Jump to content

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, dallysingh101 said:

Absolutely. My feelings are that 'Hinduism' as is conceptualised today didn't exist in the pre-colonial period. But we're Sikhs and we have to let Hindus figure their own stuff out, we need to focus on our own thing. 

So it would be fair to say the 'sikh' identity is also constructed? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Sukhvirk1976 said:

So it would be fair to say the 'sikh' identity is also constructed? 

Only for the brain dead. More and more people are waking up. Colonialism essentially involved dumbing down the wild Panjabi masses and turning them into conforming, useful tools for the imperial agenda. 

The difference between the brain-f**k that goray gave Sikhs versus the Hindus is that Hindus have benefitted from their reconfiguration big time (getting a country for themselves, now having a chance at unity with common language and umbrella concept of 'Hindu', having increasingly powerful military capabilities etc.). Sikhs instead got ar5e-raped. Lost country, redefined along caste/race lines which causes havoc with unity to this day, complete loss of military strength which is largely reduced to a blunt symbolic 'dagger'.

 

Try reading this if you haven't already:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, 13Mirch said:

Naipul, in his India Rediscovered, states that given the diversity of Hindu society (Hindu being a geographical label) it was very easy for the British to re-engineer it into some form of a politico-religious philosophy. Men like Dayanand Saraswati, schooled in Occidental thought, were conveniently maneuvered into prominent positions from whence they could argue that akin to Christianity Hinduism too was a monolithic religious tradition. The evolution of this re-construction is the ultra-orthodox brand of nationalism which we see today in in India i.e. Hindutva, where Hindu (as per the fundamentalists) is synonymous with Indian and nationalistic.

I agree the label 'hindu' is totally inadequate as a way to capture such a diverse group of philosophical traditions. 

It also seems to be be applied and used by people /writers when it is a convenient device to homogenise a group of people to criticise. It happens on this forum when people talk about Hindus, Muslims, 'gora' or liberals. It just a lazy way of articulating arguments stepping around actual analysis or pinpointing problems.. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 13Mirch said:

I believe that problems with belief/ideology might be the problem e.g. Caste is a part and parcel of Hindu belief or a majority of it. Is criticizing Caste akin to criticizing Hindus as a whole?

I don't think criticising caste is akin to criticising Hindus as a whole since.. It's a social construct and a aberration of the philosophy.. Casteism should be challenged at every opportunity. But by conflating it is not useful.. The book of manu out of which casteism developed did not promote inequality but was used by the elites to provide justification to support structural inequalities 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Sukhvirk1976 said:

I agree the label 'hindu' is totally inadequate as a way to capture such a diverse group of philosophical traditions. 

It also seems to be be applied and used by people /writers when it is a convenient device to homogenise a group of people to criticise. It happens on this forum when people talk about Hindus, Muslims, 'gora' or liberals. It just a lazy way of articulating arguments stepping around actual analysis or pinpointing problems.. 

And I believe your type of argument is a convenient way of ignoring the plain fact that certain problems can often stem from certain communities.

It would be stupid to point at Ghanians and accuse them of fostering global discord through neo-imperialist agendas and militarism. But you could point at powerful, influential, longstanding sections of the English community doing so. That not every last one of them is involved is a moot point. Fact is that those problems stem from those sources. 

Same with grooming, it would be stupid to point at say Gujerati Muslims and accuse them of turning a blind eye to mass grooming stemming from their community. But the same couldn't be said of another community we all know of. 

Same with alcohol-loving, jamboree mentalities amongst our lot. Anyone with an ounce of integrity and honesty knows what subsection of the community popularised this amongst us. But that doesn't mean that every last Jut engages in this. 

Your approach is not only lazy, but also cowardly because it fails to call a spade a spade - which is needed sometimes - especially in a community like ours who routinely go into denial about serious issues they face. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sukhvirk1976 said:

The book of manu out of which casteism developed did not promote inequality but was used by the elites to provide justification to support structural inequalities 

Do you know how oxymoronic the above is? 

 

Why are we talking about Hindus now anyway? Ain't we got enough of our own issues to sort out?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, dallysingh101 said:

And I believe your type of argument is a convenient way of ignoring the plain fact that certain problems can often stem from certain communities.

It would be stupid to point at Ghanians and accuse them of fostering global discord through neo-imperialist agendas and militarism. But you could point at powerful, influential, longstanding sections of the English community doing so. That not every last one of them is involved is a moot point. Fact is that those problems stem from those sources. 

Same with grooming, it would be stupid to point at say Gujerati Muslims and accuse them of turning a blind eye to mass grooming stemming from their community. But the same couldn't be said of another community we all know of. 

Same with alcohol-loving, jamboree mentalities amongst our lot. Anyone with an ounce of integrity and honesty knows what subsection of the community popularised this amongst us. But that doesn't mean that every last Jut engages in this. 

Your approach is not only lazy, but also cowardly because it fails to call a spade a spade - which is needed sometimes - especially in a community like ours who routinely go into denial about serious issues they face. 

 

I think you'll find I'm quite happy calling a spade a spade just not all the garden fork and pick axe as well.. That was my point. Thank you for helping me illustrate it.. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • yeh it's true, we shouldn't be lazy and need to learn jhatka shikaar. It doesn't help some of grew up in surrounding areas like Slough and Southall where everyone thought it was super bad for amrit dharis to eat meat, and they were following Sant babas and jathas, and instead the Singhs should have been normalising jhatka just like the recent world war soldiers did. We are trying to rectifiy this and khalsa should learn jhatka.  But I am just writing about bhog for those that are still learning rehit. As I explained, there are all these negative influences in the panth that talk against rehit, but this shouldn't deter us from taking khanda pahul, no matter what level of rehit we are!
    • How is it going to help? The link is of a Sikh hunter. Fine, but what good does that do the lazy Sikh who ate khulla maas in a restaurant? By the way, for the OP, yes, it's against rehit to eat khulla maas.
    • Yeah, Sikhs should do bhog of food they eat. But the point of bhog is to only do bhog of food which is fit to be presented to Maharaj. It's not maryada to do bhog of khulla maas and pretend it's OK to eat. It's not. Come on, bro, you should know better than to bring this Sakhi into it. Is this Sikh in the restaurant accompanied by Guru Gobind Singh ji? Is he fighting a dharam yudh? Or is he merely filling his belly with the nearest restaurant?  Please don't make a mockery of our puratan Singhs' sacrifices by comparing them to lazy Sikhs who eat khulla maas.
    • Seriously?? The Dhadi is trying to be cute. For those who didn't get it, he said: "Some say Maharaj killed bakras (goats). Some say he cut the heads of the Panj Piyaras. The truth is that they weren't goats. It was she-goats (ਬਕਰੀਆਂ). He jhatka'd she-goats. Not he-goats." Wow. This is possibly the stupidest thing I've ever heard in relation to Sikhi.
    • Instead of a 9 inch or larger kirpan, take a smaller kirpan and put it (without gatra) inside your smaller turban and tie the turban tightly. This keeps a kirpan on your person without interfering with the massage or alarming the masseuse. I'm not talking about a trinket but rather an actual small kirpan that fits in a sheath (you'll have to search to find one). As for ahem, "problems", you could get a male masseuse. I don't know where you are, but in most places there are professional masseuses who actually know what they are doing and can really relieve your muscle pains.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use