Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
13Mirch

Societal Segregation Versus Sikhi

Recommended Posts

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/

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 faiths 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 sons demise, but could not tolerate any deviation from the faiths 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 its establishment soon disintegrated afterwards.'

https://tisarpanthdotcom.wordpress.com/2016/04/24/misconceptions-ii/

WJKK WJKF

Yea sounds about right....still today within sikhi the jat strives for some form of supremacy over other sikhs within sikhi continuously taking it back to their leanage. A jatt what took Amrit and became Khalsa will always be considered Khalsa, until they then marginlise themselves as a "jatt sikh" and marry within caste and continue to do so misunderstanding and misinterpretating the gurus sikhi for caste supremacy. Usually justifying it with ridiculous notions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WJKK WJKF

Yea sounds about right....still today within sikhi the jat strives for some form of supremacy over other sikhs within sikhi continuously taking it back to their leanage. A jatt what took Amrit and became Khalsa will always be considered Khalsa, until they then marginlise themselves as a "jatt sikh" and marry within caste and continue to do so misunderstanding and misinterpretating the gurus sikhi for caste supremacy. Usually justifying it with ridiculous notions.

Can you confirm if Sikhs of non Jatt background also marry "within caste" or is it just Jatts who do this.

Does a Sikh of Tharkan/Ramgharia background consider themselves superior to some who is a chamar or Mazhabi background or is it just Jatts that does this?

Is this perceived superiority of Jatts happen to be due to the fact that Sikhs of Jatt background just happen to be numerous?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you confirm if Sikhs of non Jatt background also marry "within caste" or is it just Jatts who do this.

Does a Sikh of Tharkan/Ramgharia background consider themselves superior to some who is a chamar or Mazhabi background or is it just Jatts that does this?

Is this perceived superiority of Jatts happen to be due to the fact that Sikhs of Jatt background just happen to be numerous?

WJKK WJKF

Obviously the other groups you mentioned do.....without going into the usual debate that's the usual caste based issue again. But when have you watched a film with a "Tharkaan sikh" (a contradiction in itself) being the pinnacle of what a sikh should be?

However no group claims sikhi to be their own more than the jatts. You only hear jatts claiming mahaan shaheed as jat and not Khalsa. Just look at the topic to do with the film "Ardas" a few weeks back...and watch the YouTube clip of ghughi and his views on Shaheed Baba Deep Singh as "Jatt" lol.

It's not the number of jatts what causes the superiority complex, it's what they think and say before and after accepting Amrit what is the problem. If one believes they are "better" than someone genetically and ethically just because of their ancestry, it's wrong right?

That's the problem. Alil like the Nazi Ideology of the supremacy of the Arian Race.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you confirm if Sikhs of non Jatt background also marry "within caste" or is it just Jatts who do this.

Does a Sikh of Tharkan/Ramgharia background consider themselves superior to some who is a chamar or Mazhabi background or is it just Jatts that does this?

Is this perceived superiority of Jatts happen to be due to the fact that Sikhs of Jatt background just happen to be numerous?

Numerical preponderance is not the root cause here, it is more of a chain effect. When Jat-vaad is given more credence than a chain effect occurs where others also feel entitled to do the same.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Numerical preponderance is not the root cause here, it is more of a chain effect. When Jat-vaad is given more credence than a chain effect occurs where others also feel entitled to do the same.

Is anything stopping others doing the same?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is anything stopping others doing the same?

WJKK WJKF

It's kinda sounds like your justifying it due to other groups now doing the same caste segregation. Again other groups segregate themselves onto castes however it is only the jatts what act as supremacists.

Why don't you just condemn the jatts and the others for doing any caste segration rather than in away say " they do it, so will we"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WJKK WJKF

It's kinda sounds like your justifying it due to other groups now doing the same caste segregation. Again other groups segregate themselves onto castes however it is only the jatts what act as supremacists.

Why don't you just condemn the jatts and the others for doing any caste segration rather than in away say " they do it, so will we"?

How are Jatts supremists? Can jatts be arrogant, of course but you conflated Jatts to be nazi's. Unless jatts have invaded countries and put people into concentration camps, that is not a valid comparison.

If Jatts dominate areas of Sikhi, it could be because Jatts comprise a very large proportion of Sikhs.

If Jatts overwhelmingly take up higher positions of Sikh institutions they perhaps took initiative and the risks for the panth in a higher proportion than Sikhs of other background.

Would one call that segregation?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WJKK WJKF

Yea sounds about right....still today within sikhi the jat strives for some form of supremacy over other sikhs within sikhi continuously taking it back to their leanage. A jatt what took Amrit and became Khalsa will always be considered Khalsa, until they then marginlise themselves as a "jatt sikh" and marry within caste and continue to do so misunderstanding and misinterpretating the gurus sikhi for caste supremacy. Usually justifying it with ridiculous notions.

Can you please enlighten us and tell what caste were all our Guru's Maharaj? What caste women did they marry into?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ranjeet,

You've missed the point. Its not about invading countries. It's about defining a particular group as a "superior race" and somehow 'a cut above the rest'.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ranjeet,

You've missed the point. Its not about invading countries. It's about defining a particular group as a "superior race" and somehow 'a cut above the rest'.

No. Actually YOU are missing the point. Let's assume Jatts do consider themselves superior and you are right. How does that affect you? What actions have they taken in regards to feeling superior affected your well being?

Edited by Quantavius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. Actually YOU are missing the point. Let's consider Jatts do consider themselves superior. How does that affect you? What actions have they taken in regards to feeling superior affected your well being?

Quantavius, Jatt supremacism isn't some harmless quirk or bit of eccentricity, it directly affects many lives. It is no coincidence that so many of the anti-Sikh deras in the Punjab rely upon majhbi and low-caste former Sikhs to constitute the bulk of their following, or that Christian missionaries are specifically targeting these people. They have turned to these cults to find the acceptance which they are convinced that Sikhi denies them, because of the actions of bigoted Jatt supremacists - excluding them from Gurdwara committees, assaulting them when they agitate for their rights [this still happens from time to time in my nanke's pind Talhan), refusing to sell them land because of their caste. You appear totally disconnected from the reality of it. I don't know how often you visit Punjab, if at all, but the implications of casteism there are not the same as they are for Sikhs like you living in the West, in a society where these labels mean nothing at all.

Edited by Balkaar
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quantavius, Jatt supremacism isn't some harmless quirk or bit of eccentricity, it directly affects many lives. It is no coincidence that so many of the anti-Sikh deras in the Punjab rely upon majhbi and low-caste former Sikhs to constitute the bulk of their following, or that Christian missionaries are specifically targeting these people. They have turned to these cults to find the acceptance which they are convinced that Sikhi denies them, because of the actions of bigoted Jatt supremacists - excluding them from Gurdwara committees, assaulting them when they agitate for their rights [this still happens from time to time in my nanke's pind Talhan), refusing to sell them land because of their caste. You appear totally disconnected from the reality of it. I don't know how often you visit Punjab, if at all, but the implications of casteism there are not the same as they are for Sikhs like you living in the West, in a society where these labels mean nothing at all. Your last name still counts for something in Punjab.

surely selling punjab's land to our bretheren is better than outsiders because the local economy gets a big boost .They get land and independance they are happy, Punjab is looked after it's own children rather than getting asset stripped by outsiders and anyrevenue from crops going outside punjab's economy too. Problem with Punjabis is their NOSE is too easily cut ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ranjeet,

You've missed the point. Its not about invading countries. It's about defining a particular group as a "superior race" and somehow 'a cut above the rest'.

Jatts are no superior race nor are they cut above the rest.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • That's actually not true, bro. More children usually means more religious children.  For one thing, in large families, each individual child has less pull on the head of the family. The head is more respected, and therefore the children obey more. They learn that they are not the be all and end all. That there is someone above them. Why would you want to teach them individually? It is considered more effective to teach people as a  group. Guru Sahibs call this concept Sangat. Humans are social animals, and the more people that follow a certain thing, the more firm they are likely to be in that belief. Furthermore, in a typical two-child family, there's one girl, one boy. Each has new clothes and other stuff for every year of their life. They get an entitled mentality. A single child is the apex of entitlement mentality.  In large families, clothes and other items get handed down. Both the giver and receiver learn to decrease their moh-maya and haumai regarding material things. And that's the basis of religion.
    • A muslim work colleague mentioned that some won't drain all the blood in order to add weight and sell for more.
    • No. Our head should belong only to Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji, not a white devil hag who does not care about Sikhs at all and whose monarchy has attempted to destroy Sikhi and its people through countless war-crimes. Many of us, including myself, in the west are guilty of adopting western thinking far too much to form and support our beliefs when we should try to make more effort in being simple and using only Guru ji as our source of knowledge and wisdom. We can read about philosophers etc. and we do have to adapt to our surroundings so we do not become irrelevant in the world but there should be a limit because, at the moment, so many are unable to acknowledge let alone find this balance between work and personal life. There is too much conflation in thinking and it is taking us away from our goal.
    • dosanjh was busy spouting the usual Hinduvta anti-sikh BS about NRI sikhs this week then Khalra organisation picked up on this development: “This was not an accident,” said a senior security source within the Canadian government, who spoke on condition of anonymity. Atwal has developed links with the Indian government and his political views “have evolved” in recent years. “They no longer see him as the enemy,” said the source, who believes it is convenient for some in India’s government, if not necessarily for Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, to embarrass Trudeau for being soft on Sikh separatism. Asked which part of the Indian government might be so motivated, the source said, “The intelligence service.” #theIncideman #RAW Its also being reported that it was former MP Ujjal Dosanjh who helped Atwal get Indian visa in 2006. John Ivison: The Indian government removed Jaspal Atwal from its blacklist. Why? It doesn’t make any sense — until you start to consider who stands to benefit from Atwal’s attendance this week nationalpost.com  
×