ipledgeblue

genetics, you know, if you keep marryin within certain people. for example, gora marryin gora stays gora. english marryin englosh remains english. So jatt marrying jatti is gonnahave children that are more jatt like in behaviour etc maryada, rules and regulations of families, parents etc. Best way to check this to actually go and live ina cultural/traditional family, or at least chat to someone. Best way is thorugh experience

well there will definetly be differences in what clans they belong to. Theres also genetic differences created from jatts marrying into jatt clans and tarkhans marrying into tarkhan clans and so on... I especially see differences to kenyan tarkhans, but then agin kenyan jatts are also different to india jatts. Habits, culture, traditions, maryada and rules will still be carried over fomr back home. For example, how often will you see a jatt follow Vishwakarma compared to a tarkhan? Then you also see the pugh differences, and I have even noticed beard differences. Well about amritdhari jeevans, regardless of being amritdhari, if one is living in jatt family and relatives then one will have to follow jatt maryada and culture in their environment and similarly for tarkhan environment will follow tarkhan things, when you live in family and civilised environment you have to follow the laws of the family and of the land and government, its not like they have gone to the dal and living with nihang singhs, which of course is different.

well yes i am, its not totally important, but if they live in such a way, then nothing wrong with it. What I don#t understand why its wrong to say one belongs to or comes from a group. Seems like political red tape to me. I mean its not like sikhs don't describe people as belonging to a group, inclduing themselves, so i don't see why it should only be applied to certain groups that people want to, eg certain types of castes? To be honest, I see it as political correctness gone mad. What if we didn't describe the mughals as mughals, or the khalsa fauj as the khalsa, or the afgahn invaders as afghans, i could just go and on? What kinda history would that be, would be describe A just as a set of people, and B as also just a set of people? Should society not promote us to become individuals, all different, instead of all this stuff where everyone is exactly the same like some kind of zombie? So whats wrong with grouping together a set of individuals? If we wanted to follow Guru Ji then why don;t we follow this then? ਹਿੰਦੂ ਤੁਰਕ ਕੋਊ ਰਾਫਜੀ ਇਮਾਮ ਸਾਫੀ ਮਾਨਸ ਕੀ ਜਾਤਿ ਸਬੈ ਏਕੈ ਪਹਿਚਾਨਬੋ ॥ हिंदू तुरक कोऊ राफजी इमाम साफी मानस की जाति सबै एकै पहिचानबो ॥ Someone is Hindu and someone a Muslim, then someone is Shia, and someone a Sunni, but all the human beings, as a species, are recognized as one and the same. But then how many of us call people hindu and muslim, but then get in a big fuss cos someone used a "caste" lol I also see a lot of people taking this bani out of context and just taking the ਮਾਨਸ ਕੀ ਜਾਤਿ ਸਬੈ ਏਕੈ ਪਹਿਚਾਨਬੋ ॥ "maanas kee jaat sabai eko pahecchanbo" part out of the line so they can just use it against what they consider caste instead of the context Guru Ji used it for.

well is it importnat for oneself to call him/herself sikh at all?

well jatts are assoicated with farming the most, but they are more of an ethnic group where not all jatts are farmers or kisaans. You can also see Bhai Gurdass ji has described jatts and kisaans separately. But you also get non-jatt farmers, such as khatri/rajput/tarkhan/saini/lobana farmers. Example of khatri farmer would be Guru Nanak Dev Ji. Becoming farmer doesn't make someone a jatt, only specific clans belong to jatt tribe.

seriously whats with the political correctness, i don;t thinka real singh complains about caste, u know chee chee kardeh lokee ehmi

i dunno, but sarbloh site has a similar theory

yeh man when will they learn indeed, we should be folliwing religious tribalism not caste tribalism :roll: when did i say i am proud about farming?

my my, this seems more like a personal problem than something to do with caste pride

oh come on whats the matter? so PC.....

this is to do with 4 varnas, which have not been mentioned yet in this conversation lol

the problem i see with these translations is that they r probably based off the ones the chrtistain missionaires made during the british raj so due to the protestant influence, words like har get directlytranslated to god or lord, whereas they don;t exactly mean the same god as christian god. the translations are trying to portray crhistian god, but the bani is saying har.

so u r implying by bein jatt i ave inherited the kisaan profession? Do you feel iut wrong if someone says they are jatt, or maybe have some maan from it? I just want to know why I should be so PC about it? Well I didn;t mention the khalsa, but it is definetly a norm in all the pinds. I do not see what sikh has to do with humanity forgetting its cultures and traditions, this is more something invading mohammedans would preach perhaps?

pride or no pride, i do not see why i should deny i am jatt. also the jatts that asked fro payment, were they the brars perhaps? Also i do not see jatts crying over the deeds of a few jatts.

accha, so maybe u can tell someone what heritage one belongs to? jatts are also followers of dharma, and please tell me what i am supposed to be disillusioned about, is it some sore of pride you are accusing me of?

lol its scares people that are paranoid towards hindus hehehe

lol i went to a catholic school straight after i left a sikh school, boy that messed my thinking up, made my thoguht proper christianised about sikhi. and well, about disciples, i would call akjs disciples of bhai randhir singh, would that be wrong? i have seen this christianised tribal mentality being taught by boss and sikh societies.

lol i went to a catholic school straight after i left a sikh school, boy that messed my thinking up, made my thoguht proper christianised about sikhi. and well, about disciples, i would call akjs disciples of bhair randhir singh, would that be wrong?

so you would agree it is ok to have pride in ones heritage, or would just seem as pride of ones jaat? For example may i have pride in my jatt heritage, including warriors shaheeds and kings, or am i not allowed to? lol

well this also then includes the sikh label, its only in british times and their consensues plus tribal menatlity that made people say they belong to the sikh group or religion, where before it wasn't important and not all followers called themselves sikhs.

Again, the preaching about not using caste like this to me seems to be teaching of SGPC, whereas I don;t think hazoori or nihang sikhs or any other sampradaiye would be worried at all. Of course there are other reasons sikhs go on about castes.

you are not authentic bhatra sikh, u r influenced by sgpc sikhi loool

i think they do archery on the floor below during Nihang Niddar Singh's classes, if you go to the balcony behind the curtains in Cranford Community lol. (This was when classes were at normal time)

its pohti, thats either got a really big gutka or a granth. Not sure what it is.

lol Yes Sant Baba Didar Singh were outside Harkhowal. It all stems from issues like gurdwara control lol Anyway, I do have a question. I wanted to ask what is in the pothi the Baba Ji keeps, like Baba Didar Singh keeps a pothi? Is it a granth?