Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
InderjitS

Jagraj Singh On Beeb This Sunday @ 10am

Recommended Posts

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

  • Like 2

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.

  • Like 1

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 More so given that he had to contend with a potentially undermining crusty olde fart, whose out-of-date, deferential, subservient act was cringeworthy to behold.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.

  • Like 4

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 More so given that he had to contend with a potentially undermining crusty olde fart, whose out-of-date, deferential, subservient act was cringeworthy to behold.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
  • Like 3

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

  • Like 1

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
  • Like 3

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
  • Like 2

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.....

  • Like 3

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
  • Like 1

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.

  • Like 1

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

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

I think you're getting caught up in the literal logistics of the situation, as opposed to the broader, sociological aspects of it. Clearly, Sikh numbers are low in the UK. But when people talk about using Sikhs as pawns, it's not in terms of gathering a bunch of Singhs together who'll then go on the rampage against huge numbers of Muslims. It's more to do with drumming up ill-feeling in Sikh minds; some of that will invariably lead to skirmishes. But when people refer to Sikhs being used as pawns in these modern times, I believe it's not a literal act of battles breaking out on the streets IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you're getting caught up in the literal logistics of the situation, as opposed to the broader, sociological aspects of it. Clearly, Sikh numbers are low in the UK. But when people talk about using Sikhs as pawns, it's not in terms of gathering a bunch of Singhs together who'll then go on the rampage against huge numbers of Muslims. It's more to do with drumming up ill-feeling in Sikh minds; some of that will invariably lead to skirmishes. But when people refer to Sikhs being used as pawns in these modern times, I believe it's not a literal act of battles breaking out on the streets IMO.

Yes, but what can half a million people do? Please tell me in clear language how are the Sikhs going to be used as pawns?

Ill feelings towards Muslims? They were already like that before any British set foot in India. The various posters in the Gurdwara does a far better job then any white man could ever do.

I think many here are suffering from illusions (delusions is better...ha ha) of grandeur.

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  

×