Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I've been studying civilizations recently and I came across this essay by Sir Glubb. He essentially states the life cycle of the majority of world empires. To summarize, there are 6 ages.

  • The Age of Pioneers (outburst)
  • The Age of Conquests
  • The Age of Commerce
  • The Age of Affluence
  • The Age of Intellect
  • The Age of Decadence.

The final age is marked with defensivness, pessimism, frivolity, materialism, immigration, weakening of religion, duty and responsibility, and the welfare. Looking at most of the west today, it seems we are well into decadence and since most empires have about 250 years, we can expect lots of changes in the coming decades. 

I was wondering what the rest of the panth has to say about this, and what can we do to potentially become the new pioneers when the west collapses. Also, if we took control how could we use gurmatt to keep the raj from declining. Here is a link the the file, it's an interesting read:

glubb.pdf

Edited by MahadrasSingh
Grammar
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is really interesting stuff. Are their any parallels you can draw between this and the rise/fall of the Sikh empire?  

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

This is really interesting stuff. Are their any parallels you can draw between this and the rise/fall of the Sikh empire?  

I'm not to sure where to put the Sikh Empire in terms of Glubb's essay. He does discuss rare oddities that failed like Hitler's Reich and the USSR. The raj definitely had the first three ages, and a mix of the final three by the time the British strolled in. I think due to the raj not securing a future sucessor and the backstabbing of singh's top leaders stopped the empire before we saw its true golden age. Also I'm unsure whether the raj was large enough to agree with Glubb's theory, as the examples he gave were continent expanding empires like the islamic caliphates and the roman republic.

Edited by MahadrasSingh
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What were the main factors affecting the downfall of the Sikh Empire? 

Here's what I think: 
 

  • The lack of investment in a proper successor 
  • The betrayal of the Dogra's and others
  • The over liberalization of the Empire 
  • The treachery of the British 

Honestly, if the Sikh Empire was faced with another enemy that wasn't the British, they would have lasted way longer, the reason they fell was becuase the British was specialized in taking down Epires using divide and conquer and had a lot of resources. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, TheeTurbanator said:

What were the main factors affecting the downfall of the Sikh Empire? 

Here's what I think: 
 

  • The lack of investment in a proper successor 
  • The betrayal of the Dogra's and others
  • The over liberalization of the Empire 
  • The treachery of the British 

Honestly, if the Sikh Empire was faced with another enemy that wasn't the British, they would have lasted way longer, the reason they fell was becuase the British was specialized in taking down Epires using divide and conquer and had a lot of resources. 

Yeah, I do agree with the ruling party itself setting the raj up for eventual failure. I really do think it was our own issues that ultimately led to the empire's fall however. If some other kingdom showed up they would also see the political chaos within the raj and definitely exploit it, assuming someone didn't sort out the government before that. This is another point Glubb makes, that internal problems ultimately lead to the downfall of an empire and it's usually another power that uses that to take it over (Like the British with us). If we were to take over India or someplace, we would first of all need to sort out the politics of it so it doesn't get out of hand like Ranjit Singh's empire. Also, we should start looking at the current ruling parties (from gov't to the Gurdwara Committees) and see where they are messing up so if we get the chance to seize any type of power, we at least get to keep it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, MahadrasSingh said:

I really do think it was our own issues that ultimately led to the empire's fall however.

Can we try to pinpoint the specific issues, so that we can learn from them in the future. Lack of unity is definitely an issue they led to the downfall, however exactly between which parties? People often blame the Dogra's, however lets forget the "Sikhs" who also killed Ranjit Singh's successors.

I have also heard there was some tension between the more orthodox Sikhs of the Jatha's and the more cultural Sikhs. 

Aside from the Dogra's, who else was responsible for the betrayal? and what where their motivations? 

 

59 minutes ago, MahadrasSingh said:

Also, we should start looking at the current ruling parties (from gov't to the Gurdwara Committees) and see where they are messing up so if we get the chance to seize any type of power, we at least get to keep it.

This is a really strong point, we have to make sure that even the lowest of the low in terms of parties isnt interested in treachery, and truly need to focus on the lower denominator. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Can we try to pinpoint the specific issues, so that we can learn from them in the future. Lack of unity is definitely an issue they led to the downfall, however exactly between which parties? People often blame the Dogra's, however lets forget the "Sikhs" who also killed Ranjit Singh's successors.

Aside from the Dogra's, who else was responsible for the betrayal? and what where their motivations? 

Unfortunately, I haven't studied the Sikh Raj enough to bring up examples other than Gulab and Lal Singh. It seems from these cases that promises of power and wealth are the biggest causes of treason in the sikh kaum, as Lal Singh sold off military secrets. Maya seems to be one of the bigger reasons our leadership fails us as they fall into these tricks. Its not just a problem with us but almost all communities. 

Having meetings where issues in the panth are deliberated on (Sarbat Khalsa), with the panj pyare in charge, have been the best method of policy making in the kaum and building trust in the leadership. Ranjit Singh abolished this as in his view, they had Khalsa so the meetings were pointless as his ruling party would make decisions. I don't know how much this would in paticular, would have influenced betrayal in the panth but its worth reinsating/organizing on a smaller level. Like maybe, for this site we could have a yearly tick box for things the kaum should do and we can check up on those tasks to see if they are being implemented.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

This is really interesting stuff. Are their any parallels you can draw between this and the rise/fall of the Sikh empire?  

Well, if for other empires, the stages were spread out over centuries, we compressed the latter 4 stages over less than half a century up to falling before the British.

I think you could say we skipped over the pioneer stage or not really applicable to us, since we were already spread out in the Indian sub-continent.

The 18th century was spent in battles and conquests.

The first half of the 19th century comprised further conquests, and also commerce, affluence, intellect, and decadence. Finally loss of empire to the British.

Many commentators have stated that raj leads to affluence which leads to softness which leads to loss to the enemy. I agree with this. 

Also, the Rehit was supposed to keep us hard, but we disregarded Rehit in the time of the Sikh Raj because we had become too enamored of the pleasures of the flesh, fine foods and wines, and beautiful ladies.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, BhForce said:

Well, if for other empires, the stages were spread out over centuries, we compressed the latter 4 stages over less than half a century up to falling before the British.

I think you could say we skipped over the pioneer stage or not really applicable to us, since we were already spread out in the Indian sub-continent.

 

It could be possible that the Guru's time was our age of pioneering in a way, as they brought ideas that were never heard of in india at the time and slowly introduced the tenents like the one universal creator, langar, gurmukhi, and later the militarization of the panth. If this is true, then that adds another 200 or so years to the empires lifetime. But then again we would have to define the first date we took rule (both spiritually and temporally). Other than that I entirely agree with you. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

It could be possible that the Guru's time was our age of pioneering in a way, as they brought ideas that were never heard of in india at the time and slowly introduced the tenents like the one universal creator, langar, gurmukhi, and later the militarization of the panth. If this is true, then that adds another 200 or so years to the empires lifetime. But then again we would have to define the first date we took rule (both spiritually and temporally). Other than that I entirely agree with you. 

Good point, I had entirely failed to consider that. That period could be considered the precursor to empire.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So far we have established that the Sikh Raj declined due to various internal issues, like the treasons leaders, removal of Sarbat Khalsa and loss of touch with the Rehit as we became more cultural sikhs than dharmic. This in result led to a minor age of decadence and through the British, an empire still in the age of conquest and commerce used politcal manuevering to take over. 

The Sikh Raj was unique to the other empires as it was the first iteration of the Halemi Raj, but these issues ended it prematurely, assuming we do not count the Guru's time. 

Now a another interesting idea would how we could connect this to india right now and see if it could be reaching a collapse or where it is right now in the of empires, if we can call india an empire

Anyone in the matajameen that could give us some insight?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

India and Indians (the sort residing in places like Delhi, Gujarat, Mumbai, etc) would strongly argue they're somewhere between the Commerce and Affluence stages, lol. I never realised it until recently, but most of these countries that declared their independence from their colonialist masters in the previous century, are being ruled via proxy by western agents, business interests, and intelligence assets, even if the public front in these countries seems to be one of bluster and bravado. It's just very, very convincing P.R. It's like a condescending parent placating an unruly and boisterous child. "Yes, you are a strong boy, yes you are!"  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, MisterrSingh said:

I never realised it until recently, but most of these countries that declared their independence from their colonialist masters in the previous century, are being ruled via proxy by western agents, business interests, and intelligence assets, even if the public front in these countries seems to be one of bluster and bravado. It's just very, very convincing P.R. It's like a condescending parent placating an unruly and boisterous child. "Yes, you are a strong boy, yes you are!"  

Very true, in way the British never really left. Though I think some level of decadence is creeping its way with the high levels of materialism in the cities and overall defensivness in the country. Though I'd say India probably has a couple of decades before parts of the social structure begin to wearband tear, assuming it doesn't just collapse in on itself.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, MahadrasSingh said:

Very true, in way the British never really left. Though I think some level of decadence is creeping its way with the high levels of materialism in the cities and overall defensivness in the country. Though I'd say India probably has a couple of decades before parts of the social structure begin to wearband tear, assuming it doesn't just collapse in on itself.

The Indian mainstream is scrambling around for an identity that resonates beyond their borders on an international level. They truly believe India is a sleeping giant, and should be dining at the top table. This kind of ambition does count for something, and I'm sure it will inch them forward over the next few decades, but overall the poverty, the corruption, and general sense of third-worldness won't be shaken off anytime soon. 

Funnily enough, I think the sheer size of the place and the maddening diversity of languages, cultures, and faiths (albeit all of an Eastern flavour) mean an organic, gradual, and "natural" collapse isn't on the cards, unlike England which is happily and obliviously marching towards its fall. I believe Europe the continent -- and by extension the civilisation that grew from as far back as the impact of the Enlightenment -- is in its death throes. We are embarking on the journey into Decadence and decline. Europe will end before India does if things are allowed to run their natural course. If we factor a devastating regional war, perhaps nuclear, into the mix, then there's no saying what will happen.

Edited by MisterrSingh
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the main downfalls of Sikh empire as well as most powerful empires was the war of succession and damaging family politics.

The real game of thrones probably was based on the antics of the mughul rulers or Maharajah Ranjit's family.

Family infighting was taken advantage of by other outsiders (ie Hindu Jammu and Punjabi Dogra's of Lahore Darbar) and then outsiders of the whole region (The British east india company troops).

Also the over reliance of non-Sikhs in the ranks of the army and power structures caused rifts within sikh generals and political circles. The failures of good diplomacy and sign up treaties with rulers of other independent sikh kingdoms like nahba, jind, faridkot because it is said Maharajah ranjit wanted to expand his kingdom empire and sought to fight them which that led to those Sikh rulers of those kingdoms being somewhat forced to seek protection and alliance with the British invaders.

The golden age of Punjab in recorded history was when Sikhs ruled it as it had enough fiances, enough food, all religions had their people and places of worship respected. Punjab's Sikh lahore was seen as the paris of the east, but decadence had set in by the time European immigrants started to flock to the Sikh empire hoping to make their riches especially ex-army generals and soldiers from america and french battle hardened from Napoleonic wars.

Another reason for the fall of the Sikh empire was the army being over stretched in campaigns against the afghans in the north west, troops in ladkh to fight the chinese for tibet and troops in punjab to fight other kingdoms to the south. From what i read Military intelligence was non-existence whereas the british had various spies and moles within the lahore darbur itself and even probably had some of the european soldiers and generals under their service as double agents.

The failure of Sikh rulers not to implement polices to actively convert punjab to a majority Sikh population was also a mistake as people who follow your values/ideology/beliefs are far more likely to fight for your government and rule than someone who awaits the day his own ideologues/co-religionists rule the land. In the days of the 12 misls Sikhs would actively force convert mughul town populations from islam to Sikh and any who resisted were forced to flee or put to the sword. That revenge policy ment they were able to take various town and cities from the clutches of mughuls but also other fight Islamic invaders (afghans, persians) more effectively. Had they expanded that policy into kashmir and afghan they would been huge sikh populations there now n present times  and we wouldn't have no partition bloodshed and no pakistan there probably. Instead in its place there would be a huge khalistan/sikhistan bordering china and india to the east.

 

 

  • Like 1

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

    • Ahmediyas: a historically persecuted -- at the hands of mainstream Islam! -- Muslim sect that's held up as an example of the "good", acceptable, and tolerant side of Islam. Yet, this is what happens when you give any Islamic group an inch; they reveal their true hand, and reach for a mile! This is EXACTLY the reason I roll my eyes when people get misty eyed about fringe Muslim sects -- such as Sufis -- being an antidote to the mainstream khattar orthodoxy of the Sunni & Shia crews. The fact isn't that Ahmediyas and Sufis don't share the beliefs and the aim of their Ummah brethren, i.e. the establishment of the Caliphate and the subjugation of the Kaffir. The difference is these minor sects desire the same outcomes as their bigger brothers, only they aren't too fussed on getting to that destination in a hurry, as opposed to the Sunnis and Shia who want it all yesterday. The Ummah reigns supreme. Muslim apologists and sympathisers are either too dense to process this FACT, or are willfully omitting these inconvenient truths in order to strengthen their narrative of #notallmuslims.
    • As per usual,  our openness and tolerance is seen as weakness for others, and they take full advantage. 
    • This is nothing new. I tried setting up an initiative to defeat this trend; happened a good few years back on this forum, but some of us decided to establish a body of sorts which would publish and distribute literature regarding the falsity spread by other faiths vis-a-vis Sikhi. Because we were based in different countries we used to stay in contact via email to exchange ideas and finalize publications in our own respective countries. I wrote and dispatched a particular article on the falsity that Bhagat Fareed was a hardcore Muslim and by incorporating his Bani into the Adi Guru Granth Sahib Ji, the Sikh Gurus proved their respect for Islam and hence all Sikhs should become Muslims. Here are some examples of what I wrote: "For Bhagat Farid, and Sufis in general, life is but nihilistic. Such a perception, logically, leads to renunciation and asceticism. Farid asserts:

      'Farid, had my throat been slit on the same day as my umbilical cord, I would not have been prey to trouble nor weathered such hardship. Farid, I alone thought I was in pain, but the whole world is in pain. I ascended my roof and witnessed each and every house in flame.' 
      -Saloks 76 and 81, ASGGS, Ang. 1381-82.

      When Guru Nanak Dev Ji had entered Multan, the local Sufis had tried to eject him on the pretext of his criticism of the Sufi order. The Guru had rejected their renunciation and described their acts of obeisance as charades. With this particular incident in mind, Guru Arjan Dev Ji elected to reply to Farid with the following:

      'The world is akin to a garden, Farid, in which poisonous plants take root. They for whom the Master cares suffer not at all.' 

      And:

      'How sweet be this life oh Farid! With health the body blooms, but they who love their dear beloved Lord are rarely found.' 
      -Mohalla 5, Saloks 82-83, ASGGS, Ang. 1382.

      The writings of Farid were incorporated into the Sikh canon to refute the notion that life, in general, is painful. For the Gurus life is what one makes out of it. Ignorance, naturally, leads to pain whilst knowledge leads to joy. By positing their views below Farids', the Sikh Gurus refuted the Sufi notion of life being suffering in toto.'   "The Sufi path of asceticism is best summed up in the following conversation between Sayid Muhammad Gesu Daraz and a suppliant. Daraz was the acolyte of Shaikh Farid Nasir-u'd-Din-Chiarg-i-Delhi, the disciple of Nizam-u'd-din Auliya who was the successor to Baba Farid. This conversation is recorded in the 'Jawama-u'l-Kilam' and focuses on the physical suffering weathered by Baba Farid in his search for the Divine. Pledging his mind to the Lord's path, the latter Farid hung upside down in a well for forty days and nights. 

      'Then one day when Sayid Muhammad Gesu Daraz was recounting the pledge of (Baba Farid), a man queried: "how is it that blood does not run out of the eyes and mouth of the person who undertakes it and how is it that foodstuff and other bodily elements do not come out of him?" The Saint explained that in a body as emaciated as that of Farid, the question of food and blood no longer lingers as austerities have reduced such a body to mere skeleton.' 

      Bhagat Farid writes:

      'Farid, if one were to hack my body, not a drop of blood would ooze from it. Those who are imbued with the Lord's love have no blood left in their beings.' 
      -Salok 51, ASGGS, Ang. 1380.

      Guru Amardass Ji comments on this Shabad in the following way:

      'The body is all blood, without blood it cannot exist. Those who are imbued with the Lord's love have not a single drop of selfish blood in their bodies. When the fear of Divine enters one's being, it becomes emaciated, and the blood of greed departs. As flames purify metal, so too does the fear of the Divine cast out impure inclinations. They alone are beautiful, Nanak, who are dyed with the love of the Lord.'
      -Mohalla 3, ASGGS, Salok 52, Ang. 1380. 

      Farid's ascetic undertones are sidelined, by the Guru, to provide a more rational interpretation of his words. Farid's "blood" becomes "selfish blood" and the external is transformed into the internal. It is not the physical frame which matters but the internal, the spiritual. Only through spiritual austerities can inimical inclinations depart; physical austerities only invite weakness and prolonged suffering."   "Now, we will look at the Bani of Bhagat Farid along with the relevant commentary by the Sikh Gurus. 

      'Farid, she who did not enjoy her spouse when black-haired, will she enjoy him when grey-haired? Love the Lord with such love that your hair's color will never change!'
      -Salok 12, ASGGS, Ang. 1378.

      Bhagat Farid holds that youth is conducive to following the spiritual path, in old age it is a lost cause. Guru Amardass Ji, who became the third Nanak at the age of 72, provides a commentary on this shabad:

      'Farid, whether one's hair be black or grey, the Lord is ever present if one remembers him. True love does not come from one's own desire, that cup of the Master's love he himself gives to whomever he desires.'
      -Mohalla 3, Salok 13, ASGGS, Ang. 1378.

      Bhagat Farid believes effort to be necessary vis-a-vis the spiritual path; the Sikh Gurus concur but to an extent. All transpires due to the Divine Will and man's efforts have a limit. Divine Will is more pontificate than man's efforts; man should elect to reside in this will and recognize where effort ends. From a Nanakian perspective effort is necessary in the temporal paradigm, but in the spiritual paradigm success depends on the Divine initiative. Guru Nanak Dev Ji states:

      'Does it matter if one is a swan or heron on whom the Lord casts his glance? Sayeth Nanak that if he so desires, crowns turn into swans.'
      -Mohalla 1, Salok 124, ASGGS, Ang. 1384. 

      The Lord is supreme in all that he does.

      Bhagat Farid then utilizes martial scenery:

      'One who is not welcome by her in-laws, and who has not place at her parents' house; and whose spouse does not care an iota for her, is she truly a happily married wife?'
      -Salok 31, ASGGS, Ang. 1379. 

      The 'parents' house' symbolizes societal life, the 'in-laws' spiritual life and the 'spouse' the Lord. Bhagat Farid is commenting on those spiritualists, those devotees, who desire the best of both spiritualism and societal living. He feels that by pursuing both concepts, one ultimately fails in all that he/she commits to. Guru Nanak Dev Ji comments:

      'At her in-laws and at her parents' house, she belongs to her spouse, the Divine beloved who is inaccessible and unfathomable. Oh Nanak! That one is indeed a happily married bride, who pleases the indifferent one.'
      -Mohalla 1, Salok 32, ASGGS, Ang. 1379.

      In contrast to Farid, the Guru elaborates that via Divine Grace both the temporal and spiritual paradigms become successful for the devotees. The true spiritualist is one who pursues both fields rather than renouncing one over the other. Nonetheless, hypocrisy in both fields should be avoided."   "In Suhi Lalit, Bhagat Farid forewarns:

      'You could not construct a raft when required. Now that the ocean is full and overflowing, it is hard to traverse. Do not touch the saffron flower for it's color will depart, my beloved. Rahau.
      The bride is weak and her husband's command is too hard to bear. As the milk does not return to her breast, nor will the soul return to the body. Sayeth Farid, friends, when the spouse calls this soul departeth crestfallen and the body is reduced to ashes.'
      -Suhi Lalit 1, ASGGS, Ang. 794.

      Guru Nanak Dev Ji, prior to Farid's verse, expounds:

      'Make meditation and restraint the raft via which to traverse the flowing stream. Your pass will be comfortable as if there is no ocean or overflowing stream. Your name alone is the unfading matter with which this cloak is dyed; my Beloved Lord, this color is perennial. My dear companions have departed, how will they meet the Lord? If they are united in virtue, the Lord will unite them with himself. Once united the mortal does not separate if the union be true. The cycle of birth and death is nullified by the True, Eternal Lord. She who removes her own self-centrism sews herself a garment to please her spouse. By the Guru's words, she obtained the fruit of the nectar of the Lord's word. Sayeth Nanak, my companions, my spouse be dear to me. We be the Lord's handmaidens; he our husband.'
      -Mohalla 1, Suhi 4, Ang. 729.

      Bhagat Farid provides a picture of doom and gloom by lamenting lost opportunities. He focuses on old age, where mental and physical faculties are too frail to be attuned to Divine contemplation. Guru Nanak Dev Ji, instead, expounds that it is never too late to focus on the Lord (one should remember Guru Amardass Ji here) for the Beloved is not harsh nor his commands. Via the saffron flower, Bhagat Farid warns of the fleeting pleasures of the world -here today, gone tomorrow- Guru Nanak Dev Ji instead elaborates that all pleasures belong to the Lord and via merging with him, all pleasures become permanent for he is the highest pleasure of all. 

      For Farid, death is the final test; even the faithful, in his view, should fear it for the soul never returns to the body. Guru Nanak Dev Ji however believes death to be a joy and a privilege of the valorous, for it is via death that one perfects his/her union with the Divine.

      From a Nanakian perspective, Farids's words apply to the manmukh and not the Gurmukh. But even a manmukh is worthy of Divine Grace, provided he recants at the ultimate moment."   "Bhagat Farid, a Sufi, informs us:

      'My physical frame is oven-hot; my bones are the firewood. If my feet fail, I shall walk upon my head to meet my Beloved.'
      -Salok 119, ASGGS, Ang. 1384.

      Bhagat Farid utilizes the metaphor of a kiln to depict his love for the Lord. A Sufi, his ascetic concepts however were not in line with Gurmat. Guru Nanak Dev Ji refutes his call for such asceticism by commenting:

      'Do not heat your physical frame oven-hot; burn not your bones like firewood. What harm have they committed that you torture them such? Rather behold the Beloved within your soul, Farid.'
      -Salok 120, ASGGS, Ang. 1384.

      Bhagat Farid is of the mind that the human body is but a prison and the soul it's captive. The Sikh Gurus believe that the human body is a temple, a locus where the Lord resides and awaits his devotee. By utilizing this Shabad of Farid, the Gurus desired that their Sikhs imbue the same zeal as the Sufi did whilst also discarding his asceticism; hence the refutation. Throughout Bhagat Bani we find a similar concept at play. The Sikh Gurus initiate a written dialogue with the radicals of their time and provide an unalloyed picture of the Divine Truth. For Farid, creation is a falsity; for the Gurus it is a truth. Farid's asceticism renders the body as simply an object; the Gurus however perceive it to be divine and encourage their Sikhs to employ it in the service of the Divine by societal living." I printed all this out in pamphlet form and took it to a local Nagar Kirtan when I was in Australia and man, some of the Muslims burned. A few confrontations occurred, "how can you say Guru Nanak was a non-Muslim?!" "Gobind Singh made you anti-Muslim." "Your history is a lie, all Gurus were Muslims and they even married Muslims!" Basically they were clutching at straws. The pamphlets were enough to make the Sikhs ignore these idiots and they grew worried and left the scene. Later a famous attendant Gyani, from Taksal (and who I will not name), got hold of one of the pamphlets. After having it explained to him he called me over and asked me what jatha I belonged to. I told him none. Then he asked me where I got this information from. I told him my sources. Basically his problem was that I was not crediting any jatha on my pamphlet. He asked me to mention Taksal in them but I refused. Few days later all the pamphlets were thrown in the trash and I was told to abstain from publishing such (and here's how they described them) lies. The youth wanted more, but the Gurughar committee would have none of it. The main problem, here, is the liberal fuddu attitude our qaum has that respect all faiths at the expense of your own.  After this some of us decided to stick to the social media. There was veer Bijla Singh Ji with his Search Sikhism page which, back in the heyday of grooming, forced several Muslim preachers to quit their anti-Sikh proselytizing. There were a few more who set up Tisarpanth. Then there was The Truth of Sikhi and Shamshir Publications. Bijla Singh Ji advised us but out of the three initiatives set up, only one is going strong and the others were forced to close down. Why? Because they had to hit the streets and they faced the same problem which I did- our own elders were and still are shooting us down. If we had claimed affiliation with some jatha, then we would have been lionized.   
    • In that way you're right. It is a big deal. My heart would pain to see anyone lost to Islam especially on a large scale. And your cautionary message is well founded.  But in the fake news, shame Sikhi, propaganda way I feel it was being used. Pfft. In that context I feel more a response of "And? Big deal. Who gives a ****"
    • That's her father in law Tarsem Singh of Hushiarpur, he is the village Granthi.   Her father's name is Monohar Lal of Delhi and her name is Kiran Bala. Sikhs don't have names like Lal and Bala. These are typical Hindu names.
×