AjeetSinghPunjabi

Why don't sikhs increase their numbers , like muslims do ? Why are we so complacent ?

56 posts in this topic

There's no doubt that power is in numbers (in many instances), and we need a greater number.  But I don't think blindly increasing the population is the answer.

So many Sikh families in Punjab who rely on agriculture have rather meager landholdings as it is.  What will happen if such families have many kids?  What will a family with 2 acres of land and 4 sons do?  Marginal landowners having a lot of kids will just propagate poverty.

 

In the west, on the other hand, I am all for Sikhs families strategically having 3-5 kids.  We desperately need the numbers.

Edited by californiasardar1
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, HarkiranKaur said:

Muslims etc largely keep their women uneducated, and under control of males. It means their lives become literally as a breeding machine and servant to the husband. Women in general have seen what a raw deal that is... men get to live life while women are stuck living as a serf. So in general not just Sikhs but women also want a slice of life as well now. Doesn't mean they don't want kids at all but maybe 1 or 2 instead of spending their entire adult lives either pregnant or breast feeding. I'd rather produce 1 upstanding child than have a whole litter that I can't care for and at the same time have a life for myself too where I can also contribute to society in some way and be educated.

You can do what you want for yourself, but there is Seva in for a woman who gives birth to the future of Panth. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

You can do what you want for yourself, but there is Seva in for a woman who gives birth to the future of Panth. 

You utter some of the most outrageous none sense as a man/woman on this board. *************************************

There is a world of difference between giving birth to the future panth with sikhi running through their veins than producing JANWARS left, right and centre prior any afore thought. No point in producing your 'litter' with diminished sikhi, civility and gentility. Manners maketh man.

*******************************************

You are making noises through your ars*ho*e when you say quantity is better over quality. 

*****************************************

Most reasonably sensible people would choose QUALITY over QUANTITY, but not you. Oh, no. You just need to do some time travel and transport yourself to the dark ages where you belong. Honestly, for a young person, for, you claim you are one, you talk rubbish only fit for the 6th/7th century.

*******************************************

The panth requires only few super brilliant people to lead it in the right direction and not trillions of JANWARS to bring its DOWNFALL.

********************************************

Edited by muscleman
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, muscleman said:

There is a world of difference between giving birth to the future panth with sikhi running through their veins than producing JANWARS left, right and centre prior any afore thought. No point in producing your 'litter' with diminished sikhi, civility and gentility. Manners maketh man.

That's my thoughts on the subject summed up. For some reason that upsets a few people.

Crapping out a litter of feral little scrotes is somehow meant to translate into a superb fauj of Sikhs who somehow manage to embody all the qualities requires to navigate the tough terrain ahead of us. 

Muslims are NOT an example to aspire to. Their numbers mean NOTHING in the darbaar of the Lord.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, MisterrSingh said:

Muslims are NOT an example to aspire to. Their numbers mean NOTHING in the darbaar of the Lord.

Spot on!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, muscleman said:

You utter some of the most outrageous none sense as a man/woman on this board. *************************************

There is a world of difference between giving birth to the future panth with sikhi running through their veins than producing JANWARS left, right and centre prior any afore thought. No point in producing your 'litter' with diminished sikhi, civility and gentility. Manners maketh man.

*******************************************

You are making noises through your ars*ho*e when you say quantity is better over quality. 

*****************************************

Most reasonably sensible people would choose QUALITY over QUANTITY, but not you. Oh, no. You just need to do some time travel and transport yourself to the dark ages where you belong. Honestly, for a young person, for, you claim you are one, you talk rubbish only fit for the 6th/7th century.

*******************************************

The panth requires only few super brilliant people to lead it in the right direction and not trillions of JANWARS to bring its DOWNFALL.

********************************************

I've never said quality is less than quanity if you read my first you'd notice what I said. I've merely mentioned that quality as well as quanity matter. Don't accuse me of saying I have never said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you notice one thing in the west, the ones that produce the most are either the bottom of society - particularly the ones on welfare. Or it would be the elites of society where they could afford to have lots of kids.

However, it is the middle that doesn't. Sikhs tend to be the productive middle part of society.

I am sure many of us have our parents that came from large families.

One of the reasons for large families was because there used to be high infant mortality, so therefore to ensure against this families had lots of kids. Also, children were the pension pot for parents when they became elderly.

Now with improvements with innoculation against childhood diseases, there is much less child mortality which results in fewer kids.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MisterrSingh said:

That's my thoughts on the subject summed up. For some reason that upsets a few people.

Crapping out a litter of feral little scrotes is somehow meant to translate into a superb fauj of Sikhs who somehow manage to embody all the qualities requires to navigate the tough terrain ahead of us. 

Muslims are NOT an example to aspire to. Their numbers mean NOTHING in the darbaar of the Lord.

Need both spiritual and temporal (political strength) Ie Miri puri as our 6th Guru Hargobind Sahib Ji taught us. Without political strength in numbers and military spiritual strength or quality is useless as you get wiped out by your enemies as history has shown us numerous times. And without spiritual strength your soul is doomed in cycle of life and death.

So both are needed to ensure we are in a good state for the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, genie said:

Need both spiritual and temporal (political strength) Ie Miri puri as our 6th Guru Hargobind Sahib Ji taught us. Without political strength in numbers and military spiritual strength or quality is useless as you get wiped out by your enemies as history has shown us numerous times. And without spiritual strength your soul is doomed in cycle of life and death.

So both are needed to ensure we are in a good state for the future.

Even among Muslims the group that has more children are unworking women; while those that work make less children. Each family should decide individually depending on whether they can afford those kids and who'll be taking care of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alot of people assume that one kid equals high quality and healthy  while more kids equals low quality, malnutrition etc

But if we look at our ithihas, the reverse is true. During puratan times, when Sikhs had a lot of kids they were more religiously observant(which means high quality) and they were more physically fit than us. Now when we have only one kid, our parents fail to raise that kid as a Sikh(meaning low quality) and they also tend to be fat kids on average which is not healthy either. 

 

So here we are, today we are raising low quality and unhealthy fat kids when we have the lowest fertility rates in our history which is well below replacement level.  Meaning, in future our population will start to decrease because of this low fertility rate.

Edited by Jonny101
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Jonny101 said:

Alot of people assume that one kid equals high quality and healthy  while more kids equals low quality, malnutrition etc

But if we look at our ithihas, the reverse is true. During puratan times, when Sikhs had a lot of kids they were more religiously observant(which means high quality) and they were more physically fit than us. Now when we have only one kid, our parents fail to raise that kid as a Sikh(meaning low quality) and they also tend to be fat kids on average which is not healthy either. 

 

So here we are, today we are raising low quality and unhealthy fat kids when we have the lowest fertility rates in our history which is well below replacement level.  Meaning, in future our population will start to decrease because of this low fertility rate.

I agree with this, but can understand why people might pick the other side, they might think it's too costly to raise extra kids especially in the diaspora.

Share this post


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

I agree with this, but can understand why people might pick the other side, they might think it's too costly to raise extra kids especially in the diaspora.

depends on attitude mostly , sure it could be a bill of hundreds of thousands or you could use your intelligence and not buy barrowloads of new toys and extras and concentrate on fewer high quality clothes products which can be use multiple times by multiple kids . I mean things like cots, carseats, clothing, prams/strollers ...etc  keep the money for later educational/other needs . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.tribuneindia.com/mobi/news/sunday-special/perspective/why-sikhs-ought-to-be-happy-not-worried/126229.html

According to this article the fertility of Sikhs in India is 3.1.

The replacement rate is 2.1.

I have no idea what the fertility rate in the west is for Sikhs are.

But surely it is above 2. Most Sikhs have at least 2 children.

My personal opinion is that Sikh families that tend to be larger are ones that are trying for a child of a particular sex.

I have seen plenty of families where there are 3/4 girls and 1 boy. The boy is usually the youngest.

I have also personally known 1 family that has 5 boys and that is because they keep trying for a girl and they keep having boys.

One of the common expressions you will  usually hear after a second child is born is "family is complete".

Edited by Ranjeet01

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 20/03/2017 at 5:26 PM, Ranjeet01 said:

If you notice one thing in the west, the ones that produce the most are either the bottom of society - particularly the ones on welfare. Or it would be the elites of society where they could afford to have lots of kids.

However, it is the middle that doesn't. Sikhs tend to be the productive middle part of society.

I am sure many of us have our parents that came from large families.

One of the reasons for large families was because there used to be high infant mortality, so therefore to ensure against this families had lots of kids. Also, children were the pension pot for parents when they became elderly.

Now with improvements with innoculation against childhood diseases, there is much less child mortality which results in fewer kids.

 

 

be careful with the whole innoculation  thing , it is dumbing down and damaging the kids ...also long term effects of the 'preservatives'  mean infertility for both sexes.

Share this post


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

be careful with the whole innoculation  thing , it is dumbing down and damaging the kids ...also long term effects of the 'preservatives'  mean infertility for both sexes.

There has been large push to reduce population.

For men overall, there has been a large decline in testosterone levels and sperm count.

However. you will probably know that the consequence of reduced fertility is the demographic imbalance where the over 65s have increased their proportion in society. This means that there will be less young working people to support an ageing population.

This results in older people having to work longer, pressures on the health system etc. I know in the UK, retirement age is 67 currently but I know there are reports which suggest this should go up to 70.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ranjeet01 said:

There has been large push to reduce population.

For men overall, there has been a large decline in testosterone levels and sperm count.

However. you will probably know that the consequence of reduced fertility is the demographic imbalance where the over 65s have increased their proportion in society. This means that there will be less young working people to support an ageing population.

This results in older people having to work longer, pressures on the health system etc. I know in the UK, retirement age is 67 currently but I know there are reports which suggest this should go up to 70.

 

Maybe people are just less interested in having big families for whatever reason. The Muslims still reproduce regardless of their genetic ancestry, the bigger problem is marrying latter and our Panth repeating the same Anti-Sex that's been going on since Singh Sabha, now people are claiming that Dasam Granth mentions sexual things; when in reality the things it mentions are only what a father would tell his kids about it. 

Share this post


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

Maybe people are just less interested in having big families for whatever reason. The Muslims still reproduce regardless of their genetic ancestry, the bigger problem is marrying latter and our Panth repeating the same Anti-Sex that's been going on since Singh Sabha, now people are claiming that Dasam Granth mentions sexual things; when in reality the things it mentions are only what a father would tell his kids about it. 

Yes, you are correct that people are not interesting in having big families like they used to for a multitude of reasons.

People will not have larger families unless it is in their interest to do so.

Muslims want to dominate the world, for them it is an exercise in power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ranjeet01 said:

http://www.tribuneindia.com/mobi/news/sunday-special/perspective/why-sikhs-ought-to-be-happy-not-worried/126229.html

According to this article the fertility of Sikhs in India is 3.1.

The replacement rate is 2.1.

I have no idea what the fertility rate in the west is for Sikhs are.

But surely it is above 2. Most Sikhs have at least 2 children.

My personal opinion is that Sikh families that tend to be larger are ones that are trying for a child of a particular sex.

I have seen plenty of families where there are 3/4 girls and 1 boy. The boy is usually the youngest.

I have also personally known 1 family that has 5 boys and that is because they keep trying for a girl and they keep having boys.

One of the common expressions you will  usually hear after a second child is born is "family is complete".

Something doesn't seem right with that article. Read here:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_states_ranking_by_fertility_rate

 

Punjab is among those states in India which has tge lowest fertility rate. Well below replacement level of 2.1. Our home state has an embarrassing fertility rate if 1.6!

 

This is a sign of a defeated peoole. A people who no longer wish to live. A people who see children as a financial burden and even gross instead of seeing them as among God's greatest blessings to mankind. The Europeans are also suffering from such self destructive thinking and in India it is the Sikhs and Parsis.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Ranjeet01 said:

Yes, you are correct that people are not interesting in having big families like they used to for a multitude of reasons.

People will not have larger families unless it is in their interest to do so.

Muslims want to dominate the world, for them it is an exercise in power.

I grew up in a family with four kids , our gen had  4 (myself) 2 +2 (my bros) and 1 my sis (total 5 lads 4 lasses) , however though my Husband grew up in similar family only he had kids  so on that side their family is shrinking .  It is their outlook fed by their own mother's view that a child is some kind of cross to bear , that spoils enjoyment of life. Whereas my mum and Dad loved kids and enjoyed every aspect of seeing us develop as humans , it rubbed off on us , and it seems to be going down the line.

People who had loving large families tend to carry on that trend , I've seen it in other cultures too . The advantage of large sikh families is sangat for the siblings if anything happens , 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember growing up and feeling sorry for my friends who were only children because they had everything except the one thing they really wanted a close long-lasting relationship with someone that knew them truly. The truth is our sibling relationship is the longest one we will have after the one with Akal Purakh , parents die , husband/wives come later on , children even later ...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Jonny101 said:

Something doesn't seem right with that article. Read here:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_states_ranking_by_fertility_rate

 

Punjab is among those states in India which has tge lowest fertility rate. Well below replacement level of 2.1. Our home state has an embarrassing fertility rate if 1.6!

 

This is a sign of a defeated peoole. A people who no longer wish to live. A people who see children as a financial burden and even gross instead of seeing them as among God's greatest blessings to mankind. The Europeans are also suffering from such self destructive thinking and in India it is the Sikhs and Parsis.

 

If anyone in the population decides not to get married or have kids; it deeply causes the population to decline, in so many of our Jathas such as Nanaksar, and other Sanatan Jathas, (Nanaksar isn't a Sanatan branch), people are required to be celibate to have any ability to do Seva. Another factor is some Gursikhs are becoming Brahacharya because of some personal decision. Add to this female infanticide, abortions of females, and the need for having the least kids possible, (because of future rishta payments), then you see the internal problem of our people.

12 minutes ago, jkvlondon said:

People who had loving large families tend to carry on that trend , I've seen it in other cultures too . The advantage of large sikh families is sangat for the siblings if anything happens ,

I'd assume it's easier to practice Sikhi in a large home where everyone is focused on bhagti vs you being the only one. Sharing the bedroom and if one person wakes-up early for Amritvela Simran then everyone will wake-up early. If the family is focused on Gursikhi, then all those moments the child spent in the Sangat of their brothers and sisters will cause them to remember all of that; if they were ever to go astray, and the bonds with Guru Sahib can be restored even if the siblings move-out due to those experiences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Jonny101 said:

Something doesn't seem right with that article. Read here:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_states_ranking_by_fertility_rate

 

Punjab is among those states in India which has tge lowest fertility rate. Well below replacement level of 2.1. Our home state has an embarrassing fertility rate if 1.6!

 

This is a sign of a defeated peoole. A people who no longer wish to live. A people who see children as a financial burden and even gross instead of seeing them as among God's greatest blessings to mankind. The Europeans are also suffering from such self destructive thinking and in India it is the Sikhs and Parsis.

 

Don't forget that Hindus make up over 40 percent of Punjab so the 1.6 will include their birth rate. 

If Sikhs have 3.1, it means that Hindu Punjabi may be in demographic decline and that is making the replacement rates look lower for Sikhs.

If there has been an increase in the population in Punjab, it would be non Punjabis coming into Punjab.

Perhaps this is why the Indian Govt has been encouraging Bhaiyas and Biharis to move to Punjab over the last couple of decades. The Hindu Punjabi population has been in decline and the govt needs to keep the ratio up.

These are just suggestions and are by no means accurate.

What is interesting on that link you provided is that as a general rule most of India's birth rate is going down with the exception of the BIMRU states.

Edited by Ranjeet01

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quality over quantity. We are already seeing effects of lack of spirit in already stunted numbers. 

Also why did you speak about Sikhs in an almost third person manner? Subconscious slip of a non Sikh troll or just awkward phrasing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/20/2017 at 3:56 PM, MisterrSingh said:

That's my thoughts on the subject summed up. For some reason that upsets a few people.

Crapping out a litter of feral little scrotes is somehow meant to translate into a superb fauj of Sikhs who somehow manage to embody all the qualities requires to navigate the tough terrain ahead of us. 

Muslims are NOT an example to aspire to. Their numbers mean NOTHING in the darbaar of the Lord.

I tell you what - on the other hand. Having a small amount of quietest, conservative kids that are essentially being micro-groomed for academia and then some plush office job (which is what the majority of affluent Amritdharis consider 'Sikh' child rearing these days), isn't going to create any sort of robust fauj either. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dallysingh101 said:

I tell you what - on the other hand. Having a small amount of quietest, conservative kids that are essentially being micro-groomed for academia and then some plush office job (which is what the majority of affluent Amritdharis consider 'Sikh' child rearing these days), isn't going to create any sort of robust fauj either. 

I agree. That branch of people you've identified will go from cradle to grave without an iota of understanding what life truly is. Sure, they'll THINK they know the secrets of the universe through whatever religious sect they'll latch onto, but they'll spend their entire lives in a bubble. Yet, at least their heart will be in the right place, even if they are wildly wide of the target in every sense. My personal bugbear is with the frauds who hide behind Sikhi bhes whilst doing the absolute worst things one could ever imagine.

Edited by MisterrSingh

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



  • 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.