OnPathToSikhi

So you mean you have not read the book yet and are already jumping and dancing on the mere mention of Rajmohan gandhi. Sure. Expected.

Bingo. I can say the same about you.

Keep going. Almost there to smoke you out of your hole.

What facts are you stating? Were you present when the historical events took place? You just repeat whatever is said in the books, like a parrot. The books are again written by authors who could be biased. Every anti-Sikh statement that you find in some book seems to makes your adrenalin rush. You are busy looking for trash written in history and dump it here so that somehow you can rationalize your own existence. What are you so scared of? You need to realize that to put history in right context a person needs to have a level headed mindset, some spiritual insight, especially to read Sikh history. History is full of events. You are keen on picking sporadic events, create a bogus relation and use that as your anti-Sikh propaganda. Sikh history is bounded in it's faith. You will never be able to figure it out. You need to walk the walk to talk the talk. The Khalsa Panth is only bound to get stronger (to your disappointment) as we head into a more materialistic world with all it's challenges. Now the book you have mentioned by Rajmohan Gandhi, you asked for it, now here you have it: 1) Rajmohan Gandhi is a moron 2) The book reeks of Islamophobia 3) The book is written with a enslaved Brahman mindset trying to please some Muslim master. 4) Book mentions that Baba Barbhag Singh carried out the atrocities. Rajmohan Gandhi needs to have a really rotten mind to say so. Finally, no need to go too far into Sikh history, it may be beyond your understanding. Try to figure out the 1984 Sikh massacre and that may possibly give you some idea as to where all your viewpoints are coming from. Take this as a sincere advice. The choice is yours.

Your definition of "civilized" is applicable to you and your "Hindu" folks. Your hate for Sikhs knows no bounds. You ARE a miserable soul, proved beyond doubt by you. You come to this forum saying you are a Nanakpanthi and then find every excuse to make anti-Sikh statements and go overboard .... I am just marveled at the decency of the moderators to even allow you to post without any objections.

"Amandeep" and "Singh" are for Sikhs only. Hindus cannot use these words - Get it? Hypocritical view. Keep it to yourself or implement such views on your fellow "Hindus"

You are a lunatic. Your misery knows no bounds.

Correct.

Would you also have been of the same view when India was standing in front of the world with a begging bowl? The same farmers turned around a beggar like state of India by producing enough for local consumption and exports. What an ungrateful view of things... But expected from a "Hindustani" (BTW, you sound very familiar. Also hiding behind "Amandeep" is not going to help much)

I understand the true essence of Sikh history very well. I don't need to carry a history book "under my arm" all the time. That is for insecure "history crooks" like you.

Please specify which "Dyer" are you referring to?

The Marathas were no better than Mughals. Each fighting a religious jihad.

Das Ji, Very well put comments. "..history could only be known by either diving deep into our Soul OR from the talks of TRUE Saints (from any religion).." So true. Especially Sikh history cannot be put in the right context without having some spiritual insight.

amar_jkp ji, Thanks for your post. I had always held some respect for the Marathas, but your post raises some negative attributes of the Marathas that perhaps the larger audience (including myself) is not aware of. Great post and quite a few things to learn.

This was great. Some excellent points raised in a rational manner. Thanks for posting.

If the majority were Sikhs, the this makes it a Sikh movement. No questions. "Nationalism" is a tag promoted by the fascists. Don't try to polarize Sikhs/Sikhi. Sikhs have fought against and for British. They stood for what is right. That's about it.

Going through some of the discussions here, it seems that we are more focused on the brahman like traits of do's and dont's. People who consider them Sikhs should feel fortunate that our Gurus have established a very simplified way of like. Kirt karo, Naam japo and Wand Ke chako. What would be so difficult to understand here? Feel fortunate that our Gurus have freed us of such mental bondage. IMHO eating or not eating meat is a non issue. Eventually Gurbani elevates oneself and the desire to eat meat may no longer exist, much so that daal-phoolka would start making sense. Should everyone need to be reminded of Bhai Lehna Ji's sakhi related to the dead body? Follow Gurbani and get on the path to righteousness. For ones favoring eating meat, remember ants, wolves, crows, vultures, rats, etc eat meat too. For ones favoring being vegetarian, remember the water that you drink may have living organisms, the raw vegetables that you eat may have living organisms, well, you may have swallowed a mosquito, fly, etc... Now what? Gurus have stressed that our good deeds and actions will make us what we are, not food, so why this foolish discussion. Most of the veer-phen here are guni-vidhwani, so why I sense that people are starting on the wrong note. The span of Sikhi and our Gurus is infinite beyond doubt, but IMHO doing/not-doing certain things will not help in realizing the truth, ONLY Naam Gurbani will. Chardi Kala!

So your "Aurangazeb" character is finally out. You are no better than Aurangazeb as far as your mind set is concerned. Why? 1) @ savinderpalsingh says when he was 5 2) Was Gandhi a muslim to have a kabar? Of all people you should know better about your beloved Gandhi. So technically @savinderpalsingh is either joking/lying without meaning any harm (though his better sense should have prevailed now). Not so for @Amandeep Hindustani. Congratulations ... You have new buddy - Amandeep "Hindustani"

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!

@ 27:00 mins in the discussion in the posted video, bhai saab says "sare sikha nu problem nahi ..." What is he trying to convey? 1984 was an attack on Sikhs worldwide ... Can we please have some thoughts on this to get a better understanding?

You should be knowing that Sheroo boy. Don't ask me ask yourself. I know enough to cut through your heap of nonsense.

One (there are countless more) simple answer: “Je tou prem khelan ka chao, sir dhar tali gali mori ao” — “Oh ye man, whosoever wants to seek love of God, come to me with your head on your palm.” SGGS

(Ref your statement): "Show me one Hindu mandir which has the portraits of Jagdish Tytler or sajjan kumar ..." What an utterly low level of thinking. That also explains the basis of all your other posts. You will never understand Sikhs or Sikhi. Not sure what you are trying to prove with all your posts. You write very passionately. But what you write is just polished trash. Pity. Healthy, constructive discussions that benefits all should be encouraged in forums, As far as your attempts to prove "something" ... You are never going to be successful.

If there is evidence that the name Banda Bahadur (with or without Singh) was taken upon by Lachman Das himself then perhaps there is some scope of debate here. Also if there is evidence that Lachman Das never met the Guru then all the more better for some debate (does not make sense?). All other What/Where/Who/How, etc, etc does not matter. The fact is Banda Singh Bahadur is an integral part of the Sikh history and that will never change till humanity exists. Lachman Das became a Banda only with Guru's grace.

SherooJi Forum da lock te khol jaoo, Par thadi akal da lock kiven khuluga? Saw all the hate that you have been posting. Keep chasing yourself in circles Shreoo boy. Sikhism thrives on the likes of you. Good Luck.