Jump to content
AjeetSinghPunjabi

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

Recommended Posts

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
Guest Jacfsing2
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
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jacfsing2
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
Guest Jacfsing2
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 , 

 

  • Like 1

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
Guest Jacfsing2
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

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

    • Another point I would like to mention for fellow history lovers like is that generally if we look at all non Sikh sources mentioning Sihs and their practises we get a clearer picture than reading our Granths. The Granths were written from a certain mindset, schooling, 'sect' influence and sometimes even vested interests. While non Sikh authors usually wrote after observing Sikhs from several places and often even contrasting, comparing the behaviours of Sikhs across India. While narrow minded non Sikh narratives exist, a dozen sources can be found which clearly imply that Sikhi of the 18th century was more devoid of anti-Gurmat influences than that of the 19th century or Sikh literature (written mostly by Nirmalas who did not represent a majority of the Sikh dharam). Lots of non Sikh sources clearly mention that Sikhs generally did not observe casteist practises.
        “When a person is once admitted into that (Sikh) fraternity, they make no scruple of associating with him, of whatever tribe, clan or race he may have been hitherto; nor do they betray any of those scruples and prejudices so deeply rooted in the Hindu mind.”
      – Mir Ghulam Hussain Khan (Siyar ul mutakherin, 1783)
    • Chibber's narrative should be read in a context. He was born in a family which was held in great respect and esteem by the Sikh community; several prominent members of this family being treasurers, constant companions or martyrs of the Guru's house. The last notable Chibber in the community was Chaupa Singh who was executed in the 1720s. It seems that the Chibber influence within the community diminished in the coming decades, bolstering envy and rage amongt the Chibbers who had seen their parivaars influence wane over the decades. Hence there were several attempts in Chibber literature of the mid 18th century to infer a preferential ranking of Chibber Brahmins and introduce casteist practises once again (see Rehatnama Chaupa Singh for example). This a theory I have developed myself so can not quote scholars who advocated this theory but all the facts can be double checked. We always have to read into an authors background and motives for writing a certain text. The sect that manipulated Guru Nanak Dev's Janamsakhis saying the Guru married a Muslim woman did so to cover the defect of their own leader who had married a Muslim lady (and was thus viewed as an outcaste by the larger society). Similarly several writers have tried to link Mani Singh to their own lineage or caste (Gyani Gian Singh 'Dullat' made Bhai Mani Singh a Dullat as well despite the lack of proof in 18th century literature of any such claim).

      Therefore I do not believe the Sakhi posted by the OP to be true, Chibber had a vested agenda to promote casteism and more specifically the preferential ranking of the (Chibber) Brahmins. Ever noticed how the Chibber literature cleverly says a Chibber put Patasey in the first Khandi Di Pahul ceremony, were the first to take amrit and so on? (historically contradicted by all existing written sources) [Bansawlinama Chapter 10 I believe]. Similarly the Rehatnama (oldest copy 1765, written by Kesar Singh Chibbers father Gurbaksh Singh Chibber) asks Sikhs to give preferential treatment to Chibber Brahmins.
    •     I know why he got arrested.  And I am not saying they targeted him because they thought "oh he is a mona so it makes him an easy target."   I am saying that because he is a mona, and because he is used to being able to identify as a Sikh when it suits him and fly under the radar when it is inconvenient, he was not as vigilant as he should have been.  Someone who goes through their entire life being identifiable as a Sikh every minute of every day, and experiences all of the baggage that that entails, is not going to have any illusions about what would await him in India if he was behind a website like neverforget84.
×