Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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.

Edited by MisterrSingh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

Edited by jashb
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


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

In his dreams, the sly dog.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, MisterrSingh said:

Nah, i just can't help myself at times.

I know most punjabis will be dancing like Carlton Banks convinced they look like Elvis that day

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, jkvlondon said:

I know most punjabis will be dancing like Carlton Banks convinced they look like Elvis that day

Meanwhile, in Bathinda:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/8/2017 at 5:23 PM, Jacfsing2 said:

he true Sikhs during his time didn't really like him much either, for his lack of Maryada.

Truth is that habits like drinking and watching nautch dance were very common among Indian rulers and misldars. True Sikhs of that time only existed among Nirmala and Nihang orders. Most Punjabis didn't cared much about habits of their ruler. Instead, the prosperity he brought to the region made him a hero in their eyes.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, 5akaalsingh said:

Truth is that habits like drinking and watching nautch dance were very common among Indian rulers and misldars. True Sikhs of that time only existed among Nirmala and Nihang orders. Most Punjabis didn't cared much about habits of their ruler. Instead, the prosperity he brought to the region made him a hero in their eyes.

That's about the truth of it.

Jacfsingh is talking out of his ar5e. But ALL contemporary accounts, people in Panjab LOVED Maharajah Ranjit Singh. 

Only modern prudes like the above have an issue with him. 

  • Like 2

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

    • Do you have sources for this?
    • In urdu we also use 'Mauze' so i doubt if it is hindi word.It sounds like a persian one.Indians have problem prouncing words which end with sound 'z'.Just like Mumtaz Mehal became Mumtaj Mehal and now just Taj Mehal.
    • i have no issue using persian,hindi,english words in my day to day conversations in punjab.I just though a good opportunity to learn "shuddh" punjabi. 
    • Sikhism needs neither a reformation nor a philosophy of free will. Reformations are for religions that are at a primitive tribal level in the first place. Sikhi starts off with Guru Nanak Ji feeding people langar, and preaching meditation of Satnam. If you start off with capturing war booty and sex slaves killing all the males, yeah, you need a reformation. Philosophy is (mostly) for people trying desperately to understand the universe without real divine knowledge. These types of efforts are called ਸਿਆਣਪਾਂ in Gurbani. (You did you Japji this morning, right?) All of these sianapan don't amount to a hill of beans. We don't have the burning need for philosophy that Westerners do because we can obtain complete knowledge via simran. ਪ੍ਰਭ ਕੈ ਸਿਮਰਨਿ ਸਭੁ ਕਿਛੁ ਸੁਝੈ ॥
    • it's my fault, i should have phrased things a bit better. Basically based on the data he gathered same sex couples are more likely to settle into a routine and are less likely to do things out of said routine (such as cheating, which according to the data he gathered was surprisingly low compared to straight couples). By similar attributes I mean people like them in terms of personality and taste. In straight couples you can usually note a sort of polarity in the way they behave and their personalities.  Again this is based on one study, nothing official or on a large scale really.
×