Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
InderjitS

Jagraj Singh On Beeb This Sunday @ 10am

98 posts in this topic

Hello mr troll. Look down into references section of the Wikipedia page. I would call them 'reliable' sources for sure - peer reviewed.

Hello Low IQ Pendu, Wikipedia by itself is not a source. It is irrelevant who they quote as the information can be edited by anybody. I stand corrected.

Please stop making a fool out of yourself. You are clearly not educated beyond high school. Even that, I have my doubts.

From wiki itself

Wikipedia is not considered a credible source. Wikipedia is increasingly used by people in the academic community, from freshman students to professors, as an easily accessibletertiary source for information about anything and everything. However, citation of Wikipedia in research papers may be considered unacceptable, because Wikipedia is not considered a credible or authoritative source.[1][2][3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Academic_use

From Harvard

What's Wrong with Wikipedia?

There's nothing more convenient than Wikipedia if you're looking for some quick information, and when the stakes are low (you need a piece of information to settle a bet with your roommate, or you want to get a basic sense of what something means before starting more in-depth research), you may get what you need from Wikipedia. In fact, some instructors may advise their students to read entries for scientific concepts on Wikipedia as a way to begin understanding those concepts.

Nevertheless, when you're doing academic research, you should be extremely cautious about using Wikipedia. As its own disclaimer states, information on Wikipedia is contributed by anyone who wants to post material, and the expertise of the posters is not taken into consideration. Users may be reading information that is outdated or that has been posted by someone who is not an expert in the field or by someone who wishes to provide misinformation. (Case in point: Four years ago, an Expos student who was writing a paper about the limitations of Wikipedia posted a fictional entry for himself, stating that he was the mayor of a small town in China. Four years later, if you type in his name, or if you do a subject search on Wikipedia for mayors of towns in China, you will still find this fictional entry.) Some information on Wikipedia may well be accurate, but because experts do not review the site's entries, there is a considerable risk in relying on this source for your essays.

http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k70847&pageid=icb.page346376

Edited by Quantavius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surprisingly no one has mentioned the East India Company. They were key to plundering the wealth from India, including robbing the entire Bengal Treasury, lop sided trade treaties, raping treasuries of the Mughals in Agra, heck the word loot was one of the first Indian words to enter the English language! The English recognised India to be richer in natural resources quickly and the EIC took huge advantage of this and were backed by the Crown to an extent.

India in 1800 amounted to a 20% manufacturing output globally, this reversed during the height of the Raj.

Edited by InderjitS
4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you are a bit confused no white man made oil, or any resource , they may have exploited other's resources since they are not naturally occuring on land of the British Isles besides these three resources are NOT why the Europeans wanted access to India. they wanted spices, cotton, tea, fabrics printed in colourful ways, silks and to exploit the cheap labour whilst robbing the unwary elites.

I'm really tired of arguing with you. You are a broken tape recorder. No amount of information can fix you. You're a 'one trick' pony. The Americans have a good adage to describe the likes of you and here is how it goes, "You can't fix stupid". Here is another, "Stupid is as stupid does".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Low IQ Pendu, Wikipedia by itself is not a source. It is irrelevant who they quote as the information can be edited by anybody. I stand corrected.

Please stop making a fool out of yourself. You are clearly not educated beyond high school. Even that, I have my doubts.

From wiki itself

Wikipedia is not considered a credible source. Wikipedia is increasingly used by people in the academic community, from freshman students to professors, as an easily accessibletertiary source for information about anything and everything. However, citation of Wikipedia in research papers may be considered unacceptable, because Wikipedia is not considered a credible or authoritative source.[1][2][3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Academic_use

From Harvard

What's Wrong with Wikipedia?

< PREVIOUS | NEXT >

There's nothing more convenient than Wikipedia if you're looking for some quick information, and when the stakes are low (you need a piece of information to settle a bet with your roommate, or you want to get a basic sense of what something means before starting more in-depth research), you may get what you need from Wikipedia. In fact, some instructors may advise their students to read entries for scientific concepts on Wikipedia as a way to begin understanding those concepts.

Nevertheless, when you're doing academic research, you should be extremely cautious about using Wikipedia. As its own disclaimer states, information on Wikipedia is contributed by anyone who wants to post material, and the expertise of the posters is not taken into consideration. Users may be reading information that is outdated or that has been posted by someone who is not an expert in the field or by someone who wishes to provide misinformation. (Case in point: Four years ago, an Expos student who was writing a paper about the limitations of Wikipedia posted a fictional entry for himself, stating that he was the mayor of a small town in China. Four years later, if you type in his name, or if you do a subject search on Wikipedia for mayors of towns in China, you will still find this fictional entry.) Some information on Wikipedia may well be accurate, but because experts do not review the site's entries, there is a considerable risk in relying on this source for your essays.

http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k70847&pageid=icb.page346376

Super brainy 'bigot-troll', use the references to cross-reference the figures which Johny posted - if you are really interested in learning anything.

Your learning curve on this forum is zero.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whites never looted anything from colonies. This is a lie. There was nothing to loot as the east was largely agrarian societies. If anything they brought industry to the east.

WJKK WJKF

LOL? The whites just asked black people to jump on a boat and for them and their future generations to be slaves?

What history books do you read bro to get to your opinion?

Edited by sikhiseeker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whites never looted anything from colonies. This is a lie. There was nothing to loot as the east was largely agrarian societies. If anything they brought industry to the east.

WJKK WJKF

LOL? The whites just asked black people to jump on and for them and their future generations to be slaves?

What history books do you read bro to get to your opinion?

the Beano probably

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the Beano probably

WJKK WJKF

LOL maybe we should suggest this veer ji starts off again and get some "horrible histories" recorded of cbeebies on his playback and at least back himself up with some realistic factual views.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a BBC ploy to make Jagraj appear as a subservient servant or an extreme radical!

The BBC have had no interest in the Sikhs why the sudden interest now?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I only caught the last 20 minutes and I heard Jagraj Singh speak once. To be a panellist on these shows, one has to more or less interrupt with a louder voice in order to get heard. Will have to watch the rest on i-player.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I only caught the last 20 minutes and I heard Jagraj Singh speak once. To be a panellist on these shows, one has to more or less interrupt with a louder voice in order to get heard. Will have to watch the rest on i-player.

I think he spoke more than I was expecting him to. The others on his side spoke less than him. He did ok in my opinion. And confronted the other speakers when they said that the British empire stopped sati, informing them that it was actually the Gurus that did.

The Dr Singh on the left, oh tha railways ch fasea reha. The Kohinoor topic was brought up by the Muslim guy at the end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Big Questions -

Series 9: Episode 16

Nicky Campbell presents the moral, ethical and religious discussion series live from Oasis Academy, Salford. In this episode Nicky asks: Should we be proud of the British Empire?

http://bbc.in/1OiM2Ag

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think he spoke more than I was expecting him to. The others on his side spoke less than him. He did ok in my opinion. And confronted the other speakers when they said that the British empire stopped sati, informing them that it was actually the Gurus that did.

The Dr Singh on the left, oh tha railways ch fasea reha. The Kohinoor topic was brought up by the Muslim guy at the end.

Nice one, will watch it later on.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just finished watching this. I thought Jugraj was brilliant. More so given that he had to contend with a potentially undermining crusty olde fart, whose out-of-date, deferential, subservient act was cringeworthy to behold.

Can you imagine if that uncle was the only one representing Sikhs......

Great to see Sikhs in mainstream media not acting like straight chumchay for a change.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just finished watching this. I thought Jugraj was brilliant. More so given that he had to contend with a potentially undermining crusty olde fart, whose out-of-date, deferential, subservient act was cringeworthy to behold.

Can you imagine if that uncle was the only one representing Sikhs......

Great to see Sikhs in mainstream media not acting like straight chumchay for a change.

Dally, did u notice the arab wannabe sullahh behind jagraj, who nodded his head to everyfink jagraj sed the whole show. Then, as soon as jagraj mentioned how sikhs battled vs the brits AND the muslim invaders, sullahh started shakin his head in disgust. Oh and then parts with a anti sikh comment, of how 2 sikhs were arguing typically.

That old fart dr.lalvani was an absolute joke. Nutin worse than uncle tom's reminiscing of how foreigners raped r culture and we shud b grateful. I cudnt believe how he said that british were the 1s who removed/banned sati/caste system. Obv never heard of the sikh gurus then?! That old gorah closet/fascist sittin next to him, was equally pathetic in trying to link maharaja ranjit singhs wives doin sati, in with sikh philosophy and thinking. He seemed to harbour some anti-sikh desires underneathe his fascist tendencies.

That n.irishman, who try to insinuate we shud all b grateful for colonisation, coz they gave us all the english language.........unbelievable arrogance its unreal! The irony is, his own land of n.ireland belongs to eire, and I wonder if he can talk in gaeilc/irish language?....answer is most likely NO, coz of.....the colonising english!

The nigerian femi and the other black man in the audience were excellent in their rebuttals to those old fuddhus too.

Edited by StarStriker
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Big Questions -

Series 9: Episode 16

Nicky Campbell presents the moral, ethical and religious discussion series live from Oasis Academy, Salford. In this episode Nicky asks: Should we be proud of the British Empire?

http://bbc.in/1OiM2Ag

Would appreciate it if someone could upload it to YouTube as non-UK folk can't view it.

THanks for sharing

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dally, did u notice the arab wannabe sullahh behind jagraj, who nodded his head to everyfink jagraj sed the whole show. Then, as soon as jagraj mentioned how sikhs battled vs the brits AND the muslim invaders, sullahh started shakin his head in disgust. Oh and then parts with a anti sikh comment, of how 2 sikhs were arguing typically.

I didn't notice him till the end when he made his comment about 2 Sikhs arguing. Which is a point.....(sadly)

I was confused by Jagraj saying that Sikhs had been on the receiving end of both Arab and British colonialism, I think he got Arab mixed up with Moghul/Muslim then. I don't think the Moghuls were Arabs, more Turks.

I have to say, I think even in this program, there was (yet again) another subtle attempt to undermine Sikhs by mainstream British media. It's like they suspected what Jagraj was going to come out with (which represents an increasing consciousness amongst young Sikhs of how their community and religion was manipulated by the British for their own ends), and placed this stale olde pudh in a turban to undermine that. Luckily, Jagraj played it out well by pointing out that ole crusty's thinking was the consequence of the mindset colonialists pushed onto (many gullible) Sikhs. The dirty looks that buddha was giving Jagraj when he basically said that we should be grateful to goray for invading the country, and that Jagraj should know this as a Sikh, says it all.

It's embarrasing because I don't think you'd get the level of deference and sycophancy that Dr. Lalvani unashamedly showed from many other communities. As a new, more aware generation of Sikhs, I think we should all be acutely aware of this weakness in many of our older generation (and some of their dimwitted children who've imbibed this mindset ala Jagsaw and Quantivus) and make sure that this way of thinking dies a death now, in this lifetime, through educating people about it. I think Jagraj did this very well for Sikhs on the show, especially given the obstacles he faced.

It was also refreshing to hear a Sikh voice (for a change) as opposed to the constant drone of voices whining about Islam/Islamophobia/terrorism etc. etc. that's been going on ad-nauseum for a few years now.

Edited by dallysingh101
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say, I think even in this program, there was (yet again) another subtle attempt to undermine Sikhs by mainstream British media. It's like they suspected what Jagraj was going to come out with (which represents an increasing consciousness amongst young Sikhs of how their community and religion was manipulated by the British for their own ends), and placed this stale olde pudh in a turban to undermine that. Luckily, Jagraj played it out well by pointing old that ole crusty's thinking was the consequence of the mindset colonialists pushed onto (many gullible) Sikhs. The dirty looks that buddha was giving Jagraj when he basically said that we should be grateful to goray for invading the country, and that Jagraj should know this as a Sikh, says it all.

You're right. They clearly resent the possibility of losing their loyal dogs, which the Sikhs have been for some time now. Hindus will always reserve their primary loyalty for their precious Bharat Mata even if they live elsewhere, and most Muslims despise Britain for constantly shoving itself into Muslim affairs, I think the establishment is aware of these truths. But we Sikhs, having no country of our own, could always be counted upon to wave the union jack like good little ghulaams because there is nowhere else for us to direct our national loyalty. There hasn't been since the Sikh Raaj was dismantled and our people displaced. This, and the knowledge that they can always use Sikhs as pawns in the event that there is some trouble with Muslims, is what Jagraj is threatening with his common sense.

Edited by Balkaar
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right. They clearly resent the possibility of losing their loyal dogs, which the Sikhs have been for some time now. Hindus will always reserve their primary loyalty for their precious Bharat Mata even if they live elsewhere, and most Muslims despise Britain for constantly shoving itself into Muslim affairs, I think the establishment is aware of these truths. But we Sikhs, having no country of our own, could always be counted upon to wave the union jack like good little ghulaams because there is nowhere else for us to direct our national loyalty. There hasn't been since the Sikh Raaj was dismantled and our people displaced. This, and the knowledge that they can always use Sikhs as pawns in the event that there is some trouble with Muslims, is what Jagraj is threatening with his common sense.

How would Sikhs be used as pawns when Sikhs are barely a million in the UK? Based on the following website, Sikhs barely number half a million. http://www.oxfordsikhs.com/SikhAwareness/Sikh-Population-Around-The-World_159.aspx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How would Sikhs be used as pawns when Sikhs are barely a million in the UK? Based on the following website, Sikhs barely number half a million. http://www.oxfordsikhs.com/SikhAwareness/Sikh-Population-Around-The-World_159.aspx

Oye! Quantavius!

Was that retarded old, boot-licking Singh like your old man by any chance? Seriously.

I'd always imagined people like you were the offspring of people like that.....

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is of course, an alternative viewpoint. There always is.

One can not ignore the fact that, whilst the guru's through social reforms, pioneered banning the practice of sati, it took legislation from the British to enforce such a reform. It was wrong for Dr Lalvani to claim that the British pioneered such reforms, but he wasn't wrong to infer that despite such reforms led by the guru's, many Indians still practised this barbaric act. What he was trying to say ( I assume) is that it took legislation to bring about the termination of sati.

Forward this to 2016. As we speak, the anti-caste lobby (Castewatch and the like) are petitioning MPs to introduce caste legislation into English law, effectively making caste discrimination an offence in England & Wales. Astonishingly, Sikh Council UK, who should be leading such a lobby, are actually against this piece of legislation from becoming law! [Apparently, caste discrimination doesn't occur in Sikhi.....hmmmm]. It will surprise no on this forum that the Hindu forum of Britain, led by Brahmins, are also against the legislation.

In years to come, when caste discrimination will be accepted as punishable by law, an academic will come onto TV shows such as Big Questions and say "it took English legislation to stop certain castes discriminating against other castes...", and the Sikhs will say "oh no it didn't, the guru's abolished caste discrimination in 1699!"

So, what I'm trying to say, is whilst the guru's brought about social reforms and no one can argue against it, many Sikhs don't follow them unless it's forced by legislation. I used an example of caste, but we could extend this to gender equality.

As uncomfortable as it is, as a community we must acknowledge that there is a difference between Sikhi and Sikhs. Sikhs are by no means perfect. Sikhi on the otherhand, is.

Edited by DailyMail
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is of course, an alternative viewpoint. There always is.

One can not ignore the fact that, whilst the guru's through social reforms, pioneered banning the practice of sati, it took legislation from the British to enforce such a reform. It was wrong for Dr Lalvani to claim that the British pioneered such reforms, but he wasn't wrong to infer that despite such reforms led by the guru's, many Indians still practised this barbaric act. What he was trying to say ( I assume) is that it took legislation to bring about the termination of sati.

Forward this to 2016. As we speak, the anti-caste lobby (Castewatch and the like) are petitioning MPs to introduce caste legislation into English law, effectively making caste discrimination an offence in England & Wales. Astonishingly, Sikh Council UK, who should be leading such a lobby, are actually against this piece of legislation from becoming law! [Apparently, caste discrimination doesn't occur in Sikhi.....hmmmm]. It will surprise no on this forum that the Hindu forum of Britain, led by Brahmins, are also against the legislation.

In years to come, when caste discrimination will be accepted as punishable by law, an academic will come onto TV shows such as Big Questions and say "it took English legislation to stop certain castes discriminating against other castes...", and the Sikhs will say "oh no it didn't, the guru's abolished caste discrimination in 1699!"

So, what I'm trying to say, is whilst the guru's brought about social reforms and no one can argue against it, many Sikhs don't follow them unless it's forced by legislation. I used an example of caste, but we could extend this to gender equality.

As uncomfortable as it is, as a community we must acknowledge that there is a difference between Sikhi and Sikhs. Sikhs are by no means perfect. Sikhi on the otherhand, is.

our Guru Sahiban and their piare gursikhs did much to reform society ...they are the ones who condemned Sati, opened darbar for Women of all religions, removed Purdah restriction (Dhan Dhan Guru Amar Das ji!) their gursikhs removed zamindhari in Punjab to remove shackles on people and allow those who tended the land own their labour's fruit. When the Sikh raj was crumbling under Hindu /bhekhi sikhs influence that is the first thing they tried to reverse , however the british recognised a good thing and made laws to restrict the hindu moneylenders again. I will take it that they saw the good aspects of Sikh rules and tried to enshrine it in law to maintain its absence in that region and spreading the idea further.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oye! Quantavius!

Was that retarded old, boot-licking Singh like your old man by any chance? Seriously.

I'd always imagined people like you were the offspring of people like that.....

I'm warning you. If this continues, I'm going to be reporting you to the moderator. You're already on a short lease.

Edited by Quantavius

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  
Followers 0



  • Topics

  • Posts

    • @harsharan000 i miss your words of wisdom posts... hope all is well. 
    • It's not just RS, you have other cults out there too. They use gurbani to lure people to fill their pockets. They are leeches, do not follow these so called cults... so called baba trilochan das has even started charging money for prashad. Rebranding Ayurvedic as guru prashadam and sell it to their followers - google it.... People Need to wake up. Faith is a business for these so called pakhadis.
    • God doesn't have a name, if you were a true Sikh you'd know that from Jaap Sahib. Nice try but your Devta Pooja Bhajans are just that, don't lump it with the supreme essence of God, that stuff there is trash compared to it. You didn't even know that the name Raam used in Gurbani isn't a name but a divine attribute.  Nice try but that song is talking about a being filling the person with energy and being their life support. You're so biased that just because the word Raam is there you start screeching its about God, when the person who sung it has a page devoted ENTIRELY to Ram Chander.  Well what do you expect. She had no come-back for the fact that she thinks she's got more knowledge and insight than a Brahmgyani, Honestly I'd rather watch "cartoons" than the drivel she does and above all I'm certainly not a massive hypocrite like her, my feet aren't in 2 boats with one sinking down to hell and the other rising up.   Since we're on the topic of "Bhajans" and Blasphemy. Here guy, according to Preeto this is also Praise of God.   I'll let you in on a little secret....this time it uses the word God.  
    • You know you don't have to hide behind a Sikh mask and can admit to being Hindu; nobody going to judge you, but when you try to use Sikhi as a shield to preach Hinduism; that's when it gets on people's nerves. Now your insulting his taste in t.v., when you've been watching Bhagat Beadbi of Ravidas.