Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'study'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • GENERAL
    • WHAT'S HAPPENING?
    • GUPT | ANONYMOUS
    • GURBANI | SCRIPTURES | REHAT | HISTORY
  • COMMUNITY
    • POLITICS | MEDIA | FEEDBACK | LIFESTYLE
    • HEALTH | FITNESS | DIET
    • Agree to Disagree
  • MEDIA
  • SEWADARS

Found 8 results

  1. Part II of Tisarpanth's Misconceptions Series. Here two main misconceptions are answered: 1.) Sikhi survived due to the sole efforts of the Jats and, 2.) Sikhi was a reaction against contemporary economics. To quote a few portions: 'Sikh history, and tradition, substantiates that no lapse was ever tolerated from the faith’s ideology. The names of Baba Atal Rai and Baba Ram Rai are only some of the many examples which depict the penalties imposed upon those who, for one reason or another, deviated from established norms. The former resurrected a victim of snakebite and was so sternly reprimanded by his father, the sixth Guru, that he discarded his mortal frame whilst the latter intentionally changed a line of Gurbani and was excommunicated by his own father, the seventh Guru. Summarily we can easily conclude then that it is impossible to assert that the sixth Guru who was more than satisfied to witness his own son’s demise, but could not tolerate any deviation from the faith’s ideology would concede to any demands made by the Jats.' 'Non-Sikh records mention the respect with which the Sikhs treated women, even extending courtesy and safety to those who were of their sworn foes. (19) If compared with Jat practices, historic and present, than these contrast starkly as the Jat objectification of women is a well known fact. Secondly, the Sikh ability to unite in face of a common threat historically is a well-established fact. This principle emerged out of two factors namely a channeling of all energies towards achieving a singular goal, and a singular interpretation of the faith. The Jats were and still are avid worshipers of Jatheras or shrines dedicated to some Sisyphean ancestor(s). (20) With each locality, tribe, clan, village espousing a different ancestor any ideological unity and singular channeling of energy is impossible. The establishment of Bharatpur can only be called a miracle as the Jat unity forged for it’s establishment soon disintegrated afterwards.' https://tisarpanthdotcom.wordpress.com/2016/04/24/misconceptions-ii/
  2. Feeling Really Down

    WJKK WJKF I am in my last year of university studying a finance degree and got a month left till I finish my final exams. But things have not been going well recently, at university we get coursework to do but some are individual and meant to be done alone. Throughout university I've been doing my individual courseworks with my friends, as we help each other. I've been doing this since first year because mainly everyone does it at university. But recently its been bothering me that i've done something wrong and because I have OCD my mind keeps focusing on it. Its got to a point were Im really feeling down and its affecting me mentally and spiritually, as soon as i wake up i start thinking i done something really bad and keep apologising to Guru Ji. Im not sleeping properly, nor studying properly or eating properly. I don't what to do now.
  3. I recently researched some facets of Sikh history and here is what I have concluded. Please feel free to comment and criticize me. For the full article please see: http://tisarpanth.blogspot.co.nz/2014/09/dichotomy-and-de-evolution.html?view=magazine. I have also listed my sources, if in doubt please feel free to pursue them and get back to me. 'History is written by the Victors.' -Sir Winston Churchill. (1) History is never static but perpetually subject to fluctuation. Maybe then, what we call the past is nothing more than an adjective to catalog the notion of the commencement of an ideal or perception subject to later rereading. If the latter is taken to be true, then an imperative exists for a necessary re-defining of history (and it's trailblazers) every so often. Where would this leave us? An individual who was ratified as a hero five decades ago, may now become a genocidal villain (we have already witnessed this in the life of Prophet Muhammad) whereas a genocidal villain, of yesteryear, may soon be vindicated as a modern hero. Then again maybe there are some characters who will always inspire dichotomy. It might serve us well to study both Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan, if not for a crash course in human rights violation ('the how to do it and escape') than for their military and political stratagems. Below is an abstract of pivotal figures in Sikh history who have undergone a similar evolution for political, and ethno-social means. Their past has been circumspect to fluctuation and here we attempt to dissect the truth and if possible elucidate why some were forgotten in light of others who historically triumphed. Rama and Ravana- Rama and Ravana are not exclusive to Sikh historicity, nor do Sikhs subscribe to their pantheons or religious observances. They however reflect the primeval Good Versus Evil (or more bluntly us and them) psyche over which many cultures/religious parcels construct their own foundations-Sikhs alike. The Ramayana, despite it's prevalence, cannot be accepted as being an authentic account in light of it's fantastic claims. Written in the immediate aftermath of the fall of the sub-continent's first great empire (2), the ode of Rama and Ravana can easily be interpreted as being an attempt to accept political loss, and the ascension of a new empire and a new way of life. Preliminary texts of theRamayana (the tale of Rama) often construes Rama to be lustful ('the son of Dasratha is indeed lustful' (3) ) forgetful of his own divinity ('the Gods reminded him...' (4)) and often imperfect in conduct. Ravana's only failing is his hubris. If perceived, in light of history and historicity, Rama can be delineated as being an amalgamation of the various conflicting powers attempting to succeed the fragmented Mauryan's. (5) Ravana then is a Mauryan; an embodiment of the past empire and it's failures. The latter perception pans out especially since it is believed that the Ramayan's birth spanned from 750 BCE-200 CE. It's contents are replete with the motif of Kshatiryas (warriors in exile) thus reflecting an internecine conflict of sorts between Kshatiryas and the higher Brahmins. Was Ravana truly the rapist which the Ramayana inaugurates him to be? Or was he a monarch beset on all sides by fragmentation and factionalism who ultimately confronted hopes of a foreign progress via his farsightedness? History is silent on this matter, yet several Indian communities still venerate him as a noble emperor. (6) This dichotomy indicates that maybe the truth is more subtle. Ravana, or his real life counterpart, might as well have been an indigenous ruler confronted by Vedic (borrowed from the Ramayana) hordes which threatened to engulf his empire. Whatever the religiosity orbiting Ramayana it should serve as a lesson for ruler, scholar and layman alike. It is not the tale of Rama as commonly promulgated, but the tragedy of Ravana and through him revolution and utopia. Orwellian in approach, theRamayana confronts a post-revolution empire attempting to construct an utopia but teetering on the brink of collapse itself. Ultimately with the demise of it's monarch, history is re-written and the latter banished to infamy. From fame to infamy and back. The curious case of Banda Singh Bahadur and Binod Singh- Sir John Malcolm in his Sketch of the Sikhs observes: 'though the Sikhs, from being animated by a similar feeling, and encouraged by his first successes, followed Banda to the field, they do not revere his memory; and he is termed, by some of their authors, a heretic ; who, intoxicated with victory, endeavoured to change the religious institutions and laws of Guru G6vind, many of whose most devoted followers this fierce chief put to death...' (7) Banda Singh Bahadur is often officiated as being the primary Sikh ruler. To him we will apply the template which we birthed in our previous discussion regarding the Ramayana. Important points to acknowledge are: *The genesis of a mythos. * The marginalizing of any opposing history or historic figure. *The politics behind such actions. In 1708 A.D. Guru Gobind Singh Ji dispatched both a newly converted Banda, and the chief custodian of the Akal-Takhat, Akali-Nihung Binod Singh to subdue the Mughals in Punjab, wreck mass havoc and if plausible establish territorial supremacy for the Khalsa. Up till the Khalsa's sudden surrender of the Punjab (8), relations between Banda and Binod Singh were icily cordial if not fully warm. It was in the aftermath of Banda's declaration of a pseudo-Guruship that the real conflict commenced. (9) Incensed by certain 'reforms' propagated by the now vain Banda, Binod Singh and a mass body of the Khalsa parted from him under the aegis of Mata Sundar Kaur Ji and commenced harassing Mughal and 'Bandai' (Banda's own apostles) alike. (10) Curiously however by the dawn of the Sikh Empire, under Ranjit Singh, Banda's image had undergone a mass variation. No more was he a traitor, but an embodiment of Khalsa sovereignty and the latter's prolonged bloody history. Binod Singh meanwhile was marginalized as being nothing more than a minor inconvenience. (11) The latter situation is an obfuscating one, especially in light of the fact that a Nihung under Ranjit Singh-Ratan Singh Bhangu, author of the Sri Gur Panth Prakash- ardently criticizes Banda in his biography of the Khalsa nation. Ironically in lieu of any substantial academic vindication on the propagation of a 'Banda like no other' myth, during this era, we can somewhat amateurishly conclude then that this rebirth of Banda was probably politically oriented. Banda Singh's figure however prophetically boomed during the post-Singh-Sabha colonial era. The ascension of a radical Hindu movement, oriented towards establishing sole Hindu supremacy sub-continent wide, lead to a parallel Sikh offshoot which attempted to battle it and pursue ethnonationalism simultaneously. Banda became the bone of contention between both parties. Several prominent Hindu scholars attempted to cast him as a Hindu assisting his 'weakened Sikh brothers;' whereas Sikh academicians fought back with historic proof establishing Banda to be autonomous of Hinduism. Criticism of Banda during this time was heavily ignored and even vilified by a 'colonialised' Sikh academia which desired to circumvent his imperfectness altogether. The result? The image of a perfect 'Banda like no other' became ossified in Sikh thought and any criticism was (and is) 'academically refuted' or dismissed as being nothing more than a 'political, social or even religious conspiracy.' (12) Let us now summarize all of the above via the criterion which we mentioned in this sub-section's beginning. *The genesis of the mythos: 'A Banda like no other,' commenced under Ranjit Singh and was later ossified by colonial and post-colonial Sikh and non-Sikh scholars. *The marginalizing of any opposing history or historic figure: Even today Binod Singh is asserted to have betrayed Banda Singh in pursuit of parochial goals. Other then in Nihung Dals, no mention is made of him and many authors have discarded him altogether from their works. Historians such as Dr. Ganda Singh, despite acknowledging the fluidity of their field, continually (and often myopically) asserted any criticism of Banda to be a produce of an overbearing and radical mentality. Binod Singh meanwhile was vilified as the real traitor who betrayed the 'Sikh cause.' *The politics behind such actions: Ethnonationalism, and maybe a discomfort at the first Sikh sovereign's temporary transgressions. Rereading Jassa Singhs' Alhuwalia and Ramgarhia. Realpolitik versus theocracy- Modern-era, and Jassa Singh Ramgarhia is a humanitarian like no other; his name-sharing counterpart ( an eerie-similarity) on the other hand, Jassa Singh Alhuwalia meanwhile has been marginalized, maybe due to his historical adherence to the Nihung order? Lets flip a few pages back to 1748 A.D. and we see Ramgarhia besieging the fortress of Ram-Runi under the command of Adina Beg Khan. (13) The besieged are composed of two-hundred Sikhs sitting among their deceased, and now rotting, two-hundred companions. Frustrated, they finally lambaste Ramgarhia and threaten to expel him from their socio-cultural, and religious, ranks if his defiance against them continues. Ramgarhia is chastened and immediately capitulates. His actions buy temporary peace for the Sikhs who in this uneasy ceasefire prepare for a mass offensive against the Mughals. A new hero has arisen. No more is Ramgarhia the bane of the Sikhs. He has now become a pivotal leader in their affairs. But Ramgarhia's rise to power, and his realpolitik, earn him many foes in the succeeding years. The most ardent, and overbearing, among the latter is Akali-Nihung Jassa Singh Alhuwalia, 4th Commander-In-Chief of the Budha-Dal and paramount custodian of the Akal-Takhat. Both men are trailblazers but internecine friction ensures mass hostility on both sides with the result that Ramgarhia is forced to go into exile for over 12 years. (14) The latter is but a short sketch of a pivotal, and often icy, political relationship which foreboded the internal decay and fall of the Khalsa Misls. Both Alhuwalia and Ramgarhia were valued generals of their era, yet the fact that both often communicated with each other via their swords begs the question, why? Let us attempt to slay this multi-headed hydra via a point-by-point basis. 1.) What in the blazes was Ramgarhia doing in cohort with the Mughals? Sikh-Mughal relations, in the seventeenth century, were not a close-cut matter of 'kill, kill, kill!' Complexities, and anomalies, existed and Ramgarhia was only one of many of the latter. The need to create a territorial, and political, state brought the fledgling Sikhs in direct confrontation with the already hostile, and religiously incensed, Mughals. Ramgarhia's father was a pivotal player in the early Sikh sovereignty campaign headed by Banda Singh. Several theories exist over as to why he deserted his brethren, although recent research defiantly refutes this notion and instead indicates expulsion. It seems that Ramgarhia senior committed infanticide and was subsequently revoked of his privileges and ousted by the Khalsa. (15) Incensed- for him events were not as black and white as they were for his judges- Ramgarhia senior offered his services to the Mughal governor at Lahore and was subsequently accepted as a Captain in the latter's forces. Ramgarhia junior would soon inherit this position along with his three brothers. 2.) But weren't the Mughals thirsty for Sikh blood during this era? Ramgarhia's capitulation, at Ram-Runi, indicates two things. One, he was contemplating striking it alone and two, it seems pressure was increasing on him day by day to preserve his integrity in the eyes of suspicious Imperialists. How did Ramgarhia survive and gain employ in such an ambivalent era? Let us cast a glance at the contemporary Mughal empire, our subject's long-time employer. It's administration had become decentralized in the absence of any effective leadership, and all outposts outside Delhi had announced a subtle autonomy. Adina Beg Khan, and other governor-generals, were not only tasked with subduing the Sikhs but also confronting hostile third parties such as the raiding Afghanis, marauding Persians and occasional Mujhaideen incensed by the state's support of one Islamic sect. (16) Men like Khan, in order to preserve their own skins and defy their masters, formed coalitions with various Sikh chiefs and often enrolled them in their own ranks, thus Ramgarhia's survival. 3.) Wasn't internal forgiveness and pardon a part of the then Sikh structure? It was, but the demands for an autonomous empire were ever-growing and transgressions were hard to sweep under the carpet. Ramgarhia, despite being situated in the middle of the Sikh influence, was often at odds with colleagues such as Baghel Singh KaroraSinghia and any other critics. His brothers' impunity however often embroiled him in trouble and this point soon became a beating stick to assault his credibility. Matters finally came to a head when he attempted to gloss over his brothers' unprovoked offensive against Alhuwalia and the latter's entourage. The succeeding year, he was expelled from Punjab and a mass portion of his territory taken over by the Kanihyaas. Chief, Warrior, Politician, Ruler and forever Accused. Ala Singh of Patiala and his defence- Reviled as a traitor to the Sikh cause, was Ala Singh of Patiala truly the inimical tactician he is being made out to be currently? Or were there more poignant powers at work which made him adopt a divergent course from that of his fellows? Whilst the Sikh Misls were fighting for their survival in the 1730's, Ala Singh (with occasional assistance from the Shahida Misl) (17), was laying the foundation for the future state of Patiala. The son of a petty landlord, under Mughal rule, he had arisen to Goliathian prominence and even been recognized as a regal persona by both his brethren and their inimical foe, Ahmad Shah Abdali. 1.) Was Ala Singh not subject to the stringent measures self-imposed by the Sikhs upon themselves? Ala Singh resided in the Malwa and had emerged as the latter's pontificate cultivator. Various political incentives, and marriages, often buttressed his leadership ambitions and offered him an insurance not available to his fellows. The fact he was related to imminent men such as Bhai Ram Dayal, befriended by me such as Bhai Gurbaksh Singh, and enjoyed the support of pedagogues such as Baba Mool Chand also worked well in his favor. (18) 2.) What was Ala Singh's defense? Even though Ala Singh's ability to call upon his kin, and brethren, played a pivotal role in his rise to power; realpolitik also played a decisive factor. Malwa was more prone to repeated Afghani incursions than it's neighboring Majha. This not only placed Patiala right in the grasp of the foe, but also placed ardent stress upon it's logistics; Ala Singh's defense often orbited these points. His ironic situation juxtaposed with his ardent support of his brethren (though subtle) and grasp ofrealpolitik was enough for most Sikh chiefs to forgive him. 3.) So how did perceptions change? Maharajah Ranjit Singh's interference in Patiala's affairs-in the early nineteenth century- ultimately lead to the Cis-Sutlej treaty which guaranteed the state extensive support from the neighboring British protectorate. Authors, and historians, such as Ratan Singh Bhangu took this as a cue to cast Ala Singh in a dis-favorable light. Sources: (1) Accessed from: http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/97949-history-is-written-by-the-victors (2) Doniger, W; (2009) The Hindus: An Alternative History, Oxford University Press, NY, USA; pg. 213-216. (3) ibid, pg. 225. (4) ibid, pg. 222. (5) ibid, pg. 216. (6) Sadasvia, S; (2000) A Social History of India, S.B. Nangia A.P.H Publishing Corporation, New-Delhi, India; pg. 165. (7) Accessed from http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Criticism_of_Banda_Singh_Bahadur (8) See The Anachronistic Sovereign 1, Tisarpanth Blogspot for a full exegesis from the Sri Gur Panth Prakash. (9) ibid, from Bhangu. (10) ibid, from Bhangu. (11) ibid, from Bhangu. It is important to note that Bhangu is extensively critical of Banda whilst praiseworthy of Binod Singh. (12) Rise of the Khalsa, animated film directed by Prabhjot Singh Makkar; produced by Vismaad. (13) Dhavan, P; (2011) When Sparrows Became Hawks. The Making of the Sikh Warrior Tradition. 1699-1799. Oxford University Press, New-York, America, pg. 74. (14) Singh Kazan; (1920) History of the Sikhs, New Delhi Press, India, see section titled Sikh-Misls. (15) Dhavan, P; (2011) When Sparrows Became Hawks. The Making of the Sikh Warrior Tradition. 1699-1799. Oxford University Press, New-York, America, pg. 82. (16) See Gandhi's Sikhs in the Eighteenth Century. (17) Reiterated from: http://tisarpanth.blogspot.co.nz/2014/04/a-short-sketch-of-khalsa-confederacies.html (18) Dhavan, P; (2011) When Sparrows Became Hawks. The Making of the Sikh Warrior Tradition. 1699-1799. Oxford University Press, New-York, America, pg.107.
  4. I recently researched some facets of Sikh history and here is what I have concluded. Please feel free to comment and criticize me. For the full article please see: http://tisarpanth.blogspot.co.nz/2014/09/dichotomy-and-de-evolution.html?view=magazine. I have also listed my sources, if in doubt please feel free to pursue them and get back to me. 'History is written by the Victors.' -Sir Winston Churchill. (1) History is never static but perpetually subject to fluctuation. Maybe then, what we call the past is nothing more than an adjective to catalog the notion of the commencement of an ideal or perception subject to later rereading. If the latter is taken to be true, then an imperative exists for a necessary re-defining of history (and it's trailblazers) every so often. Where would this leave us? An individual who was ratified as a hero five decades ago, may now become a genocidal villain (we have already witnessed this in the life of Prophet Muhammad) whereas a genocidal villain, of yesteryear, may soon be vindicated as a modern hero. Then again maybe there are some characters who will always inspire dichotomy. It might serve us well to study both Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan, if not for a crash course in human rights violation ('the how to do it and escape') than for their military and political stratagems. Below is an abstract of pivotal figures in Sikh history who have undergone a similar evolution for political, and ethno-social means. Their past has been circumspect to fluctuation and here we attempt to dissect the truth and if possible elucidate why some were forgotten in light of others who historically triumphed. Rama and Ravana- Rama and Ravana are not exclusive to Sikh historicity, nor do Sikhs subscribe to their pantheons or religious observances. They however reflect the primeval Good Versus Evil (or more bluntly us and them) psyche over which many cultures/religious parcels construct their own foundations-Sikhs alike. The Ramayana, despite it's prevalence, cannot be accepted as being an authentic account in light of it's fantastic claims. Written in the immediate aftermath of the fall of the sub-continent's first great empire (2), the ode of Rama and Ravana can easily be interpreted as being an attempt to accept political loss, and the ascension of a new empire and a new way of life. Preliminary texts of theRamayana (the tale of Rama) often construes Rama to be lustful ('the son of Dasratha is indeed lustful' (3) ) forgetful of his own divinity ('the Gods reminded him...' (4)) and often imperfect in conduct. Ravana's only failing is his hubris. If perceived, in light of history and historicity, Rama can be delineated as being an amalgamation of the various conflicting powers attempting to succeed the fragmented Mauryan's. (5) Ravana then is a Mauryan; an embodiment of the past empire and it's failures. The latter perception pans out especially since it is believed that the Ramayan's birth spanned from 750 BCE-200 CE. It's contents are replete with the motif of Kshatiryas (warriors in exile) thus reflecting an internecine conflict of sorts between Kshatiryas and the higher Brahmins. Was Ravana truly the rapist which the Ramayana inaugurates him to be? Or was he a monarch beset on all sides by fragmentation and factionalism who ultimately confronted hopes of a foreign progress via his farsightedness? History is silent on this matter, yet several Indian communities still venerate him as a noble emperor. (6) This dichotomy indicates that maybe the truth is more subtle. Ravana, or his real life counterpart, might as well have been an indigenous ruler confronted by Vedic (borrowed from the Ramayana) hordes which threatened to engulf his empire. Whatever the religiosity orbiting Ramayana it should serve as a lesson for ruler, scholar and layman alike. It is not the tale of Rama as commonly promulgated, but the tragedy of Ravana and through him revolution and utopia. Orwellian in approach, theRamayana confronts a post-revolution empire attempting to construct an utopia but teetering on the brink of collapse itself. Ultimately with the demise of it's monarch, history is re-written and the latter banished to infamy. From fame to infamy and back. The curious case of Banda Singh Bahadur and Binod Singh- Sir John Malcolm in his Sketch of the Sikhs observes: 'though the Sikhs, from being animated by a similar feeling, and encouraged by his first successes, followed Banda to the field, they do not revere his memory; and he is termed, by some of their authors, a heretic ; who, intoxicated with victory, endeavoured to change the religious institutions and laws of Guru G6vind, many of whose most devoted followers this fierce chief put to death...' (7) Banda Singh Bahadur is often officiated as being the primary Sikh ruler. To him we will apply the template which we birthed in our previous discussion regarding the Ramayana. Important points to acknowledge are: *The genesis of a mythos. * The marginalizing of any opposing history or historic figure. *The politics behind such actions. In 1708 A.D. Guru Gobind Singh Ji dispatched both a newly converted Banda, and the chief custodian of the Akal-Takhat, Akali-Nihung Binod Singh to subdue the Mughals in Punjab, wreck mass havoc and if plausible establish territorial supremacy for the Khalsa. Up till the Khalsa's sudden surrender of the Punjab (8), relations between Banda and Binod Singh were icily cordial if not fully warm. It was in the aftermath of Banda's declaration of a pseudo-Guruship that the real conflict commenced. (9) Incensed by certain 'reforms' propagated by the now vain Banda, Binod Singh and a mass body of the Khalsa parted from him under the aegis of Mata Sundar Kaur Ji and commenced harassing Mughal and 'Bandai' (Banda's own apostles) alike. (10) Curiously however by the dawn of the Sikh Empire, under Ranjit Singh, Banda's image had undergone a mass variation. No more was he a traitor, but an embodiment of Khalsa sovereignty and the latter's prolonged bloody history. Binod Singh meanwhile was marginalized as being nothing more than a minor inconvenience. (11) The latter situation is an obfuscating one, especially in light of the fact that a Nihung under Ranjit Singh-Ratan Singh Bhangu, author of the Sri Gur Panth Prakash- ardently criticizes Banda in his biography of the Khalsa nation. Ironically in lieu of any substantial academic vindication on the propagation of a 'Banda like no other' myth, during this era, we can somewhat amateurishly conclude then that this rebirth of Banda was probably politically oriented. Banda Singh's figure however prophetically boomed during the post-Singh-Sabha colonial era. The ascension of a radical Hindu movement, oriented towards establishing sole Hindu supremacy sub-continent wide, lead to a parallel Sikh offshoot which attempted to battle it and pursue ethnonationalism simultaneously. Banda became the bone of contention between both parties. Several prominent Hindu scholars attempted to cast him as a Hindu assisting his 'weakened Sikh brothers;' whereas Sikh academicians fought back with historic proof establishing Banda to be autonomous of Hinduism. Criticism of Banda during this time was heavily ignored and even vilified by a 'colonialised' Sikh academia which desired to circumvent his imperfectness altogether. The result? The image of a perfect 'Banda like no other' became ossified in Sikh thought and any criticism was (and is) 'academically refuted' or dismissed as being nothing more than a 'political, social or even religious conspiracy.' (12) Let us now summarize all of the above via the criterion which we mentioned in this sub-section's beginning. *The genesis of the mythos: 'A Banda like no other,' commenced under Ranjit Singh and was later ossified by colonial and post-colonial Sikh and non-Sikh scholars. *The marginalizing of any opposing history or historic figure: Even today Binod Singh is asserted to have betrayed Banda Singh in pursuit of parochial goals. Other then in Nihung Dals, no mention is made of him and many authors have discarded him altogether from their works. Historians such as Dr. Ganda Singh, despite acknowledging the fluidity of their field, continually (and often myopically) asserted any criticism of Banda to be a produce of an overbearing and radical mentality. Binod Singh meanwhile was vilified as the real traitor who betrayed the 'Sikh cause.' *The politics behind such actions: Ethnonationalism, and maybe a discomfort at the first Sikh sovereign's temporary transgressions. Rereading Jassa Singhs' Alhuwalia and Ramgarhia. Realpolitik versus theocracy- Modern-era, and Jassa Singh Ramgarhia is a humanitarian like no other; his name-sharing counterpart ( an eerie-similarity) on the other hand, Jassa Singh Alhuwalia meanwhile has been marginalized, maybe due to his historical adherence to the Nihung order? Lets flip a few pages back to 1748 A.D. and we see Ramgarhia besieging the fortress of Ram-Runi under the command of Adina Beg Khan. (13) The besieged are composed of two-hundred Sikhs sitting among their deceased, and now rotting, two-hundred companions. Frustrated, they finally lambaste Ramgarhia and threaten to expel him from their socio-cultural, and religious, ranks if his defiance against them continues. Ramgarhia is chastened and immediately capitulates. His actions buy temporary peace for the Sikhs who in this uneasy ceasefire prepare for a mass offensive against the Mughals. A new hero has arisen. No more is Ramgarhia the bane of the Sikhs. He has now become a pivotal leader in their affairs. But Ramgarhia's rise to power, and his realpolitik, earn him many foes in the succeeding years. The most ardent, and overbearing, among the latter is Akali-Nihung Jassa Singh Alhuwalia, 4th Commander-In-Chief of the Budha-Dal and paramount custodian of the Akal-Takhat. Both men are trailblazers but internecine friction ensures mass hostility on both sides with the result that Ramgarhia is forced to go into exile for over 12 years. (14) The latter is but a short sketch of a pivotal, and often icy, political relationship which foreboded the internal decay and fall of the Khalsa Misls. Both Alhuwalia and Ramgarhia were valued generals of their era, yet the fact that both often communicated with each other via their swords begs the question, why? Let us attempt to slay this multi-headed hydra via a point-by-point basis. 1.) What in the blazes was Ramgarhia doing in cohort with the Mughals? Sikh-Mughal relations, in the seventeenth century, were not a close-cut matter of 'kill, kill, kill!' Complexities, and anomalies, existed and Ramgarhia was only one of many of the latter. The need to create a territorial, and political, state brought the fledgling Sikhs in direct confrontation with the already hostile, and religiously incensed, Mughals. Ramgarhia's father was a pivotal player in the early Sikh sovereignty campaign headed by Banda Singh. Several theories exist over as to why he deserted his brethren, although recent research defiantly refutes this notion and instead indicates expulsion. It seems that Ramgarhia senior committed infanticide and was subsequently revoked of his privileges and ousted by the Khalsa. (15) Incensed- for him events were not as black and white as they were for his judges- Ramgarhia senior offered his services to the Mughal governor at Lahore and was subsequently accepted as a Captain in the latter's forces. Ramgarhia junior would soon inherit this position along with his three brothers. 2.) But weren't the Mughals thirsty for Sikh blood during this era? Ramgarhia's capitulation, at Ram-Runi, indicates two things. One, he was contemplating striking it alone and two, it seems pressure was increasing on him day by day to preserve his integrity in the eyes of suspicious Imperialists. How did Ramgarhia survive and gain employ in such an ambivalent era? Let us cast a glance at the contemporary Mughal empire, our subject's long-time employer. It's administration had become decentralized in the absence of any effective leadership, and all outposts outside Delhi had announced a subtle autonomy. Adina Beg Khan, and other governor-generals, were not only tasked with subduing the Sikhs but also confronting hostile third parties such as the raiding Afghanis, marauding Persians and occasional Mujhaideen incensed by the state's support of one Islamic sect. (16) Men like Khan, in order to preserve their own skins and defy their masters, formed coalitions with various Sikh chiefs and often enrolled them in their own ranks, thus Ramgarhia's survival. 3.) Wasn't internal forgiveness and pardon a part of the then Sikh structure? It was, but the demands for an autonomous empire were ever-growing and transgressions were hard to sweep under the carpet. Ramgarhia, despite being situated in the middle of the Sikh influence, was often at odds with colleagues such as Baghel Singh KaroraSinghia and any other critics. His brothers' impunity however often embroiled him in trouble and this point soon became a beating stick to assault his credibility. Matters finally came to a head when he attempted to gloss over his brothers' unprovoked offensive against Alhuwalia and the latter's entourage. The succeeding year, he was expelled from Punjab and a mass portion of his territory taken over by the Kanihyaas. Chief, Warrior, Politician, Ruler and forever Accused. Ala Singh of Patiala and his defence- Reviled as a traitor to the Sikh cause, was Ala Singh of Patiala truly the inimical tactician he is being made out to be currently? Or were there more poignant powers at work which made him adopt a divergent course from that of his fellows? Whilst the Sikh Misls were fighting for their survival in the 1730's, Ala Singh (with occasional assistance from the Shahida Misl) (17), was laying the foundation for the future state of Patiala. The son of a petty landlord, under Mughal rule, he had arisen to Goliathian prominence and even been recognized as a regal persona by both his brethren and their inimical foe, Ahmad Shah Abdali. 1.) Was Ala Singh not subject to the stringent measures self-imposed by the Sikhs upon themselves? Ala Singh resided in the Malwa and had emerged as the latter's pontificate cultivator. Various political incentives, and marriages, often buttressed his leadership ambitions and offered him an insurance not available to his fellows. The fact he was related to imminent men such as Bhai Ram Dayal, befriended by me such as Bhai Gurbaksh Singh, and enjoyed the support of pedagogues such as Baba Mool Chand also worked well in his favor. (18) 2.) What was Ala Singh's defense? Even though Ala Singh's ability to call upon his kin, and brethren, played a pivotal role in his rise to power; realpolitik also played a decisive factor. Malwa was more prone to repeated Afghani incursions than it's neighboring Majha. This not only placed Patiala right in the grasp of the foe, but also placed ardent stress upon it's logistics; Ala Singh's defense often orbited these points. His ironic situation juxtaposed with his ardent support of his brethren (though subtle) and grasp ofrealpolitik was enough for most Sikh chiefs to forgive him. 3.) So how did perceptions change? Maharajah Ranjit Singh's interference in Patiala's affairs-in the early nineteenth century- ultimately lead to the Cis-Sutlej treaty which guaranteed the state extensive support from the neighboring British protectorate. Authors, and historians, such as Ratan Singh Bhangu took this as a cue to cast Ala Singh in a dis-favorable light. Sources: (1) Accessed from: http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/97949-history-is-written-by-the-victors (2) Doniger, W; (2009) The Hindus: An Alternative History, Oxford University Press, NY, USA; pg. 213-216. (3) ibid, pg. 225. (4) ibid, pg. 222. (5) ibid, pg. 216. (6) Sadasvia, S; (2000) A Social History of India, S.B. Nangia A.P.H Publishing Corporation, New-Delhi, India; pg. 165. (7) Accessed from http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Criticism_of_Banda_Singh_Bahadur (8) See The Anachronistic Sovereign 1, Tisarpanth Blogspot for a full exegesis from the Sri Gur Panth Prakash. (9) ibid, from Bhangu. (10) ibid, from Bhangu. (11) ibid, from Bhangu. It is important to note that Bhangu is extensively critical of Banda whilst praiseworthy of Binod Singh. (12) Rise of the Khalsa, animated film directed by Prabhjot Singh Makkar; produced by Vismaad. (13) Dhavan, P; (2011) When Sparrows Became Hawks. The Making of the Sikh Warrior Tradition. 1699-1799. Oxford University Press, New-York, America, pg. 74. (14) Singh Kazan; (1920) History of the Sikhs, New Delhi Press, India, see section titled Sikh-Misls. (15) Dhavan, P; (2011) When Sparrows Became Hawks. The Making of the Sikh Warrior Tradition. 1699-1799. Oxford University Press, New-York, America, pg. 82. (16) See Gandhi's Sikhs in the Eighteenth Century. (17) Reiterated from: http://tisarpanth.blogspot.co.nz/2014/04/a-short-sketch-of-khalsa-confederacies.html (18) Dhavan, P; (2011) When Sparrows Became Hawks. The Making of the Sikh Warrior Tradition. 1699-1799. Oxford University Press, New-York, America, pg.107.
  5. I recently researched some facets of Sikh history and here is what I have concluded. Please feel free to comment and criticize me. For the full article please see: http://tisarpanth.blogspot.co.nz/2014/09/dichotomy-and-de-evolution.html?view=magazine. I have also listed my sources, if in doubt please feel free to pursue them and get back to me. 'History is written by the Victors.' -Sir Winston Churchill. (1) History is never static but perpetually subject to fluctuation. Maybe then, what we call the past is nothing more than an adjective to catalog the notion of the commencement of an ideal or perception subject to later rereading. If the latter is taken to be true, then an imperative exists for a necessary re-defining of history (and it's trailblazers) every so often. Where would this leave us? An individual who was ratified as a hero five decades ago, may now become a genocidal villain (we have already witnessed this in the life of Prophet Muhammad) whereas a genocidal villain, of yesteryear, may soon be vindicated as a modern hero. Then again maybe there are some characters who will always inspire dichotomy. It might serve us well to study both Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan, if not for a crash course in human rights violation ('the how to do it and escape') than for their military and political stratagems. Below is an abstract of pivotal figures in Sikh history who have undergone a similar evolution for political, and ethno-social means. Their past has been circumspect to fluctuation and here we attempt to dissect the truth and if possible elucidate why some were forgotten in light of others who historically triumphed. Rama and Ravana- Rama and Ravana are not exclusive to Sikh historicity, nor do Sikhs subscribe to their pantheons or religious observances. They however reflect the primeval Good Versus Evil (or more bluntly us and them) psyche over which many cultures/religious parcels construct their own foundations-Sikhs alike. The Ramayana, despite it's prevalence, cannot be accepted as being an authentic account in light of it's fantastic claims. Written in the immediate aftermath of the fall of the sub-continent's first great empire (2), the ode of Rama and Ravana can easily be interpreted as being an attempt to accept political loss, and the ascension of a new empire and a new way of life. Preliminary texts of theRamayana (the tale of Rama) often construes Rama to be lustful ('the son of Dasratha is indeed lustful' (3) ) forgetful of his own divinity ('the Gods reminded him...' (4)) and often imperfect in conduct. Ravana's only failing is his hubris. If perceived, in light of history and historicity, Rama can be delineated as being an amalgamation of the various conflicting powers attempting to succeed the fragmented Mauryan's. (5) Ravana then is a Mauryan; an embodiment of the past empire and it's failures. The latter perception pans out especially since it is believed that the Ramayan's birth spanned from 750 BCE-200 CE. It's contents are replete with the motif of Kshatiryas (warriors in exile) thus reflecting an internecine conflict of sorts between Kshatiryas and the higher Brahmins. Was Ravana truly the rapist which the Ramayana inaugurates him to be? Or was he a monarch beset on all sides by fragmentation and factionalism who ultimately confronted hopes of a foreign progress via his farsightedness? History is silent on this matter, yet several Indian communities still venerate him as a noble emperor. (6) This dichotomy indicates that maybe the truth is more subtle. Ravana, or his real life counterpart, might as well have been an indigenous ruler confronted by Vedic (borrowed from the Ramayana) hordes which threatened to engulf his empire. Whatever the religiosity orbiting Ramayana it should serve as a lesson for ruler, scholar and layman alike. It is not the tale of Rama as commonly promulgated, but the tragedy of Ravana and through him revolution and utopia. Orwellian in approach, theRamayana confronts a post-revolution empire attempting to construct an utopia but teetering on the brink of collapse itself. Ultimately with the demise of it's monarch, history is re-written and the latter banished to infamy. From fame to infamy and back. The curious case of Banda Singh Bahadur and Binod Singh- Sir John Malcolm in his Sketch of the Sikhs observes: 'though the Sikhs, from being animated by a similar feeling, and encouraged by his first successes, followed Banda to the field, they do not revere his memory; and he is termed, by some of their authors, a heretic ; who, intoxicated with victory, endeavoured to change the religious institutions and laws of Guru G6vind, many of whose most devoted followers this fierce chief put to death...' (7) Banda Singh Bahadur is often officiated as being the primary Sikh ruler. To him we will apply the template which we birthed in our previous discussion regarding the Ramayana. Important points to acknowledge are: *The genesis of a mythos. * The marginalizing of any opposing history or historic figure. *The politics behind such actions. In 1708 A.D. Guru Gobind Singh Ji dispatched both a newly converted Banda, and the chief custodian of the Akal-Takhat, Akali-Nihung Binod Singh to subdue the Mughals in Punjab, wreck mass havoc and if plausible establish territorial supremacy for the Khalsa. Up till the Khalsa's sudden surrender of the Punjab (8), relations between Banda and Binod Singh were icily cordial if not fully warm. It was in the aftermath of Banda's declaration of a pseudo-Guruship that the real conflict commenced. (9) Incensed by certain 'reforms' propagated by the now vain Banda, Binod Singh and a mass body of the Khalsa parted from him under the aegis of Mata Sundar Kaur Ji and commenced harassing Mughal and 'Bandai' (Banda's own apostles) alike. (10) Curiously however by the dawn of the Sikh Empire, under Ranjit Singh, Banda's image had undergone a mass variation. No more was he a traitor, but an embodiment of Khalsa sovereignty and the latter's prolonged bloody history. Binod Singh meanwhile was marginalized as being nothing more than a minor inconvenience. (11) The latter situation is an obfuscating one, especially in light of the fact that a Nihung under Ranjit Singh-Ratan Singh Bhangu, author of the Sri Gur Panth Prakash- ardently criticizes Banda in his biography of the Khalsa nation. Ironically in lieu of any substantial academic vindication on the propagation of a 'Banda like no other' myth, during this era, we can somewhat amateurishly conclude then that this rebirth of Banda was probably politically oriented. Banda Singh's figure however prophetically boomed during the post-Singh-Sabha colonial era. The ascension of a radical Hindu movement, oriented towards establishing sole Hindu supremacy sub-continent wide, lead to a parallel Sikh offshoot which attempted to battle it and pursue ethnonationalism simultaneously. Banda became the bone of contention between both parties. Several prominent Hindu scholars attempted to cast him as a Hindu assisting his 'weakened Sikh brothers;' whereas Sikh academicians fought back with historic proof establishing Banda to be autonomous of Hinduism. Criticism of Banda during this time was heavily ignored and even vilified by a 'colonialised' Sikh academia which desired to circumvent his imperfectness altogether. The result? The image of a perfect 'Banda like no other' became ossified in Sikh thought and any criticism was (and is) 'academically refuted' or dismissed as being nothing more than a 'political, social or even religious conspiracy.' (12) Let us now summarize all of the above via the criterion which we mentioned in this sub-section's beginning. *The genesis of the mythos: 'A Banda like no other,' commenced under Ranjit Singh and was later ossified by colonial and post-colonial Sikh and non-Sikh scholars. *The marginalizing of any opposing history or historic figure: Even today Binod Singh is asserted to have betrayed Banda Singh in pursuit of parochial goals. Other then in Nihung Dals, no mention is made of him and many authors have discarded him altogether from their works. Historians such as Dr. Ganda Singh, despite acknowledging the fluidity of their field, continually (and often myopically) asserted any criticism of Banda to be a produce of an overbearing and radical mentality. Binod Singh meanwhile was vilified as the real traitor who betrayed the 'Sikh cause.' *The politics behind such actions: Ethnonationalism, and maybe a discomfort at the first Sikh sovereign's temporary transgressions. Rereading Jassa Singhs' Alhuwalia and Ramgarhia. Realpolitik versus theocracy- Modern-era, and Jassa Singh Ramgarhia is a humanitarian like no other; his name-sharing counterpart ( an eerie-similarity) on the other hand, Jassa Singh Alhuwalia meanwhile has been marginalized, maybe due to his historical adherence to the Nihung order? Lets flip a few pages back to 1748 A.D. and we see Ramgarhia besieging the fortress of Ram-Runi under the command of Adina Beg Khan. (13) The besieged are composed of two-hundred Sikhs sitting among their deceased, and now rotting, two-hundred companions. Frustrated, they finally lambaste Ramgarhia and threaten to expel him from their socio-cultural, and religious, ranks if his defiance against them continues. Ramgarhia is chastened and immediately capitulates. His actions buy temporary peace for the Sikhs who in this uneasy ceasefire prepare for a mass offensive against the Mughals. A new hero has arisen. No more is Ramgarhia the bane of the Sikhs. He has now become a pivotal leader in their affairs. But Ramgarhia's rise to power, and his realpolitik, earn him many foes in the succeeding years. The most ardent, and overbearing, among the latter is Akali-Nihung Jassa Singh Alhuwalia, 4th Commander-In-Chief of the Budha-Dal and paramount custodian of the Akal-Takhat. Both men are trailblazers but internecine friction ensures mass hostility on both sides with the result that Ramgarhia is forced to go into exile for over 12 years. (14) The latter is but a short sketch of a pivotal, and often icy, political relationship which foreboded the internal decay and fall of the Khalsa Misls. Both Alhuwalia and Ramgarhia were valued generals of their era, yet the fact that both often communicated with each other via their swords begs the question, why? Let us attempt to slay this multi-headed hydra via a point-by-point basis. 1.) What in the blazes was Ramgarhia doing in cohort with the Mughals? Sikh-Mughal relations, in the seventeenth century, were not a close-cut matter of 'kill, kill, kill!' Complexities, and anomalies, existed and Ramgarhia was only one of many of the latter. The need to create a territorial, and political, state brought the fledgling Sikhs in direct confrontation with the already hostile, and religiously incensed, Mughals. Ramgarhia's father was a pivotal player in the early Sikh sovereignty campaign headed by Banda Singh. Several theories exist over as to why he deserted his brethren, although recent research defiantly refutes this notion and instead indicates expulsion. It seems that Ramgarhia senior committed infanticide and was subsequently revoked of his privileges and ousted by the Khalsa. (15) Incensed- for him events were not as black and white as they were for his judges- Ramgarhia senior offered his services to the Mughal governor at Lahore and was subsequently accepted as a Captain in the latter's forces. Ramgarhia junior would soon inherit this position along with his three brothers. 2.) But weren't the Mughals thirsty for Sikh blood during this era? Ramgarhia's capitulation, at Ram-Runi, indicates two things. One, he was contemplating striking it alone and two, it seems pressure was increasing on him day by day to preserve his integrity in the eyes of suspicious Imperialists. How did Ramgarhia survive and gain employ in such an ambivalent era? Let us cast a glance at the contemporary Mughal empire, our subject's long-time employer. It's administration had become decentralized in the absence of any effective leadership, and all outposts outside Delhi had announced a subtle autonomy. Adina Beg Khan, and other governor-generals, were not only tasked with subduing the Sikhs but also confronting hostile third parties such as the raiding Afghanis, marauding Persians and occasional Mujhaideen incensed by the state's support of one Islamic sect. (16) Men like Khan, in order to preserve their own skins and defy their masters, formed coalitions with various Sikh chiefs and often enrolled them in their own ranks, thus Ramgarhia's survival. 3.) Wasn't internal forgiveness and pardon a part of the then Sikh structure? It was, but the demands for an autonomous empire were ever-growing and transgressions were hard to sweep under the carpet. Ramgarhia, despite being situated in the middle of the Sikh influence, was often at odds with colleagues such as Baghel Singh KaroraSinghia and any other critics. His brothers' impunity however often embroiled him in trouble and this point soon became a beating stick to assault his credibility. Matters finally came to a head when he attempted to gloss over his brothers' unprovoked offensive against Alhuwalia and the latter's entourage. The succeeding year, he was expelled from Punjab and a mass portion of his territory taken over by the Kanihyaas. Chief, Warrior, Politician, Ruler and forever Accused. Ala Singh of Patiala and his defence- Reviled as a traitor to the Sikh cause, was Ala Singh of Patiala truly the inimical tactician he is being made out to be currently? Or were there more poignant powers at work which made him adopt a divergent course from that of his fellows? Whilst the Sikh Misls were fighting for their survival in the 1730's, Ala Singh (with occasional assistance from the Shahida Misl) (17), was laying the foundation for the future state of Patiala. The son of a petty landlord, under Mughal rule, he had arisen to Goliathian prominence and even been recognized as a regal persona by both his brethren and their inimical foe, Ahmad Shah Abdali. 1.) Was Ala Singh not subject to the stringent measures self-imposed by the Sikhs upon themselves? Ala Singh resided in the Malwa and had emerged as the latter's pontificate cultivator. Various political incentives, and marriages, often buttressed his leadership ambitions and offered him an insurance not available to his fellows. The fact he was related to imminent men such as Bhai Ram Dayal, befriended by me such as Bhai Gurbaksh Singh, and enjoyed the support of pedagogues such as Baba Mool Chand also worked well in his favor. (18) 2.) What was Ala Singh's defense? Even though Ala Singh's ability to call upon his kin, and brethren, played a pivotal role in his rise to power; realpolitik also played a decisive factor. Malwa was more prone to repeated Afghani incursions than it's neighboring Majha. This not only placed Patiala right in the grasp of the foe, but also placed ardent stress upon it's logistics; Ala Singh's defense often orbited these points. His ironic situation juxtaposed with his ardent support of his brethren (though subtle) and grasp ofrealpolitik was enough for most Sikh chiefs to forgive him. 3.) So how did perceptions change? Maharajah Ranjit Singh's interference in Patiala's affairs-in the early nineteenth century- ultimately lead to the Cis-Sutlej treaty which guaranteed the state extensive support from the neighboring British protectorate. Authors, and historians, such as Ratan Singh Bhangu took this as a cue to cast Ala Singh in a dis-favorable light. Sources: (1) Accessed from: http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/97949-history-is-written-by-the-victors (2) Doniger, W; (2009) The Hindus: An Alternative History, Oxford University Press, NY, USA; pg. 213-216. (3) ibid, pg. 225. (4) ibid, pg. 222. (5) ibid, pg. 216. (6) Sadasvia, S; (2000) A Social History of India, S.B. Nangia A.P.H Publishing Corporation, New-Delhi, India; pg. 165. (7) Accessed from http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Criticism_of_Banda_Singh_Bahadur (8) See The Anachronistic Sovereign 1, Tisarpanth Blogspot for a full exegesis from the Sri Gur Panth Prakash. (9) ibid, from Bhangu. (10) ibid, from Bhangu. (11) ibid, from Bhangu. It is important to note that Bhangu is extensively critical of Banda whilst praiseworthy of Binod Singh. (12) Rise of the Khalsa, animated film directed by Prabhjot Singh Makkar; produced by Vismaad. (13) Dhavan, P; (2011) When Sparrows Became Hawks. The Making of the Sikh Warrior Tradition. 1699-1799. Oxford University Press, New-York, America, pg. 74. (14) Singh Kazan; (1920) History of the Sikhs, New Delhi Press, India, see section titled Sikh-Misls. (15) Dhavan, P; (2011) When Sparrows Became Hawks. The Making of the Sikh Warrior Tradition. 1699-1799. Oxford University Press, New-York, America, pg. 82. (16) See Gandhi's Sikhs in the Eighteenth Century. (17) Reiterated from: http://tisarpanth.blogspot.co.nz/2014/04/a-short-sketch-of-khalsa-confederacies.html (18) Dhavan, P; (2011) When Sparrows Became Hawks. The Making of the Sikh Warrior Tradition. 1699-1799. Oxford University Press, New-York, America, pg.107.
  6. Study: Kids Exposed To Religion Have A Harder Time Telling The Difference Between Reality And Fiction July 28, 2014 1:59 PM PHILADELPHIA (CBS) New research claims children who are exposed to religion have more trouble differentiating between reality and fantasy in stories. The study, which looked at 5- and 6-year-old childrens perceptions of a protagonist when reading three different types of stories (fantasy, religious and realistic), found that kids who went to church or were enrolled in parochial school (or both) had a more difficult time figuring out when a storys protagonist was fictional. While all of the children, regardless of religious exposure, judged the protagonist in stories that included only realistic ordinary events to be a real person, the results were mixed for religious stories based on exposure to religion (for example, the story about Jesus turning water into wine). And when it came to fantastical stories involving magic or the supernatural, children raised in secular households were much more likely to deem a protagonist fictional. Exposure to religious ideas has a powerful impact on childrens differentiation between reality and fiction, not just for religious stories but also for fantastical stories, the researchers conclude. The study is published in the latest issue of the journal Cognitive Science. Source - http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2014/07/28/study-kids-exposed-to-religion-have-a-harder-time-telling-the-difference-between-reality-and-fiction/
  7. Sabsai upar gur shabad beechar || Paramount is contemplation on Guru's word From my experience 99.9% of sikhs show zero interest in study of the maharaj (not talking about recitation as in sehaj path) , I think this ignorance and neglect of the core gurmat knowledge is root cause of all problems in sikh samaaj today. Here is a link to download SGGS in english translationa and transliteration http://www.facebook.com/groups/341594932591046/342922462458293/
  8. Hello *first of all sorry for my bad english, it is not so easy to read and understand* i would like to know what kind of jobs are ok for sikhs or not? Or is there no any special job? Why do i ask? I studied Business Studies. But i feel not happy with that. Really not. I was wondering for years why do i have absolutely no motivation about it? I dropped out. I felt always good with operation jobs while my studies. Like Mc donalds or manufacturing and so. But other side i felt not happy because i thought that these kind of jobs are so uneducated and i felt so stupied with that. i didnt like to agree that i like these kind of jobs i prefere. I forced myself to finish my studies. But without motivation so i was not able. But i wasted the time just by fighting with myself. Last year again i made further education in tourism and business because i have this business level due to my business studies, although i feel no interest. if i knew that 10 years ago i had start a technical education trainee as technican or similar. Now i will finish the tourism thing soon but i feel not happy with that. i think about to look for jobs as manufacturing operative only. I like to work with hands. Production or street work. Jobs which show me any success or which are useful for society. but business i think are only benefit for myself or for whom who make a business which is waste. like a new tourism agency or so. i would even prefer to repair or clean the roads. because this is a duty which should be done. for everybody. to avoid accident for example.....and i feel useful. and i like that kind of duty. i dont like to sit on table making any calls for my boss....as a servant for any successful rich person who whatever just think about self or so.... after 10 years fight with myself i found it out now. i feel not guilty or bad anymore that i didnt finish my university. 10 years i was sad and feld shamed and bad and guilty and unsatisfied withmyself. This feeling was bad. the enemy was not that i was too stupid to study. I feel not that my enemy was just that i did not agree with my affection for simply jobs. because i thought i should study at university, else i am bad and stupid. Not i am proud to be what i am. But now i have the problem that i wasted so much time. at least i already could have work experiences about 10 years. but now i will start working for the first time in my life, without work experiences, without education. And my second problem is now.....the one whom i love didnt like me....for several things and i think he also didnt like me because i didnt study. thats why also i made that further education in tourism to make him happy. now really he again talk with me. after 1 year. or after he found out about my study. And i love him because he was so simple. He had a simple job and had a good figure. and was simple. no golden chains no special clothes. just work dress and 2 trousers and 2 shirts. But now i feel first time agreed with my simplicity. But now he totally changes. He seems business success obsessed, wear golden chains makes foto positions and seems soo arrogant. He totally changed. Whyyy??? I dont want to change. In my opinion it was never nice and special to wear golden things and lot dresses and so. i love simplicity. thats why i wanted to marry him. And he changed and love me now back because he think i also became business and success and arrogant. Whatever. my question was just about job. Is it ok to make normal job only like manufactoring operative in factory. For example automobile operative line jobs??????
×