Coverage On Ravidassia Sikh Brothers

[dalsingh101]

Urrgghh. You were the one who raised improving lifestyles in your earlier post about it being linked to jattism and punjabism. My point is that it is not just unique to those subgroups. It's hard to have a discussion when people are not seeing what is being talked about and jumping on individual sentences.

Urrggghh! You don't get it. I'm saying that this trend exists in jatts with the volume turned on maximum. They in turn form the majority of the panth and hence they give it this flavor.

If we had not built up our army like we did in the early 19th century then the british would have invaded sooner. If you dont agree, please explain why.

I don't think it was as simple as you make out. If anything they would not have waited and watched as the army grew in strength and size like it did. By the looks of it, they were more worried about competent, strong, unbuyable leaders. Hence waiting for them to all die before attacking.

Unfortunately for us our politics was rubbish with a republican yet easily bought Khalsa on one side and a pissed off aristocracy on the other. In other countries this situation led to constitutional monarchies. For us it didnt as the british intervened. Game over.

This is where you miss the plot completely (and I thought you'd understood that Sikh Revolution book which covers this in some detail?) The Khalsa were easily bought off because they had lost something they had before in the earlier part of the 1700s that made them refuse to submit. It wasn't like Moghuls never tried to sweeten them up with jagirs etc. now was it. It was the replacement of loyalty over belief with loyalty over economic inducements. Thats why the former would rather die hungry in jungles and the latter lined up to give up their weapons for coinage despite being able to easily bog down goray in any subsequent guerilla war.

What alternative would there have been if we hadnt had land reform or industrialised? We would have been overrun by those who had, whether it was the brits or someone else. Can you give me any example in history where an agricultural state has beaten an industrialised power?

I think you over estimate (by a large way too) the level of industrialisation in M. Ranjit Singh's kingdom myself. A few foundaries does not a nascent industrialised civilisation make. Truth is, following your idea, we can pretty much guarantee, whites (who we would have had to go to for know how) would have turned Punjab into a dirty sweatshop, complete with cruel, nasty, indigenous overlords and hordes of dying poor (at best). You think wasps (or any other industrialised white people around then) would have given us any advantage or not tried to subtly screw us over.

Talk about over simplification. In europe all we are seeing is the same thing that the arabs went through 500 years ago: collapsing empires due to the inability to control world trade. Even then Germany and Russia wont be too affected. Britain and France on the other hand have a long way to fall considering how well off they once were. As for the north americans, well they have plenty left in them. I wonder how many times sikhs have sat around thinking something will happen just because of 'how it looks from here', without taking into account trends or a variety of sources.

All we need is diverse economy, not a f**king farming obsessed one like now. Some people were on the right track in Ludhiana with factories but even they got squeezed out. Truth is, in a peasant led society, being peasants, they have totally neglected arts, culture, media, philosophy, technology. No investment in any R&D. So we have the current situation. Notice how Badal's son probably reads forums like ours and lately that quarter seems to be pushing in all directions with talk of investment in x, y and z. Whether this is too little too late, no one can tell. But if he is opening the film industry up in Panjab lets hope it doesn't lead to even more dumbed down jatt films, turning people even more stupid than they are already?

I dont have a problem with people dissecting what I say. What I dont like is trying to explain the same thing again and again for people to take one thing they dont quite get and go off at a tangent.

Try to be less ambiguous then.

And I'm saying that the present conditions and world wont let you get very far. Chicken or egg?

Nothing you are saying is convincing me that we need to stop being overly materialistic arseholes before we make a move. We got no (or very little) soul left any more. This effects cohesion, cooperation etc. Which in turn creates a society in competition with each other, not outsiders.

I think you need to read a bit deeper into what I'm saying. PEOPLE FROM RURAL ENGLAND HAVE THE SAME ACCESS TO EDUCATION AS THE REST OF THE ENGLISH. Do people from the rural 3rd world have access to good education? No. So why is it that developed nations have better education systems and clever people? Could it be, a very, very, very slim possibility that part of their development led to this system and the need for clever people?!

Well it can't be that good because they've had to drain the third world for brains for ages to keep their NHS up for instance. You don't realise that rural peasants aren't f**king poor as you make out. Many of them are infact the richest people in Panjab. Hence that high status they can't stop going on about. Truth is, these people frequently end up WASTING their money on dumb stuff. They are stuck in a rubbish culture of their own making, that is what stops them smartening up. Not lack of opportunity. They have more of this than a lot of people in Panjab and indeed India. They can learn whatever you teach them pretty well, if not better than most wc goray. They just have dumb worldviews they inherit. That is what holds them back.

So all 20 million sikhs are like this?

No but a hell of a lot are. Enough to make it a thing that reflects us. We don't have near enough progressive people because people are sticking to tribalism - not lack of education. If you think about it, Sikhi itself is an education against what we do in practice as a society. That's how much we've lost the plot.

Look industrialisation (or anything else) before resolving our our social/spiritual ills is only going to corrupt those innovations. In all of this you just ride roughshed over even trying to face up to the the ills we have going on between us. Maybe you see it as a result of the current set up? I don't, I see the current set up as the result of this problem.

The first thing to nail is that cut throat, jealous attitude inherent in our people. This is the biggest obstacle to our progression. That is a spiritual problem. If it takes us breaking down to absolute shite gutter level for us to learn this lesson. Then what can we do?

If you want to talk about the times of our Gurus then it was different back then - we were much smaller and tighter as a nation. This is the 21st century where things are a bit more serious, running around like its still the 1600s wont help anyone in the end.

What being on the receiving end of Moghul crap wasn't serious? Every argument you pull out just makes me think we need to develop strong independent communities away from Panjab. Nothing else. That place is like a toxic pendu run, time bomb right now. It's got everything going for it in the world compared to other Indian states yet still our people manage to mess it up??

Just as a side note. Notice how the Taliban running around like 16th century jihadis is giving whitey drama.

Edited February 13, 2011 by dalsingh101

[dalsingh101]

20 million people. You wont even get close to a majority of that. Especially without the infrastructure of a community/nation/state.

With some decent sants and parchaar it's more possible than what you are suggesting in my eyes.

And the rest of the world will be happy to just sit back and let us sort ourselves out?

We'd better get used to out smarting them then (for a change)!

All the people I have met like this come from religous families, not rural ones.

No, they usually come from religious rural families. Or those acting religious anyway.

By the way, I realise there is a good chance I've probably misunderstood much of what you've said given your previous comments. If so, I think it's best to put it down to coming from two very different places.

Edited February 13, 2011 by dalsingh101

[jaikaara]

je kar lo gal ! pinda 'ch zaat di problem ik taraf appa pahuche ne germany te japan...hahahahaha...veers this problem is very serious, and its going to snow ball into something so large, we will regret it.

[dalsingh101]

Jaikara, give us a perspective from ground level India on the jaat paat issue if you can. Would be interesting to get another perspective.

[jaikaara]

the truth of this perspective is harsh, one side is the dominant zaat some of whom claim upper level as per the caste hierarchy. The dominance of these so called high castes in the management gurdwaras has led to distortion of the actual values of sikhi or humanism at times.

However this caste bias is upto the lowest level, the backward caste dislike the dalits, the dalits again get bifurcated into churrha , chamar etc. The chamar wont give his daughter to the churrha.

The recent caste wars are amongst the so called lower strata, there is absence of the brhman khatri factor.

The urban dalit mindset has now been self pity based.AT times over reacting also and they have a lack of leadership, in fact lack of good leadership who can make them arise from their current situation.

In the pinds caste dominance is rampant, deriving the low castes of basic amenities is visible in states like U.P. BIHAR, MADHYA PRADESH, RAJASTHAN, HARYANA and Punjab.

The way the Ravidassia issue was handled has given rise to creating militant mindsets amongst ravidassi brothers be it sikh or hindu.

[HSD1]

Urrggghh! You don't get it. I'm saying that this trend exists in jatts with the volume turned on maximum. They in turn form the majority of the panth and hence they give it this flavor.

This trend exists in all sikh subgroups. Just because jatts are the 'majority' in a people who are not meant to do caste it is a mute point. Concentrating on why the problem exists rather than playing the caste card is a better way to go about it. No one takes people seriously if they blamed everything on fair sikhs or the older generation etc.

I don't think it was as simple as you make out. If anything they would not have waited and watched as the army grew in strength and size like it did. By the looks of it, they were more worried about competent, strong, unbuyable leaders. Hence waiting for them to all die before attacking.

Well they had to cement their rule on central and northern india first, before turning to us. When they had, they saw that the Khalsa had gone from a whole load of cavalry to a diverse, advanced and well drilled army. Plenty of other indian countries had competent unbuyable leaders, but they were steamrolled by the EIC war machine.

This is where you miss the plot completely (and I thought you'd understood that Sikh Revolution book which covers this in some detail?)

I've only got up to page 200. The book is good, albeit with all it's spelling and grammatical errors. With a bit of polishing that book should be given to all young sikhs to read.

Having said that the book is simplistic and ultimately flawed. Like many sikh scholars the author latches onto one thing and decides that is the one and only reason for a thing to happen (linking spirituality to resistance) whilst most other academics the world over give a variety of reasons for things happening and explain which is more important. Comparing the war with the Mughals with the war with brits is ultimately as stupid as comparing the war with the brits with the war with the hindustani government two decades ago. When the sikhs fought the mughals the economics of war were simple. Go get a horse, a sword, a simple firearm and some supplies and do the 2 and a half strike theory on them. The book even acknowledges that the mughals stopped fighting the marathas and bengalis in order to concentrate fighting sikhs. Why was this? Because all the mercenaries, scholars, islamic missionaries and supplies to uphold an islamic state came through northwest india (Kabul-Peshawar-Lahore-Sirhind-Delhi). Sikh operations cut this supply. Anyone who knows anything about war knows that no army can survive for long without supplies. The mughals, for all their armies and institutions could not survive if their losses were not replaced. The war with the british was inherently different. Gun technology had moved on. Artillery went from a siege weapon to being a vicious game changer on the field of battle. Armies had changed. If sikhs had not modernized we would have gone the same way as the native americans/scots/zulus etc. Line regiments ruled the battlefield - cavalry had become just one arm of the military. Just because the war with the mughals and the war with the british both happened a long time ago does not mean they were the same. If we take what got us victory in the mughals wars and move it over to the british wars you'll see the differences. British india's supplies did not come through north west india - they came straight from britain to india up the grand trunk road. If sikhs had wanted to disrupt their supplies we would have needed to control Sindh and have a navy in order to fight the royal navy who were transporting all the supplies to india. When the british attacked Punjab our supplies, factories, foundries and Regimental HQs were all taken over or destroyed at the end of the first war. Had we done anything to disrupt their war machine? No. A briton could walk into a regiment's recruitment station and be sent off to get his uniform and weapon made in the numerous factories around britain. Once trained he would have embarked at southampton or portsmouth on a ship built at one of britain's numerous shipyards. Disembarking in calcutta him and the rest of his regiment would have marched to the frontline in punjab along with many other regiments all doing the same thing. Not one step in that system was in any way affected by the Khalsa. Now try to think about the other way round, from a sikh trying to join the sikh army. Many parts of our system had been destroyed. How could sikhs fight a guerilla war without leadership and supplies? The british would have just occupied all the village forts we had built and worn us down in a battle of attrition. You might not have a problem with soldiers raping and terrorising a population but most sikhs back then did. The muslims would have joined the british in droves to get a chance to subjegate the sikhs. We would have been annihilated. Why did so many of your generation not fight to the death in a guerilla war with the indians? Deep down you knew that even if all the sikhs had joined together it still may not have been enough when we live in a world where a tank regiment or helicopter squadron can massacre thousands.

The Khalsa were easily bought off because they had lost something they had before in the earlier part of the 1700s that made them refuse to submit. It wasn't like Moghuls never tried to sweeten them up with jagirs etc. now was it. It was the replacement of loyalty over belief with loyalty over economic inducements. Thats why the former would rather die hungry in jungles and the latter lined up to give up their weapons for coinage despite being able to easily bog down goray in any subsequent guerilla war.

Comparing the totalitarian islamic mughals with the compromising christian brits is again riding roughshod over the details. Mughals did offer jagirs, but only if you laid down your arms and converted to islam. The british were practicing divide and conquer rather than assimilation so they had no need to demand conversion as they knew this would upset the sikhs and force many of them to keep their arms. The british were clever enough not to fall into the same traps that the mughals had. Even today many people use 'soft' tactics against us as they know how turbulent we can be. Sikhs back then were probably taken in by the fact the british did not liquidate sikhs areas they overran, something the mughals had tried often.

I think you over estimate (by a large way too) the level of industrialisation in M. Ranjit Singh's kingdom myself. A few foundaries does not a nascent industrialised civilisation make. Truth is, following your idea, we can pretty much guarantee, whites (who we would have had to go to for know how) would have turned Punjab into a dirty sweatshop, complete with cruel, nasty, indigenous overlords and hordes of dying poor (at best). You think wasps (or any other industrialised white people around then) would have given us any advantage or not tried to subtly screw us over.

I think that your upbringing in britian has affected your stereotypes more than you know, Mr Orientalist. London from 1750-1914 was not just full of rag wearing urchins and english bints in dirty corsets walking around cobbled streets lined with factories pumping dark smoke into the sky like some Jack the Ripper/Sherlock Holmes movie. That's just the image that some people have. Many parts of London were fine. Lahore would have had its industrialised areas, but it would have had plenty of non-industrialised parts. The countryside would have still been the countryside.

As for our state of industrialisation, unfortunately only those industries linked to war did well, and without any access to ports we were never going to be able to trade properly. But our industries we did have were as good as if not better than the west. You do know that sikh cannons were cast so well that they could fire 2 or 3 shells at once because they could handle more gunpowder? When the british tried this with their own cannons the barrels exploded. Sikh gunpowder was also better than the british one, as british engineers who tried using sikh cannons that were brought back to calcutta ended up killing themselves whilst trying to fire british ordnance from the cannons.

Read my post 50 were I explain to kdsingh why Punjab was industrialised for its time. I could go on and I will. Do you have the Osprey sikh book? In there you can see many of the sikh uniforms from the 19th century. Where was all the fabric for these uniforms processed and made? Where were the dyes made? Look into dyeing cloth in the 19th century and see what an important part of industrial revolution it was. We had that. What about wagons for moving supplies? Tents? Uniform buttons? Do you think all this just fell from the sky? This is why your belief in sikhs starting a guerilla war is so ludicrous, especially considering how far the Khalsa had fallen. Can you give me an example of a successful guerilla war back then? Before you mention the War of Independance in america, bare in mind that france bankrupted herself funding the war, and gave large amounts of arms, troops and ships to the american cause.

As for Punjab moving on with its industrialisation, your bigotry towards sikhs is showing through. Sikhs developed many new types of artillery shells without the assistance of foreigners, I cant remember the name of the engineer but he was a sikh. Would we have been beholden to the west for development? Well if we had a goreh lover moron like Maharaja Ranjit Singh in charge then yes. His lack of funding domestic enterprise and institutions, whilst giving millions of rupees to foreigners was the height of folly. The russians had Peter the Great and we got that little twat. Look into the how peter the great changed russia or japanese secret societies and trade missions to see how other countries caught up with the west in areas they were behind in. If you want to know how Punjab could have developed, face the fact that not all sikhs are stupid. No nation is full of brains, they just have systems to get the masses educated and make sure the clever have the ability to get as far as they want. We sikhs are no different.

Edited February 27, 2011 by HSD 2

[HSD1]

All we need is diverse economy, not a f**king farming obsessed one like now. Some people were on the right track in Ludhiana with factories but even they got squeezed out. Truth is, in a peasant led society, being peasants, they have totally neglected arts, culture, media, philosophy, technology. No investment in any R&D. So we have the current situation. Notice how Badal's son probably reads forums like ours and lately that quarter seems to be pushing in all directions with talk of investment in x, y and z. Whether this is too little too late, no one can tell. But if he is opening the film industry up in Panjab lets hope it doesn't lead to even more dumbed down jatt films, turning people even more stupid than they are already?

Come on big head, I dont think he reads these forums lol. But if he is I just have this to say: Badal could have turned east punjab into a powerhouse that would have been the gem of south asia. Instad he let it wax and wane. Now we deal with consequences. Our great parts of our history have always been when we have been independent and united, not beholden to others. Badal will go down in our history as the man who nailed the Khalsa's coffin shut. On the other hand, if he strived to give sikhs their independence or even autonomy he would have been revered in our history.

Nothing you are saying is convincing me that we need to stop being overly materialistic arseholes before we make a move. We got no (or very little) soul left any more. This effects cohesion, cooperation etc. Which in turn creates a society in competition with each other, not outsiders.

Our competition with each other has nothing to do with the soul. Any nation turns in on itself if it keeps losing to outsiders, history is filled with examples. Our internal strife is flavoured by the very people we lose to, such as it is with other groups who end up losing.

Well it can't be that good because they've had to drain the third world for brains for ages to keep their NHS up for instance. You don't realise that rural peasants aren't f**king poor as you make out. Many of them are infact the richest people in Panjab. Hence that high status they can't stop going on about. Truth is, these people frequently end up WASTING their money on dumb stuff. They are stuck in a rubbish culture of their own making, that is what stops them smartening up. Not lack of opportunity. They have more of this than a lot of people in Panjab and indeed India. They can learn whatever you teach them pretty well, if not better than most wc goray. They just have dumb worldviews they inherit. That is what holds them back.

Typical older generation response. I made a point that rural countries cannot match modern nations in education or institutions. NHS nurses, many of whom have been trained in colleges built with aid money from the modern nations is not a very good comeback.

As for money, do farmers in other parts of the world build schools even if they are rich? No. Why not? Because the farmers themselves arent particularly bright. So how are schools built? With tax money. So what if Punjabis are rich? It's the government's duty to tax them and use the money to build good schools. If the govt themselves are filled with rural idiots it will never happen. So again industrialisation seems to hold more solutions than problems. Industrialisation gets people off the farms and the rural mindsets, where they can then live off the produce of bigger and more developed farms. The increased revenue can be used to build the instituions and social infrastructure than can change a nation a lot quicker than just going on about spirituality.

No but a hell of a lot are. Enough to make it a thing that reflects us. We don't have near enough progressive people because people are sticking to tribalism - not lack of education. If you think about it, Sikhi itself is an education against what we do in practice as a society. That's how much we've lost the plot.

Look industrialisation (or anything else) before resolving our our social/spiritual ills is only going to corrupt those innovations. In all of this you just ride roughshed over even trying to face up to the the ills we have going on between us. Maybe you see it as a result of the current set up? I don't, I see the current set up as the result of this problem.

The first thing to nail is that cut throat, jealous attitude inherent in our people. This is the biggest obstacle to our progression. That is a spiritual problem. If it takes us breaking down to absolute shite gutter level for us to learn this lesson. Then what can we do?

Yeah and what makes you think that people will listen? Breaking us down to the gutter wont solve a thing apart from giving people more reason to leave. Do you think that Khalistan, if it was to fall from the sky tomorrow, wouldnt have a police force? A legal system? Jails? Some things are human nature. You may think that sikhs may have been such great types once and that was what led to them winning or it could be just the fact they did what had to be done to make a change in reality. I'm not saying there arent dangerous types among us who love fighting other sikhs along caste/political/colour lines, but these people need to be marginalised as they are just bigots. Developing ways to punish them in a non-violent way within the community would go a lot further than trying to change how they are wired. As long as we live in the west we will always have white/islamic/hindustani cultural forces tearing on us. Add to that the fact that anything goes in the west if you arent caught, it's not the best environment for what you're trying. But at the end of the day this spirituality is your baby. My point is that 20 million people are a complex force and one solution wont sort the whole lot out. Some want to know what the end result is before they commit, others want a sense of history vindicating them, others respond to patriotism/nationalism or other cultural notions. Being too simple about things can lead to absolutely nothing being changed in the end. Living in one of the largest sikh communities in the uk i can say (lack of) spirituality is one problem for some people, but for many others there is a lot of other issues.

What being on the receiving end of Moghul crap wasn't serious? Every argument you pull out just makes me think we need to develop strong independent communities away from Panjab. Nothing else. That place is like a toxic pendu run, time bomb right now. It's got everything going for it in the world compared to other Indian states yet still our people manage to mess it up??

I've already explained what I think about our leaders and why they do what they do.

Just as a side note. Notice how the Taliban running around like 16th century jihadis is giving whitey drama.

Lol, no. If your military strategy is to let foreigners invade you, then plant mines that kill like 1 person a day, whilst their airforce obliterates entire villages and their special forces rape and shoot their way through towns and villages with ease, then I think you need to give it a rethink. The taliban are only 'successful' in areas with natural covers like mountains and forests. Even then they rely on modern weapons from iran. Why you think that is how they were in the 16th century i dont know, you dont quite get the war. Do you think the taliban like fighting the way they do? If tomorrow the iranians offered them tanks, fighter jets and attack helicopters along with training, the taliban would be falling overthemselves to get it off them. But iran cant afford it, so the taliban will have to make do.

Another thing you have to consider is that afghanistan is not a normal enemy. When a country invades another it gets access to its resources, its industry, its skilled work force etc. Afghanistan has none of that. On a balance sheet, the side with expenses is filled with spending on equipment, fuel, supplies, bribes to foreign govts and the other side (income) is empty as they are not getting anything out of the area. So the west is losing money, money that could have held up its economy. I said it before and I'll say it again, this is the only way the taliban will win - make the war cost the west too much money. The world wars led to the collapse of western european empires, to be replaced by america who benefitted from selling weapons to them. America has now done the same whilst china just sits back and lets its armed forces grow at their own pace.

With some decent sants and parchaar it's more possible than what you are suggesting in my eyes.

Oi, that was my idea! Man, the things I've taught you its surprising I havent started talking like yoda or something.

No, they usually come from religious rural families. Or those acting religious anyway.

Rural? Inner city areas of the uk? Errr, no. Face it, over zealous religous families are not exactly the best at telling their kids what the real world is like. That's why you always here 'Oh she was such a good religous girl, cant believe she ran off with that muslim', from so many of them.

By the way, I realise there is a good chance I've probably misunderstood much of what you've said given your previous comments. If so, I think it's best to put it down to coming from two very different places.

Yeah thanks for that after I typed all this trying to explain it to you.

Edited February 27, 2011 by HSD 2

[HSD1]

the truth of this perspective is harsh, one side is the dominant zaat some of whom claim upper level as per the caste hierarchy. The dominance of these so called high castes in the management gurdwaras has led to distortion of the actual values of sikhi or humanism at times.

However this caste bias is upto the lowest level, the backward caste dislike the dalits, the dalits again get bifurcated into churrha , chamar etc. The chamar wont give his daughter to the churrha.

The recent caste wars are amongst the so called lower strata, there is absence of the brhman khatri factor.

The urban dalit mindset has now been self pity based.AT times over reacting also and they have a lack of leadership, in fact lack of good leadership who can make them arise from their current situation.

In the pinds caste dominance is rampant, deriving the low castes of basic amenities is visible in states like U.P. BIHAR, MADHYA PRADESH, RAJASTHAN, HARYANA and Punjab.

The way the Ravidassia issue was handled has given rise to creating militant mindsets amongst ravidassi brothers be it sikh or hindu.

How well off are these ravidassias compared to people from other castes? Do they own land and on average how much? How many are sikhs and how many are hindus?

[amar_jkp]

Majority of Dalits are Hindus in Punjab not Sikhs and all these Balan Dere aale are 99% Hindus.

What we need is to adapt Zionist policy of converting and helping people to settle down in Punjab.

And why cant our Khalisthani Sikh go back and settle down in Punjab what Zionist Jews do by moving to Israel.

We should set up our own Colonies and Villages .

All organization should work on setting up more Gurmat Academies and Taksaals.

[dalsingh101]

HSD, I'll read your stuff - When I have a straight week free.

But really, in the meanwhile, please actually spend some time with Panjabis, not 3rd or 2nd gen British ones, but ones from back home and actually get some real sense of the type of people that make up the majority of the panth. I think you're actually so far removed from them, that you need this to get a more realistic perspective on things.

In the meanwhile don't write another 2500 word essay in reply to this. Wait till I go through your other mammoth posts and respond to them please.

PS - if I've introduced you to the notion of orientalism in relation to Sikhs, don't get over excited and think I am suggesting that it is the only perspective that we should use to interpret the past and present (as useful as it is).

Edited February 27, 2011 by dalsingh101

[HSD1]

But really, in the meanwhile, please actually spend some time with Panjabis, not 3rd or 2nd gen British ones, but ones from back home and actually get some real sense of the type of people that make up the majority of the panth. I think you're actually so far removed from them, that you need this to get a more realistic perspective on things.

Like I said before, I live in one of the biggest sikh communities in the uk, if not the biggest. You go to the gurudwara and see depressed freshies, I see freshies around here wearing hilfiger jeans and converse trainers who seem to enjoy themselves. They say some stupid stuff but they are pretty harmless when put on the right track. It's all perspective.

if I've introduced you to the notion of orientalism in relation to Sikhs, don't get over excited and think I am suggesting that it is the only perspective that we should use to interpret the past and present (as useful as it is).

If by orientalism you mean the skewed glasses that the west looks at the east then no, it is not something new, anyone with a bit of education and ability to analyze things can see it.

[dalsingh101]

Like I said before, I live in one of the biggest sikh communities in the uk, if not the biggest. You go to the gurudwara and see depressed freshies, I see freshies around here wearing hilfiger jeans and converse trainers who seem to enjoy themselves. They say some stupid stuff but they are pretty harmless when put on the right track. It's all perspective.

Work on them then.

That's what it boils down to I guess. Maybe that's the bottom line, they simply want to enjoy themselves, not go to war or get embroiled in dodgy Panjabi politics?

If you are where you say you are, you should be spending more time working on the hordes around you than here anyway?

Edited February 27, 2011 by dalsingh101

[HSD1]

That's what it boils down to I guess. Maybe that's the bottom line, they simply want to enjoy themselves, not go to war or get embroiled in dodgy Panjabi politics?

If you are where you say you are, you should be spending more time working on the hordes around you than here anyway?

TBH loads of them have Sant Bhindranwale Ji pics on their phones and that kind of stuff which surprised me as I used to believe that many people over there didnt want Khalistan, many are clued up about things, others are just beyond hope. Knowing that many are with it is what has made me more vocal about nationalism and all that goes with it i.e. history, culture, political viewpoint, morals etc. But having said that our community does not like being told what to do by a 'young pup' as they say.

[dalsingh101]

I'm not really too impressed anyway. The only big thing to come out of a big Sikh area in the UK recently is Jay Sean.....

Truth is, it might be fashionable to show your (understandable) ire towards India by adopting Khalistani imagery, but these guys are unlikely to do anything more than utilise the iconography.

If K'stani struggle is ever to return it will probably be under very different global circumstances to what exist now. Sure, things can happen suddenly out of the blue like in Libya/Egypt (I still think Zulu had something to do with the latter myself), but it does appear to be unlikely right now.

In any case, K'stan or no K'stan, it doesn't make a difference to us resolving long standing social issues between members of Sikh and wider Panjabi society in my eyes.

Actually, as time progresses and I get to see more and more what type of jerks exist in positions of power in our society, I'm more and more put off the idea.

Then it (personally) comes back to my relationship with Sikhi (the faith) and I realise that many of people who go on about K'stan in reality, aren't really bothered about faith. To them the primary importance is political, economical - which is fair enough. But when I search my soul I know this is something I could never personally be very enthused about.

It is what it is, we are what we are.

[HSD1]

I'm not really too impressed anyway. The only big thing to come out of a big Sikh area in the UK recently is Jay Sean.....

Harlesden has a big sikh population? Lol I dont think it does.

Truth is, it might be fashionable to show your (understandable) ire towards India by adopting Khalistani imagery, but these guys are unlikely to do anything more than utilise the iconography.

If K'stani struggle is ever to return it will probably be under very different global circumstances to what exist now. Sure, things can happen suddenly out of the blue like in Libya/Egypt (I still think Zulu had something to do with the latter myself), but it does appear to be unlikely right now.

In any case, K'stan or no K'stan, it doesn't make a difference to us resolving long standing social issues between members of Sikh and wider Panjabi society in my eyes.

Actually, as time progresses and I get to see more and more what type of jerks exist in positions of power in our society, I'm more and more put off the idea.

Then it (personally) comes back to my relationship with Sikhi (the faith) and I realise that many of people who go on about K'stan in reality, aren't really bothered about faith. To them the primary importance is political, economical - which is fair enough. But when I search my soul I know this is something I could never personally be very enthused about.

It is what it is, we are what we are.

Unless you link Khalistan with how you want society to be. No one likes the issues we raise, many want them to go away or be resolved, but there is this 'what can one person do?' mentality amongst us. One thing I didnt raise in my earlier post about the sikh revolution book is that the sikhs who fought the mughals knew what they wanted once the mughals were gone. The sikhs who fought the british probably didnt want things to go back to how they were before the invasion with a king who owns everything, a warped aristocracy and having to go for months without pay. One of their reasons for fighting was xenophobia or patriotism, but none of them knew how to reform our empire. The sikhs who fought the mughals were told exactly what they were meant to build by our Gurus and that is the society they then created. We need to give people hope and a 21st century ideal of what we want to be - I'm not saying it should be based on my opinion but of every sovereign sikh in some kind of democracy. Give people hope and a clear idea of what is right and wrong and it can be achieved. Then its just getting our institutions to preach an anticaste, equal sex, pro female baby life, anti drug, pro education, equal colour, ageless, sovereign message.

As for my personal reasons for sikh nationalism, are not political or economic, but more a belief that what the british did to us went against the natural order of things, just like they did in the rest of the world. Our Gurus didnt come to this earth so we sikhs could be like we are now, it just doesnt make sense. Our leaders get powerful because we let them and then they sell us out because they (think they) know what's good for them. No sense of true honour, loyalty, patriotism or even an ounce of self respect. This is not the only reason I believe in sikh nationalism, but possibly the main one.

[dalsingh101]

Then its just getting our institutions to preach an anticaste, equal sex, pro female baby life, anti drug, pro education, equal colour, ageless, sovereign message.

This is where we part ways. I don't think that doing what is mentioned above has any connection to K'stan. A big question is why we aren't doing it regardless, an even bigger one is 'just how the heck did we get into the position to have to do this in the first place?'

Plus to imagine that similar or other equally ridiculous issues wont crop up with K'stan is failing to face truths about our people. Like I said, spend time with a lot more typical Panjabis and then think about it.

It isn't worth blaming outsiders for this mess, we have made it ourselves.

[jaikaara]

yesterday i saw a movie 'Pardes' by deepa mehta (was kinda wondering if it was sponsored by dalsingh veer ji ! )

but the wild side of punjabiyat is very well potrayed , i am not fond of that lady deepa mehta but this was the truth

[HSD1]

This is where we part ways. I don't think that doing what is mentioned above has any connection to K'stan. A big question is why we aren't doing it regardless, an even bigger one is 'just how the heck did we get into the position to have to do this in the first place?'

Because without political power we will never have religous or personal sovereignty. Why are we not doing it already? Because there is no reason to. It's not against indian law or western law. How did we get here? Well the gradual denigration of sikhs under Maharaja Ranjit Singh followed by the blitz of british indian rule has taken its toll.

Plus to imagine that similar or other equally ridiculous issues wont crop up with K'stan is failing to face truths about our people. Like I said, spend time with a lot more typical Panjabis and then think about it.

Issues such as? Just because you're pessimistic doesnt mean its going to happen, especially as many sikhs justification for nationalism is that it will be easier for govts and institutions to deal with these issues than individuals.

It isn't worth blaming outsiders for this mess, we have made it ourselves.

The mess you refer to has many causes, some due to sikhs others due to our interactions with outsiders.

Now go and read posts #56 and #57, enlighten yourself.

[chatanga1]

It isn't worth blaming outsiders for this mess, we have made it ourselves.

we have made it oursleves because of our trust in others, firstly the cis-sutlej sikh states trusting the british and allowing them access up to sutlej, rather than joiing forces with another sikh raaj. then you got the brits taking everything from everyone.

then our leaders trust the hindus, and we lose half our heritage in pakistan, and take an ass-whipping with it as well. the less said about after 47b the better. but we have made this mess ourselves.