HSD1

And here was me thinking that nationality/language/culture were meant to have no influence on our belief and understanding of sikhi. I'm guessing it only applies in certain cases.

Now, the Guru's bani clearly did not reject Hindu mat. Hindu mat, the devas, the avatars are all in Gurbani, explained exactly as per the philosophical school of Vaishnav mat which challenged Braminism critically. So here is a Singh Sabha biased article and it STILL has to acknowledge that purataan historical sources of Gursikhi are filled with sanatan Mat. Now from the sanatan perspective, it is the Singh Sabha whose viewpoint is wrong in suppressing the sanatan mat which is clearly demonstrated to exist in the history.

Actually it does. And when it does, you blame Singh Sabha for gurbani not being what you want it to be. Any actual evidence?

What was anti-Panthic about Gurbilas? Why the fact that it proved the purataan historay of Sikhs is sanataan. And for this reason it was "banned."

Did it prove it? more like this is more genuine silliness from yourself. What makes you think that you know what our Gurus intended for our religion? Just because you write ridiculously long posts shows your genuine fanaticism about hindu loving. Seriously, go get some help.

What if it isn't brahminism at all, but Vaishnav sanatanism, and what if it actually is original to Gursikhi? It would explain all the sanatan footprints in Sikh history, the original sanatan Singh Sabha, and even the sanatan references all over Gurbani.

What if all the cutting, pasting, deletions, editing, banning, and denials are trying to cover-up one of the most logical truths...

Sikhism is part of Sanatana Dharma. And only because of association with the British Raj who tried to divide India using sepoys to internally fight with Hindus and Muslims to prevent Indian independence. The British Raj were the birth of the Singh Sabha movement and massive distortions of Sikhism.

The british didnt care after beat the sikhs, as long as they held most of our religous artifacts. Muslims and hindus did incredibly well under the british. Hindustan wouldnt exist without them. Why are so many hindustanis anglo-phobic? If it wasnt for the british, most of you would be sikhs or muslims by now.

Singh Sabha adopted a pseudo-Abrahamic world-view and tried to force Sikhism into it, claiming among such absurdities as Guru's rejected Hindu Mat (show me the pauri), Sikhism is monotheistic (prove it), Sikhism doesn't believe in miracles or reincarnation or devas (really?).

Singh Sabha is just the ideology left-over from the British that Sikhism is some kind of Christian-Islam and enemy of Hinduism, and that Jats are Aryan race descended from Pathans and Greek Scythians and have no association with Dravidic India.

Oh dear. Quoting Dr jakobsh? She is a silly cow. That just shows the massive ignorance underpinning your logic. Sikhi is monotheistic. What about Guru Nanak Dev ji taking the mick out of hindus in the ganges? On many occasions he showed the stupidity of hinduism.

By the way, we jatts are the descendants of Hunnic invaders who crashed into the punjab at a later date than the races you mentioned. All this gibberish about india this hindu that is annoying. Our Gurus told us that nothing lasts forever. People like you make me eager to see the end of the last bastion of paganism and superstition in this world. The true Khalsa will return, and we will shake the neo-Mughal State (hindustan) to it's foundations.

They all have Sikh names which are not even verified as being correct names. Which of these names points to them being Chamar when the entire sangat recognized them as Amritdharis from Jat caste?

LOL!How can they tell they were jatts. It also doesnt take a genius to give an alias of a sikh name. You use sheer ignorance to prove some of your twisted views, then take massive leaps of reasoning to justify others. It would be laughable if so many people didnt buy into these conspiracy theories. Give it time and the assasins will be revealed to have received payments from the indian govt.

Dal Khalsa demanded that Akal Takht and SGPC pay for high powered lawyers for the accused amritdharis. Imagine that. If this was an internal Chamar struggle, why would Dal Khalsa even care? Especially after their morcha threatening to attack sanatan dera babas while promoting Babbar Khalsa and KZF leaders. Yes, the plot thickens. But ridiculous excuses which blame the Chamars while justifying the murder are totally beneath the dignity of a civilized person, let alone a "Sikh."

HOW DOES THIS PROVE ANY LINK BETWEEN SIKHS/PAKIS/CHINESE AS I ORIGINALLY ASKED FOR PROOF OF?

I find people like you very annoying. You answer certain points by giving answers to questions i didnt ask. Other points you ignore in order to spew your propaganda. On Sikhnet the mods are very good at picking up on this. I hope the admin on here take note.

I linked China to Sikh militant groups because the weapons captured during operatin bluestar were of Chinese manufacture and because Sikh militant groups in Pakistan have been linked working with jihadi groups.

http://www.expressindia.com/news/fullstory.php?newsid=91741

You can also see indian troops using chinese weapons on youtube. America gives loads of equipment to pakistan, some of which ended up in khalistani hands. Are they supporting the dissolving of india too?

On another note, why should we care if china attacks india? Chinese ambassadors have visited Harmandir Sahib on many occasions (and not using commandoes or tanks!) Surely hindustan has plenty of hindus who can fight them off? Why dont they be like that maratha twat you mentioned earlier? Waheguru says nothing lasts forever. That includes hindustan. I therefore welcome our soon to be chinese overlords. Cant be much worse than hindus. I prefer noodles to cow piss as well.

Hindustan may "officially" have been created as a sovereign Nation in 1947. But Hindustan is an ancient land, with an ancient civilization which the Sikh Guru's were born into. It far predates Sikhi by several thousand years.

Sanatana Dharma is the religion of the Vedas. How old are they? The Vedas far predate the Abrahamic scriptures by thousands of years.

Well they are not linked are they? If so, then the Khalsa Raj of Maharaja Ranjit Singh and the Freedom Movement for Khalistan were part of the same thing - the sikh nation's constant striving for sovereignty.

You realize that the Sikh Army was very small, and only influenced area of Punjab. Most of the later annexations occured under Maharaja Ranjit Singh as collaboration with British, but British stabbed him in the back and that was the end of Sikh kingdom. Moreover, it was Hindu custom to give the first born son to be a Sikh. So how can the Sikh Army be thought of as having no relationship to Hindus when it consisted of them?

The sikh army punched well above its wait. Hindu resistance was crushed for centuries. When the Mughal empire showed cracks the maharattas (the only hindus with balls at the time) moved in. The Mughals messed about with them but then made peace as they wanted to concentrate all their forces in fighting us sikhs. Obviously we were a more potent enemy than the maharattas. Also, i have to correct you on many points. Maharaja Ranjit Singh's main expansion was in afghanistan after he signed a co-operation treaty with the british. His empire was already fairly large then. As for hindu's giving first born sons into the sikh faith, that happened on a few occasions when grateful hindu women were rescued from afghan and persian raids into india.

Shivaji Maharaj, ruler of Delhi conquered a far larger area than the Sikhs. This is not to diminish the glory of the Sikh Army, but realistically, the Sikhs never controlled all of India. For a brief time they were rulers of Punjab. Hindu's have been fighting off Mughal invasions for centuries, and the Sikhs were a historical part of that. But by no means were Hindus some kind of defenseless pacifists. The very martial traditions and even scriptures of the Rajputs became adopted by Guru Gobind Singh to rouse the Army of his Khalsa.

The Khalsa frequently marched on delhi and was unopposed. The maharattas also never ruled much of india. They used their cavalry to dominate a territory, but once the enemy sent reinforcements they scurried off. Look at the history of the portuguese colonies were masses of maharattas were slaughtered for nothing trying to take a village or two off a handful of european mercenaries. Oh and there was this hilarious battle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Assaye

Dont give me this gibberish that sikhs were the cogs in a hindustani war machine back then. We stopped the invaders of the north by ourselves, so people like the maharattas could run around killing peasants and calling themselves mighty hindu warriors.

The only ones twisting Sikh heritage are the Sikhs themselves who try to erase clear Sanatana Dharma taught in Guru Granth Sahib or to claim Rajput history, heritage, surname, weapons and military victories as all their own. Even gatka and shastar vidya come from the Rajputs. The fact that Guru Gobind Singh Ji adopted all these didn't mean he created something new. What He did was raise an Army from those same Hindu pinds defending the same Hindustan against the Mughal invaders.

If hindus created all that why did the sikhs do all the fighting? What were the hindus doing for 900 years? Can you prove that Guru Gobind Singh adopted anything off the rajputs?

At this point i would request the mods to step in and stop this hindu tarnishing of our faith and heritage. If it's allowed to carry on, some unfortunate home truths may have to be said to put these people in their place.

Hindu's as a religion didn't invade Harminder Sahib. Indira Gandhi did on the advice of her Sikh generals after the time of emergency when she abdicated democracy and established dictatorial powers for herself. In this same time frame, her son Sanjay who was married to a Sikh was talking about forced sterilizations and variety of other dictatorial abuses planned for entire populace. Not just Sikhs. So using Prime ministership of Indira Gandhi as reflective of Hindu Dharma is absurd.

Moreover, she was married to a Muslim, Feroze Khan. And Indian government felt Sikh militancy was being manipulated and armed by enemy states such as Pakistan and China and therefore a threat to internal security. Sikh-Hindu Unity is about reconciliation on the basis of spiritual principles and shared communal heritage. Why should brother fight against brother? Exactly what would Khalistan gain? Exactly what would terrorism against the Indian state or Hindu civilians gain? Indira Gandhi is long gone. Now the Sikh militants are involved in drug and arms smuggling and Pakistani jihadi militias. What exactly have they done to help Sikhs?

What if sikhs dont want to be part of hindustan? Why cant we have our own country? What have hindus ever done for us? Which sikh generals insisted on attacking Harmandir Sahib? The indian army and police are still involved in the imprisonment and killing of innocent sikhs. So much for unity.

Do you know why Macauliffe and Dr, Peshaura Singh are resented by the Sikh community? Because they have journals and books which establish academically how Singh Sabha adulterated and distorted texts.

Why don't you do independent research. Or better yet, try to academically refute it. Below is an excerpt from a Singh Sabha viewpoint. Nevertheless it offers a window into how much sanatan ideology exists in purataan Sikh historical sources.

More hearsay and half truths. Seriously get a life, you remind of those muslims who think that the jews are behind every bad thing. Like do you think singh sabha bogey men are going to get you?

Hindus and Sikhs are far more related than perhaps you realize. But a closed minded person can never change his understanding. Sikhs are NOT respecting Hinduism at all, because Punjab and Sikhi are being infiltrated by Islamic fundamentalist whose aim is to alienate Sikhs from the Dharmic heritage of purataan Gursikhi in order to cause civil war and political mischief in India. This is the force behind the Dal Khalsa morcha to intimidate and even support assassination squads from Babbar Khalsa and Khalistan Zindabad Force, all clearly represented in posters during their march in April. And of course, terrorist groups stationed in Pakistan and collaborating with Lasker e Taiba and Mujihadeeni groups working for military overthrow of the Indian state.

Do you have any proof? Or just more hindoo paranoid-hearsay-brainfarts?

So why wouldn't it be a concern that the very Dharma which the Guru Sahibaan fought and died to defend is now being trampled by people calling themselves as "Sikhs?"

Or by those ungrateful fools who were protected by sikhs and our gurus and now twist our heritage?

Just look at your own Gurbani and your own heritage. You cannot blot out your Hindustani heritage nor overthrow the precious Sanatana Dharma just like that. If you wanted to at least show real respect, would I even be posting here now? Because you show respect? Or because you are trashing? Why did I post? It was to protest all of your anti-Hindu hatred expressed here calling Sikh-Hindu Unity as "Anti-Sikh Propaganda.

Hindoostan was created in 1947. Sikhi outdates it by centuries. Sanatan dharma as you see it is a relatively new creature. This is just another example of how hindu inferiority manifests itself as paranoid psychotic dribbles by people like Harjas 'Kaur'. As you see it, Hindu-Sikh unity involves sikhs becoming hindus, sikhs fighting the chinese and pakis followed by allowing hindus to kill us in riots and drive tanks into our gurudwaras whenever they feel like it. That's not unity. It's abuse.

Oh and look how you blame Singh Sabha for adulterating our holy texts. Can you explain were you got all your quotes from then? Surely if Singh Sabha purged our literature, they would have taken those parts out of the Angs you mentioned? Oh wait, I see, you were twisting their meanings using selective quoting. I could quote the bible, war and peace or the sunday times and give skewed reflections of what was written in them. Were is your evidence that Singh Sabha actually changed any texts? It's obvious that your just upset that sikhi isnt as you want it to be.

Well at least we can clearly see where you all are coming from.

It's called sarcasm stupid.

The arabs who are mostly muslim have done away with their pagan past so it is hard to verify what their ancestors believed in. If the europeans weren't so sure of the history of their roman/greek/celtic/slavic pagan faiths, the hindoos would probably say the whites used to be hindus before christianity showed up.

Anyone up for spending a saturday afternoon with some pakistanis and chinese looking for some 'sanatan sikh' leaders to routinely assassinate?

Where do I sign up? lol

You people just can't get over the 'they stole our Kohinoor' mentality.

Now just hang on a minute. They bloody well did nick our stone. The b*st*rds.

All I ever hear is bullshit about how the young white male is being killed off in PC britain. Over and over and over again. How we asians/blacks are stealing his white women, taking his education out of his head (!), how we take his jobs and how we generally make his life shit. Do you agree with that? If not why are you defending them? At uni, I didnt steal any white women but i could have done with a bat to fend off those nympho's constant advances. I have been more than qualified for any job I have had. At school, white kids did not give two shits. They wanted benefits. The ones with brains expected to do better than sikhs because....well because they were white. They bemoan the fact they dont have an empire. So who is living in the wrong century? Look on facebook and see how popular 'Bring back the British Empire' groups are. They probably have some sikh members as well. How many 'Bring back the Khalsa Raj' groups are there? None. Face it, these people have major issues, which only multiply when you get them in larger groups. The poor white anglo saxon male moans because he cant go around raping and looting all over the world like his ancestors. I remember one posh bint I knew well at uni said she would have got me shot if the empire still existed when i wasnt interested in her. Maybe my experiences are just completely different to yours.

I am not an apologist for anyone - neither am I stuck somewhere in the middle of the 19th C. What I am trying to explain to you is that people are the same world over - mans inherent nature is the same, countries and people change i.e. Japan, Germany, Italy, Turkey etc as examples from this century.

And some things never change. Countries do stay relatively the same, even if the face of it changes.

You people are a joke, any educated Sikh would laugh at you, I am glad you are a tiny, unseen, insignificant minority. Organisations like Sikh Federation, whose end goal is a Sikh Nation, are working within the system, befriending MPs, and making many powerful friends in the process. You are just frustrated dreamer.

Oh so I'm stupid and dont have an education now. As for the Sikh Federation, talk about a bunch of old men who think the hindustani secret agents are about to jump on them for being too 'extreme'. Ironically they are about 20 years too late to start showing balls. Lets see how far they get with these grand schemes of theirs.

Bravo. And how are you doing that exactly, through funding their 'Invasions' via your income tax.

Oh clever. I would happily pay tax for chavs and muslims to kill each other. Shame the hindus werent involved, that would really make it worth it. (joke)

Fanaticism is global problem is not bound to one religion. All fanatics be it - christians, islamic/muslims, buddhists, hindus, sikhs, jaini, communist, socialist, capitalist, atheist all are threat to this humanity...!!. They do not need to be jailed in Guantanamo bay nor killed, their hate parchar and form of recruit has to be rooted out from the seed if you want to save humanity from religious zealots/fanatics...!

What makes you think that others (non-sikhs) want that? If we could get everyone to stop being a fanatic, I would be overjoyed. But others dont want that. They use and even love their fanatics. If you live in the west, what kind of person do you think is the foot soldier in your country's army? A reasonable chap? Or a psycho who has been told that killing in Britain is a crime, but killing Johnny Foreigner is patriotic?

How many hindus, christians and muslims are there? Billions? How many are fanatics? A small percentage.

How many sikhs are there? 24 million. How many are fanatics? A larger percentage than the others.

But do the number crunching. A small percentage of a billion is still a lot more than a fair percentage of 24 million. When two groups rub up against each other, its these people we need. Without them, the frontline moves to your doorstep. Are you ready for that? Being a hippy about what others want to do to us will do you no good in the end. At least have some respect for those who put their lives on the line for other sikhs and never look down on any of them, for they will fight for you Neo when no one else will.

Religious fanatics are cause for human suffering and bloody wars around the globe. For me twisted hate monger kharkhoo killing mona for not growing its kesh and taliban mullah beheading its people for not following sharia are one and same despite of difference in ratio.

A 'kharkoo' who kills moneh is a fundamentalist and not a sikh. I have made it clear what a fanatic is, and they are not fundamentalists. Anyone who fights the innocent, unprotected or other sikhs is an idiot and not a sikh. There are also a lot more causes of human suffering and wars than religious fundamentalism.

And if some other fooled mouth calls me fanatic, then you laugh in there face. Gotta love stubborn people.

I am sure you can use your own mouth to laugh at them.

Dont start threatening moneh either.

Wow. I find it pretty offensive that you would compare Akali Nihang Singhs with the Waffen SS. Thats about the most Adharmic group imaginable. Are you saying you really believe the Akali Nihang were like them?

Of course I am. I honestly believe that Akalis were blond haired, blue eyed germans who wore uniforms with the death's head on. They also all spoke fluent german, hated slavs and chatka'd wurst. They believed Hitler was their leader (forward thinking, eh?).*

*The above is an example of sarcasm.**

**By sarcasm I mean the proper definition of it, not some moronic notion of the word that some people who dont understand the meaning of anything will try to tar me with.

Seriously, people like you are idiotic. You honestly think I thought the bad things the Waffen SS did is what the Akalis had in common with them? Maybe it's my fault for thinking some of you actually have some brain cells, but I was actually referring to how the SS and Akhalis both fielded large military units. Both were also 'pure' in order to reflect what was perceived the pinnacle of each society's citizen.

Waffen SS cutting the beard of an elderly Jewish man.

Oh wow. How emotive. You really are a piece of work. Hindoos are renowned for being able to push people's buttons. Nothing like showing a beard being cut on a sikh forum to get people on your side. Unfortunately we saw through it.

The Waffen SS left a legacy of horror and repulsion by butchering millions. Are you saying fanatical intolerance is NOT a bad thing? How is this a good thing?

Fanatical intolerance? No I said Fanaticism. Get your facts right before you make yourself look stupid.

The problem with fanaticism is that it's blind. It's cultic, regimented, unthinking, unfeeling, blind obedience to evil authority creating unspeakable oppression. Is this what you think a sant-sipahi is? Someone who butchers entire racial and religious groups because they are different? Is that a quality of "strength?"

Stop putting words in my mouth. Is sikh-hindu unity about sikhs fighting all the hindu's wars and letting them kill us every time they want to riot? Oh and the part I put in bold above is an excellent description of hindustan. Couldnt have described it better myself.

That's a very sad definition of strength. One of the greatest qualities of strength is it's ability to be gentle, to be just and fair and decent. Butchering people is an act of weakness, not strength. There is no military victory in atrocities.

Not according to the Indian Army.

"Fanaticism is the cause of most religious hatred."Fanaticism

HAHAHAHA. At least you're good for a laugh. Now go on that link people. See how it gives definitions in black? And examples in blue? The examples themselves are just opinions. So there you go. What level of debauched machiavellian machinations that are at work in your mind is truly sickening. At least I can show others how people like you twist everything.

LOL, loving the use of apostles and apostates.

Welcome to the forum. Feel free to express your opinion.

Nice try with the ghetto types - I was refering to wannabe gangster type jobless bums - not under-priviledged white folk, who are actually trying to better their lot by joining the national army and serving their nation in the process - with a real job.

Is that a polite way of saying they want to kill ragheads? Maybe you should actually talk to these people you defend so boldly.

Me an island monkey? Not according to the BNP. I think of it like this: a Lion born in a pig sty is still a Lion. Make of that what you will.

You are implying that the British have not changed over time, bro, all nations do and have changed over time - no one is saying they have a clean slate (not even them - refer to the London Mayors slavery apology). But times change, no its someone elses turn for world domination, others like Italy, Mongolia etc have also had their turn, should we stay paranoid about them also?

The mongolians have no idea of their history, thanks to the chinese and russians giving them a skewed vision of their own history. Similar to how some hindustanis portray our history. As for the italians, they have a hard time keeping their trousers up so are not a threat to anyone. The anglosphere is alive and kicking.

Look at it like this. Every race aims to create a state. If this state is successful, it becomes a powerful state. If it grows even larger it becomes an empire. If it is an empire, history shows it takes 3 wars to bring that race to its knees. If its a powerful state or a consecutive empire (like the Khalsa Raj) it takes just 2 wars. Now the British Empire never lost any wars. The two wars which bankrupted it did not kill off the jingoistic numbnut patriots. So they still exist and reproduce. Hence the state of Britain today. These people will only respect others when they are showed they are not superior. That involves some humbling, usually with violence. Sucking up to them or pandering their cry baby nature will get us no where.

There is nothing wrong with our Bihari (you know, that place where Guru Gobind Singh was from) brothers looking for a better life, your parents or grand parents are guilty of the same thing, which is why you are enjoying all the benefits given to you by 'Island Monkeys'. Unless of course you are born in and living in Punjab, in which case, forgive my comments.

Benefits? Me and my parents work. All I am doing is taking back what they stole from the punjab. I cant believe you think they are giving us any sort of benefits. We died in their wars, they took our resources and changed our nation/religion so much it hurts me to see sikhs defend them. Do you really think they are sorry? I didnt choose to be born here. Now before you tell me to go back to my own country if i dont like it, i would happily go back. Unfortunately, time machines havent been invented. These island monkeys go on about how they invented everything, usually after someone else comes up with it. You see, my country ended at the Battle of Gujerat. The brits took my country, killed our people (including many of the akalis you are fond of), stole our resources, plundered our religion and heritage, skewed our faith, created propaganda machines that were inherited by Hindustan which are used to this day to control the minds of sikhs, treated us like shit for doing the jobs they were to lazy to do, subject us to varying levels of racism, carry on crapping on our beliefs and you want me to be grateful?! No wonder singhs in india were crying when they saw you, i feel pretty sad too now. Waheguru, what has become of us?

Foot soldiers of all armies have traditionally been from poor backgrounds (looked down upon) - inc Sikh armies, stop being a snob.

Seriously, if you hate 'whitey' so much, why are you even here? It may come as a surprise to you, but people are the same, world over.

Who was that aimed at?

Anyway, the reason the brits loved sikhs is because we fought so hard after swallowing their propaganda. Like come on, imagine if there was another uprising in the punjab for Khalistan, but this time people from all over the world came to fight for us. Wouldnt that make you feel that the cause was truly righteous? By convincing others to fight for them, the English became even more confident that they were the ones who should rule and were always right.

In Hitler's Mein Kampf, he clearly states the british empire would be used as a blue print for his Third Reich. He even envisioned an alliance of mutual respect before britain threw herself in with the french. They dont teach you that in GCSE History do they? No of course not. The british empire was all good and sweet according to them. They stopped slavery and built a railway across 'india'. Wow. So all the idiots in the rest of Hindustan could come to the punjab. Great. I hope an EU army beat these island monkeys and stick a giant railway network all over their supposedly beautiful countryside.

Woah, calm down Dalsingh, I'm on your side. One of the reasons i started this thread was to 'unload' the word fanatic among us.

Lets face it these 'fanatic' qualities are what made us so hard to conquer, and able to form a Khalsa Raj. These feelings and attitudes are not to be ridiculed, but should be embraced and respected. Hippy fundamentalist sikhs are allowed to do what they want, so why cant the other side be allowed to do what is necessary? In the end we will all be grateful. Anyone can call me a fanatic, all I will do is laugh in their face. To me it shows they fear my faith and resolve, which makes me even more difficult to defeat. That may sound bad to some of you, but I am what I am, so are many of the youth today. You cant just ignore us or say we are wrong, nothing is achieved by not facing those who are your brothers.

Lol, I meant being in control, not joining the bottom and working your way up. Anyone who joins the army as a private and doesnt specialise (ie is just fighting infantry) will have a tough time. However, i want sikhs in the units like the parachute reg, specialist areas or as officers. The only way to win is to take the reins and control the power. We dont have the numbers to do what the muslims did and create a parallel social pyramid.

Fordcapri on sikhsangat. Thats all I'm going to say about sikhs like him.

Now some of you have zombie plans *looks at Kaljug*, but now may be a good time to consider a 'BNP plan'. If the fires of race riots are stoked, are you ready to defend yourself/family/property/sangat/gurudwara? I now realise why old gurudwaras were built like forts. My local gurudwara wouldnt be much use in that respect. Something for the sangat to take up with their gurudwara committees?

Also, if whitey cant do enough damage to muslims with large numbers, they will target smaller groups. The hindus have proved how good they are at rioting in recent times so they can look after themselves. Are we sikhs ready to make sure no one tries it on with us? If not, get started you bloody fools.

After listening to that mini-speech I think we should remember all those sikhs who were/are still imprisoned for practicing sikhi and fighting to protect our history. May there sacrifices be worth it in the end.

It's good to see a topic where people are discussing in a civil manner.

My two cents with regards to the police is that at the moment they are very anti-sikh. I have been in dangerous situations with coppers which were made worse on a couple of occasions by over energetic 'sikh' policemen. I still dont know why they were gunning so hard for me, but they still ended up losing in the end. Do you know why? Because no matter how hard they sucked up or how much they chased after their own lot, it was never good enough for their bosses. So they never got promoted and one of them is now an unemployed fat singh sitting on his sofa moaning about his crap life. Regardless of my experiences, I echo Kaljug in saying if we want change we need to get educated singhs (i mean our kind of sikhs) in high parts of the police forces, rather than joining at the grass roots level. The same goes for the army and top universities like Oxbridge.

Recently that pie gulping fat arse known as Nick Griffin said that he had the army on his side. Now i know that the lower ranks in many regiments are the type to vote bnp and that many of the officers are naturally racist because of their snotty upbringings. Now if we had a sikh regiment in the army, things would be different. Even if the shit does hit the fan, we would have at least 700 sikhs trained well enough to protect our community. Alas, no one bothered setting one up. If we want to safeguard ourselves, we need to get people in the top of every branch of the country. And that means all of you! If you cant do it, dont expect other sikhs to either. Mind you, if you are not a student, i wouldnt recommend joining the TA at the moment as they have had just taken major cuts to their new recruit training budget.

The reason i say we need sikhs in the top sections is because we will never have the numbers to join and make a difference at the bottom. If we do this, it doesnt matter what the chavs think as we will be pulling the strings. If you are a well connected top police officer (not all clever/posh whites are racists, some even make good friends) you can sack the racists at your own leisure. When they are on the dole, their families will suffer, and you will have pushed these racists back to the bottom where they belong. Without a job or decent references they cant buy nice things, educate their kids or take advantage of opportunities. At the end of the day, it all boils down to knowing the rules of the game and being ruthless enough to go all out without remorse for those who wish ill on us.

Akalis were the pujaris of the main Guru Ghar, and Gurus laadli fauj, they were hardly the bezerkers!

Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't there at least 4 Akali Regiments in the sikh army before the Anglo-Sikh wars? If we had beaten the british at Mudki, they would have been at the vanguard of the sikh forces blitzing their way into british india.

As I said, one only has to spend time at a Nihang chhawnee to see our devotional Akali Nihangs are, and how much seva they do - its superhuman.

I can honestly say that aside from Baba Balbir Singh Seechewal and a few other singular personalities inc some academics, as a group, the most prem I experienced was from Nihangs, it was indescribable.

One Bajurg was so happy to see a young friend of my mine who was wearing a dhummalla (in Kalyug descended Delhi - as per local description) that he was insisting he take all his puratan shastar on his person (basically all that he owned)... it was really tear jerking - an old guard, happy to see some light in his fading days...

Like I said before, maybe it's something wrong with me, but I don't see the word 'fanatic' as derogatory. Anyway, what you mention is modern day stuff, in which case most of the sikh fanatics are in other parts of the nation.

The British have made Akalis out to be crazed, brainwashed fanatics, dying to find an opportunity to kill someone, this is far from the truth, they only used these descriptions to justify why their war was hard one.

Other than that, its a friggin war, what do you want, someone to put a haar on you! In war - Singhs become Singhs!

This isn't about what the british think. They portray people in many different lights, mainly as projections of things they see in themselves as well. As sikhs, we know that they were not crazed, brainwashed or psychopaths. But in the early 1800s, many of them probably had parents and grandparents who had been killed in the Holocaust the afghans inflicted on us. This obviously affected their outlook and even their motivation to become the crack troops of our army. Is that a bad thing? Many of the shaheeds of 84 and afterwards had suffered at the hands of the hindustani govt. Does that mean we cast doubt on why they fought? Of course not.

I find it offensive to benchmark Akalis - Dasmesh Pitas Akaal Purkh ki Fauj with fallable man made organisations.

Well I dont mean to cause offense, but the Akhalis were man made. From the time of Guru Gobind's creation of the troop to the regiments garrisoned on the borders of the Khalsa Raj, the Akhalis were a group of people who changed as time went on. When the Lahore Durbar went to war, they were the first in. The goreh say that was because Maharaja Ranjit Singh wanted them dead. I dont agree with this as the British Govt sends the SAS in first and the americans send in the USMC, not because they want them dead but rather they are the best. Ultimately, the Akalis were fallible. Their headlong rush to fight the british, without knowing who or what tactics/troops/equipment they would be up against led them into numerous disastrous battles. Many of the Akali regiments perished in the death trap that was Sobroan. Of course some of them survive to this day, but they dont control many gurudwaras, field forces of sizeable strength or prevent interference in their own affairs from outsiders. If we ever have a Khalistan, we could try to restore them as guardians of gurudwaras and have crack Akhali Divisions in the Khalistani Army.

The dictionary states the meaning of 'fanatic' as

enthusiast, zealot, bigot, hothead, militant. Fanatic, zealot, militant, devotee refer to persons showing more than ordinary support for, adherence to, or interest in a cause, point of view, or activity. Fanatic and zealot both suggest excessive or overweening devotion to a cause or belief. Fanatic further implies unbalanced or obsessive behavior: a wild-eyed fanatic. Zealot, only slightly less unfavorable in implication than fanatic, implies single-minded partisanship: a tireless zealot for tax reform. Militant stresses vigorous, aggressive support for or opposition to a plan or ideal and suggests a combative stance. Devotee is a milder term than any of the foregoing, suggesting enthusiasm but not to the exclusion of other interests or possible points of view: a jazz devotee.

The more a person strongly follows Sikhi , the more in him will be a sense of pride for his religion and he will not hate anyone. Becoming a extremist sikh cannot be compared to 'kharkoo' activity. When Sikhi 'thyself' doesnt preach hatred or elimination of other religions, How will a staunch Sikh would want to do so ?

The fact is you gave a definition of fanatic that is different to what you actually think the word means. Fanaticism does not always involve hate, but is also reactionary and wary of others. Like the Akalis who didnt necessarily hate the british or afghans but knew they were up to no good. Also, fanaticism is not fueled by an urge to eradicate other religions, but to protect ones own set of beliefs.

Could you also explain to me what you mean by an extremist and give examples? Unfortunately, in some sikh circles Kharkoos are considered bad and even criminal.

I dont agree to the term 'fanatic' to be associated with Sikhi. Being religious doesnt mean to be fanatic. Wearing the Baana or keep flowing beards and 3 feet kirpaans are signs of wearing the religious pride.Fanatic the word itself contaradicts with Sikhi.

No one said that a certain appearance makes you a fanatic. A few amritdharis like you described are very docile and lax when it comes to doing anything about anything. On the other hand, many moneh themselves are what I would call fanatics.

The clean shaven or mona sikhs are more fanatic than amritdhari sikhs. Aurangzeb used these types to send the Khalsa fauj back into lakhi jungle.

An interesting point. Personally, I think that moneh are more fanatical against non-sikhs, though in most cases this leads them to learn more about sikhi and they sought themselves out in the end. I have come across amritdhari fanatics who focus more on other sikhs, especially moneh. Maybe there is a link?

What do you mean by 'Aurangzeb used these types to send the Khalsa fauj back into lakhi jungle.'?

I don't think Akalis were xenophobic, they were simply wise and rightly untrusting of the British.

The fanatic part possibly comes from their open defiance of what they perceived as 'wrong', British were not used to seeing this crystal clear character and passion, hence they used the word fanatic.

Zealous would be a more accurate word to describe them.

But why were the akhalis untrusting? Its obvious the Akhalis didnt have an intelligence network across the subcontinent (or did they?).

The thing is as both of us are sikhs we will avoid using negative words to describe our ancestors. The truth is that the Akhalis were a mixture of Knights Templar/Waffen-SS/SAS, if we had to compare them to western equivalents. Now is that a bad thing they were fanatics? When I discuss with other sikhs why we won major wars against afghanistan when the whites cant, the consensus is always that our fanatics (Akhalis) were more fanatical than their fanatics (Mujahideen). Without them, we might not even be alive, or even worse we could be muslims (joke). Lets face it, most of the world's armies have special units filled with people that you wouldnt want to live near. In a time of war, however, the nation is grateful to them. Is that not accepted in sikhi?

On BBC 1 right now is a programme that should show people what really goes on in most non-middle class parts of britain. Will put the link up later if I find it on iPlayer or Youtube.

How racist do you think britain is?

Post 39 on that link is hilarious: '...many women (male and female)...' !?