. But the HIndu and Muslim communities have moved on better than the Sikhs. Our hearts still yearn for our heritage in Pakistan. What kind of Sikh insults their own Guru?
  16. What does Sikhi say on slavery ?

    No at the moment this is still being researched that Guru Nanak and Bhai Mardana visited Rome. There are some interesting documents in the Vatican archives that state that two people of such names came from the East and spent some time in Rome.
  17. What does Sikhi say on slavery ?

    Right from the start more or less, the Gurus views on slavery were clear. Babur when taking over Eminabad, where Guru Nanak Sahib was at the time, took the townsfolk prisoner as slaves (Inc Guru Sahib). Soon after he realised who Guru Nanak was and on Guru Sahib's rebuke, he released all the people and promised he would not repeat that again.
  18. No it wasn't. I'm repeating this for the third time here. The princely states had the option to choose between India and Pakistan. Kashmir was a princely state. If Kashmir was supposed to have gone to Pakistan, there would have been no dispute from Nehru. He had already resigned himself to Kashmir choosing Pakistan. Pakistan was a more viable choice than India for Kashmir. The Pakistanis just needed to exercise a little patience and Kashmir would have come to them in some form or another. Well the UN certainly gave a dammn about it. It was a legal document. Whether it was right or not, that is subjective. But there is no way in a any legal definition that it could be anything else than legal. Agreed. But if there were no proviso for a democratic choice then what can you do? The choice was in the matter of one person only. Democratic principles have no place in authoratative setups. We both know that. You're right. India was very hypocritical in its own actions. The only difference here, as with some other states, was that these states that wanted to join Pakistan has no land connection with Pakistan. Bro, over our Sikh heritage in Pakistan, any Sikh would get emotional. It was a vibrant part of our history and now its majority dust. We cannot go there and repair our shrines. We cannot protect them anymore. It feels like half of our body has been cut away. I'm sure you will understand why Sikhs get emotional over it. "majority areas" is the problem. If you look at the places like Lyallpur and Montgomery (Faislabad and Sargodha) these places were barren deserts. The british through their water engineering turned these deserts into places of cultivation. Sikhs (amongst others) bought huge swathes of land to cultivate. Take this as an example. For one Sikh landlord in a village there would be 10 people working for him. Most of the labourers were Muslims. But take a consensus and there are 11 people in that village. The majority are Muslims. Under the division of Panjab, now that area belongs to the Muslims. So the Sikh landlord has to leave and will get on average 40% of his land back in India. That is how Panjab was divided. The stats vary a little, as I said earlier from 52% to 57%. I always go for the middle figure of around 55% Muslim majority. That is how the land should have been divided. Along percentage figures. Being in a majority shouldn't mean you can claim everything. Leave him alone. He is not doing any harm here but discussing things that are intersting to him and us. I dont see you having any problem with the missionarys and their lies on this forum. Absolutely.
  19. Fair enough but if there 10 others in front of you, then do you need to push to the front to help? The Rohinhgyas are getting a lot of international aid, and have been helped by golbal Muslim community for the last 2 or 3 years at least. Where did the Rohingyas get the weapons to attack over 30 police posts and other army posts to start this current phase of violence? Absolutely. It looks like this to me as well. The fact is that every day, people all over the world starve to death. In India their own govt figures say that 7000 people, yes thats seven thousand people died on average every day from wont of food. And KA has 2.5 million in bank? It has been proved by Kosovo. These Albanians infiltrated that land to such a degree that they outnumbered the Serbs and took over the land and threw the Serbs out. Also remember that there was a fair population of Kashmeri Muslims settled in Panjab swelling their number up and taking away so much land they were not entitled to . That is not true at all. For some years now I have seen on Muslim Tv channels very regular fund-raising schemes for Rohingyas. Help Rohingya? We can't help our own, how can we help anyone else?
  20. Just before coming on the forum about 10 mins ago, I had a flick through the Sky Tv Channels. At least 8 channels are fundraising for Rohingyas. I'm pretty sure that the Muslim community will be able to hold their own on this. There are thousands of poor Sikhs (and others) in India who could benefit from that KA help. I dont want to be mean but there is no doubt in my mind that the international Islamic community would never come through to help the Sikhs.
  21. We've been over this. kashmir was never "yours". By law of agreement it still isn't. You are talking about land. I am talking bout a very special piece of land. Our religious places are no ordinary places. They have the same place in our hearts like Mecca for. see how aggrieved the Muslims are about the mosque in Jerusalem? Its exactly the same for Sikhs. Just because you were majority in those areas didnt give you the right to claim it all. Like I said Muslims were about 55% but yet they were given 61% of the land mass. Why? You talk about 8 tehsils? Thats nothing. By right Sikhs/HIndus are looking at 20 Tehsils that should have come to Indian Panjab. If your country had looked after our religiously historic shrines like they promised to, maybe we wouldnt have that bitterness in our hearts and minds, but the waqf board instead have trried to sell off gurdwara lands and such.
  22. Puratan Sikhi

    This "anonsengh" guest seems to be on of those sunny doad type guys. I think the Admins tneed to look at the things he is writing.
  23. Puratan Sikhi

    It is not a mistake. It's something different. it makes no difference whatsoever to the Bir and fully conforms with Sikh thought. Why are you telling more and more lies on this forum? Bhai Mani Singh never had the bir, or any access to it. The history of Dasam Granth is hazy to you? The history of Sikhi is hazy as well. So you going to reject it all?
  24. Puratan Sikhi

    Traditionally the parkash of Sri Dasme Patshah's Granth was done at the Takhts and chhounis/samprdai deras. No other Gurdwara that I know of had parkash of Sri Dasme Patshah's Granth that I have heard of so far ie Sri Nankana Sahib. I don't think that history is available. You want evidence that Sri Dasme Patshah's Granth was present? Read on... Where is this Vahi? The last person that I know of who claimed to see this Vahi was Giani Gian Singh and that was over 120 years. Where has it gone? Did one actually exist? The first concrete mention of Guru Gobind Singh giving gurgaddi to Aad Granth was written by Bhai Koer Singh in Gurbilas in 1751. Even those eye-witness writers make no mention of Guru Sahib giving gurgaddi to Aad Granth. ie Kavi Senapti , Dhadi Nath Mal. Ok, let's see it. Ok so we have the FIRST written evidence of the parkash of both granth in 1800s. Does that mean that the practice was only started 1 or 5 days before? That is a very poor argument to state that parkash only started from the time somone witnessed it and wrote it down. For this statement alone, you should be banned from this forum. Nothing personal, but if you are posting lies to confuse other Sikhs, then you have no place on a Sikh forum. Written in history? Where has the vidhi for Amrit Sinchar been written in history? What are the 5 k's according to what has been written in history? There are SO MANY things about Sihi that have not been written in history, but passed down through seena-baseena tradtions. You want to only beleive what is written down in history? That is a very slippery slope. Makes no difference how these words are written. The meaning is absolutley clear. There is no controversy. Both are equally valid. It's like any Sikh saying Satguru Granth Sahib or Sri Guru Granth Sahib. If you are creating posts like this, to me, it is very apparent where your thoughts are on this subject. It was only in the 1940s when the SGPC standardized SGGS (from having many birs with lots of differences in them) to the one that is being printed for almost 70 years now. So what? Does that mean the SGGS should be given less respect? Akali Ji died in 1823, the harmonium came to Panjab in around 1880s.