• advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • ×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Remove formatting

      Only 75 emoticons maximum are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Yes the writing on the wall for religious minorities was on the wall in 1947 by the oppression of dominant communities. If Sikhs had opted for Pakistan they would have had the same conditions perhaps worse due to Islamification of punjab agenda by the pakistani islamic politicians and mullahwad clerics. The situation isn't any better in India where they have given us genocides and attacks on our holiest shrines, scriptures and institutions. The brahminwad priestly class do not want people in Indian subcontinent to escape their power clutches. The late british prime minister Winston Churchill himself didnt want indian Independence for preciously that reason. The best course of action would have been a separate Sikh nation state of sikhistan or khalistan back in 1947. However its never too late to back independence for Khalistan, it is important for Indian Sikhs to keep supporting Khalistan covertly even if they are "proud Indian Sikhs" so that they can hold the hindutva orgs and indian government accountable for any misdeeds against Sikhs.
    • Fair enough. To be more specific the "tragedy" from the "golden age" of "glory days" of when you went to a gurdwara to what you experianced going to that specific gurdwara you went to today in 2017. The resource I will give you is this playlist. If you want because it has at least 20+ hours of material. But I would specifically want you to focus from 1801 - 1925 and 1925 - 1984 and forward. This is the series made by The Basics of Sikhi.  Personally I have never heard Nanak Naam channel. I will check it out now.
    • Even Gyaani Maskeen ji acknowledged that sikhs in punjab were merely 5% more than non-sikhs and that there was a purposeful evil agenda of reducing this 5% so that demographically the sikhs can be crushed  because in a democracy , demography is the only winning factor ! (Yes Gyaani maskeen ji acknowledged this too) Source :   Meanwhile when we ask fellow sikhs to help in increasing our numbers, they scoff at the idea and would rather say "quality is more important than quantity" . Such sikhs prefer to live in la-la land and they're only sabotaging the future of kaum. We already have suffered loss by trusting the hindu nation in 1947 .  Muslims understood this brahminical agenda well and thats why they opted for separate country for sovereignty in 1947 . You should read the earlier works of Muhammad Iqbal (founding poet of pakistan ) much before of 1947 and just a few years before 1947. Much before 1947 , he penned the famous song "Sare jahaa se achha" (still sung widely in india) and just a few years before 1947 he had said something on the lines of "Ab toh sharm aati hai iss watan ko apna watan kehte hue" Point is: Pakis knew very well that in post 1947 india, brahmans would be calling the shots and before 1947 itself , brahmans had shown their true colors  (RSS was formed in 1925)  towards muslims, christians and sikhs.  For the muslims and sikhs they wanted their assimilation back in the hindu fold . Too bad that while our muslim brothers saw this beforehand and acted , while we couldn't ! Since then the kaum has suffered, both religiously and politically.  
    • You've been brainwashed by your leftist teachers and professors, and also by watching Hollywood and Pinewood propaganda (TV & movies) uncritically. If Nanak and Gobind Singh (*) had any omniscience, they would have had homosexual weddings during their lifetimes. Why didn't they? Don't say because the culture wasn't able to accept it. Was the culture able to accept abolition of Sati? Widow remarriage? Control of manjis by women? They didn't care what the culture was, they promoted an ideal society. Why indeed did they not promote homosexuality? If you say that they were ignorant, why do you bother calling yourself a Singh?   * Note: I am not attaching "Guru" to their names because if they weren't omniscient, they're not worth following as Gurus. I, on the other hand, along with almost every Sikh from Guru Nanak Dev ji's time up to now believe they were omniscient (trai-kal darsi), and were the True Guru. I ask you: Do you accept Guru Nanak Dev ji and Guru Gobind SIngh ji as Satguru?
    • OH DEAR! Homosexual n Sikh? SIGH! A few years ago when Cameron gave the go- ahead of same sex marriage in Church, I KNEW it would have been in favour of yes. Remember end of 2012 = end of world?? I knew it meant end of certain kaljug and now kaljug has increased a few folds more. However, I also believe Sikh plus gay will not be a major issue in our times. It'll take a couple more 1000 years.