GtLoc

Yeah, depending on what you mean. I meant that everything but naam, is but a part of the temporal world.

Sher every sarpanch in doaba is a chamar..

Bro, you're hopeless. And bhudda dal are hindus now? Look up panch khalsa diwan, w.e None of the militant outfits thought like you, so w.e Kul nash doesn't mean what you think it does.. Have a creeping suspicion you are part of that 15-40%.. So peace.

Islam has many had its and remember how it is written not how it is practiced. Technically unless a kafir nation has treaties with the caliphate it is all fair game. However, the zakat is supposed to be for protection but also to humiliate the kafir. The ruler is supposed to grab the beard of the kafir when he comes to pay it, and he is supposed to bend low. End of the day, I would not trust an avowedly mainstream muslim state that had power. Actions speak louder than words, Even if it is outwardly peaceful, life for minorities would be hell. Like Pakistan, Egypt, etc. The only right to ruler any muslim state has, is to live under Khalsa Raaj. None other,

Did nyourself o kill innocent mr. Singh. Simply said, that when their political potential is threatened enough it will lead to violence. The whole big boy and words thing doesn't exist. What Clausewitz said is true. Those who fight us are our enemies you don't know what I'm talking about. As for charitar if a sikh should not know of these things they will fall to them. Why talk of all four other thieves but not kaam? I get where you are coming from, however those lofty ideals are very long term. You have work towards them. Also, why would India who had its leader killed support Bhai Bean and Satwant Singh? That's delusional, you still haven't woken up to the war going on. Keep day dreaming, no difference between the drug of porpoganda and denial which you would say is 'naam' and opium. I'm not even disagreeing with you, but as a matter of self defence You yourself should have a problem with things. If you have personal honor you know you cannot stand for a police trying to force a father on top of a daughter at gun point. ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂ ਜੀ ਕਾ ਖਾਲਸਾ ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂ ਜੀ ਕੀ ਫਤਹਿ | | I won't even say anymore, only reason I'm a Sardar is because of maharaj. When it is your time, if you have one you will be chosen. Edit - At neo singh bhaji sorry started replying but did not read your post. If it's okay I will leave this post up and say no more. ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂ ਜੀ ਕਾ ਖਾਲਸਾ ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂ ਜੀ ਕੀ ਫਤਹਿ | |

It hasn't detoriated, there just isn't the traditional shelter for those who would kill men like this.

Go see that, and all you saying maharaj practiced this or that see what actually went on. So yes, a man married out of tribe a woman didn't. However any sikh would obviously not refuse any of the gurus or vice versa. Was wrong there, As for Toronto and mama boy. I been in a few years, and my 4 year probation bs ends this may. Brampton may be soft, Toronto no. Just because over here the sullay and kalay are scared of us, it doesn't make anyone soft. A lion doesn't change species by crossing the sea, only loses caste if he a hindu. There is mixing because people don't know. It's the opposite here, whereas a decade ago you started seeing some mixing now it's full opposite. Canada is soft right? Where did Babbar Khalsa start. Check mate, peace. Go read that Prem Sumarag the author envisioned something, ok many others don't. They are all equals, don't worry about the authors opinion. I'm surprised you would use it only to have someone on the forum post something which refutes everything. Be proud of who you are, as in don't be ashamed. Don't put a fake name, because the sandhus are still sitting there. The panth isn't going to adopt a monogamous inter mixed posture it was tried from the 80s and failed. Lot of Singhs wrote muslim on papers to marry more than once. Heretics came before, O well. As for Mr. Singh so you can decide over pita ji what is authentic. Ok,... Lost cause. Edit it's true though, the amli jatts singing about alcohol don't add goat. Dal Singh you're not good at insults I'm in the Rex. The year I was born, the two warring sides dropped 13 bodies in one summer. The warring complexes had less than 12,000 people. I have 2 straps and a vest next to my bed side. Go troll someone who cares, about momma boy. Aren't you like five foot 0? And what hard kharkoo look, my mom's friend's husband helped me the that. I can't tie that sh**t lol. ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂ ਜੀ ਕਾ ਖਾਲਸਾ ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂ ਜੀ ਕੀ ਫਤਹਿ | |

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/state-passes-law-legalize-self-defense-police/ The law states: (i) A person is justified in using reasonable force against a public servant if the person reasonably believes the force is necessary to: (1) protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force; (2) prevent or terminate the public servant’s unlawful entry of or attack on the person’s dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle; or (3) prevent or terminate the public servant’s unlawful trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person’s possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person’s immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect. It is through legislation such as this, which will empower people again and aid in bringing down these tyrants from their pedestals, who are given free rein to murder and pillage without consequence. Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/state-passes-law-legalize-self-defense-police/#iCmWB0gyr7dfd6dW.99 The law states: (i) A person is justified in using reasonable force against a public servant if the person reasonably believes the force is necessary to: (1) protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force; (2) prevent or terminate the public servant’s unlawful entry of or attack on the person’s dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle; or (3) prevent or terminate the public servant’s unlawful trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person’s possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person’s immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect. It is through legislation such as this, which will empower people again and aid in bringing down these tyrants from their pedestals, who are given free rein to murder and pillage without consequence. Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/state-passes-law-legalize-self-defense-police/#iCmWB0gyr7dfd6dW.99 The law states: (i) A person is justified in using reasonable force against a public servant if the person reasonably believes the force is necessary to: (1) protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force; (2) prevent or terminate the public servant’s unlawful entry of or attack on the person’s dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle; or (3) prevent or terminate the public servant’s unlawful trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person’s possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person’s immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect. It is through legislation such as this, which will empower people again and aid in bringing down these tyrants from their pedestals, who are given free rein to murder and pillage without consequence. Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/state-passes-law-legalize-self-defense-police/#iCmWB0gyr7dfd6dW.99 The law states: (i) A person is justified in using reasonable force against a public servant if the person reasonably believes the force is necessary to: (1) protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force; (2) prevent or terminate the public servant’s unlawful entry of or attack on the person’s dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle; or (3) prevent or terminate the public servant’s unlawful trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person’s possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person’s immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect. It is through legislation such as this, which will empower people again and aid in bringing down these tyrants from their pedestals, who are given free rein to murder and pillage without consequence. Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/state-passes-law-legalize-self-defense-police/#iCmWB0gyr7dfd6dW.99 The law states: (i) A person is justified in using reasonable force against a public servant if the person reasonably believes the force is necessary to: (1) protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force; (2) prevent or terminate the public servant’s unlawful entry of or attack on the person’s dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle; or (3) prevent or terminate the public servant’s unlawful trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person’s possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person’s immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect. It is through legislation such as this, which will empower people again and aid in bringing down these tyrants from their pedestals, who are given free rein to murder and pillage without consequence. Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/state-passes-law-legalize-self-defense-police/#iCmWB0gyr7dfd6dW.99 The law states: (i) A person is justified in using reasonable force against a public servant if the person reasonably believes the force is necessary to: (1) protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force; (2) prevent or terminate the public servant’s unlawful entry of or attack on the person’s dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle; or (3) prevent or terminate the public servant’s unlawful trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person’s possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person’s immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect. It is through legislation such as this, which will empower people again and aid in bringing down these tyrants from their pedestals, who are given free rein to murder and pillage without consequence. Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/state-passes-law-legalize-self-defense-police/#iCmWB0gyr7dfd6dW.99 The law states: (i) A person is justified in using reasonable force against a public servant if the person reasonably believes the force is necessary to: (1) protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force; (2) prevent or terminate the public servant’s unlawful entry of or attack on the person’s dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle; or (3) prevent or terminate the public servant’s unlawful trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person’s possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person’s immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect. It is through legislation such as this, which will empower people again and aid in bringing down these tyrants from their pedestals, who are given free rein to murder and pillage without consequence. Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/state-passes-law-legalize-self-defense-police/#iCmWB0gyr7dfd6dW.99 The law states: (i) A person is justified in using reasonable force against a public servant if the person reasonably believes the force is necessary to: (1) protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force; (2) prevent or terminate the public servant’s unlawful entry of or attack on the person’s dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle; or (3) prevent or terminate the public servant’s unlawful trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person’s possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person’s immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect. It is through legislation such as this, which will empower people again and aid in bringing down these tyrants from their pedestals, who are given free rein to murder and pillage without consequence. Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/state-passes-law-legalize-self-defense-police/#iCmWB0gyr7dfd6dW.99 The law states: (i) A person is justified in using reasonable force against a public servant if the person reasonably believes the force is necessary to: (1) protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force; (2) prevent or terminate the public servant’s unlawful entry of or attack on the person’s dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle; or (3) prevent or terminate the public servant’s unlawful trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person’s possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person’s immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect. God Bless America,

Would you rather be punched once or poked over a long period of time. Which is more annoying? Science aside, Muslims and Jews have one enemy to do halal or kosher of. We have 125,000 at the minimum.. Jhatka is quicker and more efficient. Also the battlefield skill part is true, you do not want to do something for the first time (the worst time) in a fight for your life. Post is kind of off-topic but will also add this as veggie vs meat debate rages this is from Prem Sumarag Granth The most strongly recommended article of food is meat. It is the great food (maha prasad). A Khalsa must eat meat every day. Will find p. # etc. after.. ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂ ਜੀ ਕਾ ਖਾਲਸਾ ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂ ਜੀ ਕੀ ਫਤਹਿ | |

Is already in a thread, but G. Discussion seems to the most viewed. Many of the debates that have been seen over the past 2-3 days would be resolved with this thread. So as to not post a duplicate, will just post a link and put my post from there as the original post here. If this is not ok, please feel free to delete, will have no hard feelings. Just want to foster discussion, and have it be seen more. The most radical of the early Sikh writers on the issue of caste is the author of the Prem Sumarag. The Khalsa order, for him, was meant to be casteless. As he puts it, the baran (varna) of the entire Khalsa was pure (pawittar). If anyone asks a member of the Khalsa for his jati, he should reply, I am a Sodhi Khatri. As in no varna (chakari). If a Khalsa takes up personal service, it should be soldiering (sipahgari). A Singh soldier should not indulge in plunder in a battle and never think of appropriating the property of another. A Khalsa should not take up petty shop-keeping. It is preferable to work at home as a craftsman, and manufacture articles for sale in the bazar. The most preferable occupation is trade in horses (saudagari). Next to it is agriculture. There is emphasis on honest pursuit, but there is no reference to hereditary calling. In fact, preference implies choice. Just question tribe of author, as well a farmer would probably not put farming lower (jatt). They should all eat together, and they should never bother about the (Brahmanical) norms of chauka. And as Christian anti-tribals may note, basically knows what those are today. Meaning much of the anti-‘caste’ stuff they say is irrelevant as it has been dealt with. The most strongly recommended article of food is meat. It is the great food (maha prasad). A Khalsa must eat meat every day. Vegetarians take note A Khalsa should not eat alone; if there is no one to share his meal at the time of eating, he should set apart a meal for a visitor, whether a Sikh, a Hindu or a Muslim. For the marriage of a son, a Khalsa should have no consideration (of caste or jati), but in the case of a daughter, the first preference should be a Sikh boy of the same caste. But then, within the caste no further distinctions should be made. Furthermore, if a boy from the same caste or jati is not found for any reason, a daughter may also be married to a young man of another caste or jati. No consideration should be given to the caste or jati of the girls mother. To put this into context this is what it means: 1. There was polygamy 2. It did not mean disregard gotra system which is to prevent incest. It meant that only fathers tribe is considered as mother is considered to have same after marriage. Many did only have kids with the wife from same tribe, but that is different story. The Rahitnama associated with Chaupa Singh upholds the ideal of equality as much as the norms of varnasharam dharma. The Sikhs of the Guru from all the four barans share the same faith and follow the same ethical principles, but each baran has its own social norms and practices. The Khatris are servants (sewaks) of the Brahmans and not equal to them. In serving others, a Khalsa should give greater consideration to Brahman Sikhs. Was author a bramin? A Sikh of the Guru should make a distinction between dhan (what is eaten) and kudhan (what is not eaten), and also between suitable place (thav) and unsuitable place (kuthav). He should not infringe the customary practices (maryada). There is great emphasis on honest occupation (dharam di kirt) for all members of the Khalsa order. There is no suggestion of a hereditary occupation. Indeed there couldn’t be, as Sikh society was not stable. You cannot do contract labour if there is a price on your head. A Khalsa should disregard the differences of wealth. It is commendable to forge matrimonial ties with a poor Sikh: it pleases the Guru. Thus, the differences of background are disregarded in matters religious and political, but not all the traditional practices of commensality and connubium. The Khalsa are more equal in religious and political matters than in social matters. Something which has been pointed out across the centuries, but the wilfully ignorant still ignore it. Though all the four barans had taken refuge in the Panth of the Guru, rulership was given to the Shudras. Shudra does not mean, ‘low caste’. It means outside caste, as by default you are a shudra if you break caste or do not have one. A bramin who crosses indian ocean is a shudra. The outsiders like gujjars, tarkhans, and jatts were shudras as they were not hindus in the first place. A hinduisation of India would have occurred under the Mughals similar to the Britihs, because any ruling foreign government is concerned of wealth not the divisions of those from whom they are stealing. However, Chhibber invokes the authority of Guru Gobind Singh in favour of the sacred mark and the saved thread for the higher castes, and marriage within the caste. But if a Sikh wishes that the conjugal knot should be tied between his son and the daughter of his Sikh sewak, he should not delay the matter; he could seek forgiveness afterwards. Which is of course, the big difference and the actual separation that neo-‘sikhs’ don’t want to recognize. On the question of commensality, Chhibber keeps the touchable Sikhs strictly out. He refers in fact to an incident in which a Mazhabi Sikh, who had posed as a Jat and shared food with Sandhu zamindars, was hanged by Kahn Singh Trehan and his action was appreciated by all the Sikhs. Have heard of this separate dishes practice, don’t know if it existed in langar. I don’t think you should pose as someone else. You should not hang your brother over some bs though. It may be added that the four categories of Sikhs (didari, mukte, murid and mayiki) mentioned in the Bansavalinama, and in the Chaupa Singh Rahit-Nama, have no bearing on caste or social differentiation. Need to research meanings so no comment just interesting thing. A Sikh should marry his daughter to the son of a Sikh. To give ones daughter to a non-Singh was like handing over a goat to the butcher. Bhekh and baran are not dear to the Guru; what is dear to the Guru is the actual conduct in life. However, marriage within the caste is recommended. Aka the guru is above YOU. There is not tribe for the guru aka the face of god aka SARGUN FORM OF AKAAL PURAAKH. But you are NOT, that. Meaning you do have tribe but you follow orders from Guru. The only exception in this matter were the Jat Sikhs who presumably would intermarry with non-Sikh or non-Singh Jats. I have feeling that author is Rajput, and wants to paint Jatts as bastards. Not even because I’m ‘jatt’ but you can see it as not one mention of polygamy is present. That is what it means though, Nor did the Sikhs eat or drink from the hands of an alien, except from Brahmans for whom they professed the highest veneration. It may be noted that the author is not talking of relations of the Sikhs among themselves but with outsiders. I strongly suspect that this was only a few tribes of Sikhs. My own grandfather knows much of this bramin stuff, due to being in a bramin village. In bramin heavy areas many tribes especially Jatts being considered the ‘rulers’ would have been following a lot of braminvaad. The Sikh converts continued to observe the civil usages and customs of their tribes only so long as they did not infringe the tenets of Guru Nanak and the institutions of Guru Gobind Singh. The higher caste of Hindus, that is, the Brahman and Khatri Sikhs, continued to intermarry with converts of their own tribes, but not with Hindus of the caste they have abandoned. This was not true of the Jat and Gujjar Sikhs who preserved an intimate intercourse with their original tribes for both intermarriage and commensality. Depends on area, suspect more West Punjab as I know it happened but my Doabi grandfather b. 1912 said naw we don’t do that. The Muslim converts to the Sikh faith intermarried among themselves. At the time of the meeting of the Sarbat Khalsa, the Jat Sikhs and others ate together. Emphasis again on religious and political but not social. There were no Khatri, Rajput or Brahman rulers among the Sikhs. Much of this is because for the most part there are not Rajputs in Punjab, and the other two are very few. The author here Mr/Ms ‘Chodaury’ seems to not have an understanding of titles, tribe, caste, etc that is very deep. However information seems to be on point. There is no doubt whatever that the lower castes were dominant in the order of the Khalsa. In 1881, there were more than 1,125,000 Jats and more than 145,000 Chamars and Chuhras, with about the same number of Tarkhans, Nais and Kalals, among the Singhs. The Aroras, Khatris and Banias, together, accounted for less than 80,000 Sikhs. The preponderance of Jats, the outcastes, and the service performing groups is evident from these figures. but the known Brahman writers are rather conservative and somewhat reactionary in their social stance and the known Jat and Kalal writers are relatively egalitarian. Possibly due to the one disadvantage of being ‘learning’ you pick up on trends that don’t exist in the general population. Polygamy may also have been more common in the villages, and the bramins were more likely in the cities due to their employers. There probably was an on-going tension between the new ideology and the social background. Doubt it, city vs village is always there and conflict creates. ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂ ਜੀ ਕਾ ਖਾਲਸਾ ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂ ਜੀ ਕੀ ਫਤਹਿ | |

The most radical of the early Sikh writers on the issue of caste is the author of the Prem Sumarag. The Khalsa order, for him, was meant to be casteless. As he puts it, the baran (varna) of the entire Khalsa was pure (pawittar). If anyone asks a member of the Khalsa for his jati, he should reply, I am a Sodhi Khatri. As in no varna (chakari). If a Khalsa takes up personal service, it should be soldiering (sipahgari). A Singh soldier should not indulge in plunder in a battle and never think of appropriating the property of another. A Khalsa should not take up petty shop-keeping. It is preferable to work at home as a craftsman, and manufacture articles for sale in the bazar. The most preferable occupation is trade in horses (saudagari). Next to it is agriculture. There is emphasis on honest pursuit, but there is no reference to hereditary calling. In fact, preference implies choice. Just question tribe of author, as well a farmer would probably not put farming lower (jatt). They should all eat together, and they should never bother about the (Brahmanical) norms of chauka. And as Christian anti-tribals may note, basically knows what those are today. Meaning much of the anti-‘caste’ stuff they say is irrelevant as it has been dealt with. The most strongly recommended article of food is meat. It is the great food (maha prasad). A Khalsa must eat meat every day. Vegetarians take note A Khalsa should not eat alone; if there is no one to share his meal at the time of eating, he should set apart a meal for a visitor, whether a Sikh, a Hindu or a Muslim. For the marriage of a son, a Khalsa should have no consideration (of caste or jati), but in the case of a daughter, the first preference should be a Sikh boy of the same caste. But then, within the caste no further distinctions should be made. Furthermore, if a boy from the same caste or jati is not found for any reason, a daughter may also be married to a young man of another caste or jati. No consideration should be given to the caste or jati of the girls mother. To put this into context this is what it means: 1. There was polygamy 2. It did not mean disregard gotra system which is to prevent incest. It meant that only fathers tribe is considered as mother is considered to have same after marriage. Many did only have kids with the wife from same tribe, but that is different story. The Rahitnama associated with Chaupa Singh upholds the ideal of equality as much as the norms of varnasharam dharma. The Sikhs of the Guru from all the four barans share the same faith and follow the same ethical principles, but each baran has its own social norms and practices. The Khatris are servants (sewaks) of the Brahmans and not equal to them. In serving others, a Khalsa should give greater consideration to Brahman Sikhs. Was author a bramin? A Sikh of the Guru should make a distinction between dhan (what is eaten) and kudhan (what is not eaten), and also between suitable place (thav) and unsuitable place (kuthav). He should not infringe the customary practices (maryada). There is great emphasis on honest occupation (dharam di kirt) for all members of the Khalsa order. There is no suggestion of a hereditary occupation. Indeed there couldn’t be, as Sikh society was not stable. You cannot do contract labour if there is a price on your head. A Khalsa should disregard the differences of wealth. It is commendable to forge matrimonial ties with a poor Sikh: it pleases the Guru. Thus, the differences of background are disregarded in matters religious and political, but not all the traditional practices of commensality and connubium. The Khalsa are more equal in religious and political matters than in social matters. Something which has been pointed out across the centuries, but the wilfully ignorant still ignore it. Though all the four barans had taken refuge in the Panth of the Guru, rulership was given to the Shudras. Shudra does not mean, ‘low caste’. It means outside caste, as by default you are a shudra if you break caste or do not have one. A bramin who crosses indian ocean is a shudra. The outsiders like gujjars, tarkhans, and jatts were shudras as they were not hindus in the first place. A hinduisation of India would have occurred under the Mughals similar to the Britihs, because any ruling foreign government is concerned of wealth not the divisions of those from whom they are stealing. However, Chhibber invokes the authority of Guru Gobind Singh in favour of the sacred mark and the saved thread for the higher castes, and marriage within the caste. But if a Sikh wishes that the conjugal knot should be tied between his son and the daughter of his Sikh sewak, he should not delay the matter; he could seek forgiveness afterwards. Which is of course, the big difference and the actual separation that neo-‘sikhs’ don’t want to recognize. On the question of commensality, Chhibber keeps the touchable Sikhs strictly out. He refers in fact to an incident in which a Mazhabi Sikh, who had posed as a Jat and shared food with Sandhu zamindars, was hanged by Kahn Singh Trehan and his action was appreciated by all the Sikhs. Have heard of this separate dishes practice, don’t know if it existed in langar. I don’t think you should pose as someone else. You should not hang your brother over some bs though. It may be added that the four categories of Sikhs (didari, mukte, murid and mayiki) mentioned in the Bansavalinama, and in the Chaupa Singh Rahit-Nama, have no bearing on caste or social differentiation. Need to research meanings so no comment just interesting thing. A Sikh should marry his daughter to the son of a Sikh. To give ones daughter to a non-Singh was like handing over a goat to the butcher. Bhekh and baran are not dear to the Guru; what is dear to the Guru is the actual conduct in life. However, marriage within the caste is recommended. Aka the guru is above YOU. There is not tribe for the guru aka the face of god aka SARGUN FORM OF AKAAL PURAAKH. But you are NOT, that. Meaning you do have tribe but you follow orders from Guru. The only exception in this matter were the Jat Sikhs who presumably would intermarry with non-Sikh or non-Singh Jats. I have feeling that author is Rajput, and wants to paint Jatts as bastards. Not even because I’m ‘jatt’ but you can see it as not one mention of polygamy is present. That is what it means though, Nor did the Sikhs eat or drink from the hands of an alien, except from Brahmans for whom they professed the highest veneration. It may be noted that the author is not talking of relations of the Sikhs among themselves but with outsiders. I strongly suspect that this was only a few tribes of Sikhs. My own grandfather knows much of this bramin stuff, due to being in a bramin village. In bramin heavy areas many tribes especially Jatts being considered the ‘rulers’ would have been following a lot of braminvaad. The Sikh converts continued to observe the civil usages and customs of their tribes only so long as they did not infringe the tenets of Guru Nanak and the institutions of Guru Gobind Singh. The higher caste of Hindus, that is, the Brahman and Khatri Sikhs, continued to intermarry with converts of their own tribes, but not with Hindus of the caste they have abandoned. This was not true of the Jat and Gujjar Sikhs who preserved an intimate intercourse with their original tribes for both intermarriage and commensality. Depends on area, suspect more West Punjab as I know it happened but my Doabi grandfather b. 1912 said naw we don’t do that. The Muslim converts to the Sikh faith intermarried among themselves. At the time of the meeting of the Sarbat Khalsa, the Jat Sikhs and others ate together. Emphasis again on religious and political but not social. There were no Khatri, Rajput or Brahman rulers among the Sikhs. Much of this is because for the most part there are not Rajputs in Punjab, and the other two are very few. The author here Mr/Ms ‘Chodaury’ seems to not have an understanding of titles, tribe, caste, etc that is very deep. However information seems to be on point. There is no doubt whatever that the lower castes were dominant in the order of the Khalsa. In 1881, there were more than 1,125,000 Jats and more than 145,000 Chamars and Chuhras, with about the same number of Tarkhans, Nais and Kalals, among the Singhs. The Aroras, Khatris and Banias, together, accounted for less than 80,000 Sikhs. The preponderance of Jats, the outcastes, and the service performing groups is evident from these figures. but the known Brahman writers are rather conservative and somewhat reactionary in their social stance and the known Jat and Kalal writers are relatively egalitarian. Possibly due to the one disadvantage of being ‘learning’ you pick up on trends that don’t exist in the general population. Polygamy may also have been more common in the villages, and the bramins were more likely in the cities due to their employers. There probably was an on-going tension between the new ideology and the social background. Doubt it, city vs village is always there and conflict creates.

Few 100k pound what do you guys think?

How about we study the history of India, aka old hindu texts. Then we go to sikh ones, as Sikhi is the present day peak. Meaning the one's previous were flawed and led to this. As we do not know the futurr, and are feeble we do not know what comes next. The khalsa panth comes from Akaal Puraakh, so by his command all Hindus should be Sikhs.

Yeah, but aren't you from a tarkhan east African family? also this: -- edit addition here: I said some ignorant stuff, past hour but the premise is not wrong. You quoted Prem Sumarag and it seems it supports the viewpoint I have instead of yours. Hope I do not get put bakc on que, it is late I will look through posts for overly inflammatory things (a little is always good ) -- Back to orginal post -- At Bhagat singh username, Or you know instead of being gianis just do what maharaj ordered. March forward with ear drums, you know the pro khalistan marches past November December didn't care who was what. 20 30 million people aren't going to be friends. Get over that, if vaheguru designed humans and we can't intimately know more than 100 something people, then leave it at that. I like your insults dal singh, people will still listen to an idiot who appears strong than an intelligent giani. Intelligence has never won, wit has. At Jung Chamkaur Yeah.. Gill is not gonna marry Gill. In fact, they'll be 8 gotras apart, sorry. -- Humans are stratified, that is known. You support your brother over your friends, etc. All the tribes unite under nishan sahib, it's a few know it all who do all this inter tribe mix up stuff. They also happen to be mostly khatri, or ramgarhia. O well, would rather have 2 independent sikhs hate each other and be separate; than, have burning tires running after them, 'uniting' them. But hey, bachittar natak doesn't mean story of bravery right. Tribe isn't given by god, and the world isn't an illusion right. We should care about who is breeding who, not who is hungry. Ok, Keep hating on the pind though. Most Sikhs come from there, and if we had lived in cities mostly we would have been a lot weaker.

Except, smart girl even misl sardars used pind or gotra. Shaheed Baba Charat Singh Sukkerchak of Sandhu Parvaar. Meaning the panth more important than his quom or family. You want to erase evidence of discrimination, while allowing it to exist. Different, from fighting it. It's a common liberal ideology, which covers the majority but leaves a minority free to do w.e In this case, yes many westernized 'sikhs' will be classless. Majority will not, and another thing? The majority ones who use pind name, gotra, or nick name are the ones who lead the armies. The fact that you want anderson, says enough. http://www.christianitytoday.com