Jump to content

Reconclination Efforts Between Hindus And Sikhs In Punjab And Rest Of India


Guest

Recommended Posts

I have already given up on Sher, and I think I am going to have to give up on Jonny too. You must be extremely retarded to think that Hindus are one big homogenous group. To even that that Punjabi Hindus are Arya Samaji or RSS is stupid. To think that all Hindus are Congressiyay is stupid. Jonny, you better wake up. Your embarrassing. I hope you dont ever meet educated people. Imagine how embarrassing it would be if you spoke for us at prominent think tanks. Your rhetoric is what got us labelled as fanatics and extremists in the first place. I dont know about you but most Hindus in Punjab are uneducated normal people who dont know that the Congress and BJP are the same economically, and hence socially. Your blaming the victim. But I guess with your retarded logic, its OK to blame our kids who take Heroin and Cocaine on a regular basis. We should just blame them for their lack of knowledge too. And we should be OK with getting blamed for putting the Badals in power and for being their vote bank.. Imagine your retarded rhetoric coming from the other side. Your pissing me off to a violent extent. We need to a put a muzzle on you. I guess you seek consolation from Sant Bhindranwaleji and justify your speech by referring to his... talk about Hindus as a whole and get mad when Hindus talk about us as a whole... great logic. Wake up buddy. I dont care about Sher as much. Hes Hindu. If he says somethign bad about us and our beliefs hell look bad, not us. The moment you start becoming the spokesperson for Sikhs by making blanket statements, which mostly seem to be endorsed, is the moment we all look bad.

Until we put a muzzle on jonny, we might as well forget about reconciliation and our "peaceful" image.

Edited by JungChamkaur
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 117
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

JungChamkaurJi, Jonny here is clean.

I have been a vivid reader on some of the topics here for some time so can say that Jonny is stating things straight out. I think we can agree that all Sikhs invariably have Hindu (Punjabi) at least as friends, some even family members. Also when he or anyone here refers Hindus, we all know that would be more of a political reference to a select few Hindus. When we read we understand that he does not mean the collective Hindus. When we(Sikhs) believe in one human race, how can we not also believe in Hindus. A teaching so fundmental to all Sikhs.

Coming to Sher, he is a sorry soul. Few here have tried to liberate him of his misery. Maybe you can put some sense in him. He is here to be "mukt". He is trying to dump his hate backed views here so that he can justify to himself (not sure what). He is digging into history and using historical theology (read through his colorfully clouded goggles) to make statements,sometime trying in a spiritual context. Fool he is.

Contrary to what anyone belives, the world knows that Sikh image is that of a peace loving people. But such is the Sikh history that we need to "fight" for "peace". Also I think it's just our attitude (Jattitude rather and I am saying this more like a general Sikh profile/mentality) that seem to rub people on the wrong side. And that will remain since we (meaning SIKHS) choose the path of rightousness shown by our Gurus. Fail we may, but we know how to get up and keep going.

Strange that we have fought most of the wars with Mugals and and find it important to reconcile with Hindus now. I think we should focus on reconciling with ourselves first (get on the gurmat path) and whoever feels the need for reconcilition, come to us.

Chardi Kala!

Edited by OnPathToSikhi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

JangChamkaur, again reread my post, where did I condemn all Hindus? neither have I belittled or distorted their religion. I have made it clear that when I say Hindus I mean only a certain section of Hindus who have made it an agenda to oppose the Sikhs on every issue for the last century. I'm surprised and shocked that someone could interpret my posts as being "anti Hindu". You make the same mistake as Sher does which is, you interpret being pro Sikhi as being anti Hindu. He does it due to his Dheetpuna, and you do because of your being an uninformed leftist.

Thing is, at least Sher is informed about the issues, so when me and him have a dialogue with each other we both know what we're talking about. But you on the other hand have no idea about the issues being discussed in historical context and then you pass a judgement on me. That's the problem with uninformed lefties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So as long as you use the term "Hindu" to refer to the "bad type" of Hindus, its ok? I guess I should just avoid trying to edit your comments. As far as your claim goes that I dont knkw much about the issues at hand, your right to a certain extent. There are a lot of things I dont know but there are many that I do. And I know one thing for sure that our kom is behind because of rhetoric and discourses that facilitate prejudice. Our kom is goin nowhere... We have professors at great universities and non Sikh profs and doctors who are giving us credibility and your idea of labelling the bad hindus as "hindus" makes us look stupid... Simply put. What normal desis get is the idea that its all hindus and its ok to make such remarks. Then we get cast similarly to arabs who are made out to hate all jews and make statements like yours. "When I say jew im talking about the bad jews otherwise jews are ok, and as i wa saying these jews hate muslims and want to kill us all and are destroyig our religion!"... Just say rss and arya samaj or whatever instead of saying hindu and giving the term your own definition to make it easier for yourself. And how would I see pro Sikhi as anti Hindu lmao. I just think our kom has had enough of these illiterate pindu discourses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do we know someone's religion? Easy, which rites they follow when getting married or at their funeral.

That's your definition. The rest of the world focusses on the actions, ideology and lifetimes of the individuals involved ... particularly so since no one community back in the 15th century had a monopoly over the way inhabitants of Hindostan at the time got married. After all, if even the Muslims of indigenous origin did not alter their historic marriage traditions substantially at the time your theory falls somewhat flat. Given that Guru Ram Das Ji composed the Lavaan according to which all subsequently Guru Sahiban got married with the blessing of that clearly shows that from that point onward no Hindu rites could have been followed according to that. Guru Ram Das Ji clearly show that they do not care for Hindu or Muslim marriage rites. Crucially, given that the Guru Sahiban prior to Guru Arjan Dev Ji all rejected the presence of Pandits and janam kundali calculations we clearly see that non-Hindu's of indigenous local birth in Hindostan at the time, can get married according to a similar format of long held local traditions whilst simultaneously and conscientiously rejecting the same as Hindu rites. According to your logic, all those non-Hindu's such as Buddhists, Sikhs and Jains married according to the Hindu Marriage Act must have been Hindu, presumably?

All of the Gurus (including Baba Nanak) were married acc the Hindu rites, to Hindu girls and were cremated acc to the Hindu rites.

Not so as explained above. This is the hype that those who oppose Sikhi wish to spread. Since when did cremation which pre-dates Hinduism suddenly become the monopoly of the Hindu faith. I fully believe in cremation and that doesn't make me a Hindu!

All Gurus talked of Hindus and Muslims, never of Sikhs as the third 'religion'.

Na koi Hindu Na koi Mussalmaan ... as per Gurbani ... what's so hard to comprehend about that?

Not one place in any Sikh Granth you would find the words "Sikh" and "Dharam" together.

So your logic suggests to you that because the two words supposedly do not appear together ... there cannot be such a thing as a Sikh way of life?

Guru Nanak, Hindu ka Guru, Muslim ka peer.

That was the hype put out by dog Jahangir who was very concerned at the great number of Muslims becoming Sikhs. We should not parrot the same Mughal lie.

Sikhs no where.

Of course as dog Jahangir considered Sikhs sub-human just as Jinnah did and just as Congress did.

At his funeral, according to the lore, Hindus and Muslims quarreled over the funeral rites. where were the 'Sikhs'?

The funeral Sakhi (identical to Dhan Dhan Kabir Ji Maharaj's) was a metaphorical attempt to show that both Muslims and Hindu's had devotion (as Sikhs) for Guru Nanak Dev Ji Mahahraj.

Gurus, whether you like it or not, lived like any khatri male of their age wearing topis and tilaks.

Guru Sahiban were not Khatri. They rejected the artificial construct of caste. No innocent baby on this planet is born with a caste, a race or a religion - society and upbringing moulds the child to adapt to such constructs. They did not marry spouses according to their caste as Mughal and Hindu writers would keenly have us believe as Mata Gujjar Kaur's Gujjar ancestry highlights so notably. The topi's and tilaks suggestion is quiet laughable but funny to read nevertheless.

Guru Gobind Singhji approached a Hindu (Banda bahadur) to carry on his campaign against the Muslim tormentors.

I think you have misunderstood history very wrongly but deliberately no doubt. In fact Banda Singh Bahadur Ji took Amrit to become Khalsa after accepting the spiritual truth of Guru Sahib and therafter by his valour in battle showed his worthiness to lead the Khalsa Fauj.

why not a Khalsa if there was a such a well-defined separation between the two faiths?

Banda Singh Bahadur Ji was a Khalsa when he led the Khalsa Fauj. I hope you don't insult us further by claiming that Bhai Mati Das and Bhai Sati Das were Hindu's and that they kept bodi's whilst having predominantly shaven heads. You might convince yourself of such apreposterous hypothesis but we as Sikhs will not be fooled and we know who our Kaum De Heere are.

10th Guru sahib also drew his genealogy right back to Sri Ram, calling himself a Raghuvanshi (bachittar Natak Dasam Granth).

Predictable that you as a Hindu would support Bachittar Natak. The majority of the Panth do not accept the fake genealogy ascribed to Guru Sahib. Guru Gobind Singh Ji Maharaj rejected lineage and tribe as social constructs and emphasised kul nash and moreover founded the Khalsa Panth which destroys the lie about caste or lineage being important (as Hinduism and Islam believe). A few Taksal or Nihang Sikhs may hold the same reverence for this so-called Raghuvanshi nonsense, however great Sikhs like Giani Ditt Singh demolished these lie authored by anti-Sikh scribes at the behest of the Mughals.

DG also claims 'Ram Katha jug jug atal". DG is imo nothing but a pure Hindu granth.

In as far as your assertion relating to fake genealogy ascribed to Guru Sahib and Triya Charitar that Khemu Bedi juxtaposed with Benti Chaupai i believe the evidence is pretty self-explanatory. You should be aware that the majority of the Panth oppose anti-Gurmat material.

Gurus did not leave Hindu faith

That's your personal belief and you are entitled to it. If supposedly they espoused Hinduism, then why do you not call yourself a Sikh?

Or is it that the relatively recent Arabic word "Hindu" holds so much more appeal to you than the authentic ancient Sanskrit-derived word of Sikh?

but today Sikhism is a separate religion and I have absolutely no problem with that.

It comes across that you do have a problem with us (deep down) by your constant parroting of material or versions of history that the Sikhs overwhelmingly disagree with.

You guys want to have a separate religion, complete agreement.

Humanity is one. Separation isn't the key ingredient here. Rejection of anti-human beliefs such as caste, slavery, inferiority, discrimination, rape are!

Ravidassis or Jains want to be known as separate religions today, no problem with them too.

Jains have always been a separate religion to Hinduism. Sikhs are all true Ravidassi's by virtue of the fact that we bow our heads daily in humility with reverence for the divine shabad of Dhan Dhan (Gur) Ravidas Ji Maharaj within Dhan Dhan Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji Maharaj. But if you were referring to the Congress funded Dera Ballan yes they have a right to espouse their pro-apartheid anti-Ravidas Ji Maharaj belief as much as anyone. Hopefully, we as a Qaum will subsequently prove enlightened enough to highlight great leaders of the Khalsa Fauj like Shaheed Baba Sangat Singh and great academics of the Panth like Giani Ditt Singh in contrast to who Dera Ballan have to offer as their role models for humanity - Indira Gandhi, Satpal Mall and a peadophile like Garib Dass who Indira Gandhi made very wealthy indeed.

In the battles of mobs, there would be one winner. if you are celebrating the killing of Hindus by Sikh mobs (just a few incidents in the past century, never before that), what can i say?

I think you got the order of your words mixed up in the sentence above relating to those where Sikhs had tyres lodged around their necks and kersosene poured over them.

I would not like to remind you about the tragic events when armed Sikh mobs have faced stiff resistance and were made to flee or butchered.

I don't think the fake Nihangs who supported Hindu Mahants in the 1920's quite count as so-called "Sikh mobs".

The latest incident was in Doaba when unarmed ravidassis made heavily armed, tyar bar tyar nihangs flee few years back when the Ravs removed khandas and Granth sahib from one of their temples.

Hahaha good try at a pro-Ballan publicity spin. You should be aware Santa the fake Nihang worked for Congress openly. Those so-called Nihangs that consume alcohol and copious amounts of bhang as suggested in a certain book you believe to be a Hindu Granth are well known to have openly co-operated with Dera Ballan in order to denigrate the Panth yet again. I'm pleased that Congressi's removing Sri Guru Granth Sahib from their politically controlled apartheid promoting mandirs did not elicit a violent response from Sikhs.

i condemn those hindus who lynched sword wielding sikhs in haryana or punjab in some of the clashes these sister communities have ever witnessed.

Glad to know that you at least condemn Dera Sirsa affiliated mobs for killing innocent Sikhs on the orders of Sidhu Jatt the rapist.

Edited by mrsingh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first Anand Karaj was done by Sri Guru Nanak Dev Jee. Instead of doing Phere around the fire, he wrote Ik Oankaar on a piece of paper and did His marriage Phere around Bani. After the Tenth Guru, Sikhs were in a life and death struggle going through many genocides. As a result many Sikhs forgot about Anand Karaj, especially the new converts. But the Nirankaris revived this tradition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first Anand Karaj was done by Sri Guru Nanak Dev Jee. Instead of doing Phere around the fire, he wrote Ik Oankaar on a piece of paper and did His marriage Phere around Bani. After the Tenth Guru, Sikhs were in a life and death struggle going through many genocides. As a result many Sikhs forgot about Anand Karaj, especially the new converts. But the Nirankaris revived this tradition.

Singhji whats the source for the information you provided above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Singhji whats the source for the information you provided above.

I don't have the source. But I have heard this from kathakars since I was a kid. I will try to find the source though. Guru Jee were not believers in Vedic rituals. They rejected wearing the Janju and doing phere around fire while invoking the various Devtas. Guru Jee taught us that if we must then only Vaheguru must be invoked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You dont have the source even then you think that you are correct. I have given the source narrating how the Guru was married, to whom where ...minute details. Batala's Kandh sahib Gurdwara is testimony of the fact that GND was married acc to Hindu rites and by a brahmin priest. as far as Gurus giving up janju is concerned, that is debatable. also, not all Hindus wear janju. there is recorded instance of Ala Singh of patiala being a Janju wearing khalsa.

Yeah I've been to Kandh Sahib near Chakri Bazar in Batala. That's were Guru Jee got married. Were you an eye witness of Guru Jee getting married? or were you the camera man during the marriage? No! then stop acting like you know something. Guru Jee married around Ik Onkaar. He rejected purohits, vedic rituals since childhood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The janeu is replaced by the gatra, the stone idols are replaced by the sri guru granth sahib, the ritualistic bathes at the ganges are replaced by the bath at the harmandir sahib and on and on.......

The irony is that every major sikh scholar in history had to read and understand hinduism before truly understanding sikhism. That continues even today.

Below is what a muslim says about the death of Guru Gobind Singh ji Maharaj. Eyewitness account of the sikhs during that period.

Ibrat Niimah or the Swaneh, 1705-19 A. D, written by Mirza Muhammad Harisi., devotes some thirteen pages to the contemporary account of the Sikhs, with particular reference to Banda Singh. The author mentions that Guru Gobind Singh had travelled in the train of Emperor Bahadur Shah to the Deccan and was killed there in 1120 al-Hijri, 1708 A. D., by an Afghan, an old enemy of his, and his body was cremated according to Hindu rites. Ajit Singh, who was popularly known as his son and had been received into royal favour, remained with the Emperor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The irony is that every major sikh scholar in history had to read and understand hinduism before truly understanding sikhism. That continues even today.

I somewhat agree with this statement. However, not hinduism in a strict sense as there is no such thing as hinduism organized form, there is no structure as such..I would rather say studying and through understanding of hinduism/snatan orders like- viashnavas, shaiv, kashmiri shaivism, gautam vishiadvaita, advaita, vedant, puranas etc. If one read jevani of sant gyani gurbachan singh bhindranwale one will come across as taksal syllabus which studies and understand various different indic orders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by GtLoc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are wrong once again. Sikhs started marriages acc to Anand Karaj in the last quarter of the 19th century or even later. Nirankaris, in fact, adopted AK before Khalsas. show me one instance of Sikh Gurus marrying acc to AK.Nirankari chief darbara Singh asked for permission to perform AK in Harmandar sahib in 1861, he was REFUSED. Before Anand Marriage Bill was passed in 1909, marriage by AK was not even legal!

Anand Karaj have been performed ever since Guru Nanak Dev Ji rejected the purohits, janam kundali's and various gods and godesses invoked in the average Hindu marriage rites. You are correct to point out that the original Nirankari forefathers (as the Amritdhari GurSikhs they were) rejected the lapse of ordinary Sikhs into Manuvadi influenced Hindu marriage rites. All Guru's married according to non-Hindu marriage rites. Sikhs are not particularly interested in the history presented by anti-Sikh historians in the employ of the Mughals or more recently the RSS or Arya Samaj (as for example Khemu Bedi). Of course GurSikh Darbara Singh was refused by Hindu Mahants more interested in reading Triya Charitar in 1861 British-controlled Amritsar.

The first Anand Karaj was done by Sri Guru Nanak Dev Jee. Instead of doing Phere around the fire, he wrote Ik Oankaar on a piece of paper and did His marriage Phere around Bani. After the Tenth Guru, Sikhs were in a life and death struggle going through many genocides. As a result many Sikhs forgot about Anand Karaj, especially the new converts. But the Nirankaris revived this tradition.

Well pointed out as always Jonny Paji.

you should get together and demolish Gurdwara Kandh Sahib in Batala where Baba was married acc to Hindu reeti, by a brahmin purohit. "Around Bani" - how ridiculous is that.

Gurdwara Kandh Sahib is testimony to the fact that Guru Nanak Dev Ji Maharaj rejected false Hindu marraige rites. So circling around Bani is ridiculous but instead of the ancient pagan pre-Hindu tradition of circling around fire is not and is better in your view?

You dont have the source even then you think that you are correct. I have given the source narrating how the Guru was married, to whom where ...minute details. Batala's Kandh sahib Gurdwara is testimony of the fact that GND was married acc to Hindu rites and by a brahmin priest. as far as Gurus giving up janju is concerned, that is debatable. also, not all Hindus wear janju. there is recorded instance of Ala Singh of patiala being a Janju wearing khalsa.

Your "source" is one we don't accept. Much of Sikh history is passed down orally. We know what we believe. We know why you want to believe what you do. But if you suddenly think people will revert to Hindu marriage rites I really think you are very much mistaken! Within Sikh circles there is no doubt about the Sakhi where Guru Nanak Dev Ji rejected the whole concept and practise of janeu. You're welcome to wear a red string for being the high caste Hindu Rajput you are but why do you have such a problem with Guru Nanak Dev Ji Maharaj having rejected it and most Sikhs similarly so?

Yeah I've been to Kandh Sahib near Chakri Bazar in Batala. That's were Guru Jee got married. Were you an eye witness of Guru Jee getting married? or were you the camera man during the marriage? No! then stop acting like you know something. Guru Jee married around Ik Onkaar. He rejected purohits, vedic rituals since childhood.

Exactly Jonny Paji

The janeu is replaced by the gatra, the stone idols are replaced by the sri guru granth sahib, the ritualistic bathes at the ganges are replaced by the bath at the harmandir sahib and on and on.......

So a red string janeu can have meaning to you as a Hindu but a defensive shastar such as kirpan or kara cannot to us Sikhs?

A stone idol can have meaning to you as a Hindu but words in praise of Ik Onkar Akaal Purakh cannot have meaning to Sikhs?

Pilgrimages including bathing at the Ganges have meaning to you as a Hindu but Sikhi's rejection of pilgrimages and emphasis on all castes in a locality bathing together in a pool of water is problematic to you?

We don't care for Mughal paid historians who clubbed all Indian "kaffir" practises as being Hindu rites regardless of whether Jaini, Hindu, Buddhist or Sikh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The janeu is replaced by the gatra, the stone idols are replaced by the sri guru granth sahib, the ritualistic bathes at the ganges are replaced by the bath at the harmandir sahib and on and on.......

The irony is that every major sikh scholar in history had to read and understand hinduism before truly understanding sikhism. That continues even today.

Below is what a muslim says about the death of Guru Gobind Singh ji Maharaj. Eyewitness account of the sikhs during that period.

Ibrat Niimah or the Swaneh, 1705-19 A. D, written by Mirza Muhammad Harisi., devotes some thirteen pages to the contemporary account of the Sikhs, with particular reference to Banda Singh. The author mentions that Guru Gobind Singh had travelled in the train of Emperor Bahadur Shah to the Deccan and was killed there in 1120 al-Hijri, 1708 A. D., by an Afghan, an old enemy of his, and his body was cremated according to Hindu rites. Ajit Singh, who was popularly known as his son and had been received into royal favour, remained with the Emperor.

It's no irony, as Gurmat is the dharma of Kalyug, so to understand Kalyug and its Dharma, you need to know about the previous 3 yugs and their dharma.

The muslims in many many places when writing about Sikhs, have called them hindus, as was the trend during those times, to call anything non-islamic as hindu.

Whereas Amarnamah by Bhai Nath Mal, an actual eye-witness to Guru Ji's final days on this earth has written no such thing.

But "Hindu rites" may just simply refer to cremation in muslim eyes.

There's no drama.

Edited by chatanga1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But YOU know that Hindus also ate meat or dont you?

Yes, we know, Gurbani has testified to this. But in the times of Kalyug religious practices have changed, and a non-veg diet was advocated. In Chanayka-niti ( I KNOW you have read that!) Chanakya mentions that Brahmans must avoid flesh in their diet, and that text is about 1800 years or something.

Edited by chatanga1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...