A QUESTION FOR SIKHS
Amitabh Hajela
I have a brief question for Sikhs.
Most Sikhs understandably resent it when Hindus try to incorporate the
Sikh religion as a branch of Hinduism, or try to claim that "Sikhs are
the militant wing of Hinduism", etc.
I think there are two types of Hindus who do this; there are those who
are trying to say that Sikh beliefs, philosophy, customs, etc. are
directly traceable to Hindu beliefs, philosophy, and customs. I think
these are the people Sikhs probably resent most.
But there may be some Hindus who only mean to say that since the
ancestors of almost all Sikhs were Hindus, then "physically" or in terms
of their ethnic make-up, Sikhs are Hindus; i.e., Sikhs may not be Hindus
in a religious sense at all, but as descendants of people who were once
Hindus, they are "Hindu" in some non-religious, "other" sense. By this
token, most Indian Muslims and Christians would also be Hindu.
My question is, would Sikhs object to the latter viewpoint as well. If
so, why? Also, does having had Hindu ancestors mean anything to Sikhs
at all, or not?
I wanted to make the above question as bias-free as possible. My next
statement may have some bias - sorry about that. It's just an
observation that occured to me - Punjab (I'm talking about the whole,
pre-partition Punjab) had been ruled by Muslims for 1200 years. In that
time, massive efforts were made to convert the Hindus to Islam. These
efforts were made at all levels (local, informal, official, etc) and
were made in all ways (force, violence, persuasion, Sufis, etc.).
Considering that gradually the population of Western Punjab became more
and more Muslim as time went on, with most of the local Hindus
converting (which is why you have Muslim jats in those areas), and
Punjab as a whole effectively became a muslim-majority area even before
Guru Nanak (even though the east Punjab was Hindu majority), isn't it
amazing that there were any Hindus left AT ALL, by Guru NAnak's time?
In spite of being a down-trodden minority in a muslim majority, muslim
ruled area, SO MANY Hindus remained Hindus, and refused to convert to
Islam, in spite of so many incentives to do so. It was out of THESE
HIndus that the Sikhs were born; in other words, somehow, the ancestors
of today's Jat Sikhs, for example, remained Hindu long enough, resisted
conversion to Islam long enough, so that the Gurus could be born and
make them Sikhs; if those Hindus had converted to Islam earlier, given
in to every temptation and incentive to do so, there would have been no
Hindus for the Gurus to make into Sikhs. So, doesn't that mean that
those Hindus (the ancestors of today's Sikhs) must have valued Hinduism
enough (before Sikhism existed) not to become Muslims?
Amitabh Hajela
Kanwar Dhaliwal
Amitabh Hajela wrote:
>
> I have a brief question for Sikhs.
>
> Most Sikhs understandably resent it when Hindus try to incorporate the
> Sikh religion as a branch of Hinduism, or try to claim that "Sikhs are
> the militant wing of Hinduism", etc.
>
> I think there are two types of Hindus who do this; there are those who
> are trying to say that Sikh beliefs, philosophy, customs, etc. are
> directly traceable to Hindu beliefs, philosophy, and customs. I think
> these are the people Sikhs probably resent most.
Rightfully so, because they are two seperate religions. Not putting down
Hinduism so no flames please.
>
> But there may be some Hindus who only mean to say that since the
> ancestors of almost all Sikhs were Hindus, then "physically" or in terms
> of their ethnic make-up, Sikhs are Hindus; i.e., Sikhs may not be Hindus
> in a religious sense at all, but as descendants of people who were once
> Hindus, they are "Hindu" in some non-religious, "other" sense. By this
> token, most Indian Muslims and Christians would also be Hindu.
>
> My question is, would Sikhs object to the latter viewpoint as well. If
> so, why? Also, does having had Hindu ancestors mean anything to Sikhs
> at all, or not?
For that matter, all of us are descendants of Adam and Eve or whoever
they were. Different communities evolve differently over many
generations due to geographic, cultural and adaptation differences.
>
> I wanted to make the above question as bias-free as possible. My next
> statement may have some bias - sorry about that. It's just an
> observation that occured to me - Punjab (I'm talking about the whole,
> pre-partition Punjab) had been ruled by Muslims for 1200 years. In that
> time, massive efforts were made to convert the Hindus to Islam. These
> efforts were made at all levels (local, informal, official, etc) and
> were made in all ways (force, violence, persuasion, Sufis, etc.).
> Considering that gradually the population of Western Punjab became more
> and more Muslim as time went on, with most of the local Hindus
> converting (which is why you have Muslim jats in those areas), and
> Punjab as a whole effectively became a muslim-majority area even before
> Guru Nanak (even though the east Punjab was Hindu majority), isn't it
> amazing that there were any Hindus left AT ALL, by Guru NAnak's time?
A lot of Hindu population survived the Mughals wrath especially in the
neighbouring state of Kashmir.
> In spite of being a down-trodden minority in a muslim majority, muslim
> ruled area, SO MANY Hindus remained Hindus, and refused to convert to
> Islam, in spite of so many incentives to do so. It was out of THESE
> HIndus that the Sikhs were born; in other words, somehow, the ancestors
> of today's Jat Sikhs, for example, remained Hindu long enough, resisted
> conversion to Islam long enough, so that the Gurus could be born and
> make them Sikhs;
Sikhs didn't come from just the Hindus of Punjab, they came from
Kashmir, UP , Deccan area and a lot of other areas wherever Guru Nanak
travelled thru in his "Udasian" (journeys). According to your logic,
there would have been a lot more Sikhs today if the Mughals spared more
Hindus to work with.
> if those Hindus had converted to Islam earlier, given
> in to every temptation and incentive to do so, there would have been no
> Hindus for the Gurus to make into Sikhs. So, doesn't that mean that
> those Hindus (the ancestors of today's Sikhs) must have valued Hinduism
> enough (before Sikhism existed) not to become Muslims?
I'm sure they valued Hinduism but they werent strong enough to challenge
the Mughals.
Hoardes of Hindus were forcifully converted to Islam and the ones that
were left by the time Sikhism came into existence were protected by Guru
Teg Bahadur by giving his own head. One thing is for sure, Sikhs were
the first in that area to militarily resist the Mughals. All this is
recent history(250-300 years) and needs no proof. I hope I answered your
question.
KSD
>
> Amitabh Hajela
Prabhdeep K Bajwa
In article <33082F...@eclipse.net>,
Amitabh Hajela <aha...@eclipse.net> wrote:
>I have a brief question for Sikhs.
>
>Most Sikhs understandably resent it when Hindus try to incorporate the
>Sikh religion as a branch of Hinduism, or try to claim that "Sikhs are
>the militant wing of Hinduism", etc.
>
>I think there are two types of Hindus who do this; there are those who
>are trying to say that Sikh beliefs, philosophy, customs, etc. are
>directly traceable to Hindu beliefs, philosophy, and customs. I think
>these are the people Sikhs probably resent most.
>
>ancestors of almost all Sikhs were Hindus, then "physically" or in terms
>of their ethnic make-up, Sikhs are Hindus; i.e., Sikhs may not be Hindus
>in a religious sense at all, but as descendants of people who were once
>Hindus, they are "Hindu" in some non-religious, "other" sense. By this
>token, most Indian Muslims and Christians would also be Hindu.
Very simple issue!! Sikhs resent those people who attack their
identity! When a Hindu says and "All Sikhs are Hindus" They are
attacking an Identity which Sikhs got from Guru Nanak and thus
Sikhs tell them they are not Hindus!
>
>My question is, would Sikhs object to the latter viewpoint as well. If
>so, why? Also, does having had Hindu ancestors mean anything to Sikhs
>at all, or not?
Again! Sikhs know that all of their ancestors were born Hindus but
they do not like attacks on their Sikh identity@!
>
>I wanted to make the above question as bias-free as possible. My next
>statement may have some bias - sorry about that. It's just an
>observation that occured to me - Punjab (I'm talking about the whole,
>pre-partition Punjab) had been ruled by Muslims for 1200 years. In that
>time, massive efforts were made to convert the Hindus to Islam. These
>efforts were made at all levels (local, informal, official, etc) and
>were made in all ways (force, violence, persuasion, Sufis, etc.).
>Considering that gradually the population of Western Punjab became more
>and more Muslim as time went on, with most of the local Hindus
>converting (which is why you have Muslim jats in those areas), and
>Punjab as a whole effectively became a muslim-majority area even before
>Guru Nanak (even though the east Punjab was Hindu majority), isn't it
>amazing that there were any Hindus left AT ALL, by Guru NAnak's time?
Long before Aurungzeb and other Mughal fanatic ruled Punjab.
A Saint named Sheikh Farid proletysize Islam in Punjab by preaching
Islam in Punjabi and it was in his time that many of the Hindus
converted to Islam. Well as well as others there were such simple reasons
to convert so that they can eat a meat by being a Muslim!
>In spite of being a down-trodden minority in a muslim majority, muslim
>ruled area, SO MANY Hindus remained Hindus, and refused to convert to
>Islam, in spite of so many incentives to do so. It was out of THESE
>HIndus that the Sikhs were born; in other words, somehow, the ancestors
>of today's Jat Sikhs, for example, remained Hindu long enough, resisted
>conversion to Islam long enough, so that the Gurus could be born and
If you look at history you will find out that at that time people
behaved not as Muslims VS. Hindus but elite vs. poor. Rich men such
as Jaswant Rai, etc were as bad as Massa Ranghar and Mee Mannu and they
did equally worse to Sikhs!
>make them Sikhs; if those Hindus had converted to Islam earlier, given
>in to every temptation and incentive to do so, there would have been no
>Hindus for the Gurus to make into Sikhs. So, doesn't that mean that
>those Hindus (the ancestors of today's Sikhs) must have valued Hinduism
>enough (before Sikhism existed) not to become Muslims?
More than Hinduism they valued their freeddom and their soverneighty!
(My personal belief)
>
>Amitabh Hajela
Again! For a Hindu Jut it is the Jut which values more than anything!
Just as it is for many Sikhs and Muslims! Hindu Jutts and Khatris
saw it as a threat to their freeddom and thus took to arms. Guru Gobind
Singh ji provided them with guidance and thus Khalsa was born.
Sandeep S Bajwa
sba...@fyi.net
sanji singh boparai
On Mon, 17 Feb 1997, Amitabh Hajela wrote:
> I have a brief question for Sikhs.
>
> Most Sikhs understandably resent it when Hindus try to incorporate the
> Sikh religion as a branch of Hinduism, or try to claim that "Sikhs are
> the militant wing of Hinduism", etc.
>
> I think there are two types of Hindus who do this; there are those who
> are trying to say that Sikh beliefs, philosophy, customs, etc. are
> directly traceable to Hindu beliefs, philosophy, and customs. I think
> these are the people Sikhs probably resent most.
>
> But there may be some Hindus who only mean to say that since the
> ancestors of almost all Sikhs were Hindus, then "physically" or in terms
> of their ethnic make-up, Sikhs are Hindus; i.e., Sikhs may not be Hindus
> in a religious sense at all, but as descendants of people who were once
> Hindus, they are "Hindu" in some non-religious, "other" sense. By this
> token, most Indian Muslims and Christians would also be Hindu.
>
> My question is, would Sikhs object to the latter viewpoint as well. If
> so, why? Also, does having had Hindu ancestors mean anything to Sikhs
> at all, or not?
>
For me, it means literally nothing at all that at some point I had
Hindu ancestors. In fact, this is the very first time in my 21 years that
I have thought about it. I don't think Hindus are inherently bad or
cowardly, but I am just proud to be a Sikh. I also recognize that
Hinduism and Sikhism have some basis of similarity, but there are many
important diffrences between the two religions.
> I wanted to make the above question as bias-free as possible. My next
> statement may have some bias - sorry about that. It's just an
> observation that occured to me - Punjab (I'm talking about the whole,
> pre-partition Punjab) had been ruled by Muslims for 1200 years. In that
> time, massive efforts were made to convert the Hindus to Islam. These
> efforts were made at all levels (local, informal, official, etc) and
> were made in all ways (force, violence, persuasion, Sufis, etc.).
> Considering that gradually the population of Western Punjab became more
> and more Muslim as time went on, with most of the local Hindus
> converting (which is why you have Muslim jats in those areas), and
> Punjab as a whole effectively became a muslim-majority area even before
> Guru Nanak (even though the east Punjab was Hindu majority), isn't it
> amazing that there were any Hindus left AT ALL, by Guru NAnak's time?
> In spite of being a down-trodden minority in a muslim majority, muslim
> ruled area, SO MANY Hindus remained Hindus, and refused to convert to
> Islam, in spite of so many incentives to do so. It was out of THESE
> HIndus that the Sikhs were born; in other words, somehow, the ancestors
> of today's Jat Sikhs, for example, remained Hindu long enough, resisted
> conversion to Islam long enough, so that the Gurus could be born and
> make them Sikhs; if those Hindus had converted to Islam earlier, given
> in to every temptation and incentive to do so, there would have been no
> Hindus for the Gurus to make into Sikhs. So, doesn't that mean that
> those Hindus (the ancestors of today's Sikhs) must have valued Hinduism
> enough (before Sikhism existed) not to become Muslims?
>
> Amitabh Hajela
>
>
Yeah, I guess. Does it matter? Are you looking for validation that
Hinduism is a religion worthy of respect, if practicesed correctly? I'm
not any kind of expert, but I personally don't see why not. After all,
doesn't the Guru Granth Sahib contain passages from people who were
ostensibly Hindus, as well as Muslims? When its all said and done, Sikh
and Hindu are labels, and labels peel off. Your soul will never leave
you.
Sanji
Pardee Sing
> make them Sikhs; if those Hindus had converted to Islam
earlier, given
> in to every temptation and incentive to do so, there would have
been no
> Hindus for the Gurus to make into Sikhs. So, doesn't that mean
that
> those Hindus (the ancestors of today's Sikhs) must have valued
Hinduism
> enough (before Sikhism existed) not to become Muslims?
>
> Amitabh Hajela
>
Sikhism was founded by both Hindu AND Muslim influence, not JUST
Hindu. It is a distinct path with it's own customs, dress, focus
on a monotheistic God instead of monkey's or erect penises.
Why do you feel a need to try to prove that Sikhism is a part of
Hinduism, what makes you so incredibly insecure about Hindusim
that you have to try to validate it? Hinduism is extremely
diluted and full of baloney on some levels, yet in some forms
it's highly enlightened - i.e. Vedanta. Yet the same can be said
of Sikhism & Islam, Sufis are head and shoulders above orthodox
Muslims.
--
Pardee.
Pardee Sing
Dear Amitabh,
You forget that the Sikh gurus themselves at times derided Hindu
icons such as Krishna, saying that if Krishna was God, how come
he was born from a woman's womb and killed by a mere arrow?
Furthermore, Guru Nanak said very clearly "There is no Hindu,
there is no Muslim, Ek Omkar." Your idea of Hindusim vs. Islam
vs. Sikhism is the height of foolishness because in reality these
are different spokes of a wheel emanating from the same hub. For
you then to conclude that even Islam originates from Hinduism
would be ridicuous. Bear in mind also that most armies that
invaded India did so via Punjab, hence the physical make-up is
not simply Hindu, you have a mixture of many races, Greek,
Persian, etc. This is why Sikhs often have a different physical
appearance from Hindus, lighter complexian, taller & stronger
build. Again for you then to conclude that all the folks in this
region originate as Hindus is also foolish considering the
intermixing of various races throughout history. Last but not
least, Sikhs today descend from former Hindus AND Muslims, many a
Muslim became a Sikh, for you to believe that Sikhs were all
Hindus is just a case of your ego with it's need for a sense of
superiority getting the better of you. You are probably suffering
from an inferiority complex, realizing that Hinduism is too weak
& diluted to be of any use.
realizing that Hinduism is too weak & diluted to be of any use.
--
Pardee.
R.K. Pooni
Z
Gurupdesh Singh
In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.970219...@ux8.cso.uiuc.edu>,
Before you start lumping your ancestors into this or that category,
do you care defining the meaning of "Hindu". Logically,
if you cant define "H", the statement "S belongs to H" is invalid!
Do you see the word "Hindu" as an geographical entity (as the term originally
meant - "People of the Indus") or do you see it in a essentially
religio-nationalistic light. This later interpretation is new and
has gained currency since the 19th century when certain western-educated
ideologues from the orthodox castes (OCs- 8%) created a new self-serving
political "Hindu" identity for themselves based on the claim that they were
the "Aryans". Their hegemonic agenda was to view southasia as a "one Hindu
nation" in which they (naturally) should be the rightful ruling class and
elites. These notions have since then been propagated by the OC-dominated
education system, media, and institutions (like the Arya Samaj, RSS,
Hindumahasaba). Prior to the arrival of British colonial rule, the various
regions of southasia were under the political control of different religious
and ethnic groups (castes) such as the Marathas, Jats, Rajputs, Sikhs,
Pathans, etc.
Also, there is no mention of a "Hindu dharma" in any original holy
Brahmanical texts. In these holy shastras, society is viewed
entirely through caste categories and religious, political, economic
and social rights are apportioned along caste lines. No overlapping
identity or sense of commonality among castes existed. The shudras and
"untouchables" (85% of "Hindus") were not given the right even to enter
Brahmanical temples but began to be dubbed "Hindus" by post-19th century OC
ideologues.
Also, during the period (1500-300 B.C.) Punjab had Vedic religion (worship of
non-Gangetic Aryan Gods like Indra, Rudra; the "granth" were composed of hyms
found in the Rig Veda; River Ravi was the "holy river"; Vedics Aryas of Saptha
Sindhva ate cows and were rather ethnocentric with respect to their
"Arya-Varta" and their Dravidian neighbors to the south of Punjab). Buddhism
began to flourish in the region around 3rd century B.C and Punjab remained
Buddhist till around 6th century A.D. (almost a 1000 years). Brahmanism
appeared in the post-Buddhist aftermath (correlated to the Hun invasions)
around the 8th century A.D. and was followed by Sufi-Islam after the 10th
century A.D.
So, according to a profile of objective history, Punjab and most of north
India historically has not been "Hindu" - in any religious sense till
relatively recent times.
The above is supported by the historical literature (Chinese, Greek, Persian
sources) and archeological finds in the pre-8th century A.D. period. All finds
in the Gandhara (ancient Punjab and Afghanistan) region are Buddhist and the
museums in Lahore and Islamabad are teaming with these Buddhist artifacts,
figurines, statues. Moreover, in all of south asia the oldest Brahmanical
temples do not pre-date 8th centuries A.D. (eg. Ajanta canes). So much for the
fictitious ancient roots of Hinduism in southasia. Most of these grand
historical claims about ancient Hinduism (really Brahmanism) is OC-sponsored
propaganda to support their southasia as "one Hindu nation" paradigm
and to support their political claims over non-OC communities and
religions.
Other OC pro-Brahmanical propaganda includes claims that Sikhism and Buddhism
(which totally reject Brahmanical Gods, idol worship, the Brahmanical
priesthood, the Brahmanical caste ideology, have their own places of worship,
holy scriptures, history, ethos, etc.) are "branches" of this indefinable
absorbing "Hinduism" (really Brahmanism).
Why not define "Hinduism" as a "black hole of religions" into which
all religion of the world belong?!!!
sanji singh boparai
this is a great post. I consider Sikhism to have similarities to
Buddhism, the Upanishads, the Bhagavad Gita. Not really a similarity to
Hinduism, as you define it.
Great post.
Sanji
R.K. Pooni
Z
Amitabh Hajela
Pardee Sing wrote:
> >
> Dear Amitabh,
>
> Sikhism was founded by both Hindu AND Muslim influence, not JUST
> Hindu. It is a distinct path with it's own customs, dress, focus
> on a monotheistic God instead of monkey's or erect penises.
>
> Why do you feel a need to try to prove that Sikhism is a part of
> Hinduism, what makes you so incredibly insecure about Hindusim
> that you have to try to validate it? Hinduism is extremely
> diluted and full of baloney on some levels, yet in some forms
> it's highly enlightened - i.e. Vedanta. Yet the same can be said
> of Sikhism & Islam, Sufis are head and shoulders above orthodox
> Muslims.
>
> --
> Pardee.
You missed the point of the question, Gomer. I wasn't even talking
about HIndu influence on Sikhism - I was just saying that the ancestors
of Sikhs were Hindus, living in a Muslim ruled, Muslim majority region
(undivided pre-partition Punjab), but yet they still refused to convert
to Islam. So, the logical conclusion is, they valued Hinduism enough
not to convert to Islam, inspite of every incentive to do so. The fact
that later on they found a religion more to their liking (SIkhism)
doesn't change the fact that they refused to become Muslim.
That's it - can you handle it?
Amitabh
Rajinder Nijjhar
In message <33082F...@eclipse.net>
Amitabh Hajela <aha...@eclipse.net> writes:
> I have a brief question for Sikhs.
> Most Sikhs understandably resent it when Hindus try to incorporate the
> Sikh religion as a branch of Hinduism, or try to claim that "Sikhs are
> the militant wing of Hinduism", etc.
> I think there are two types of Hindus who do this; there are those who
> are trying to say that Sikh beliefs, philosophy, customs, etc. are
> directly traceable to Hindu beliefs, philosophy, and customs. I think
> these are the people Sikhs probably resent most.
> But there may be some Hindus who only mean to say that since the
> ancestors of almost all Sikhs were Hindus, then "physically" or in terms
> of their ethnic make-up, Sikhs are Hindus; i.e., Sikhs may not be Hindus
> in a religious sense at all, but as descendants of people who were once
> Hindus, they are "Hindu" in some non-religious, "other" sense. By this
> token, most Indian Muslims and Christians would also be Hindu.
> My question is, would Sikhs object to the latter viewpoint as well. If
> so, why? Also, does having had Hindu ancestors mean anything to Sikhs
> at all, or not?
> I wanted to make the above question as bias-free as possible. My next
> statement may have some bias - sorry about that. It's just an
> observation that occured to me - Punjab (I'm talking about the whole,
> pre-partition Punjab) had been ruled by Muslims for 1200 years. In that
> time, massive efforts were made to convert the Hindus to Islam. These
> efforts were made at all levels (local, informal, official, etc) and
> were made in all ways (force, violence, persuasion, Sufis, etc.).
> Considering that gradually the population of Western Punjab became more
> and more Muslim as time went on, with most of the local Hindus
> converting (which is why you have Muslim jats in those areas), and
> Punjab as a whole effectively became a muslim-majority area even before
> Guru Nanak (even though the east Punjab was Hindu majority), isn't it
> amazing that there were any Hindus left AT ALL, by Guru NAnak's time?
> In spite of being a down-trodden minority in a muslim majority, muslim
> ruled area, SO MANY Hindus remained Hindus, and refused to convert to
> Islam, in spite of so many incentives to do so. It was out of THESE
> HIndus that the Sikhs were born; in other words, somehow, the ancestors
> of today's Jat Sikhs, for example, remained Hindu long enough, resisted
> conversion to Islam long enough, so that the Gurus could be born and
> make them Sikhs; if those Hindus had converted to Islam earlier, given
> in to every temptation and incentive to do so, there would have been no
> Hindus for the Gurus to make into Sikhs. So, doesn't that mean that
> those Hindus (the ancestors of today's Sikhs) must have valued Hinduism
> enough (before Sikhism existed) not to become Muslims?
> Amitabh Hajela
Hindu is one who knows his "HOND", the tribal identity and residence.
Sikh is a student, who learns spiritual knowledge through SHABD.
Khalsa is a philanthropist who fights for the honour of the oppressed.
Apostles or Nirmallae Sants preach NAAM through Akaal Takht.
Har Mandir Sahib Complex is for the Sikhs and the Nirmallae Sants.
NO KHALSAS OR WEAPONS ARE ALLOWED INSIDE THE HOLY COMPLEX.
Rajinder Nijjhar
DEEPAK AWASTI
Pardee:
There are many who would argue that the Sikh faith, along with
Buddhism, Jainism, Zoroastrianism and others are a part of the Hindu
faith. This obviously offends many who consider their faiths as distinct
and different from Hinduism. I, however, put a different spin on this
ball by saying that, despite claims to the contrary by Hindu nationalists,
Hinduism does not try to absorb so-called non-Hindus into its midst by
saying you come from us, rather it says to these communities we accept
your view of the world and incorporate it into our view of the world
because we, ourselves, are unsure of the ultimate reality. Eventually,
this incorporation leads to the assumption that, because these views are
accepted by the Hindu tradition, these traditions must be Hindu,
notwithstanding the objections of the practitioners of the 'other'
religions.
This is true of many, if not all, majority communities. For
example, the bona fide Anglophone community of Quebec (i.e. White
Anglophone Christians) assume that the non-mother tongue Francophone
communities are de facto Anglophones because they are not died (or is it
dyed) in the wool Francophones and would, therefore, side with them on
minority issues. Theirs is but a presumption and not fact because the
bona fide Anglophones (or Anglophone Brahmins) are, themselves,
exclusive. They include the 'other' ethnics when it is in their best
interests and exclude them when it suits them. The 'other' ethnics are
starting to assert themselves and their distinctive, as well as separate,
natures more often as their numbers grow in proportion to the
Anglophones. However, it will take time for the message to sink in that
you cannot simply assume that we are a part of you without actually
including us.
Thanks, Deepak.
DEEPAK AWASTI
Amitabh:
Not unlike Canadian nationalists who argue that Quebec
sovereignists lost the 1995 referendum because Quebecers chose Canada,
your connection between the people's refusal to convert to Islam and
their regard for the Hindu tradition is tenuous at best. I can understand
that they refused to convert but, please, cite works which speak to their
intent. Also, I am amused by your comment that they later found a
religion more to their liking. Unless I have misinterpreted your words
(if so, I apologise in advance), this comment seems to go against your
previous assertion that Sikhism is a derivative of Hinduism. If that were
the case, then I presume it was more a matter of realising that there was
another perspective they had never considered.
Thanks, Deepak.
V.C.Vijayaraghavan
On Feb 21, 1997 23:21:54 in article <'Hinduism" in Punjab?>,
'gs...@cornell.edu (Gurupdesh Singh)' wrote:
claims that Sikhism and Buddhism
>(which totally reject Brahmanical Gods, idol worship, the Brahmanical
>priesthood, the Brahmanical caste ideology, have their own places of
worship,
>holy scriptures, history, ethos, etc.) are "branches" of this indefinable
>absorbing "Hinduism" (really Brahmanism).
If Sikhism has "totally" rejected Brahminical Gods, how come Shiva is
mentioned in sikh religious books. Is not the "Shiva" of sikhs identical to
the "Shiva" of Hindus or is it just a coincidence. I have seen restaruants
run by Sikhs with names like 'Ram Punjab' and 'Krishna Punjab' How do you
explain their behaviour. Ranjit Singh was suppposed to have donated lot of
gold to Puri Jagannath temple. Was he declared a tankhiaya for doing that?
The highest sikh temple is called 'Har Mandir'. Does it not sound very
familiarly Hindu i.e. just Shiva's Temple.
One of the defining acts of Hindu ascetic orders is that each order sends a
group to Kumbh Mela. Now Sikhs also regularly send their group to Kumbh
Mela. If Sikhs have "totally" rejected Hindu beliefs and practices, why do
they do that or is it pure coincidence that Sikhs and Sadhu orders take
part in Kumbh Mela completely ignorant of why the other group is also
there. If Sikhs have "totally" rejected Hinduism , why the Hindus don't
object to Sikhs taking part in Kumbh Mela. These Hindus must be oddballs
There is no bar to sikhs entering Hindu temples, even though this privelage
is not available to christians or Muslims.
If Sikhs have "totally" rejected Brahminical caste system, why there are
Scheduled caste sikhs and so many other sikh castes like Ramgarhias, etc.
A few years back, there was a news item that in Har MandirSahib there was a
big quarrel between different Sants and Akali leaders about 'Maryada' viz
who should recieve the Temple Honours first. This 'Maryada' i.e. temple
honours is a typical Hindu quarrel. This is connected with the Hindus'
concern with hierarchy and pecking order. If Sikhs have "totally" rejected
hindu ethos, why are they still concerned with Maryada.
Given all this, how are you still going to convince sceptics that sikhs
are totally different from hindus?
Sikhs may have rejected Hinduism but Hinduism has rejected their rejections
Amitabh Hajela
Pardee Sing wrote:
>
> Dear Amitabh,
>
> icons such as Krishna, saying that if Krishna was God, how come
> he was born from a woman's womb and killed by a mere arrow?
Why not? If that is God's will, what is so far-fetched about it? It's
just like Muslims who say Jesus is not the son of God, because how can
God have had a son in flesh? Christians say "Why not? Why couldn't
He?" I see nothing incongruous about God manifesting Himself on Earth
in human form, with a purpose, and once that purpose is met, the human
form dies like any mortal. After all, it's just the physical frame that
dies. As for the arrow, God pre-ordained the manner of death for the
Krishn Bhagwan avatar even before He(Lord Krishn ji) was born.
> Furthermore, Guru Nanak said very clearly "There is no Hindu,
> there is no Muslim, Ek Omkar." Your idea of Hindusim vs. Islam
> vs. Sikhism is the height of foolishness because in reality these
> are different spokes of a wheel emanating from the same hub. For
> you then to conclude that even Islam originates from Hinduism
> would be ridicuous. Bear in mind also that most armies that
> invaded India did so via Punjab, hence the physical make-up is
> not simply Hindu, you have a mixture of many races, Greek,
> Persian, etc. This is why Sikhs often have a different physical
> appearance from Hindus, lighter complexian, taller & stronger
> build.
Sikhs do not have any different of a build or appearance than Hindus of
the same caste background. A Jat Sikh looks THE SAME as a Jat Hindu,
and a Muslim Pakistani Punjabi Jat for that matter, and Khatri and
Arora Sikhs look just like Hindu Khatris and Aroras. In general,
Punjabi people resemble each other regardless of religion.
Hindus of the Rajput caste, whether they live in Rajasthan, UP, or even
as far away as Bihar, (where they are known as Thakurs) tend to be quite
tall, fair, and well-built, similar to Sikhs. The people in Himachal
Pradesh (98% HINDU) are even more fair and good-looking than Punjabis,
on average. In a way, they are Hindu Punjabis, since their area was
once part of Punjab, they speak a Punjabi-like dialect, and their women
wear Shalwar kameez, not sari...but I digress...
> Again for you then to conclude that all the folks in this
> region originate as Hindus is also foolish considering the
> intermixing of various races throughout history. Last but not
> least, Sikhs today descend from former Hindus AND Muslims, many a
> Muslim became a Sikh,
Given the history of Islam on this planet, and given what we all know
about Islam's hold on its followers, do you seriously believe the
numbers of Muslims who ever converted to Sikhism ever amounted to more
than .5 of .5%? And remember, Muslims are not likely to convert even
under force, even when they are in a minority, even when they are ruled
over and oppressed by others; so do you really think that in PUNJAB,
where they were the majority, when they were the RULERS, and when the
official attitude towards islam was benevolent, that they would
convert? Get real, dude.
> for you to believe that Sikhs were all
> Hindus is just a case of your ego with it's need for a sense of
> superiority getting the better of you. You are probably suffering
> from an inferiority complex, realizing that Hinduism is too weak
> & diluted to be of any use.
> realizing that Hinduism is too weak & diluted to be of any use.
I wouldn't say that I've come to any such realization. You're just
projecting again, Gomer.
>
> --
> Pardee.
Rajwinder Singh
Amitabh Hajela (aha...@eclipse.net) wrote in article <330FC4...@eclipse.net> on Sun, 23 Feb 1997 09:47:00 +0530 :
>Pardee Sing wrote:
>You missed the point of the question, Gomer. I wasn't even talking
>about HIndu influence on Sikhism - I was just saying that the ancestors
>of Sikhs were Hindus, living in a Muslim ruled, Muslim majority region
>(undivided pre-partition Punjab), but yet they still refused to convert
>to Islam. So, the logical conclusion is, they valued Hinduism enough
>not to convert to Islam, inspite of every incentive to do so. The fact
It is twisted logic. The only logical conclusion is that
they valued Sikhism more than Islam and Hinduism, in their
situation.
Moreover, not all Sikhs have Hindu ancestors. Many Sikhs
have ancestors who were Muslim at one time.
--
-- Rajwinder Singh <ra...@bu.edu>
_______________________________________________________________________
sikkeh zad bar har dui aalam tegh-i-naanak waahib ast
fateh gobind singh shaah-i-shaahaa(n) fazl i sacha saahib ast
The sword of the central Doctrine of Nanak destroys the evils of both
the worlds, the poverty and slavery on this earth, and the sickness of
the soul hereafter, and we hereby proclaim our sovereignity over both
the worlds, the seen and the unseen. The final victory in our struggle
has been vouchsafed by Guru Gobind Singh, the Harbinger of the good
tidings of the ever present Grace of God.
--Inscription from a Sikh coin struck by Banda Singh Bahadur in 1710
Amitabh Hajela
Rajwinder Singh wrote:
>
> It is twisted logic. The only logical conclusion is that
> they valued Sikhism more than Islam and Hinduism, in their
> situation.
YEAH, BUT BEFORE SIKHISM, BEFORE GURU NANAK, THEY VALUED HINDUISM MORE
THAN ISLAM - THIS IS PROVEN BY THE FACT THAT THEY DIDN'T BECOME MUSLIM
IN SPITE OF LIVING IN A MUSLIM-RULED, MUSLIM MAJORITY REGION, WHERE NOT
ONLY WAS A LOT OF FORCE USED OVER MANY CENTURIES TO TRY CONVERTING THEM,
BUT ALSO EVERY ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL ADVANTAGE POINTED TOWARDS BECOMING
MUSLIM.
> Moreover, not all Sikhs have Hindu ancestors. Many Sikhs
> have ancestors who were Muslim at one time.
I'VE ADDRESSED THIS IN ANOTHER POST - BOTTOM LINE, ONLY A TINY,
NUMERICALLY INSIGNIFICANT PERCENTAGE OF SIKHS COULD HAVE HAD MUSLIM
ANCESTORS - DO YOU THINK IT'S LIKELY THAT IN AN ENVIRONMENT WHERE
MUSLIMS WERE RULING, WHERE THE MAJORITY WAS MUSLIM, WHERE THERE WAS SO
MUCH MUSLIM INFRASTRUCTURE (MOSQUES, DARGAHS, MULLAHS EVERYWHERE,
CENTRES OF SUFISM, ETC.), THE GOVERNOR OF THE PROVINCE WAS MUSLIM, AND
PUNJAB WAS PART OF THE MUGHAL EMPIRE, AND IN A RELIGION (ISLAM) WHERE
THE PUNISHMENT FOR APOSTASY IS DEATH, THAT MANY MUSLIMS WOULD CONVERT TO
SIKHISM?
LAST POINT - THE ANCESTORS OF MOST PUNJABI MUSLIMS WERE HINDU, ANYWAY -
SO EVEN THOSE (FEW) SIKHS WITH MUSLIM ANCESTORS, HAD HINDU ANCESTORS
BEFORE THAT - MANY OF WHOM WERE CONVERTED BY FORCE.
ukko...@cc.memphis.edu
Pardee wrote:
>> You forget that the Sikh gurus themselves at times derided Hindu
>> icons such as Krishna, saying that if Krishna was God, how come
>> he was born from a woman's womb and killed by a mere arrow?
Amitabh replies:
>
> Why not? If that is God's will, what is so far-fetched about it? It's
> just like Muslims who say Jesus is not the son of God, because how can
[snip]
Your response is off tangent. It does not matter that the Guru's criticisms
were incorrect. The point is that by ridiculing Krishna, the Gurus showed
their detachment from Hinduism/Hindu samaj.
Amitabh writes on Muslim to Sikh conversion:
> Given the history of Islam on this planet, and given what we all know
> about Islam's hold on its followers, do you seriously believe the
> numbers of Muslims who ever converted to Sikhism ever amounted to more
> than .5 of .5%? And remember, Muslims are not likely to convert even
> under force, even when they are in a minority, even when they are ruled
> over and oppressed by others; so do you really think that in PUNJAB,
> where they were the majority, when they were the RULERS, and when the
> official attitude towards islam was benevolent, that they would
> convert? Get real, dude.
It is a well known fact that the Gurus had several Muslim admirers, both
in their sangat and in the Mughal courts. The charisma of leaders has much
to do with the recruitment of people into a religious order.
With the exception of a handful of these Muslim admirers, the number of
Muslims who became Sikhs was very small indeed. For much of Sikh history,
Sikhism came across as a disciplined reformist body aimed largely at the
non-Muslim community. Before the advent of the Singh Sabha, Sikhism aimed
to be a leader and yearned to be representative of the non-Muslim population.
It was not pitted as rival to the 'Hindu' community. A vestige of this close
relationship still survives among present day Hindu and Sikh Punjabis,
though it is fast dwindling. British accounts of inter-conversions and the
growth(recruitment) of Sikhs through the eras corroborates such a view.
Regards,
Shelly
P.S. I'm not interested in de/inflating the identity ego of any group/person.
I simply try to be historically accurate.
P.P.S. Dear Pardee, I received your e-mail and will be replying soon.
V.C.Vijayaraghavan
On Feb 28, 1997 21:25:18, 'gs...@cornell.edu (Gurupdesh Singh)' wrote:
>vi...@vossnet.co.uk(V.C.Vijayaraghavan) wrote:
>>On Feb 21, 1997 23:21:54 in article <>,
>>
>>If Sikhism has "totally" rejected Brahminical Gods, how come Shiva is
>>mentioned in sikh religious books. Is not the "Shiva" of sikhs identical
to
>>the "Shiva" of Hindus or is it just a coincidence. I have seen
restaruants
>>run by Sikhs with names like 'Ram Punjab' and 'Krishna Punjab' How do you
>>explain their behaviour. Ranjit Singh was suppposed to have donated lot
of
>>gold to Puri Jagannath temple. Was he declared a tankhiaya for doing
that?
>
>Whats in a name! Bahmans dont have a monopoly over all words in the
>Indic languages - many of whom are heavily influenced by the Proto-Punjabi
>spoken in pre-1000 B.C ancient Punjab (Vedic period).
>
Obviously it is not just a question of name. You mentioned Sikhism believes
in only one god and it is not a brahminical one. By the way, when I study
Sikhism and sikhs ( or for that matter any ideology or people) I look at
WHAT PEOPLE DO as individuals or as a group, what behaviour gets approval
or disapproval of the whole group and what behavoiur fails to get the
approval or disapproval of the whole group. I place only a small portion of
reliance on what the sacred books are suposed to have said as a guide to
understanding a people.
Indeed 'bahmans' don't have a monopoly of words like "Shiva" or "Rama" or
"Krishna" or "Har" or "Hari" as you have rightly pointed out nor do they
have a monopoly of worship of gods bearing these names. Hinduism at a more
popular and practical level comprises the cults around these gods
What we are looking at is the behavoiur of sikhs to understand sikh
religion. When king Ranjit singh donated gold to different Hindu temples,
we are asking whether he went mad and invited the disapproval of the sikh
people or religious leaders? The answer is no. If sikh religion had
"totally" rejected Hinduism as you tirelessly claim as well as the Hindu
gods etc how do you explain this behaviour of Ranjit Singh. If sikhism had
"totally" rejected Hindu ethos, how do you explain in 8 of his wives
committing sati after his death
>>
>>The highest sikh temple is called 'Har Mandir'. Does it not sound very
>>familiarly Hindu i.e. just Shiva's Temple.
>
>Again your "hegemonic wiring" (common among the 8% OCs) is shining
through.
>The term "Har" in Punjabi is another term for "the almighty". The fact
>that Brahmanism also have a meaning for this term is besides the matter.
You are saying "Har" in Punjabi means "the almighty" ( notice the small
'a') and nothing to do with Shiva as it does with "Har" of the Hindus nor
does it have a religious connation. If you want to say "the almighty
dollar" in Punjabi, are you going to say "har dollar". Your point is that
it is pure coincidence that "har" of Sikhs sounds same as "har" of popular
hinduism, another coincidence that "Shiva" of Sikhs sounds same as "Shiva"
of Hindus, another coincidence that "Rama" of Sikhs is same as "Rama" of
popular Hinduism, another coincidence that "Krishna" of Sikhs sounds same
as "Krishna" of Hindus' worship another coincidence that "Hari" of sikhs
sounds same as "Hari" of hindus.
>Also, no one has YET spotted a Shiva's statue or Shiva's lingam in the
>Golden Temple. Also no Brahmins are found performing rituals there.
>No Brahmin shastra is kept at the GT; the scriptures are the Granth Sahib
>which explicitly forbid and reject:
>- the worship of idols
Worship of Granth Sahib rivals worship of idols in Hindu temples. I read
recently that Guru Granth Sahib is woken with kirtans, putting it to sleep
with kirtans, clothing it according to the weather and bath it after
enclosing it in plastic
>- supremacy of any social group over others (e.g. Brahmins)
Then why there are Scheduled caste sikhs
>- believe in the unity of godhood and humanity (e.g. caste system)
Then why there are abundant references to Rama, Krishna, Shiha, Hari in
highest of sikh holy books.
>- Sikhs believe that the divine wisdom in the Granth Sahib was directly
>revealed to Guru Nanak and the other Sikh Gurus and is not derived
>from any other caste-cult or religion.
Notice you are using the word "revealed" putting it on par with truly
revealed religions like judaism or islam or christianity. For example,
Yahweh revealed to Moses, Gabriel revealed to Mohammed , J.Christ got
appropriate revelations in a desert. All these revelations occur is short
boundaries of space and time and the godhead appeared to them within those
boundaries to do it's business of revelations. Did Guru Nanak also had a
revelation of this nature and if so which god came to him.?
>>
>>One of the defining acts of Hindu ascetic orders is that each order sends
a
>>group to Kumbh Mela. Now Sikhs also regularly send their group to Kumbh
>>Mela. If Sikhs have "totally" rejected Hindu beliefs and practices, why
do
>
>These are shared cultural rituals which even Muslims, Cristians, and
atheists
>participate. A Muslim or Sikh or Buddhist enjoying the holy festival
>doesnt make him a follower of Brahmanism (being masqueraded around
>as "Hinduism").
You are wrong. Kumbh Mela is not shared by Muslims or Christians or
atheists and it is NOT a shared cultural ritual for thse groups. As far as
I know it is not even shared by Buddhists and Jains whose religions were
born in the gangetic plains. And we are not talking of "enjoing the holy
festival". If you are not committed to Kumbh Mela as as religious duty, why
should you have the hassle of getting mashed up in huge crowds with the
possibility of getting trampled under the crowds. You may as well watch it
on the TV. What we are talking about the procession of holy and ascetic
orders of Hindus in which sikh contingent also takes part. These holy
orders also habitually quarrel about in which order they should go, a
typical Hindu obsession with hierarchy and pecking order. It is recorded
that during one Mela in the 18th century,a fight broke out between the Sikh
contingent and the Naga Sadhus with the loss of about 500 lives on both
sides. Some enjoyment.
>The Shudras and untouchables (85% of so called "Hindus") were
>not even allowed into Brahmanical temples until the late 19th
>century. In what sense were the majority of southasia's the
>co-religionists of OCs (the "superior" castes)?
In South India (about which I am more familiar), those who were kept out of
the temples were Parayas i.e. the untouchables ( BTW the word Pariah is
the contributution of Tamil to English and other languages) and Parayaas
were oppressed by other Shudras also. IN S.India there was no Kshatriyas
and Banias and all the dominant positions were held by shudras like
agricultural landowners or business or military units.
>>
>>A few years back, there was a news item that in Har MandirSahib there was
a
>>big quarrel between different Sants and Akali leaders about 'Maryada' viz
>>who should recieve the Temple Honours first. This 'Maryada' i.e. temple
>>honours is a typical Hindu quarrel. This is connected with the Hindus'
>>concern with hierarchy and pecking order. If Sikhs have "totally"
rejected
>>hindu ethos, why are they still concerned with Maryada.
>
>Again OCs dont have a monopoly on the vocabulary of Indian languages!
>
Once again we are not talking of vocabulary but the behavoiur of people and
the psychological and ethical underepinnings of this behavoiur. This
practice of Temple Honours and the quarrels associated with who should get
it first are not mere words but actual ethos, which it turns out no
different from the practice in hindu temples over much longer period.
All this is not to suggest that you should call yourself a Hindu. If you
want to invent a Sikhism completely free from Hinduism, that is your
pleasure and good luck. But the historical facts and every day realities
don't support your idea that sikhism has totally rejected hinduism. Jains
can make a far more credible case that Jainism is very different from
Hinduism, but the Jains are well integrated with Hindu society. Your case
does not wash.
You may ponder over the following excerpts from an article which appeared
today in The Asian Age
"The schizophrenia is compunded by realityThe life and deeds of Bhinranwala
had nothing to do with the sagacity of Guru Nanak., nothing to do with the
compassion of Guru Tegh Bahadur, they had nothing to do with the valour of
Guru Govind Singh. What they were doing and saying, the goald the
terrorists had proclaimed were a direct repudiation of the objectives these
gurus had proclaimed. In what sacred text does the name of Lord Ram occur
over 2700 times, that of Sri Krishna occur over 10000 times? In the Granth
Sahib. Who counsels "Simran kar le mere manaa, Teri beeti jaat amar Hari
naam binaa"? Guru Nanak. Who proclaims his inspiration to be "Sakal jagat
mein khalsa panth gaje, Jage dharam Hindu sakal bhand buje"- Let the path
of the pure prevail in the worled. Let the Hindu Dharma dawn and all
delusion disappear. Who proclaims as his goal "Dharam vedmaryaada jag mein
chaluan, Gaughaat ka dosh jag se mituaan" - May I spread the Dharma and
glory of Vedas through the world, and erase from it the stain of
cow-slaughter? Guru Gobind Singh. Who forbids Europeans in his employ from
eating beef? Who lays down that he will help the ex-ruler of Afghanistan
only on the conditionthat the latter will return the Kohinoor, that he will
return the doors of Somnath which Mohammed Ghori has carried away, that he
will ban tyhe slaughter of cows throughout Afghanistan? Who when he falls
ill, donated cows with gilded horns to temples? Who decides to donate the
Kohinoor to Jagannath Temple at Puri.Who reconstructs the roof of the
Vishvanath temple in Kashi and has it plated with gold? As death nears, who
has himself bathed in watersfrom the Ganges? Maharajah Ranjit Singh
Gurupdesh Singh
In article <5fa398$f...@serv4.vossnet.co.uk>,
And what people sometimes do is dictated by their religious/cultural
traditions. You need to make up your mind as what you want
to discuss: what people do or what the religions say?
>understanding a people.
>
>Indeed 'bahmans' don't have a monopoly of words like "Shiva" or "Rama" or
>"Krishna" or "Har" or "Hari" as you have rightly pointed out nor do they
>have a monopoly of worship of gods bearing these names. Hinduism at a more
>popular and practical level comprises the cults around these gods
>
>What we are looking at is the behavoiur of sikhs to understand sikh
>religion. When king Ranjit singh donated gold to different Hindu temples,
>we are asking whether he went mad and invited the disapproval of the sikh
Ranjit Singh also donated money to Muslim Mosques as well as Hindu
temples. He wanted to unify Punjabis despite their religious
differences and wished to project Khasla rule as secular rule
which treated all its religions equally. His Foreign Minister and personal
Physician were Muslims. On of his wifes was also Muslim.
Using you "logic", some Muslim may now wish to claim he was a
"Muslim".
There is also a well known Punjabi story about his secular instincts
and humanism. Apparently, some OC Hindus appoached him and asked him to use
his power to take revenge on the Muslims for the attrocities of Muslim
invaders like Nadir Shah (mid-18 century). R.S. replied that
WaheGuru had given him only one eye (he was bind in one eye) so that
he could see all of humanity as ONE.
>people or religious leaders? The answer is no. If sikh religion had
>"totally" rejected Hinduism as you tirelessly claim as well as the Hindu
>gods etc how do you explain this behaviour of Ranjit Singh. If sikhism had
>"totally" rejected Hindu ethos, how do you explain in 8 of his wives
>committing sati after his death
First of all define "Hindu" - this is something no OC is willing
to do but lavishly use the term to promote their ambitions of
political/religious hegemony over other non-Brahmanical communities
and the majority "lower castes".
The term "Hindu" originally had a primarily geographical meaning
(used by Persians and Central asians to refer to the people
living close to the river Indus - really ancient Punjabis).
It current usage is really an "abuse" of its original meaning.
With the arrival of Islam in the 10th century, the term began to
acquire a reflexive religious connotation in that is separated
the religion of the Muslim conquerors from the beliefs of the
indeginous people. However as late as the early 18th century
(times of Aurenzeb), the term "Hindusthan" did not have the
political pro-Brahmanical spin 19th century idealogues
from the orthodox community (7% of "Hindus") began to give
it.
Proof: even Aurenjeb - a Muslim emporer - refered to his dominion as
"Hindusthan". Even at this late juncture of history, the term had an
essentially geographical meaning. The pro-Brahmanical religio-nationalistic
twist came later during the 19th century.
The current "political" interpretion of the term "Hindu" can be traced to the
19th century when some western-educated ideologues from the orthodox castes
(OCs- 7%) created a new self-serving political "Hindu" identity for themselves
based on the claim that they were the "Aryans". Their hegemonic agenda was to
view southasia as a "one Hindu nation" in which they (naturally) should be the
rightful ruling class and elites. These notions have since then been
propagated by the OC-dominated education system, media, and institutions (like
the Arya Samaj, RSS, Hindumahasaba). Prior to the arrival of British colonial
rule, the various states and regions of southasia were under the political
control of different religious and ethnic groups (castes) such as the
Marathas, Jats, Rajputs, Sikhs, Pathans, etc.
Also, there is no mention of a "Hindu dharma" in any original holy
Brahmanical texts. In these holy shastras, society is viewed
entirely through caste categories and religious, political, economic
and social rights are apportioned along caste lines. No overlapping
identity or sense of commonality among castes existed. Shudras and
"untouchables" (85% of "Hindus") are considered polluted and were not given
the right even to enter Brahmanical temples, but began to be dubbed "Hindus"
by post-19th century OC ideologues.
>
>
>
>>>
>>>The highest sikh temple is called 'Har Mandir'. Does it not sound very
>>>familiarly Hindu i.e. just Shiva's Temple.
>>
>>Again your "hegemonic wiring" (common among the 8% OCs) is shining
>through.
>>The term "Har" in Punjabi is another term for "the almighty". The fact
>>that Brahmanism also have a meaning for this term is besides the matter.
>
>
>You are saying "Har" in Punjabi means "the almighty" ( notice the small
>'a') and nothing to do with Shiva as it does with "Har" of the Hindus nor
>does it have a religious connation. If you want to say "the almighty
>dollar" in Punjabi, are you going to say "har dollar". Your point is that
>it is pure coincidence that "har" of Sikhs sounds same as "har" of popular
The point, comedian, is that many of the words (even religious terms)
found in many Indic languages are derived from the proto-Punjabi spoken
in the ancient Punjab region (pre 1000 B.C.). Later (post 1000 B.C.),
some groups broke earlier taboos of staying within Saptha Sindhva
(anicent Punjab region) and migrated southward into the ganga basin
and beyond. This is the reason why other languages of southasia
(including sanskrit) have some common words with modern Punjabi words
(like "har").
>hinduism, another coincidence that "Shiva" of Sikhs sounds same as "Shiva"
>of Hindus, another coincidence that "Rama" of Sikhs is same as "Rama" of
>popular Hinduism, another coincidence that "Krishna" of Sikhs sounds same
>as "Krishna" of Hindus' worship another coincidence that "Hari" of sikhs
>sounds same as "Hari" of hindus.
After reading the above explantion, maybe these "coincidences" wont surprise
you so much!
However, lets further explore you juvenile logic a bit further. The term
"Khalsa" used by Guru Gobind Singh to describe the Saint-Soldier Order
he created is of Arabic origin - meaning "the pure" (in a spiritual
sense). By your reasoning, one could argue that the Khalsa Sikhs are
"Muslim".
Some of the absurdities in kirar propaganda are boundless.
>
>
>
>>Also, no one has YET spotted a Shiva's statue or Shiva's lingam in the
>>Golden Temple. Also no Brahmins are found performing rituals there.
>>No Brahmin shastra is kept at the GT; the scriptures are the Granth Sahib
>>which explicitly forbid and reject:
>>- the worship of idols
>
>Worship of Granth Sahib rivals worship of idols in Hindu temples. I read
Sikhs pay homage and respect to the Guru Granth Sahib - the living Guru
to the Sikhs. To call this "idol worship" shows how ignorant and michevious
your mind is!
>recently that Guru Granth Sahib is woken with kirtans, putting it to sleep
>with kirtans, clothing it according to the weather and bath it after
>enclosing it in plastic
>
>
>>- supremacy of any social group over others (e.g. Brahmins)
>
>Then why there are Scheduled caste sikhs
This is a Government of India term applied to some
Sikhs. The Sikh religion does not accept "inferior"
and "superior" categories of social groups and views
all humanity as ONE and EQUAL - unlike Brahmanism (Hinduism)
which promotes and spiritually sanctions the Brahmanical
caste ideology. The greatest sin in the Gita and Varnaashram
dharma is to do the "sacred" caste duty of another caste.
Shudras caught listening to the hocus-pocus of Brahmins were
punished with pouring of molten lead into their ears. Some
idea of human rights and social equality!
As explained earlier, some caste baggage which the Sikh Gurus
abhored is unfortunately left over from the previous casteist
society. However, the scriptures forbid it and in its manifestaion
is a lot less pernicious in comparison to the status of the "lower castes"
in majority Hindu states like U.P., Bihar, Rajasthan, etc..
>
>
>>- believe in the unity of godhood and humanity (e.g. caste system)
>
>Then why there are abundant references to Rama, Krishna, Shiha, Hari in
>highest of sikh holy books.
The Granth Sahib refers to the one God in many terms: eg. Ram,
Hari, Parmatma, Rub, Allah, WaheGuru, etc.
Many of the terms used are of Islamic origin as you can see.
So, whats your point?
Also, Guru Nanak clearly states in his own words "I am neither
a Muslim, nor a Hindu". Why not take his word for it instead
to playing some mischevious OC game with Sikhism an any other
southasian religious (e.g. Buddhism) which leaves the Brahmin
out in the cold and rejects their caste-cult?
Also, the Sikh scriptures are replete with quotes asking
Sikhs not to believe the Puranas or Vedas and not
to worship idols and make-believe Brahmanical Gods like
Shiva, Krishna, etc.
>
>>- Sikhs believe that the divine wisdom in the Granth Sahib was directly
>
>>revealed to Guru Nanak and the other Sikh Gurus and is not derived
>>from any other caste-cult or religion.
>
>
>Notice you are using the word "revealed" putting it on par with truly
>revealed religions like judaism or islam or christianity. For example,
>Yahweh revealed to Moses, Gabriel revealed to Mohammed , J.Christ got
>appropriate revelations in a desert. All these revelations occur is short
>boundaries of space and time and the godhead appeared to them within those
>boundaries to do it's business of revelations. Did Guru Nanak also had a
>revelation of this nature and if so which god came to him.?
Yes. There is only 1 God in Sikhism - and HE/SHE "came to him".
>
>
>
>
>>>
>>>One of the defining acts of Hindu ascetic orders is that each order sends
>a
>>>group to Kumbh Mela. Now Sikhs also regularly send their group to Kumbh
>>>Mela. If Sikhs have "totally" rejected Hindu beliefs and practices, why
>do
>>
>>These are shared cultural rituals which even Muslims, Cristians, and
>atheists
>>participate. A Muslim or Sikh or Buddhist enjoying the holy festival
>>doesnt make him a follower of Brahmanism (being masqueraded around
>>as "Hinduism").
>
>You are wrong. Kumbh Mela is not shared by Muslims or Christians or
>atheists and it is NOT a shared cultural ritual for thse groups. As far as
>I know it is not even shared by Buddhists and Jains whose religions were
>born in the gangetic plains. And we are not talking of "enjoing the holy
>festival". If you are not committed to Kumbh Mela as as religious duty, why
>should you have the hassle of getting mashed up in huge crowds with the
>possibility of getting trampled under the crowds. You may as well watch it
>on the TV. What we are talking about the procession of holy and ascetic
>orders of Hindus in which sikh contingent also takes part. These holy
>orders also habitually quarrel about in which order they should go, a
>typical Hindu obsession with hierarchy and pecking order. It is recorded
>that during one Mela in the 18th century,a fight broke out between the Sikh
>contingent and the Naga Sadhus with the loss of about 500 lives on both
>sides. Some enjoyment.
Well if Sikhs follow the religious instructions of the 10 living
Sikh Gurus in the Granth Sahin and Desam Granth, they have no business
being in the Kumb mela fighting the Nanga sadhus or going for
a dip in the polluted Ganga. Probably their doctor would also
recommend against it.
>
>
>
>>The Shudras and untouchables (85% of so called "Hindus") were
>>not even allowed into Brahmanical temples until the late 19th
>>century. In what sense were the majority of southasia's the
>>co-religionists of OCs (the "superior" castes)?
>
>In South India (about which I am more familiar), those who were kept out of
>the temples were Parayas i.e. the untouchables ( BTW the word Pariah is
>the contributution of Tamil to English and other languages) and Parayaas
>were oppressed by other Shudras also. IN S.India there was no Kshatriyas
>and Banias and all the dominant positions were held by shudras like
>agricultural landowners or business or military units.
Well then, they were in a position of political and economic supremacy over
the Brahmins and the priests had to toe the line despite what their
caste doctrines and ideology told them.
You have just proven that dana-pani (food-water) comes before caste ideology!
>
>>>
>>>A few years back, there was a news item that in Har MandirSahib there was
>a
>>>big quarrel between different Sants and Akali leaders about 'Maryada' viz
>
>>>who should recieve the Temple Honours first. This 'Maryada' i.e. temple
>>>honours is a typical Hindu quarrel. This is connected with the Hindus'
>>>concern with hierarchy and pecking order. If Sikhs have "totally"
>rejected
>>>hindu ethos, why are they still concerned with Maryada.
>>
>>Again OCs dont have a monopoly on the vocabulary of Indian languages!
>>
>
>Once again we are not talking of vocabulary but the behavoiur of people and
>the psychological and ethical underepinnings of this behavoiur. This
And you are an expert in these arent you!
>practice of Temple Honours and the quarrels associated with who should get
>it first are not mere words but actual ethos, which it turns out no
>different from the practice in hindu temples over much longer period.
>
>All this is not to suggest that you should call yourself a Hindu. If you
>want to invent a Sikhism completely free from Hinduism, that is your
>pleasure and good luck. But the historical facts and every day realities
Yes, some Sikhs were "Hindus" (in the pre-19th century sense) and some
Sikhs were Muslims before conversion to Sikhism. But now they are Sikhs
and attempts to label them still as "Hindus" (in the post-19th century sense)
is motivated more by the hegemonic political instincts/ambitions of OCs than
anything else.
>don't support your idea that sikhism has totally rejected hinduism. Jains
>can make a far more credible case that Jainism is very different from
>Hinduism, but the Jains are well integrated with Hindu society. Your case
>does not wash.
First try to "integrate" your extremely caste-based and divisive "Hindus
society" before, trying to integrate other religions into it.
>
>You may ponder over the following excerpts from an article which appeared
>today in The Asian Age
>
>"The schizophrenia is compunded by realityThe life and deeds of Bhinranwala
>had nothing to do with the sagacity of Guru Nanak., nothing to do with the
Bhindrawala was initially the creation of your Kali Devi (Indra Gandhi) who
provided him with logistic support through the Congress (arranged rallies,
provided trucks/busses, police protection, etc.) to build him up politically
during the 1982-84 period. Later, in a Machiavellian political game, she
turned on him to create an atmosphere of violence and used this as an
excuse to bring Punjab under army rule for the purpose of commiting genocide
against the Sikhs is Punjab.
The goal was to crush the entire Sikh cummunity using state violence and
terror so that they give up once and for all their political/cultural demands
and turn into "obedient shudras". The U.S. State Department Research
Sevice estimates that over 150,000 Sikhs have been murdered by the
Castecracy. When Indira Gandhi dismissed the Punjab Legislature in
1984 and sent in the army, she stated in Parliament that this was to
apprehend "300 Sikh Militants" (Bhindrwala's men).
Background
----------
In 1946, the British Government gave the Sikh leadership the option of
forming a soverign Punjab state (as it existed prior to 1847 before
annexation to the British Empire in southasia) under the Cabinet Mission
Proposal. Based on promises by Nehru and Gandhi, the Sikh leadership naively
choose to join the new Indian Union. After independence all these promises
were broken and betrayed and Punjab has been under the imperialistic and
hegemonic control of a communal and genocidal Castecracy run by elitist OC
Hindus for the past 5 decades.
>compassion of Guru Tegh Bahadur, they had nothing to do with the valour of
>Guru Govind Singh. What they were doing and saying, the goald the
>terrorists had proclaimed were a direct repudiation of the objectives these
>gurus had proclaimed. In what sacred text does the name of Lord Ram occur
>over 2700 times, that of Sri Krishna occur over 10000 times? In the Granth
>Sahib. Who counsels "Simran kar le mere manaa, Teri beeti jaat amar Hari
The term "Allah", "Rahul", and "Rub" also is profusely used in the
Granth Sahib. The ONE God is referred to in a many different words
- and from all religious traditions - because the Sikh Gurus believed
that all of humanity has the same God.
So your silly pro-Brahmanical stints wont wash here.
>naam binaa"? Guru Nanak. Who proclaims his inspiration to be "Sakal jagat
>mein khalsa panth gaje, Jage dharam Hindu sakal bhand buje"- Let the path
>of the pure prevail in the worled. Let the Hindu Dharma dawn and all
>delusion disappear. Who proclaims as his goal "Dharam vedmaryaada jag mein
>chaluan, Gaughaat ka dosh jag se mituaan" - May I spread the Dharma and
>glory of Vedas through the world, and erase from it the stain of
Guru Granth Sahib clearly states "not to believe in the Puranas or Vedas".
>cow-slaughter? Guru Gobind Singh. Who forbids Europeans in his employ from
>eating beef? Who lays down that he will help the ex-ruler of Afghanistan
Guru Gobind Singh did not have Europeans in his employee - it was Ranjit
Singh. You better read your VHS "history" phamplet more carefully!
>only on the conditionthat the latter will return the Kohinoor, that he will
>return the doors of Somnath which Mohammed Ghori has carried away, that he
>will ban tyhe slaughter of cows throughout Afghanistan? Who when he falls
Ranjit Singh never conquered all of Afghanistan so how could be have
banned slaughted of cows there. The Khalsa army entered Kabul but
this is in eastern Afghanistan. CAn you give a reference that
cow eating was banned there. It was not banned to Muslims in Punjab,
so why would Ranjit Singh bother with banning it in Afghanistan.
>ill, donated cows with gilded horns to temples? Who decides to donate the
>Kohinoor to Jagannath Temple at Puri.Who reconstructs the roof of the
The Kohinoor was in the posession of Maharaja Ranjit Singh until the
Brits got it in 1847 from the Lahore Darbar. Also, the Somnath gates
reside in the Golden Temple. They were not given to any Hindus temple.
You need a reality check fella!
>Vishvanath temple in Kashi and has it plated with gold? As death nears, who
>has himself bathed in watersfrom the Ganges? Maharajah Ranjit Singh
Just to bring you dowm to earth, a short historical profile is given
below of the major religious periods of Punjab:
1) Vedic Period (1500 B.C. - 300 B.C.):
The religion of Punjab (Saptha Sindhva) during this period was Vedism or Vedic
religion. The Vedics worshiped the Gods Indra (god of thunder) and Rudra
(god of health); the holy book consisted of the hymns found in the Rig Veda.
The Vedic Aryas were an egalitarian, semi-patoral people who ate cows and
considered river Ravi to be holy.
Manu (approx. 700 B.C.) from the gangetic region forbade Brahmins to go to
Punjab as the Vedics obviously didnt think much of the caste-cult of
Brahmanism and the physical safety of Brahmins was in question.
2) Buddhist Period (300 B.C. - 700 A.D.):
The egalitarian and humanistic teachings of the Buddha were received very well
by ancient Punjabis and the Buddhist period lasted nearly 1000 years.
During this time, the Punjab region also received new Indo-Scythic influences
from cenral asia such as the Sakas and Kushans. Begining with the works of
historians such as Cunningham and Todd from the 19th century, many of the
ethnic "castes" found throughout the northern subcontinent (e.g. Jats, Yadavs,
Ahirs, Gujjars, and some artisan and Rajput groups, etc.) have been traced to
the Indo-Scythians. The Indo-Scythian rulers over this period patronized
Buddhism and Buddhism also spread to central asia and China during this
period.
3) Post Buddhist Period (700 A.D. - $$$)
During the 5-7th century several waves of Hun invasions occured and this
period of instability lead to the demise of Buddhism. Many Rajput clans have
been traced to Indo-Hun/Gujara groups from central asia. Many of the new
Indo-Hun rulers such as Mahiragula began to patronized Brahmanism for the
purpose on entrenching their control. During the 7-8th century Mahirgula
attacked Punjab and destroyed Jullandar (central Punjab) and Taxila (eastern
Afhansistan) destroying the main Buddhist centers of ancient Ghandhara
(Punjab/Afghanistan). These two centers of learning and intellectual life
housed many Buddhist univeristies, councils, and temples and students came
here from all over central asia, China, and southasia to learn Buddhist
philosophy and science.
Islam arrived during the 11th century followed by flowering of Sufi Islam in
Punjab during the 12th century. Sikhism appeared in the 16th century.
Question: Can you give dates for the so-called "Hindu period" in Punjabi
history.
Sapuran Singh Gill
V.C.Vijayaraghavan wrote:
> If Sikhism has "totally" rejected Brahminical Gods, how come Shiva is
> mentioned in sikh religious books. Is not the "Shiva" of sikhs identical to
> the "Shiva" of Hindus or is it just a coincidence.
you like most of the other hindu deshbigots only have a superficial
understanding of sikhism. all you seem to have read is books written by
pseudo intellectual hindu authors who for some reason, seem to de
desperate to claim the sikhs as hindus.
as anyone who has ever bothered to study sikhism would know, the Guru
Granth Sahib uses various terms and nomenclatures for God. It uses names
such as Ram, Mahadev, Shiv, Parbrahm etc. Along with these are the
purely sikh names for God such as 'satnam' 'Ekomkar' and Akal Purkh
etc.
these names are used to describe God and not 'gods' as the hindus would
like us to believe.
as regards your question, the 'Shiv' of the sikhs is certainly different
from the 'shiva' of the hindus. whereas the Shiv of the sikhs created
the entire universe and the whole destiny of the universe is in his
hands , the 'shivs' of the hindus is one of three main gods, who goes
about destroying everything, takes birth as a man or animal and much
like the greek and roman myths is rapacious and has children who become
other gods has a wife called parvati etc
i hope that you can see the difference between the two ??
>I have seen restaruants
> run by Sikhs with names like 'Ram Punjab' and 'Krishna Punjab' How do you
> explain their behaviour.
if you ever thought that the name of the proprietor of say, ram punjab
may be Ram singh ??
or krishan singh for krishna punjab ??
considering the fact that the roadside dhabas knowledge of writing
english is pretty limited it don't think that this really proves your
point.
you really must be running out of arguments if you have to use dhaba
signs to prove the sikhs are hindus !!
>Ranjit Singh was suppposed to have donated lot of
> gold to Puri Jagannath temple. Was he declared a tankhiaya for doing that?
Ranjit singh donated about 15 % of the total state revenue to religious
sites and religious indivinduals as 'dharamaarth' grants to all
communities, whether Sikh, Hindu or muslim.
he donated to the Harmandir Sahib, Tarn Tarn Sahib, Built the Sachkhand
Complex at Nander in Hyderabad state, Takht Sri Harmandir Sahib in Patna
Bihar etc along with muslim sufi centres, and hindu shrines such as
jaggannath puri etc.
Ranjit Singh was conscious of the fact that a king is not only the ruler
of the land he rules but also ruler of the people who inhabit that land.
therefore whenever he gave funds to a Sikh gurdwara, he also gave a like
amount to a hindu temple and muslim mosque.
>
>
> The highest sikh temple is called 'Har Mandir'. Does it not sound very
> familiarly Hindu i.e. just Shiva's Temple.
another superfluous argument. 'Har' means God and not 'shiva'
>
> One of the defining acts of Hindu ascetic orders is that each order sends a
> group to Kumbh Mela. Now Sikhs also regularly send their group to Kumbh
> Mela. If Sikhs have "totally" rejected Hindu beliefs and practices, why do
> they do that or is it pure coincidence that Sikhs and Sadhu orders take
> part in Kumbh Mela completely ignorant of why the other group is also
> there. If Sikhs have "totally" rejected Hinduism , why the Hindus don't
> object to Sikhs taking part in Kumbh Mela. These Hindus must be oddballs
The order that take part in the kumbh mela are udasis ( not recognised a
sikhs ) and nirmalas ( an order which was started as a missionary
organisation in the 17th century ). The nirmalas have always attended
the melas in order to use the opportunity to preach sikhism to the
masses that attend. This is only a continuation of when the Sikh Guru
would take the opportunity to preach to large getherings at the hindu
pilgrim stations.
the nirmalas who are very few in number ( perhaps 20 out of the millions
who attend the melas ) pitch tents in the grounds, and install the Guru
Granth Sahib there, uslike the hindu orders who place idols in their
tents.
as regards your argument of the hindus not rejecting nirmalas taking
part in the kumbh mela, they did object in the kumbh mela at hardwar in
the early 19th century ( about 1804 i think ).
on this occasion the bairagis and other sadhus objected to the
installation of the Guru Granth Sahib in the mela grounds and in fact a
large number of them attacked the mirmalas and the Guru Granth Sahib was
torn up by them.
in the neighbourhood of hardwar was a Sikh army commanded by Maharaja
Sahib Singh of patiala, Bhai Rai Singh of Kaithal and the Buriya
Sardars. When the nirmalas approached the Sardars with their story and
when the army found out that the Guru Granth Sahib had been insulted,
they attacked the bairagi sadhus killing hundreds of them and it was
only the presence of an british army regiment and the peace efforts of
its commander that further bloodshed had been averted.
since then the nirmalas have never been hindered from taking part in the
kumbh mela.
another case in point, had Ranjit Singh really been a hindu sympathiser
( as you allege ), why didn't he take any action against the patiala
raja ??
> There is no bar to sikhs entering Hindu temples, even though this privelage
> is not available to christians or Muslims.
also jains and buddhists aheve free access.
all people of any religion have access to Sikh Gurdwaras does that means
that all people are Sikhs ??
>
> If Sikhs have "totally" rejected Brahminical caste system, why there are
> Scheduled caste sikhs and so many other sikh castes like Ramgarhias, etc.
this is a left over from when large numbers of hindus became sikhs
during the rule of maharaja Ranjit Singh.
unfortunately they brought all their caste baggage with them.
>
> A few years back, there was a news item that in Har MandirSahib there was a
> big quarrel between different Sants and Akali leaders about 'Maryada' viz
> who should recieve the Temple Honours first. This 'Maryada' i.e. temple
> honours is a typical Hindu quarrel. This is connected with the Hindus'
> concern with hierarchy and pecking order. If Sikhs have "totally" rejected
> hindu ethos, why are they still concerned with Maryada.
you seem to be grossly ignorant with with the term maryada is is
sikhism. ulike hinduism's pecking order and heirachy it means usages
with the Harmandir sahib.
>
>
> Given all this, how are you still going to convince sceptics that sikhs
> are totally different from hindus?
by telling them the facts and not half baked views and faulty knowledge
of sikhism as in your case.
>
> Sikhs may have rejected Hinduism but Hinduism has rejected their rejections
what community wouldn't want a nation of hardworking, progressive,
successful people to become a part of it ??
Bikramjit Singh Dhillon
N. Tiwari
Sapuran Singh Gill (in9...@brunel.ac.uk) wrote:
: V.C.Vijayaraghavan wrote:
: > If Sikhism has "totally" rejected Brahminical Gods, how come Shiva is
: > mentioned in sikh religious books. Is not the "Shiva" of sikhs identical to
: > the "Shiva" of Hindus or is it just a coincidence.
: you like most of the other hindu deshbigots only have a superficial
: understanding of sikhism. all you seem to have read is books written by
: pseudo intellectual hindu authors who for some reason, seem to de
: desperate to claim the sikhs as hindus.
: as anyone who has ever bothered to study sikhism would know, the Guru
: Granth Sahib uses various terms and nomenclatures for God. It uses names
: such as Ram, Mahadev, Shiv, Parbrahm etc. Along with these are the
: purely sikh names for God such as 'satnam' 'Ekomkar' and Akal Purkh
: etc.
: these names are used to describe God and not 'gods' as the hindus would
: like us to believe.
: as regards your question, the 'Shiv' of the sikhs is certainly different
: from the 'shiva' of the hindus. whereas the Shiv of the sikhs created
: the entire universe and the whole destiny of the universe is in his
: hands , the 'shivs' of the hindus is one of three main gods, who goes
: about destroying everything, takes birth as a man or animal and much
: like the greek and roman myths is rapacious and has children who become
: other gods has a wife called parvati etc
: i hope that you can see the difference between the two ??
No I cannot. Shiva is also called as the supreme One, in
which everything goes into, and everything comes out of.
There are specific Puranic texts to show you that. There
is only one SHiva, and that is the same Shiva as in
":de shiva bar mohe". Similarly, the "Hindu" idea of
Ram, and the Sikh idea of Ram is same. And so is the
case with Krishna.
: >I have seen restaruants
: Bikramjit Singh Dhillon
--
Nachiketa Tiwari
Samir Dhume
> Sapuran Singh Gill (in9...@brunel.ac.uk) wrote:
>
> : as anyone who has ever bothered to study sikhism would know, the Guru
> : Granth Sahib uses various terms and nomenclatures for God. It uses names
> : such as Ram, Mahadev, Shiv, Parbrahm etc. Along with these are the
> : purely sikh names for God such as 'satnam' 'Ekomkar' and Akal Purkh
> : etc.
Why does the Guru Granth Sahib refer to
various Hindu Gods ? In particular why
Ram ? He has no celetial attributes.
What does the GSS say about Ram ?
Regards,
Samir
Sapuran Singh Gill
N. Tiwari wrote:
> No I cannot. Shiva is also called as the supreme One, in
> which everything goes into, and everything comes out of.
> There are specific Puranic texts to show you that. There
> is only one SHiva, and that is the same Shiva as in
> ":de shiva bar mohe". Similarly, the "Hindu" idea of
> Ram, and the Sikh idea of Ram is same. And so is the
> case with Krishna.
>
> Nachiketa Tiwari
the shiva of 'deh shiva bar mohi aehay' is God and not shiva.
by your logic then because the old testament uses various names for god
that means that the jews and christians are polytheists like hindus ?
the koran uses 99 names for god, are the muslims polytheists ??
the name ram or krisan is just a name used for God.
we must differentiate between the hindu view of Ram as God and ram
chander ( of ramayana .
whereas as sikhs would agree with the concept of Ram as God, they would
disagree that a man born thousands of years ago who engaged in a war to
retrieve his abducted wife, killed a low caste who overheard the vedas
etc was God.
there's a shabad by Guru Nanak that states that ram was just a man,
subject to birth and death.
the shabad uses the anology of weeping or grieving to describe the
human quality of the hindu gods like ram chander and discribes him as
crying when he lost sita etc.
also the Guru Granth Sahib contains a shabad by bhaget Kabirji in which
he states that there are two rams.
one ram ( God ) is is seen in all things
the other ( ram chander ) who is seen in only one thing, himself
Bikramjit Singh Dhillon
Rajinder Nijjhar
In message <331D9A...@indiana.edu>
Samir Dhume <sdh...@indiana.edu> writes:
> Regards,
> Samir
Do you know what SH. RAM CHANDER JI's name means? It means that he
is the MOON(Chand) of RAM, SOORAJ. In this Dark Age, we worship RAAM
and not Ram Chanderji.
Does the Light of SOORAJ depends upon any other source? But the
LIGHT of moon does.
Rajinder Nijjhar
Rajinder Nijjhar
In message <5fkbf5$7tq$1...@solaris.cc.vt.edu>
nti...@rs3.esm.vt.edu (N. Tiwari) writes:
To avoid such confusion that Sachae Paatshah Gobind Singh Ji sent
some of His khalsas to learn the basics of Vedas from Kanshi. And
they were called Nirmallae Sants. But to-day, you can see the fruit
of those KUSANTS who run after money and NOT NAAM.
Rajinder Nijjhar.
Rajinder Nijjhar
Why go further into the second Sikh community. Let us stay with the
first Hindu.
Whose incarnation was Sh. Ram Chander and Sh. Krishan Baldev jis?
Rajinder Nijjhar.
Sankara Narayanan
Sapuran Singh Gill wrote:
>
> V.C.Vijayaraghavan wrote:
>
> > If Sikhism has "totally" rejected Brahminical Gods, how come Shiva is
> > mentioned in sikh religious books. Is not the "Shiva" of sikhs identical to
> > the "Shiva" of Hindus or is it just a coincidence.
>
> you like most of the other hindu deshbigots only have a superficial
> understanding of sikhism. all you seem to have read is books written by
> pseudo intellectual hindu authors who for some reason, seem to de
> desperate to claim the sikhs as hindus.
>
> as anyone who has ever bothered to study sikhism would know, the Guru
> Granth Sahib uses various terms and nomenclatures for God. It uses names
> such as Ram, Mahadev, Shiv, Parbrahm etc. Along with these are the
> purely sikh names for God such as 'satnam' 'Ekomkar' and Akal Purkh
> etc.>
> these names are used to describe God and not 'gods' as the hindus would
> like us to believe.
Hinduism uses much more names and nomenclatures to explain the DIvinity than
any 'ism' in the world. GO and read 'Vishnu Sahasranama' or 'Shiva Sahasra
nama'. All the names you claim as 'Sikh' names were taken from these books
descrbing 1000 names of the GOd. This includes the words 'satnam', 'Paar Brahm'
'Param Dham', 'Akal', 'Ekomkar' etc. etc.
>
> as regards your question, the 'Shiv' of the sikhs is certainly different
> from the 'shiva' of the hindus. whereas the Shiv of the sikhs created
> the entire universe and the whole destiny of the universe is in his
> hands , the 'shivs' of the hindus is one of three main gods, who goes
> about destroying everything, takes birth as a man or animal and much
> like the greek and roman myths is rapacious and has children who become
> other gods has a wife called parvati etc
>
> i hope that you can see the difference between the two ??
I pity for your understanding of Hiduism. The word 'Shiva' has been used even
in HInduism also to mean all Gods and the female manifestion of the Godhead,
Shakti - She is called 'shivaa'. Vishu/Krishna has been praised as 'Shiva is
many books (including VIshnu sahasranama). Sankaracharya uses the word Shiva'
in the universalist sense to mean the Self or Atman in his famous slogan
'chidaananda roopa Shivoham Shivoham'.
THe Shiva of Hindus is the Supreme God. There has been so many references of
Shiva as Creator, Sustainer and Desctructor of the universe ALL through the
HIndu Scriptures. Sankaracharya and so many Shiva-yogis and Sidhdhas of
SOuth India consider 'Shiva' as the Parabrahman.
The concept of GOd in HInduism is much more profound, deep and all-pervading,
definetely more universal and broader than any of it's branches - Sikhism included.
Please don't try to expose your ignorance on HIndu philosophy by quoting
childish statements like the above.
<snip> <snip> <snip>
> >
> > If Sikhs have "totally" rejected Brahminical caste system, why there are
> > Scheduled caste sikhs and so many other sikh castes like Ramgarhias, etc.
>
> this is a left over from when large numbers of hindus became sikhs
> during the rule of maharaja Ranjit Singh.
>
> unfortunately they brought all their caste baggage with them.
>
wah, wah ! (Khalistani logic ???) All the wisdom about Para Brahm, Chanting of
the names of Ram, Krishna, Hari etc., and all the cocepts of Dharma, Karma
everything was "invented" by Sikhs on their own ... but ONLY caste system
came as a baggage with some people from HInduism ???
What a convinient philosophy !!!
Please read the following Q & A (thanks to Arun Shourie) :
1. In what sacred text does the name of Lord Ram occur over 2700 times, that of Sri Krishna
occur over 10,000 times ?
In the GURU GRANTH SAHIB.
2. Who counsels, "Simaran kar le mere manaa, Teri beeti jaat umar Hari naam binaa....?
GURU NANAK.
3. Who proclaims his aspiration to be,
Sakal jagat mein khalsa panth gaje,
JAGE DHARAM HINDU sakal bhand bhaje --
"Let the path of the pure prevail the world over,
Let the Hindu dharma dawn and all delusion disappear"
Who proclaims as his goal,
DHARAM VED MARYAADAA jag mein chalaun,
Gaughaat kaa dosh jag se mitaaun --
"May I spread the dharma and glory of the Vedas through the world,
And erase from it the stain of cow-slaughter" ?
GURU GOVIND SINGH.
4. Who forbids Europeans in his employ from eating beef ? Who lays down that he will help
the ex-ruler of Afghanistan only on the condition that the latter will return the Kohinoor,
that he will return the doors of Somnath which Muhammad Ghori has carted away, that he will
ban the slaughter of cows throughout Afghanistan ? Who, when he falls ill, donates cows
with gilded horns to temples ? Who decides to donate the Kohinoor to the Jagannath temple
at Puri ? Who reconstructs the roof of the Vishwanath temple at Kashi and has it plated
with gold ? As death nears, who has himself bathed in waters from the Ganges, which is
one of the most sacred aspirations of any devout HIndu ?
MAHARAJA RANJIT SINGH.
The Granth Sahib uses the word 'HINDU' explicitely to denote it's solidarity towards
the HIndu Dharma.
That's why, Swami Vivekananda, in one of his historic Addresses said,
"Mark me, Then and then alone you are a HIndu, when the very name sends thru' a galvanic
shock of strength.
.....
"Mark me, every one of you will have to be a Govind Singh, if you want to do good to
your country. You may see thousands of defects in your countrymen,
but mark their Hindu blood. They are the first gods you will have to worship, even if
they do everything to hurt you; even if every one of them sends out a curse to you, you
send out to them words of love. If they drive you out, retire to die in silence
like that mighty lion, Govind Singh. Such a man is worthy of the name of Hindu;
such an idea ought to be before us always."
It was this HIndu blood, which made Vivekananda to prasise the Great Guru as the
ideal of Hinduhood in modern times.
> >
> > Given all this, how are you still going to convince sceptics that sikhs
> > are totally different from hindus?
>
> by telling them the facts and not half baked views and faulty knowledge
> of sikhism as in your case.
I am getting a totally differnt view. It is you who have the half-baked view and
faulty knowledge of SIkhism.
>
> >
> > Sikhs may have rejected Hinduism but Hinduism has rejected their rejections
>
> what community wouldn't want a nation of hardworking, progressive,
> successful people to become a part of it ??
>
> Bikramjit Singh Dhillon
The life and deeds of Bhindranwale (and the likes of people like you) had nothing to
do with the sagacity of Guru Nanak, nothing to do with the compassion of Guru Tegh Bahadur,
they had nothing to do with the valour of Guru Govind Singh. What they were doing and
saying, the goals the terrorists had proclaimed were a direct repudiation of the
objectives these Gurus had proclaimed.
Let peace prevail.
-Sankara Narayanan
--------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer : My opinions do not involve my employer ;->
--------------------------------------------------------------
sanji singh boparai
On Fri, 7 Mar 1997, Sankara Narayanan wrote:
> Sapuran Singh Gill wrote:
> >
> > V.C.Vijayaraghavan wrote:
> >
> > > If Sikhism has "totally" rejected Brahminical Gods, how come Shiva is
> > > mentioned in sikh religious books. Is not the "Shiva" of sikhs identical to
> > > the "Shiva" of Hindus or is it just a coincidence.
> >
> > you like most of the other hindu deshbigots only have a superficial
> > understanding of sikhism. all you seem to have read is books written by
> > pseudo intellectual hindu authors who for some reason, seem to de
> > desperate to claim the sikhs as hindus.
> >
> > as anyone who has ever bothered to study sikhism would know, the Guru
> > Granth Sahib uses various terms and nomenclatures for God. It uses names
> > such as Ram, Mahadev, Shiv, Parbrahm etc. Along with these are the
> > purely sikh names for God such as 'satnam' 'Ekomkar' and Akal Purkh
> > etc.>
> > these names are used to describe God and not 'gods' as the hindus would
> > like us to believe.
>
>
> Hinduism uses much more names and nomenclatures to explain the DIvinity than
> any 'ism' in the world. GO and read 'Vishnu Sahasranama' or 'Shiva Sahasra
> nama'. All the names you claim as 'Sikh' names were taken from these books
> descrbing 1000 names of the GOd. This includes the words 'satnam', 'Paar Brahm'
> 'Param Dham', 'Akal', 'Ekomkar' etc. etc.
>
All right then! Do you want a prize? What would that prize be?
Admitting that we're Hindus? Sorry, that prize is unavailable, no matter
how much you may want it.
Sanji
V.C.Vijayaraghavan
On Mar 04, 1997 20:59:58, 'gs...@cornell.edu (Gurupdesh Singh)' wrote:
>From gs...@cornell.edu Tue Mar 4 21:07:43 1997
>Received: from cornell.edu (cornell.edu [132.236.56.6]) by
serv4.vossnet.co.uk
>(8.7.3/8.6.9) with ESMTP id VAA27053 for <vi...@vossnet.co.uk>; Tue, 4 Mar
1997
>21:06:00 GMT
>Received: from Khan.cit.cornell.edu (KHAN.CIT.CORNELL.EDU [128.253.68.71])
> by cornell.edu (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA11338
> for <vi...@vossnet.co.uk>; Tue, 4 Mar 1997 16:04:20 -0500 (EST)
>Message-Id: <1997030421...@cornell.edu>
>Newsgroups:
soc.culture.indian,soc.culture.indian,soc.culture.indian,soc.culture.punjab,soc.culture.british,soc.culture.pakistan,soc.culture.usa,soc.culture.canada
>From: gs...@cornell.edu (Gurupdesh Singh)
>To: vi...@vossnet.co.uk
>Subject: Re: 'Hinduism" in Punjab?
>Organization: Cornell University
>Date: Tue, 04 Mar 97 20:59:58 GMT
>References: <5fa398$f...@serv4.vossnet.co.uk>
gs...@cornell.edu (Gurupdesh Singh) wrote:
>Yes, some Sikhs were "Hindus" (in the pre-19th century sense) and some
Sikhs were Muslims before >conversion to Sikhism.
How many sikhs came from Islam? I should think hardly any. How many sikhs
can claim muslim forefathers? Hardly any. Are you one of them ? Is that
why your posts come from server Khan.cit.cornell.edu (KHAN.CIT.CORNELL.EDU
[128.253.68.71])? Good show if you can have two identities one sikh and
one muslim.
>The term "Allah", "Rahul", and "Rub" also is profusely used in the Granth
Sahib. The ONE God is >referred to in a many different words- and from all
religious traditions- because the Sikh Gurus believed >that all of humanity
has the same god.
Try to convince an Imam or an Ayatollah that he has the same god as Sikh
Gurus because the Gurus believed so and see the same reaction. If it is
Pakistan, you will be charged with denigrating Islam and appropriate
punishment given. The fact is many religions have an idea of ONE god which
are at odds with each others. Therefore there is no ONE god for all
humanity, each religious grroup has it's own ONE god, which is not shared
by any other ONE-god religious group. Jews' ONE god is different from
Muslims' ONE god which is different from Sikh's ONE god which is different
from Christians' ONE god. As they say of USA and UK that they are two
countries divided by common language, the hebraic religions are divided by
monotheism.
>>"The schizophrenia is compunded by reality. The life and deeds of
Bhindranwala had nothing to do with >>the sagacity of Guru Nanak., nothing
to do with the compassion of Guru Tegh Bahadur, they had >>nothing to do
with the valour of Guru Govind Singh. What they were doing and saying, the
goald the >>terrorists had proclaimed were a direct repudiation of the
objectives these gurus had proclaimed. In >>what sacred text does the name
of Lord Ram occur over 2700 times, that of Sri Krishna occur over >>10000
times? In the Granth Sahib. Who counsels "Simran kar le mere manaa, Teri
beeti jaat amar Hari >>naam binaa"? Guru Nanak. Who proclaims his
inspiration to be "Sakal jagat mein khalsa panth gaje, >>Jage dharam Hindu
sakal bhand buje"- Let the path of the pure prevail in the world. Let the
Hindu >>Dharma dawn and all delusion disappear. Who proclaims as his goal
"Dharam vedmaryaada jag mein >>chaluan, Gaughaat ka dosh jag se mituaan" -
May I spread the Dharma and glory of Vedas through the >>world, and erase
from it the stain of
>Guru Granth Sahib clearly states "not to believe in the Puranas or the
Vedas".
So, in one breath GGS asks Sikhs to spread the glory of Vedas and in the
next breath asks them not to believe in Vedas. In other words GGS advises
Sikhs to spread something which they should not believe in. Strange.
>>cow-slaughter? Guru Gobind Singh. Who forbids Europeans in his employ
from eating beef? Who lays >>down that he will help the ex-ruler of
Afghanistan
>Guru Gobind Singh did not have Europeans in his employee - it was Ranjit
Singh. You better read your >VHS "history" pamphlet more carefully
OK I accept it was a typing mistake, but you don't have to start another
of your boring lectures.
>>only on the conditionthat the latter will return the
>>Kohinoor, that he will return the doors of Somnath which Mohammed Ghori
has carried away, that he will >>ban the slaughter of cows throughout
Afghanistan? Who when he falls
>Ranjit Singh never conquered all of Afghanistan so how could he have
banned slaghted of cows there. >The Khalsa army entered Kabul but this is
in eastern Afghanistan. CAn you give reference that cow >eating was banned
there. It was not banned to Muslims in Punjab, so why should Ranjit Singh
bother with >banning it Afghanistan.
>You need a reality check fella!
Who needs reality check? it is obviouly you. If you go thro' my article
again it quotes a newspaper (Asian Age - definitely not vintage VHP) as
saying
"who lays down that he will help the ex-ruler of Afghanistan only on the
conditionthat the latter will return the Kohinoor, that he will return the
doors of Somnath which Mohammed Ghori has carried away, that he will ban
the slaughter of cows throughout Afghanistan?"
You better read it again. It speaks of RS laying down the condition of
beef-ban in Afghanistan for helping the ruler of that country. It DOES NOT
say whether beef eating was banned there ultimately. You save your lectures
for somebody else. It looks like you can't read and understand properly
You have not responded to the other other quotations from GGS- becuase it
is too inconvenient - like these -" Who counsels "Simran kar le mere
manaa, Teri beeti jaat amar Hari naam binaa"? Guru Nanak. Who proclaims
his inspiration to be "Sakal jagat mein khalsa panth gaje, Jage dharam
Hindu sakal bhand buje"- Let the path of the pure prevail in the world.
Let the Hindu Dharma dawn and all delusion disappear. Who proclaims as his
goal "Dharam vedmaryaada jag mein chaluan, Gaughaat ka dosh jag se mituaan"
- May I spread the Dharma and glory of Vedas through the world, and erase
from it the stain of cow-slaghter"
But I take your point - GGS said "I am neither hindu nor muslim". The only
thing I can conclude is that Sikh gurus were quite ambiguous in their
relationship to Hindu society. Many times they saw themselves and the sikhs
as part of hindu society and at other times they saw themselves as going
beyond it. Nothing wrong with this ambiguity- in fact it has been sikhs'
greatest strength - they could draw on the religious and philosophical
resources of hinduism as well as personnel. Had it not been this ambiguity,
millions of hindus would not have become sikhs without any feeling that
they were converting to another religion. History also helped . The model
of Sant-Sipah, which was unprecedended in Indian history - was created to
counter the crushing burden of Mughal autocracy.
>Just to bring you home to earth, a short historical profile is given below
of the major religious periods of >Punjab
Please, please spare us exactly the same lectures on Punjab from 3000 BC
(sub-titled Aryan Sikhs vs Dravidian Hindus) and the D.O.B. (Dravidian
Origin of Brahmins) Theory (sub-titled Machinations of Gangetic Dravida
Priesthood). The first time you wrote it it was amusing, the secong time
tolerable, the third time we could ignore it. After that we are positively
sick to the back teeth at looking at these two theories appear again and
again in your posts like a record stuck in the same groove.. Does not
sikhism adivise you not to bore other people to death. I hope you know
repetition is the enemy of wit.
sanji singh boparai
Wrong. Wrong. Sikhs may stand alone, but they feel that the One
God is God, is Allah, is Jehovah. A Sikh has no problem, in fact is
respectfull of someone who prays to God/Allah/Jehovah. The Guru GRanth
Sahib is wonderful testimony to that.
(keep reading)
>
>
>
>
> >>"The schizophrenia is compunded by reality. The life and deeds of
> Bhindranwala had nothing to do with >>the sagacity of Guru Nanak., nothing
> to do with the compassion of Guru Tegh Bahadur, they had >>nothing to do
> with the valour of Guru Govind Singh. What they were doing and saying, the
> goald the >>terrorists had proclaimed were a direct repudiation of the
> objectives these gurus had proclaimed. In >>what sacred text does the name
> of Lord Ram occur over 2700 times, that of Sri Krishna occur over >>10000
> times? In the Granth Sahib. Who counsels "Simran kar le mere manaa, Teri
> beeti jaat amar Hari >>naam binaa"? Guru Nanak. Who proclaims his
> inspiration to be "Sakal jagat mein khalsa panth gaje, >>Jage dharam Hindu
> sakal bhand buje"- Let the path of the pure prevail in the world. Let the
> Hindu >>Dharma dawn and all delusion disappear. Who proclaims as his goal
> "Dharam vedmaryaada jag mein >>chaluan, Gaughaat ka dosh jag se mituaan" -
> May I spread the Dharma and glory of Vedas through the >>world, and erase
> from it the stain of
>
> >Guru Granth Sahib clearly states "not to believe in the Puranas or the
> Vedas".
>
>
Not to believe in their totality, but in their essence, perhaps.
I think it is you who need some classes in reading comprehension. There
is no Hindu nor Musalmaan because anyone who is so, truly, is of the same
brotherhood. All these people calling themselves Hindu/Muslim/Sikh, have
not realized God, and thus are diffrent. Once a person realizes God (thus
they are able to say they are those that practice their religion, which
are paths to realization) they are the same. If you think the Guru Granth
Sahib is really a book meant to cconvert people to Sikhism, you are
really not doind to well in your reading comprehension. Or, perhaps you
don't care what the Guru Granth Sahib really means, only how you can
twist that meaning to your own ends?
> >Just to bring you home to earth, a short historical profile is given below
> of the major religious periods of >Punjab
>
>
> Please, please spare us exactly the same lectures on Punjab from 3000 BC
> (sub-titled Aryan Sikhs vs Dravidian Hindus) and the D.O.B. (Dravidian
> Origin of Brahmins) Theory (sub-titled Machinations of Gangetic Dravida
> Priesthood). The first time you wrote it it was amusing, the secong time
> tolerable, the third time we could ignore it. After that we are positively
> sick to the back teeth at looking at these two theories appear again and
> again in your posts like a record stuck in the same groove.. Does not
> sikhism adivise you not to bore other people to death. I hope you know
> repetition is the enemy of wit.
>
>
>
>
The realization of your own lack of fundamental understanding should
be enough to preclude such a lecture in the future.
Sanji
V.C.Vijayaraghavan
On Mar 08, 1997 05:17:23 in article <Re: 'Hinduism" in Punjab?>, 'sanji
singh boparai <bop...@students.uiuc.edu>' wrote:
>All right then! Do you want a prize? What would that prize be?
>Admitting that we're Hindus? Sorry, that prize is unavailable, no matter
>how much you may want it.
>Sanji
It is not my intention to convince sikhs or the world that they should be
called hindus. If I see a man turban and beard, I will call him a sikh and
nothing else.
But the argument is about a radical cleavage between sikhism and hinduism,
both in theory and practice. That is why I marshalled as much evidence as
possible. If you are not convinced by it I am not bothered at all. On the
other hand, the proponents of such a thesis have failed to prove with
clinching evidence or a good quantity of small evidences that sikhism is
very different from hinduism. Hinduism allows enough variations to look
like sikhism also.
ICeKRaSH
this is some post a guy mailed me and my reply...maybe you deshibigots can
answer the questions in it:
In a message dated 97-03-10 08:56:00 EST, you write:
ok guy, lets dissect your post
> icek...@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > In article <331f8f63...@news.globalserve.net>,
rsharma@globalserve.
> net writes:
> >
> > >>Sir
> > >>If hindu is so hunanity loving what are the hindus doing in Kashmir
> > >>doing to the muslims there what you did to the sikhs in e punjab
and i
> > >>can never forget tales of horror of hindu atrocities to people who
> > >>migrated in 1947 particularly in e punjab.I have met many people
from
> > >>india who told me that how the hindu hate muslim although on your
face
> > >>they are very nice.The hindus are most untrustworthy creature on
this
> > >>earth.Gandhi who always said about unity was very cunning and he
wanted
> > >>undivided india so that lallas to rule.
> > >>regards
> > >>PERVAIZ RIZVI
> > >In 1947, the atrocities committed by Muslims on Sikhs and Hindus was
> > >repetitive history. The Muslims slaughtered Sikhs and Hindus in what
> > >is now Pakistan, and the Sikhs in Punjab, India eliminated all the
> > >Muslims there. That is why there are no Muslims in Punjab, India
now!
> > >The Muslims in India are biggest traitors of them all. These
> > >back-stabbing Muslims will kiss Pakistan's ass anytime! They will
help
> > >out Kashmir if they. I would never trust a Muslim! I have met all
> > >Muslims who hate Hindus. India has given opportunities to Muslims in
> > >Indian movies, theatres, music, sports and government postings. What
> > >have Pakistani's done for the Sikhs and Hindus in Pakistan,
absolutely
> > >nothing! No human rights and no freedom of speech!
> > >
> > >RS
> >
> > oh but what has india done to the sikhs?....no human rights and
freedom of
> speech also
> >
> > Sundeep Singh
>
> I don't want to hear this from a Khalistani and promoter of this
> movement. You guys are thankless and good for nothing creatures.
>
> You are talking like an agent of Pakistan.
>
> Forget all that India has given to Sikhs :
>
> 1. First of all creating a sect named Sikhism, which came out of
> Hinduism. They were Paanch Pyares created for saving and protecting
> Hindu community and their rights.
are you on crack?....when did india or hindus create sikhism?....Guru
Nanak wasa hindu when he was born, but he created SIKHISM.....the Paanch
Pyares were created for saving and protecting the OPRESSED....NOT
hindus.....if 800 million hindus need the support and protection of 20
million sikhs, then so be it....
>
> 2. Sikhs, I respect a lot. I disprect Sikhs, who has Khalistani
> sentiments. Majority of them are hard-working, brave and very open
> minded people. For centuries, India has respected all that and that is
> the reason you can neverfind a Sikh all over India with High positions
> and business. It is also said that a Sindhi Hindu and Sikh can not be
> found as a beggar, which shows how much India cares about minorities.
> Just having above qualities does not guarantee all that.
you got to be smoking the weed....they dont beg because india cared about
minorities....they DONT BEG BECAUSE THEY ARE TOO PROUD TO BEG...this has
NOTHING to do with what india did to minorities
>
> You have to have human rights, freedom of speech and a trust.
> Which you have been provided in abundance in India, even more than
> Hindus at times. You can see, we had several ex-Presidents, ministers
> etc, all of them were Sikhs.
JESUS CHRIST!!! India has one of the worst human rights record in the
WHOLE WORLD.....where have you been man?....human rights?....150,000 sikhs
have been killed since 84! 25000 sikhs (at least) have been tortured,
killed, then cremated by the punjab police between the years of 1991 and
1994!!!!!!!! this has been exposed by jaswant singh khalra...for GOD'S
sake, he worked for the human rights wing of the indian government...you
ever heard off him?.....for exposing these atrocitied, he was kidnapped by
the police and he has been tortured since....hes been tortured so bad that
he cant raise his hands to feed himself....is this human rights?...human
rights has NOTHING to do with whether sikhs were presidents of
whatever......today i was in school and i wanted to join this club, called
amnesty international, it deals with human rights...you write a letter to
a government dealing with human rights violations....they had a list of
sheets with the governments and the people who they had hurt...the FIRST
sheet was INDIA and Jaswant Singh Khalra was the topic of the letter....is
this human rights you are talking about?.....i just posted an articled on
the newsgroup the other week...it was about a sikh kid who was THREE YEARS
OLD who was killed by the punjab police and then marked as a
terrorist...HE WAS THREE YEAR OLD ARVINDER SINGH....this happened in
november of 1996...just a few months ago......is this human rights you
talk about?...is that what i am too expect from the "worlds largest
democracy"??..killing a three year old?....
freedom of speech?...thats a joke.....its illegal to even SAY the word
"khalistan" in india...those who were peaceful and wanted khalistan were
tortured and killed....is this freeom of speech?......hte people there
only hear one sids of the story...THE GOVERNMENTS SIDE.....the rest is
sepressed from the people....that is why most of the people in india dont
know about the opression that exists...they dont read about jaswant singh
khalra and arvinder singh....they read of 10 people getting killed by
khalistani terrorists....is this freedom of speech?.....what did khalra do
wrong?..explain that to me...explain to me what he did that was so bad
that they would kidpapp and torture (and probably kill) this peace loving
man who did his job in a government that he worked for......freedom of
speech?...cmon....you need more?...explain this to me...in 1985, a book
called "Report to the Nation: Opression In Punjab" was written, it was
written by 13 HINDUS who had visited punjab and who had seen with their
own eyes the opression that existed...they whole book is based on
EYE-WITNESS ACOUNTS....it dealt with government opression and had NOTHING
to do with Khalistan....you know what?...it was BANNED by the indian
government....the man who wrote it went to jail for writing it.....is this
the freedom of speech you talk about?...is this what freedom of speech is
in the "World's Largest Democracy"?
>
> 3. I fully consider Operation Bluestar and the riots after Mrs. Gandhi
> murder, murder too were completely incorrect.
>
> who's responsible???? Think and reply back. It's not the whole Sikh
> community or Hindu community or even the Prime Minister. It's all bunch
> of people like Bhindrawale and group, some fanatics of religion and a
> lot of political gimmic, which created all that furore.
OF MY GOD, THE 84 RIOTS WERE LEAD BY GOVERNMENT LEADERS AND CONGRESS
MEMEMBERS...DO YOU WANT ME TO BELIEVE THAT SIKHS LIKE BHINDRANWALE WOULD
LEAD ANTI-SIKH RIOTS AGAINST THEIR OWN PEOPLE?...gimme a break guy.....im
sure they were forced to attack on one of the most important days in our
religion huh?....they couldnt wait one week to attack and destroy our
temple....its not the fault of hindus...BUT ITS DEFINITELY THE FAULT OF
INDIRA......and she got what was coming to her......guy, go to this site,
it is the site for that book "Report to the Nation: Opression in
punjab"...it shows the opression that the government did...GO AND READ IT,
ALL OF IT, THEN REPLY
http://khanda.unl.edu/%7Esikhism/zulm/index.html
>
> Still in India, Sikhs have a lot of respect. Any where you go in India,
> their businesses are still prospering and they are at higher positions
> than you think.
they were never given that respect, THEY EARNED IT
>
> It is a malicious approach of a group here in the west to create rift
> between peace loving people of India.
that group is the group that exists in your homeland that rules all you
people....theve made them all to the point where they are too scared to
even stand up and say something is WRONG
>
> I fully disagree with your views and appeal to all Sikh and Hindu
> brothers to be united and live in peace.
i appeal to sikh and hindu unity...when have i not?
>
> May God bless India.
>
May God Break Up India and give freedom to all those who have been killed
or opressed by the tyranny known as the Indian Government
Sundeep Singh
sanji singh boparai
On 10 Mar 1997, V.C.Vijayaraghavan wrote:
> On Mar 08, 1997 05:17:23 in article <Re: 'Hinduism" in Punjab?>, 'sanji
> singh boparai <bop...@students.uiuc.edu>' wrote:
>
>
> >All right then! Do you want a prize? What would that prize be?
> >Admitting that we're Hindus? Sorry, that prize is unavailable, no matter
> >how much you may want it.
> >Sanji
>
> Sanji
>
> It is not my intention to convince sikhs or the world that they should be
> called hindus. If I see a man turban and beard, I will call him a sikh and
> nothing else.
>
> But the argument is about a radical cleavage between sikhism and hinduism,
> both in theory and practice. That is why I marshalled as much evidence as
> possible. If you are not convinced by it I am not bothered at all. On the
> other hand, the proponents of such a thesis have failed to prove with
> clinching evidence or a good quantity of small evidences that sikhism is
> very different from hinduism. Hinduism allows enough variations to look
> like sikhism also.
>
>
This is a wholly diffrent matter. Are you saying that because Hinduism
has changed, it is more like Sikhism? One the other hand, if you are
saying that Sikhism never was far enough away from Hinduism, you are just
not on target. None of the Bhakta poets of Guru Nanak's time were saying
things like Guru Nanak. Sure, they said love was the answer. But, if you
are talking about the vocifourous denial of the legitamcy of the caste,
the denial of the doctrine of pollution, the claim of the One True God,
the mockery and exposure of idol worship and rote ritual as utterly and
wholly worthless, later the need for phyiscal defence of justice, the
denial of the sadhu/yogi way of life, if you are saying all of this is
not something Nanak and the Gurus alone were speaking of, you are
incorrect. I do agree that Hinduism's reaction to this was to change its
ways, however. That is why they're a re similarities.
Sanji
Amitabh Hajela
sanji singh boparai wrote:
> But, if you
> are talking about the vocifourous denial of the legitamcy of the caste,
> the denial of the doctrine of pollution, the claim of the One True God,
> the mockery and exposure of idol worship and rote ritual as utterly and
> wholly worthless, later the need for phyiscal defence of justice, the
> denial of the sadhu/yogi way of life, if you are saying all of this is
> not something Nanak and the Gurus alone were speaking of, you are
> incorrect. I do agree that Hinduism's reaction to this was to change its
> ways, however. That is why they're a re similarities.
>
> Sanji
>
Some of the Sikh ideals seem to be undermined by the Sikhs themselves.
No insult to the Gurus, I respect them a lot - but why did all the
Gurus marry their children according to strict Hindu caste rules? Every
marriage of every Guru and his children, was exactly the same as Hindu
Khatris would have done (the Gurus were khatris - please Rajindhar
Nijjar, don't comment!). To put it another way, every one of those
marriages would have appeared perfectly acceptable to even the most
orthodox Hindu Khatri of those times. For people who were trying to
eliminate the evil social practices of Hindus, especially caste, and who
certainly didn't want to do things the orthodox Hindu way, why did they
arrange the marriages that way? (I know they didn't do it to impress
HIndus, but they probably did it because of some deep, ingrained
cultural attitude they just couldn't shake).
And today, why is inter-caste marriage so rare among Sikhs? Most Sikhs
are still "pure-blooded" members of some or the other HIndu caste.
Khatri Sikhs are still khatri; Aroras still Aroras. The Mazhabis are
still chamaars. And the famous jatts are still jatts, and will probably
never give that up. I know some Rajput Sikhs who are 100% Rajput, no
intermixing. If tomorrow you hear that an Arora Sikh married an Arora
Hindu, you won't be shocked, but if you hear that an Arora Sikh married
a Jat Sikh, you'll go into shock! (I'm exaggerating - but you get my
point). Can some one explain, please?
sanji singh boparai
First of all, where is your proof? You say this so causally, I can
only assume you have mounds of evidence. Before I say anything about
this, please give me proof of these practices by the Gurus.
>
> And today, why is inter-caste marriage so rare among Sikhs? Most Sikhs
> are still "pure-blooded" members of some or the other HIndu caste.
> Khatri Sikhs are still khatri; Aroras still Aroras. The Mazhabis are
> still chamaars. And the famous jatts are still jatts, and will probably
> never give that up. I know some Rajput Sikhs who are 100% Rajput, no
> intermixing. If tomorrow you hear that an Arora Sikh married an Arora
> Hindu, you won't be shocked, but if you hear that an Arora Sikh married
> a Jat Sikh, you'll go into shock! (I'm exaggerating - but you get my
> point). Can some one explain, please?
>
>
I wouldn't go into shock. For me, I want to marry a Jat Sikh girl
because I would be happier with her than anyone else. If you really
experiance Punjabi culture, you wouldn't be able to choose anyone else. I
mean, if I found another girl with the spirit and joy of life of a jatthi
kuri, with her pride and self-assurance, her well-stated sense of beuty,
her sense of humor, who would help me raise our kids with the same
tradition that I thank God I was born into, I would marry her.
Sanji
Amitabh Hajela
sanji singh boparai wrote:
>
> On Thu, 13 Mar 1997, Amitabh Hajela wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Some of the Sikh ideals seem to be undermined by the Sikhs themselves.
> > No insult to the Gurus, I respect them a lot - but why did all the
> > Gurus marry their children according to strict Hindu caste rules? Every
> > marriage of every Guru and his children, was exactly the same as Hindu
> > Khatris would have done (the Gurus were khatris - please Rajindhar
> > Nijjar, don't comment!). To put it another way, every one of those
> > marriages would have appeared perfectly acceptable to even the most
> > orthodox Hindu Khatri of those times. For people who were trying to
> > eliminate the evil social practices of Hindus, especially caste, and who
> > certainly didn't want to do things the orthodox Hindu way, why did they
> > arrange the marriages that way? (I know they didn't do it to impress
> > HIndus, but they probably did it because of some deep, ingrained
> > cultural attitude they just couldn't shake).
>
> First of all, where is your proof? You say this so causally, I can
> only assume you have mounds of evidence. Before I say anything about
> this, please give me proof of these practices by the Gurus.
The following info. is taken from the book "The Sikh Religion And The
Sikh People", by Dr. S.S. Kapoor (Hemkunt Press, 1992).
Guru Nanak was born into a Bedi family, one of the clans of the Khatri
caste. He was married to Mata Sulakhni, daughter of a Khatri, Mul Chand
of Batala.
Guru Angad was Khatri of the Trehan clan. He was married to Mata Khivi,
daughter of a Khatri, Devi Chand of village Sangar.
Guru Amardas was a khatri of the Bhalla clan. Married to Bibi Mansa
Devi of village Sankhetra, district Sialkot (now in Pakistan), daughter
of a Khatri, Baba Devi Chand of the Behl clan.
Guru Ramdas, khatri of the Sodhi clan. Married to Guru Amardas's
daughter, Bibi Bhani (incidentally, the only woman who was daughter of a
Guru, wife of a Guru, and mother of a Guru (Arjan).
Guru Arjan, first Guru born as a Sikh, son of Guru Ramdas, married to
Mata Ganga, daughter of a Khatri, Bhai Kishen Chand, of village Meo,
dist. Jallandhar.
Guru Hargobind, son of Guru Arjan, had three wives. First was Mata
Damodri, daughter of the Khatri, Bhai Narain Das of village Dalla. His
second marriage was to Mata Nanaki, daughter of Khatri Baba Hari Chand
of Bakal. (Guru Tegh Bahadur came from this marriage). The third
marriage was with Mata Mahadevi, daughter of a Khatri, Baba Daya Ram
Marwaha of village Mandiali.
Guru Har Rai, who's father was Baba Gurditta, eldest son of Guru
Hargobind (from marriage #1). Mother was Mata Nihal Kaur. Being a
direct male descendant of Guru Ramdas, he was of the Sodhi clan.
Married to Mata Krishen Kaur, daughter of Baba Daya Ram, of Bulandshair,
UP, also a Khatri.
Guru Harkrishen, son of Guru Har Rai. Never married.
Guru Tegh Bahadur, son of Guru Hargobind. Married to Mata Gujri, a
khatri.
Guru Gobind Singh. Son of Guru Tegh Bahadur. Married to Mata Jito,
Sundri, and Mata Sahib Devan. All khatris.
>
> >
> > And today, why is inter-caste marriage so rare among Sikhs? Most Sikhs
> > are still "pure-blooded" members of some or the other HIndu caste.
> > Khatri Sikhs are still khatri; Aroras still Aroras. The Mazhabis are
> > still chamaars. And the famous jatts are still jatts, and will probably
> > never give that up. I know some Rajput Sikhs who are 100% Rajput, no
> > intermixing. If tomorrow you hear that an Arora Sikh married an Arora
> > Hindu, you won't be shocked, but if you hear that an Arora Sikh married
> > a Jat Sikh, you'll go into shock! (I'm exaggerating - but you get my
> > point). Can some one explain, please?
> >
> >
>
> I wouldn't go into shock. For me, I want to marry a Jat Sikh girl
> because I would be happier with her than anyone else. If you really
> experiance Punjabi culture, you wouldn't be able to choose anyone else. I
> mean, if I found another girl with the spirit and joy of life of a jatthi
> kuri, with her pride and self-assurance, her well-stated sense of beuty,
> her sense of humor, who would help me raise our kids with the same
> tradition that I thank God I was born into, I would marry her.
>
> Sanji
Well, since I assume you're a Jat, this works out well for you. But if
some Sikh guy of another caste felt the same as you, that he wanted a
Jat Sikh girl as well, for exactly the same reasons you mentioned, he
could forget aboout it. Very few Jat Sikhs are willing to let their
daughters marry a non-jat. Most don't want their sons to do that
either. Other Sikh castes feel similarly, as do most Hindus of whatever
caste. But our religion at least "sanctions" this (in the eyes of our
detractors), so we have an excuse. What's the Sikh reason for it?
BIG BADD JATT
Amitabh Hajela (aha...@caribsurf.com) wrote:
: Well, since I assume you're a Jat, this works out well for you. But if
: some Sikh guy of another caste felt the same as you, that he wanted a
: Jat Sikh girl as well, for exactly the same reasons you mentioned, he
: could forget aboout it. Very few Jat Sikhs are willing to let their
: daughters marry a non-jat. Most don't want their sons to do that
: either. Other Sikh castes feel similarly, as do most Hindus of whatever
: caste. But our religion at least "sanctions" this (in the eyes of our
: detractors), so we have an excuse. What's the Sikh reason for it?
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the Sikh religion
and its beliefs. Sikhism maintains that anyone - regardless
of his or her caste is capable of attaining salvation - whereas
HINDUS believe that members of "low" castes and women are not
capable of attaining union with God. Whom Sikhs choose to marry is
non issue and people choose to marry those they are attracted to,
some prefer slim women, others tall etc etc - this type of
"discrimination" is not what the Gurus were referring to when
condemning the caste system, instead it was the bigoted Brahmin
view that they were spiritually superior to the "low" castes.
BIG BADD JATT
Amitabh Hajela (aha...@eclipse.net) wrote:
: >
:
: Some of the Sikh ideals seem to be undermined by the Sikhs themselves.
: No insult to the Gurus, I respect them a lot - but why did all the
: Gurus marry their children according to strict Hindu caste rules? Every
: marriage of every Guru and his children, was exactly the same as Hindu
: Khatris would have done (the Gurus were khatris - please Rajindhar
: Nijjar, don't comment!). To put it another way, every one of those
: marriages would have appeared perfectly acceptable to even the most
: orthodox Hindu Khatri of those times. For people who were trying to
: eliminate the evil social practices of Hindus, especially caste, and who
: certainly didn't want to do things the orthodox Hindu way, why did they
: arrange the marriages that way? (I know they didn't do it to impress
: HIndus, but they probably did it because of some deep, ingrained
: cultural attitude they just couldn't shake).
You make the same argument as other hindus that try to justify
their belief in the caste system when this systen is attacked by Sikhs.
The interesting thing about your argument above is that the Gurus
choice of marriage partners only seems to bother HINDUS and not
SIKHS. Some hindus on the net try to provoke Jatt Sikhs by saying
that none of the Sikh Gurus were Jatts - well it doesn't seem to
bother us Jatts who have freely chosen to be members of the Sikh
faith, regardless of the caste of the Sikh Gurus - it seems that
HINDUS are more concerned with this issue than Sikhs themselves -
but i guess that is why they are still hindus and not SIkhs ;-)
ukko...@cc.memphis.edu
Amitabh Hajela <aha...@caribsurf.com> writes:
> could forget aboout it. Very few Jat Sikhs are willing to let their
> daughters marry a non-jat. Most don't want their sons to do that
> either. Other Sikh castes feel similarly, as do most Hindus of whatever
> caste. But our religion at least "sanctions" this (in the eyes of our
> detractors), so we have an excuse. What's the Sikh reason for it?
Amitabh, you do ask excellent questions, and despite your "jhaaon plus bataun"
whining, I'm flattered by the interest taken by a UP gentleman in our culture.
Good boy.
The correlation between scriptures and caste system appears to be weak.
I've read of a few papers that state the varna system of Manu was not the
source of the caste system in India today. This view is also upheld by
a number of tertiary info sources (references later). Rather, the origin
of the present caste system seems to be in post-vedic professional guilds.
Scriptures were given an interpretational twist to support an attitude that
had its genesis in institutionalized nepotism (and may be racism). The
process by which this happened might have been something similar to what
to took place in South Africa and the United States earlier this century.
In South Africa, the Hans and Sans story of the bible was used to justify
the racism. Fortunately, an era in which notions about the equality of all men
are lauded dampened the degree to which the attitudes were institutionalized
into broader culture.
Casteism in Sikhism and several Indian muslim communities is evidence that
a process other than adherence to religous decrees propagates the caste
system. Religous laws as the genesis of the system is also in doubt.
Common sense dictates that a group of people are unlikely to wake up one
morning and decide to divide themselves and thier progeny along inflexible
superiority/inferiority lines. The way religion would demand us of such is if
the religion was formed very late along a timescale so that it incorporated
existing social customs, or if religous discussions (e.g. on economic
management in society) were misinterpreted to support corrupt social
practices. In either case, religion was not the intial causative factor for the
social custom. [please e-mail me if anyone requires pointers on the
research of the caste system...it'll take me a little time to pull it up].
Among contemporary Punjabis, casteism grows lamer by the day. Among the
Arya Samajis, it is openly frowned upon. Among many urban Hindu Punjabis,
casteist rules are no longer strictly followed...as is the case in most
other urban focii. Casteim is still robust among rural Sikhs, in whom a
vocabulary of "bahman", "chamaar", "bhapee" is strongly ingrained, and the
respective groupings viewed upon with utmost seriousness, perhaps even a
racist fervour. But then, change always comes slower to villages.
Changa pher,
Shelly
Sapuran Singh Gill
> >
> > On Thu, 13 Mar 1997, Amitabh Hajela wrote:
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Some of the Sikh ideals seem to be undermined by the Sikhs themselves.
> > > No insult to the Gurus, I respect them a lot - but why did all the
> > > Gurus marry their children according to strict Hindu caste rules? Every
> > > marriage of every Guru and his children, was exactly the same as Hindu
> > > Khatris would have done (the Gurus were khatris - please Rajindhar
> > > Nijjar, don't comment!). To put it another way, every one of those
> > > marriages would have appeared perfectly acceptable to even the most
> > > orthodox Hindu Khatri of those times. For people who were trying to
> > > eliminate the evil social practices of Hindus, especially caste, and who
> > > certainly didn't want to do things the orthodox Hindu way, why did they
> > > arrange the marriages that way? (I know they didn't do it to impress
> > > HIndus, but they probably did it because of some deep, ingrained
> > > cultural attitude they just couldn't shake).
In my view this is because the Gurus didn't believe in making token
gestures. The Gurus believed in the equality of man and women before
God. Since most of the castes live their every day lives in different
situations and each has a different way of life then the gesture of
token inter-caste marriages didn't arise. The first Guru was married
young as was traditional. the next two were born into hindu households
and married before they became sikhs and then Gurus.
It is only in this day and age that we can think of inter-caste
marriages because if both persons live in the same town chances are
they have the same kind of upbringing.
If we look at the time of the Gurus-;
a jat would have had a rural existance, his daughers and sons would have
been brought up to live the same kind of life in their married homes.
therefore a jat's daughter would know that she would have to do the same
kinds of work around the home when she got married at she does at her
parent's home.
if a khatri girl was say, married to a jat. she would soon be out of her
depth, since she would have been brought up to be the wife of a
businessman or shopkeeper and not a farmer.
just as say a jat girl was married to a so called former untouchable.
her husband would be a labourer in the fields instead of a farmer owning
and farming the land.
this may be one of the reasons.
as for the sikhs since the gurus their basis wass that people will
always want to marry their sons and daughters into families who are a
similar status ( wealth, property ) as them so that the change from the
parents to the husbands home is as smooth as possible.
nowadays i don't think this would apply since there are poor jats and
rich untouchables etc.
Bikramjit Singh Dhillon
Amitabh Hajela
ukko...@cc.memphis.edu wrote:
>
> Amitabh, you do ask excellent questions, and despite your "jhaaon plus bataun"
> whining, I'm flattered by the interest taken by a UP gentleman in our culture.
> Good boy.
>
Ignoring the last phrase you needlessly included, let me address this
point. Yes, I'm interested in Punjab and Punjabi culture. It started
out when I became a fan of bhangra music in college. I also met many
Punjabis there, for the first time. I started enjoying the language,
and tried to learn it. Somewehere along the line, I started reading
about Punjab (plus other states in India as well). That's how I slowly
discovered the history of many different parts of India.
I was only 12 when Indira Gandhi got shot, and living in America, I
didn't think about it too much. When I went to college, I started
listening to debates between Sikhs and Hindus over that issue, operation
bluestar, etc. So I read up on it. I wanted to know who Sikhs were,
what their history was.
What I learned over a period of several years (after all I was pre-med
too, didn't have too much time for all this) gave me a respect for Sikhs
and Sikhism which is permanent, regardless of what some of today's Sikhs
may do. I understand that the real villains in recent Sikih history
were the Gandhi family and the Congress party. I also realized that no
issue is as simple as it seems, but most Hindus try to take a very
simplistic approach when thinking about Sikhs or the Punjab situation.
I got to visit the Har Mandar Sahib (Golden Temple) in January this
year. I count it as one of the best experiences in my life. I'm still
strongly Hindu (I believe in Lord Krishna, Lord Ram, etc, so I can never
be Sikh), but often I find myself trying to decide something the way
Guru Gobind Singh might have. It's been a real inspiration in my life.
About being from UP - that's something I take immense pride in. I have
spent a lot of my vacation time in UP, been all over the sate, been to
Varanasi (also one of the best experiences in my life), and I've learned
much about my culture, language, religion, etc. But for newsgroup
purposes, I find this Punjab ng the most interesting. Hope no one
minds.
Mo
>.In my view this is because the Gurus didn't believe in making token
gestures. The Gurus believed in the equality of man and women before
God. <<
Would have been a good gesture to get their daughter married to an
untouchable for a start.
Hypocrisy is not something our ancestors knew nothing about.
Dayanand
ukko...@cc.memphis.edu wrote:
: Arya Samajis, it is openly frowned upon. Among many urban Hindu Punjabis,
: casteist rules are no longer strictly followed...as is the case in most
: other urban focii. Casteim is still robust among rural Sikhs, in whom a
: vocabulary of "bahman", "chamaar", "bhapee" is strongly ingrained, and the
: respective groupings viewed upon with utmost seriousness, perhaps even a
: racist fervour. But then, change always comes slower to villages.
: Changa pher,
: Shelly
Why did you waste so much space in comimg to your usual and predictable
conclusion: arya smaji GOOD, Sikh (especially Jatts) BAD.
If you want to find hatred sanctified by "scriptures", look to your arya
smaji rag authored by a guy who was killed by a hooker.
Sapuran Singh Gill
read the post birdbrain.
i said they didn't believe in gestures and you imbicile mind says that
they should have done some.
we all know of the hyprocrisy of you ancestors therefore they need no
eleboration.
Bikramjit Singh Dhillon
Ch. Rajinder Nijjhar
In message <332DFB...@caribsurf.com>
Amitabh Hajela <aha...@caribsurf.com> writes:
BIN SATGURU KUJH NAA PAAEEYAE; AAYIAE JAAYIAE JANAM GOVAAEEYAE.
SATGURU SOORAJH KADHHAE DHHUNDH; SACH CHANDRMA NAZZAR AAIYAE.
A well written article but without a satguru it is all KOORR.
Ch. Rajinder Nijjhar.
NOOR ALLAH DAA; KUDRATT KHUDAYAE DI.
> sanji singh boparai wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 13 Mar 1997, Amitabh Hajela wrote:
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Some of the Sikh ideals seem to be undermined by the Sikhs themselves.
> > > No insult to the Gurus, I respect them a lot - but why did all the
> > > Gurus marry their children according to strict Hindu caste rules? Every
> > > marriage of every Guru and his children, was exactly the same as Hindu
> > > Khatris would have done (the Gurus were khatris - please Rajindhar
> > > Nijjar, don't comment!). To put it another way, every one of those
> > > marriages would have appeared perfectly acceptable to even the most
> > > orthodox Hindu Khatri of those times. For people who were trying to
> > > eliminate the evil social practices of Hindus, especially caste, and who
> > > certainly didn't want to do things the orthodox Hindu way, why did they
> > > arrange the marriages that way? (I know they didn't do it to impress
> > > HIndus, but they probably did it because of some deep, ingrained
> > > cultural attitude they just couldn't shake).
> >
> Well, since I assume you're a Jat, this works out well for you. But if
> some Sikh guy of another caste felt the same as you, that he wanted a
> Jat Sikh girl as well, for exactly the same reasons you mentioned, he
apna sangeet
DHILLON VIDEO FOR ALL YOUR AUDIO & VIDEO NEEDS CALL SUKHWANT SINGH
PH.( 604) 325-0040 VANCOUVER, BC CANADA
NEW RADIO STATION WEB ( WWW.APNA-SANGEET.COM
apna sangeet
apna sangeet
apna sangeet
dps....@gmail.com
> I have a brief question for Sikhs.
"Hindu Turak Doin Rafzi Imam Saki, Maanas Ki Jaat Sabhay Ekh Pehchaan Bhao!"- Sri Guru Gobin Singh Ji.
"Raam Rahim Ek Thain Khaloin......Puchan Khol Kitabh Which Hindu Wada Kay Musalmanoi....... Baba Akhay Haajian...Shubh Amlaan Baajhoon Dono Roi"-- Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji.
Human Is Human.....Gurus just melted out the odds in the society around...whether a Musalim Bhai or a Hindu Veer.....
A Musalim person who could perceive Allah in other fellow Humans... and a Hindu Who could Perceive Raam in other fellow gentlemen..... are actually the religious fellows and same is true for every human being.....deeply filled with Love affection and care...... Rest is immaterial..
Therefore Gurus and their disciples let their lives sacrificed for the poor, and needy ones even they were not in agreement or supported the religious faith/fundamentals followed by these poor and need people but that was their freedom, Love for all is the only religion even for their foes or enemies. Like Parents loving their kids may need to aside their kid/s who are at justice but do not go against the other because of the hatred but because they love all their kids so they have to impart justice by favoring the right ones while they equally feel love for other kids but feel sorry for their acts..... similarly a religious person feel the same love for all .. for all.. Love for all even to the ones who consider these humble loving guardians their enemies.
Love and regards to all.
DevinderSingh Gulati
> I have a brief question for Sikhs.
> Sikh religion as a branch of Hinduism, or try to claim that "Sikhs are
> the militant wing of Hinduism", etc.
> I think there are two types of Hindus who do this; there are those who
> are trying to say that Sikh beliefs, philosophy, customs, etc. are
> directly traceable to Hindu beliefs, philosophy, and customs. I think
> these are the people Sikhs probably resent most.
> But there may be some Hindus who only mean to say that since the
> ancestors of almost all Sikhs were Hindus, then "physically" or in terms
> of their ethnic make-up, Sikhs are Hindus; i.e., Sikhs may not be Hindus
> in a religious sense at all, but as descendants of people who were once
> Hindus, they are "Hindu" in some non-religious, "other" sense. By this
> token, most Indian Muslims and Christians would also be Hindu.
> My question is, would Sikhs object to the latter viewpoint as well. If
> so, why? Also, does having had Hindu ancestors mean anything to Sikhs
> at all, or not?
> I wanted to make the above question as bias-free as possible. My next
> statement may have some bias - sorry about that. It's just an
> observation that occured to me - Punjab (I'm talking about the whole,
> pre-partition Punjab) had been ruled by Muslims for 1200 years. In that
> time, massive efforts were made to convert the Hindus to Islam. These
> efforts were made at all levels (local, informal, official, etc) and
> were made in all ways (force, violence, persuasion, Sufis, etc.).
> Considering that gradually the population of Western Punjab became more
> and more Muslim as time went on, with most of the local Hindus
> converting (which is why you have Muslim jats in those areas), and
> Punjab as a whole effectively became a muslim-majority area even before
> Guru Nanak (even though the east Punjab was Hindu majority), isn't it
> amazing that there were any Hindus left AT ALL, by Guru NAnak's time?
> In spite of being a down-trodden minority in a muslim majority, muslim
> ruled area, SO MANY Hindus remained Hindus, and refused to convert to
> Islam, in spite of so many incentives to do so. It was out of THESE
> HIndus that the Sikhs were born; in other words, somehow, the ancestors
> of today's Jat Sikhs, for example, remained Hindu long enough, resisted
> conversion to Islam long enough, so that the Gurus could be born and
> make them Sikhs; if those Hindus had converted to Islam earlier, given
> in to every temptation and incentive to do so, there would have been no
> Hindus for the Gurus to make into Sikhs. So, doesn't that mean that
> those Hindus (the ancestors of today's Sikhs) must have valued Hinduism
> enough (before Sikhism existed) not to become Muslims?
> Amitabh Hajela
You are right and even today the Muslim attitude continues to be the same.
Today they are decimating Hindus and Sikhs but the khalsa has a defective perspective.
I chanced on this post and am placing a view I posted on another group.
Oct 30, 2020, 10:10 AM (6 days ago)
The Muslim is my brother, the Hindu is the enemy; such is the khalsa sentiment being expressed nowadays.
The Khalsa ethos has been moving in this direction ever since Kahn Singh Nabha wrote his famous tract in 1898.
The American Sikh Council expresses it, The Sikh Student Federation UK expresses it and the common Sikh psyche everywhere expresses it.
Sikhi seeks alliance with non-dharmic traditions everywhere notwithstanding that it arose in the dharma tradition of Hindustan.
The following is from S.Gurtaran Singh Sidhu responding to Mr. Raj Pandit in the earlier discussion topic.
" what have you done (to rectify) that man who had mercilessly torn the divine pages of Guru Granth Sahib.
If Muslims are not tolerant, why it had not happened such contaminated act in Pakistan from any Muslim brother.
You have not (the) needed pain for such an act from a man from your community, (it) is happening continuously in Punjab and India daily from your vast community."
Does he know that in Pakistan Sikh temples are out of bounds for Muslims, with even a police guard outside the prominent ones.
It is to prevent Muslims from being influenced by Gurbani, even as they abduct and convert Sikh girls with impunity.
Conversions of Sikh Girls :: Listen to Ayesha A. Khan
Ayesha A Khan Tweeted:--
This is Islam. Unvarnished and in its true glory. This is forced conversion of a Sikh girl. Pls remember millions had to go through such conversions, raped or murdered
https://twitter.com/Pradeep54242413/status/1319516905284063233
As regards desecration in Punjab, who are the perpetrators?
It is khalsa politics being played out to incite sentiments.
" Over half-dozen instances of desecration of the holy book of the Sikhs, Guru Granth Sahib, within a span of a couple of weeks in Punjab could not have been merely a coincidence. The genesis of the spate of incidents lay in the unexpected and sudden decision by the Sikh clergy to grant pardon to the head of Dera Sacha Sauda, Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh, on September 24 (2015). The verdict of the Sikh clergy, controlled by SAD-backed jathedars (Sikh high priests), did not go down well with the Sikh community in general; the radicals and hardliners were particularly angry. The acts of desecration started only a few days after the verdict."
https://www.newslaundry.com/2015/10/22/the-anger-and-confusion-in-punjab-who-tore-pages-from-guru-granth-sahib
It is Sikhs who have been desecrating, but Gurtaran Singh and others get caught up in the propaganda. Ominously he says in the same mail:
The period of Aurangzeb is auspicious for Sikh Nation because it has been illuminated at that period in the shape of Khalsa from the divine sword of Guru Gobind Singh Ji.
So he too thinks it is all right to align with the Muslim who - under the influence of the Koran - even now continue to decimate Sikhs; but it is necessary to berate the Hindu.
Virus-free. www.avg.com
