Internal Atrophy of Sikh Autonomy

[MisterrSingh]

7 hours ago, Jacfsing2 said:

Ranjit Singh only got strong because of the hard workers who fought to make his dream a reality, what he did was betray the hard workers, for his own self-interests. Also it's not a Sikh country, just another random state, that if he wasn't so selfish could have been a theocracy. Banda Singh Bahadur brought justice to someone who made a Shaheed of my Guru, (Dhan Dhan Sri Guru Tegh Bahadur Ji), and the Chote Sahibzade, if there is anything I feel bad about that, it's that it wasn't me. Otherwise he was perfectly fine for someone who's not Guru Sahib himself, he made Guru Sahib proud, and you are here insulting him while praising Ranjit Singh? His own child became a Shaheed, while Ranjit Singh's son converted to Pakhandi Baba Jesus.

You're attributing extremely rare spiritual traits reserved for divinity and similar beings, and expecting mere mortals - albeit exceptionally able men in a non-divine sense - to live up to the standards of our Guru Sahibs and select souls such as Baba Deep Singh and others in that class of personality. You're really hard to impress, lol.

[jashb]

On 08/06/2017 at 11:51 PM, Jacfsing2 said:

But what's wrong with having Non-Punjabi Sikhs? I think our greatest problem is limiting the Prachar to Punjab.

 

Where have I said there's anything wrong with having "Non-Punjabi Sikhs"? You are deluded if you believe that non-Panjabis and "Non-Punjabi Sikhs" are the same thing.

The entirely reasonable and justifiable position in this respect is that putting non-Sikhs and furthermore non-Panjabis in charge of the destiny of Panjab was an incredibly poor, stupid, and myopic decision by Maharaja Ranjit Singh. Moreover, it treated with utter contempt the very Guru Sahiban in whose name he claimed to rule. This does not in anyone's wildest imagination equal the kind of anti-Sikh discrimination you have tried to allege.

What is there about the distinction between these two disparate groups of people that you don't understand? Are you one of those people that have been brainwashed into believing that Panjabis and Sikhs are equivalent terms? Or do you simply believe the retarded equation that "Panjabi = Sikh"?

Explain yourself. There are 90 million reasons why you and others like you are wrong.

 

 

On 08/06/2017 at 11:51 PM, Jacfsing2 said:

The worst thing was giving a falling empire to a family that was obsessed with being king, most of his successors only ruled for about a year.

 

You really need to read about the demise of Khalsa Raj from an objective, authentic, and truly Sikh source (stress applied on the latter factor being operative), then come back here when you're ready. I can help to point you in the right direction. But only if you're willing.

Frankly speaking, it was a stupid and nepotic mistake. But it was by no means his worst decision. I'm no fan of Kharak Singh. But that doesn't mean he shouldn't have been given the opportunity to rule once appointed. Moreover, this wasn't the incredibly poor, stupid, and myopic decision I referred to that so strictly and brazenly violated Guru Ji's hukams.

Understand this. There were then, and there remain, certain non-Sikh elements, that we have stupidly permitted, in our blind sleep, to infiltrate our society, that walk the walk, and talk the talk, yet do not hold the authentic Sikh ethos and interests in the form of Khalsa Halemi Raj in any way shape or form at heart. It is not that sincere Sikhs that existed at the time of the events being referred to didn't have the parkh to recognise this fact. It is, that, to a large extent, their hands were tied by a regime that started more or less as a Sikh democracy, and ended definitively as an anti-Sikh autocracy. It was these non-Sikh, nay, anti-Sikh elements that had no intention of ever letting a Sikh, even one like Kharak Singh, from succeeding to rule.

 

[Guest Jacfsing2]

7 minutes ago, jashb said:

Are you one of those people that have been brainwashed into believing that Panjabis and Sikhs are equivalent terms? Or do you simply believe the retarded equation that "Panjabi = Sikh"?

No.

9 minutes ago, jashb said:

You really need to read about the demise of Khalsa Raj from an objective, authentic, and truly Sikh source (stress applied on the latter factor being operative), then come back here when you're ready. I can help to point you in the right direction. But only if you're willing.

Frankly speaking, it was a stupid and nepotic mistake. But it was by no means his worst decision. I'm no fan of Kharak Singh. But that doesn't mean he shouldn't have been given the opportunity to rule once appointed. Moreover, this wasn't the incredibly poor, stupid, and myopic decision I referred to that so strictly and brazenly violated Guru Ji's hukams.

Understand this. There were then, and there remain, certain non-Sikh elements, that we have stupidly permitted, in our blind sleep, to infiltrate our society, that walk the walk, and talk the talk, yet do not hold the authentic Sikh ethos and interests in the form of Khalsa Halemi Raj in any way shape or form at heart. It is not that sincere Sikhs that existed at the time of the events being referred to didn't have the parkh to recognise this fact. It is, that, to a large extent, their hands were tied by a regime that started more or less as a Sikh democracy, and ended definitively as an anti-Sikh autocracy. It was these non-Sikh, nay, anti-Sikh elements that had no intention of ever letting a Sikh, even one like Kharak Singh, from succeeding to rule.

I don't know how Kharak Singh would have ruled, since he didn't have enough time, but I am refering to all the assassinations and royal deaths for Ranjit Singh's successors. In 10 years there were 5 kings. 

[13Mirch]

On 6/9/2017 at 2:58 AM, MisterrSingh said:

Yet he achieved - admittedly temporal - feats that no other Sikh has managed since those times. 

If we believe the strength of a people and its nation are recognisable in its successes on the non-spiritual plane, he's one of the greatest Sikhs of all time from a certain point of view. Those worldly victories may count for very little in the kingdom of God, but unfortunately the kingdom of Man is where we all reside whilst we breathe, and on that front Ranjit Singh made his mark not only for himself but for the benefit of our people. That counts for something.

I believe Napolean was similar- by attempting to embody the French Revolution in an autocratic framework he corrupted it's premise of equality for all, but in socio-political terms revamped contemporary Europe for the better.

[jashb]

9 hours ago, Jacfsing2 said:

No.

 

That's your whole explanation for misquoting me?

 

 

9 hours ago, Jacfsing2 said:

I don't know how Kharak Singh would have ruled, since he didn't have enough time, but I am refering to all the assassinations and royal deaths for Ranjit Singh's successors. In 10 years there were 5 kings.

 

You are so one-dimensional it's unbelievable. You reduce the complexity of everything you see to black and white, without caring for the finer, sometimes hidden, message that lies in shades of grey within.

Have you ever bothered to discover the background to these assassinations? For example, where the conspirators came from, and what were their several, complex motivations? How they managed to obtain such power that they were able to effectively collude with each other to cause the assassinations of the sons of Maharaja Ranjit Singh, and consequently suck the Kaum dry during the resulting chaos?

These aren't events that can be dismissed in a single sentence - nothing is ever that simple. You can't do justice to this period by simply declaring "Maharaja bad". Things don't work like that.

Moreover, the events that we are referring to possess relevance and importance of the highest magnitude for the Kaum right now. They have shaped the destiny of the Kaum for the last 170 years, and if we're not careful, they will continue to do so for a long time more.

Fail to understand what went wrong before, and you'll keep on committing the same mistakes over and over again. I can see the exact same things occurring within the Panth right now, but you can't correct what you don't see. Too many evidently don't.

 

[Guest AjeetSinghPunjabi]

On 2017-6-7 at 3:33 PM, MisterrSingh said:

That's interesting. I wonder if he sees himself as a modern Ranjit Singh.

He does ! Even when he sits with his cabinet, there's a big maharaja ranjit singh painting backing him 

[MisterrSingh]

1 hour ago, AjeetSinghPunjabi said:

He does ! Even when he sits with his cabinet, there's a big maharaja ranjit singh painting backing him 

In his dreams, the sly dog.

[jkvlondon]

7 hours ago, MisterrSingh said:

In his dreams, the sly dog.

not long to go and then he will hear from the Real King

[MisterrSingh]

42 minutes ago, jkvlondon said:

not long to go and then he will hear from the Real King

[jkvlondon]

1 hour ago, MisterrSingh said:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

 

Elvis fan huh?