Jump to content
genie

The Black Prince - New Film Based On Sikh Maharajah Duleep Singh

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Jacfsing2 said:

What did his new religion do to Punjab everyone knows. From building a big cathedral/clock near Harmandir Sahib, to missionaries to this day decreasing our population and brainwashing the innocent Dalits with money, Shastar ban, limit Sikhi prachar, Jalialwala Bagh, as well as others: this is just Punjab, imagine the entire subcontinent and even further how these Christians massacared the Indigenous people everywhere. For that reason he's a Ghadar. Punjab was split and now because of this Christian-Lover, Sikhs haven't had any real power in the world.

Yes thats all true about the Christians british white imperialists

However how is that his fault? a 10year old forced to convert to Christianity

Who was groomed to learn the ways of the english and live like them if he wanted to survive in England. How was what the british christian white invaders did in punjab any of it his fault? I fail to see how he is a ghadar particularly as he actively fault against the british rule in later life and tried to regain his lost sovereignty after re-discovering his sikh roots thanks to efforts made by his mother jindan.

what your doing is a bit like victim blaming, so for example if a woman was raped or a man mugged you blame the victim (duleep singh) rather than the actual aggressor thief (the british) who is really to blame for what happened to punjab and thus fate of the Sikhs.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's face it Sikhi was sidelined by Maharaja Ranjit Singh way before the British set their sights on the Punjab.  The Nihung Singhs had already started to protest against Ranjit Singhs anti-Sikh ways and it would have just been a matter of time before there would have been a violent clash between the secular monarchy and the real Sikhs of the time.  Duleep Singhs fate was already destined to be separated from Sikhi.  Maharaja Ranjit Singh had brilliant qualities of a leader but his lavish and anti-Sikh lifestyle is the reason we are facing the problems of being stateless today.

Although the story of Duleep Singh is sad we must not forget that the Sikh 'nishaana' of the time was never to be ruled by a secular Monarch but to establish 'Khalsa Raj' and to be led by the 'Khalsa'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jacfsing2
7 hours ago, genie said:

what your doing is a bit like victim blaming, so for example if a woman was raped or a man mugged you blame the victim (duleep singh) rather than the actual aggressor thief (the british) who is really to blame for what happened to punjab and thus fate of the Sikhs.

Personally Daas thinks the ingenious American peoples who converted to Christianity were also Ghadars; especially the South American tribal royalty. Even the Pope states the forced conversion of the the Americas was a crime against humanity: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/24/world/americas/24pope.html There are Ghadars on all sides; whether it's the form of South America or whether it's from the East and Sub-continentals. As far as I'm concerned the only reasonable thing they did for their faith was to protect their holy land from the Muslims in the Crusades, (even though I feel they were on the right side; they were still wrong once they freed their holy lands)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Jacfsing2 said:

Personally Daas thinks the ingenious American peoples who converted to Christianity were also Ghadars; especially the South American tribal royalty. Even the Pope states the forced conversion of the the Americas was a crime against humanity: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/24/world/americas/24pope.html There are Ghadars on all sides; whether it's the form of South America or whether it's from the East and Sub-continentals. As far as I'm concerned the only reasonable thing they did for their faith was to protect their holy land from the Muslims in the Crusades, (even though I feel they were on the right side; they were still wrong once they freed their holy lands)

ingenious = clever or indigenous= of the land, native ....

RC conversions were done at the point of a sword after massacres upon massacres and enslavement...at the time RC church was after the gold so didn't care  it's all very well sitting on top of a pile of booty to say sookhi sorry

They were forced by circumstance of possible onwards march towards Rome to defend else they were quite happy to ignore the local problem.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jacfsing2
7 hours ago, jkvlondon said:

ingenious = clever or indigenous= of the land, native ....

RC conversions were done at the point of a sword after massacres upon massacres and enslavement...at the time RC church was after the gold so didn't care  it's all very well sitting on top of a pile of booty to say sookhi sorry

They were forced by circumstance of possible onwards march towards Rome to defend else they were quite happy to ignore the local problem.

 

+1 for offering spell check. So you think it was ok that they converted? Here's the thing, they've been so brainwashed by Catholicism that to this day in post-independent South America, Central America, and Mexico, they still practice the religion that killed their ancestors: (in fact they are even more devout than the ones who spread Christianity to them in the first place). And Catholicism is paying a huge price for their crimes that most of their population has become irreligious and Christian-In-Name-Only.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jacfsing2 said:

+1 for offering spell check. So you think it was ok that they converted? Here's the thing, they've been so brainwashed by Catholicism that to this day in post-independent South America, Central America, and Mexico, they still practice the religion that killed their ancestors: (in fact they are even more devout than the ones who spread Christianity to them in the first place). And Catholicism is paying a huge price for their crimes that most of their population has become irreligious and Christian-In-Name-Only.

think about just how they were treated, they died in their thousands and those who were the priests/ medicine men/ shamans  who could give them knowledge of the faith and culture were killed  thus no guidance ...it's easier to overwhelm the people then . That's why it is important to have each and everyone gianis of our granths and shastar masters so the knowledge is spread throughout the network (like the neural network of the brain ) so if some are lost others can still cover  the gaps .

 

RC is not christianity it is the disguised Roman empire ... using the christian doctrine's appeal to land and wealth grab.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, jkvlondon said:

RC is not christianity it is the disguised Roman empire ... using the christian doctrine's appeal to land and wealth grab.

and sh@g kids. That's part of their thing too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jacfsing2
40 minutes ago, jkvlondon said:

RC is not christianity it is the disguised Roman empire ... using the christian doctrine's appeal to land and wealth grab.

Making technicalities doesn't make me sympathize Christians any more. The 3 groups of Orthodox, Catholicism, and Protestantism each had their goals to mass convert the population. What made the Anglos different wasn't their strand of Christianity they were preaching, but the style they were preaching; they were less direct and wanted to fight the Panth indirectly. The Hispanic tribal population were still Ghadhars since unlike us who practice our Sikhi and not becoming Christian fanboys/girls, they gave-up their original religions. The Pagan Europeans also gave-up their own religion, and they didn't give it up because of their love for Jesus Christ and something about him being the messiah to save them, but they converted because of their own weakness; (which is why Sikhi will always have a head-up, because the ones who converted to Sikhi have always been by choice rather than force, even when the Sikhs ruled Punjab; the population was still allowed to practice their religion, and every single Sikh convert converted for love of Guru Sahib, Christians can not make the same statement without lying!)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_conversion You won't be able to see Sikhi in any list of force conversions, no matter how hard you tried, the 3 Abrahamic religions will be first to show-up in force conversion.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Jacfsing2 said:

Making technicalities doesn't make me sympathize Christians any more. The 3 groups of Orthodox, Catholicism, and Protestantism each had their goals to mass convert the population. What made the Anglos different wasn't their strand of Christianity they were preaching, but the style they were preaching; they were less direct and wanted to fight the Panth indirectly. The Hispanic tribal population were still Ghadhars since unlike us who practice our Sikhi and not becoming Christian fanboys/girls, they gave-up their original religions. The Pagan Europeans also gave-up their own religion, and they didn't give it up because of their love for Jesus Christ and something about him being the messiah to save them, but they converted because of their own weakness; (which is why Sikhi will always have a head-up, because the ones who converted to Sikhi have always been by choice rather than force, even when the Sikhs ruled Punjab; the population was still allowed to practice their religion, and every single Sikh convert converted for love of Guru Sahib, Christians can not make the same statement without lying!)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_conversion You won't be able to see Sikhi in any list of force conversions, no matter how hard you tried, the 3 Abrahamic religions will be first to show-up in force conversion.

 

orthodox are more like jews in that they don't do the missionary thing , jesuits/RC are the most aggressive after the baptist/evangelists again the protestants are trying to gain 'souls' empire building like the islamists .... totally mental Waheguru doesn't hand out brownie points for forced conversion or even freewill conversion ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 and every single Sikh convert converted for love of Guru Sahib, 

You come out with this  but have you done any serious historical research into it?

Read Bhangu's work, he mentions a few cases where certain originally antiSikh tribes were essentially slapped about into converting. In the past, as the Khalsa became more and more victorious a lot of originally antiSikh pendus adopted the 'if you can't beat them, join them' mentality. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jacfsing2
16 minutes ago, dallysingh101 said:

You come out with this  but have you done any serious historical research into it?

Read Bhangu's work, he mentions a few cases where certain originally antiSikh tribes were essentially slapped about into converting. In the past, as the Khalsa became more and more victorious a lot of originally antiSikh pendus adopted the 'if you can't beat them, join them' mentality. 

So your sympathizing with Dogras who had actually taken Amrit? Punjab was mostly Muslim and the second religion was Hinduism, Sikhi was the 3rd place: if people were forced to convert into Sikhi, then how was Punjab itself a Muslim majority state in 1947, and why Hindus were the majority in 1947 Indian Punjab? Also until Punjabi Suba which was asking for a Punjabi-language majority state, (even though everyone knew it was split for religious reasons), the main language in Indian Punjab was Hindi, because most Indian Punjabis were Hindu especially when you count Haryana and Himachel. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jacfsing2
11 hours ago, Sukhvirk76 said:

By your own logic our forebears were also Ghadhars .. 

Converting to a religion without love for that religion is one lying, two Ghadhari. Duleep Singh wasn't a fan of Jesus, he has 2 billion so-called "fans"; how many are in their hearts true fans of Jesus Christ? In the same way Dhan Dhan Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji has around 30 million "Sikhs", who claim to love and follow his message, how many are true disciples of the true king that is a question you can answer yourself. Hinduism has 1 billion people, and from what Daas sees true Hinduism looks extinct, as almost none of them have Brahminwaad, but rather have brought their Brahminwaad to others in the Subcontinent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jacfsing2 said:

So your sympathizing with Dogras who had actually taken Amrit? Punjab was mostly Muslim and the second religion was Hinduism, Sikhi was the 3rd place: if people were forced to convert into Sikhi, then how was Punjab itself a Muslim majority state in 1947, and why Hindus were the majority in 1947 Indian Punjab? Also until Punjabi Suba which was asking for a Punjabi-language majority state, (even though everyone knew it was split for religious reasons), the main language in Indian Punjab was Hindi, because most Indian Punjabis were Hindu especially when you count Haryana and Himachel. 

I'm not sympathising with anyone. I think that people who convert to a religion out of compulsion or some strategic, material aim are a bunch of w**kers myself. But that doesn't hide the truth that plenty of apnay in the past did this. Especially zamindaars who had a lot to gain from becoming Sikh and tearing down the pre-existing Moghul order.

No, not every Sikh converted out of some strong religious belief  - some of them were more mercenary and did it for gains. These types coming in on the back on the sacrifices of true Khalsas is what compromised us. But let us not be under any illusion that such types did not take Amrit in droves when it was advantageous to them.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jacfsing2
10 hours ago, dallysingh101 said:

I'm not sympathising with anyone. I think that people who convert to a religion out of compulsion or some strategic, material aim are a bunch of w**kers myself. But that doesn't hide the truth that plenty of apnay in the past did this. Especially zamindaars who had a lot to gain from becoming Sikh and tearing down the pre-existing Moghul order.

No, not every Sikh converted out of some strong religious belief  - some of them were more mercenary and did it for gains. These types coming in on the back on the sacrifices of true Khalsas is what compromised us. But let us not be under any illusion that such types did not take Amrit in droves when it was advantageous to them.  

The Misls were too busy fighting among themselves, (they were not having theocratic wars, but rather of land and power), so how'd they have the time to personally give benefits to people, and Ranjit Singh's kingdom was some secular nonsense. If the British didn't come the Sikh Empire was still going to collapse soon after Ranjit Singh, especially among 2 groups within the kingdom. The first being the Orthodox Sikhs, which plans were already being made for this. The second being the Non-Sikhs living in the Sikh Empire, many of whom would want an even less religious state then what was before. The kingdom was so secular that their Dastars would probably be taken off in the easiest way possible, (Daas is saying this in the most respectful way to Keskis as possible). If you asked even modern strict Gursikhs; they'd probably not like Ranjit Singh's kingdom either for their ideal Raj.

The kingdom was going to collapse, either by the strict religious Sikhs, or the Non-Sikhs abusing their power.

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


×