90 posts in this topic

On 6/12/2017 at 2:21 PM, jashb said:

 

 

No serious nation ever prospered whose rulers gave into cheap pleasures, sensual thrills and hedonistic debauchery.

The English didn't do too bad in this respect. 

On the flipside, trying to build up a nation whilst in in denial about the normal earthly instincts of the majority of subjects just creates a false 'conservatism' that gets routinely flouted (albeit covertly) despite the show of reserve on top. That's where we are right now as a community - and from what I can see, it doesn't look like it's doing us any favours to be honest.

Edited by dallysingh101

Share this post


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

That's the crux of the issue. Are all of the ideals we hold today rooted in a SIkh past, or are some of them accretions which stem from the colonial period and are rooted in outsider, European nonSikh thinking?

What I find humorous is that the very parameters, of identity, utilized to define "colonial Sikhi" versus "pre-colonial Sikhi" are somewhat ambiguous. In relation to Hinduism, it is argued that modern Sikhi is but a Europeanized revamping; yet if the same parameters are applied to Hinduism then it emerges that Hinduism too is a Europeanized revamping. 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, 13Mirch said:

What I find humorous is that the very parameters, of identity, utilized to define "colonial Sikhi" versus "pre-colonial Sikhi" are somewhat ambiguous. In relation to Hinduism, it is argued that modern Sikhi is but a Europeanized revamping; yet if the same parameters are applied to Hinduism then it emerges that Hinduism too is a Europeanized revamping. 

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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? 

Share this post


Link to post
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:

 

Share this post


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

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:

 

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.

Edited by 13Mirch
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
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.. 

Edited by Sukhvirk1976

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes 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.. 

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?

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
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 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Power is never given, you've got to take it.

The current set up at the moment may make things difficult to do this. However, if there is a vacuum and there is an opportunity then it is something that needs to be grabbed.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

 

Edited by dallysingh101

Share this post


Link to post
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?

Edited by dallysingh101

Share this post


Link to post
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.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Sukhvirk1976 said:

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.. 

If you think you've 'illustrated' some point - you must be losing the plot. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, dallysingh101 said:

If you think you've 'illustrated' some point - you must be losing the plot. 

Your right you illustrated it for me 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I seriously doubt britishers wanted to give sikhs a third country called "Sikhistan" in 1947 .

Muslims got pakistan just because muslim league grew weary of the designs of RSS and hindutva and felt muslims might not have a safe future in independent hindu majority india. 

We , on the other hand had leaders like "Tara Singh" who not only were hindutva based but also in 1963 went on with others to found Vishwa hindu parishad .

The reason britishers didn't even consider us is because we're too low in numbers and not that influential either. As Maskeen ji said "bahut bholi kaum haigi".

And then in 1947 we had to side with either pakistan or india and we wisely so chose india . 

Had we chosen pakistan, we would have been obliterated by now . 

 

Edited by AjeetSinghPunjabi
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, AjeetSinghPunjabi said:

I seriously doubt britishers wanted to give sikhs a third country called "Sikhistan" in 1947 .

Muslims got pakistan just because muslim league grew weary of the designs of RSS and hindutva and felt muslims might not have a safe future in independent hindu majority india. 

We , on the other hand had leaders like "Tara Singh" who not only were hindutva based but also in 1963 went on with others to found Vishwa hindu parishad .

The reason britishers didn't even consider us is because we're too low in numbers and not that influential either. As Maskeen ji said "bahut bholi kaum haigi".

And then in 1947 we had to side with either pakistan or india and we wisely so chose india . 

Had we chosen pakistan, we would have been obliterated by now . 

 

Pakistan was created because from a geo-political point of view because a united India would have been connected to South East Asia, Middle East and Central Asia as well as a larger portion of the Indian Ocean.

It would have had the potential to influence strategically and it would not have suited the powers of the time.

If you notice that Pakistan was created on both sides of the subcontinent.  Not only because of muslim majorities but because it did not suit the powers interest to be connected to these other regions. Notice on the map how thin the corridor of land that connects the North East to Bengal with Bangladesh below, that was done deliberately. 

India and Pakistan would not have been created if not for WW2. The ultimate winner of WW2 was the U.S. with all the European powers being decimated or severely weakened.

If not for WW2,there was no way Britain would have let go of their "Jewel in the Crown".

It was in the US interest to have the British Empire dismantled and they played a big part in that.

The Congress and Muslim Leaguers were both opportunists and they took it with both hands.

If you look at how the British took over India, you will note that they did not conquer in the conventional west to East method of centuries past but the other way from east to west starting from Bengal.

The Sikh Empire was one of the last sections of the empire that was taken over and there must have been a good reason for that. 

To have a modern Sikh state would not be in the interests of the other powers. I wonder if the British would have to predict and forsee certain things to not create this.

3 people like this

Share this post


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

To have a modern Sikh state would not be in the interests of the other powers. I wonder if the British would have to predict and forsee certain things to not create this.

I have always said britishers have only abused sikhs for their own selfish motives, without paying our dues in return.

First they couldn't foresee sikh future in hindu homeland ? then their help to india in 1984 in op bluestar. and now borris <banned word filter activated> talks about whiskey in gurudwara. 

British kuttey aren't going to change. First we were soldiers of hindus , then of britishers , and now of whom ? I wonder ?

oh its india 

If britishers had some thankfulness to sikhs for us fighting for them in WW1 and 2 , they would have given sikhs their due in 47 itself . But white skinned ones are not kknown to be nice to other races

Edited by AjeetSinghPunjabi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, AjeetSinghPunjabi said:

I have always said britishers have only abused sikhs for their own selfish motives, without paying our dues in return.

First they couldn't foresee sikh future in hindu homeland ? then their help to india in 1984 in op bluestar. and now borris <banned word filter activated> talks about whiskey in gurudwara. 

British kuttey aren't going to change. First we were soldiers of hindus , then of britishers , and now of whom ? I wonder ?

oh its india 

If britishers had some thankfulness to sikhs for us fighting for them in WW1 and 2 , they would have given sikhs their due in 47 itself . But white skinned ones are not kknown to be nice to other races

You are going to have to start thinking outside the box and not follow this evil British Empire colonialism narrative that is pumped out.

As an empire they will naturally exploit like every other empire has done. What pi**es people of is that British Empire has been an extremely successful one.

I don't believe necessarily that our forefathers fought for the empire because somehow they will be rewarded with a nation of their own.

I think our forefathers had an opportunity and took it. It would have been for different reasons.

And this evil white skin reason is wearing a bit thin as well. White people are not the only people that can be racist. 

Chinese can be racist, so can Indians and Japanese. Even black people can be racist.

Ask a Chinese person about the Japanese and see the comments you get.

Ask a Vietnamese person what he thinks of Chinese people and see the comments you get.

Ask a person from Malaysia of Chinese or Indian descent and ask them about the Malay "bumiputra " policy.

I could go on and on.

1 person likes this

Share this post


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

You are going to have to start thinking outside the box and not follow this evil British Empire colonialism narrative that is pumped out.

As an empire they will naturally exploit like every other empire has done. What pi**es people of is that British Empire has been an extremely successful one.

I don't believe necessarily that our forefathers fought for the empire because somehow they will be rewarded with a nation of their own.

I think our forefathers had an opportunity and took it. It would have been for different reasons.

And this evil white skin reason is wearing a bit thin as well. White people are not the only people that can be racist. 

Chinese can be racist, so can Indians and Japanese. Even black people can be racist.

Ask a Chinese person about the Japanese and see the comments you get.

Ask a Vietnamese person what he thinks of Chinese people and see the comments you get.

Ask a person from Malaysia of Chinese or Indian descent and ask them about the Malay "bumiputra " policy.

I could go on and on.

What's the point about going into that?

These other lot didn't totally obliterate what our ancestors built up with untold sacrifice. Maybe if someone else came along and did that, we'd be talking about what wa~*ers they were now, but they didn't, so we logically condemn them and not others. 

Your chaaploose instincts coming out are they? Aren't you the one who told us that his grandpa threw his war medals in the river or something (or was that someone else?)

I tell you what really is wearing out. Yet another Sikh defending or downplaying the destruction of sovereignty like it is some small thing - and not something that has totally changed global and regional reality for Sikhs for the worse. 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, dallysingh101 said:

What's the point about going into that?

These other lot didn't totally obliterate what our ancestors built up with untold sacrifice. Maybe if someone else came along and did that, we'd be talking about what wa~*ers they were now, but they didn't, so we logically condemn them and not others. 

Your chaaploose instincts coming out are they? Aren't you the one who told us that his grandpa threw his war medals in the river or something (or was that someone else?)

I tell you what really is wearing out. Yet another Sikh defending or downplaying the destruction of sovereignty like it is some small thing - and not something that has totally changed global and regional reality for Sikhs for the worse. 

I tell you what Dally.

I nominate you for as leader for all Sikhs and establish our Sikh state.

Bring back our power.

 

Share this post


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

I tell you what Dally.

I nominate you for as leader for all Sikhs and establish our Sikh state.

Bring back our power.

 

Forget that. Let's all first recognise that we've been shafted - and not praise our shafters for what a great job they did. 

Our fall is so hard, it'll take generations to reverse the slide. But first things first: let's all please shake off that colonial 'jedi mind trick' of making us think that our subjugators weren't such a bad deal for us. 

Besides, for now I believe building up our strength regionally is the way to go - forget pipe dreams of resurrecting any Sikh state for the moment. Let's just concentrate on being strong and not gullible fools where we stand right now.  I mean, many of us have just only just woken up to the stark fact that we've been on the receiving end of decades long drives to prostitute Sikh girls under our own noses. Let's see if we can deal with the 'small stuff' before we jump in over our heads. 

Edited by dallysingh101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, dallysingh101 said:

Forget that. Let's all first recognise that we've been shafted - and not praise our shafters for what a great job they did. 

Our fall is so hard, it'll take generations to reverse the slide. But first things first: let's all please shake off that colonial 'jedi mind trick' of making us think that our subjugators weren't such a bad deal for us. 

Besides, for now I believe building up our strength regionally is the way to go - forget pipe dreams of resurrecting any Sikh state for the moment. Let's just concentrate on being strong and not gullible fools were we stand right now.  I mean, many of us have just only just woken up to the stark fact that we've been on the receiving end of decades long drives to prostitute Sikh girls under our own noses. Let's see if we can deal with the 'small stuff' before we jump in over our heads. 

Of course we've been shafted. That is obvious to everyone.

This is all a game and we have to understand how it is being played.

There are many players in this game.

It is not straightforward and there are a lot of dimensions to this. 

Blaming the British for everything is not going to bring anything. How much longer can you do that for.

The fact that you are living in the UK is a result of the British Empire. That is the reality. 

Your problem is that you think with only one filter. You read some history books and read some accounts and think you know it all.

You have one viewpoint and try to fit everything you read into that one view.

I don't disagree with what you say but your viewpoint is a very simplistic one.

 

2 people like this

Share this post


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

Of course we've been shafted. That is obvious to everyone.

This is all a game and we have to understand how it is being played.

There are many players in this game.

It is not straightforward and there are a lot of dimensions to this. 

Blaming the British for everything is not going to bring anything. How much longer can you do that for.

The fact that you are living in the UK is a result of the British Empire. That is the reality. 

Your problem is that you think with only one filter. You read some history books and read some accounts and think you know it all.

You have one viewpoint and try to fit everything you read into that one view.

I don't disagree with what you say but your viewpoint is a very simplistic one.

 

Well, over complicating things and acting like some sort of 'apologist' isn't any sort of solution or strategy.   

Edited by dallysingh101

Share this post


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

Well, over complicating things and acting like some sort of 'apologist' isn't any sort of solution or strategy.   

I am no apologist. 

But like I said before, it is a much more nuanced game.

Once you understand the game that is being played, you can then formulate a strategy.

The Sikh way is the holistic way to see things from all angles, 

Some of the solutions are simple and straightforward, others are not so much.

2 people like this

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