Understanding Sikh History-1

Locked
surinder
BRFite
Posts: 1464
Joined: 08 Apr 2005 06:57
Location: Badal Ki Chaaon Mein

Re: Understanding Sikh History-1

Post by surinder »

^^^
You have a point, SwamyG, but ... Yes, you cannot totally disentangle religion, but religion can mean discussion on subtle topics of aatma, paramatma, karma, medititation, theology, philosophy. One could go deep into those topics and pretty soon it becomes a fully religious threads. Here the aim, as I understood, is to look upon history, politics, social impact, etc. Wherever the precepts of the faith touch history, politics, society, warfare, then discussing them is fair game. But deep dive compare of on the chakras, kundalini, adviata etc. (which do not impact society, history, politics) would be out of scope, even if it is very interesting.

Essentially, skate the tree tops of religion, but no more.

I don't have a problem discussing religion, I sense of BRF is that it is not appreciate here.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Understanding Sikh History-1

Post by Sanku »

surinder wrote:
Sanku wrote:quote="surinder">>
In the anwwer to the above lies the core of the problem. A variant of this comes in many forms. Since times immemorial in India people have venerated thier own Guru and their figureheads. Why not extend the same couresy to the Sikhs?

Sushupti-ji; Surinder-ji, Carl-ji and all others.; some pulls and pushes to spreads one's own Guru's teaching is welcome, the problem is
Sanku Ji, I am not into spreading teachings. I am merely discussing. I have no teaching agenda.
Surinder-ji; I am sorry you have taken that remark personally. I meant it as a general observation about the world in general, I had not meant any single poster on BRF. I had explicitly named you along with some others merely because you were a leading participant in the discussion.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Understanding Sikh History-1

Post by Sanku »

surinder wrote:
Carl wrote:quote="Sanku">>This difference of opinion is merely creating useless friction amongst ourselves, while not doing the task of getting others in our fold.

For harmony, Dharmic traditions clearly have a common ground of method and practice, ethics and etiquette.

However, prachaar is the game of doctrinal kashmakash. Friction is good if there is dry grass around and a fire is to be lit. Like the araNi sticks of the forest mentioned in the Upanishad, they are rubbed together to produce knowledge. I think the Sikh Gurus themselves exemplified this. "No-friction" philosophy cannot be allowed to become a lowest common denominator, imho.
I actually do not agree with you Sanku Ji, with all due respect. I am on the side of Car Ji.

We are not creating friction on this thread, we are talking of friction that already exists or has existed in the past.
Surinder-ji, there was some friction, or at least I thought so, if the discussion can be had a little more harmoniously, I am all for it, and if there is no friction and I was wrong, all the good, right?
Our own divisiveness was the reason why the Turks ruled for 800 years on a country where RoP was miniscule for most of their rule. The Brits ruled for 200 years with even smaller number of Britis in India.
I some what disagree Surinder-ji, some amount of divisiveness did play a role, but other factors were more pre-dominant in the success of external forces (BTW, I do not think the 800 or 200 year periods are accurate, but I will agree they are indicative)

Having said the above, let the light shine in. I am quite all right with the past as is it -- I agree with you.
surinder
BRFite
Posts: 1464
Joined: 08 Apr 2005 06:57
Location: Badal Ki Chaaon Mein

Re: Understanding Sikh History-1

Post by surinder »

Sanku Ji, No misunderstanding. No offence taken. Sometimes it appears that one is aiming to "spread" or "teach" or "convince". Your post just gave me a chance to clarify. I am here to learn, and share what I know/interpret. No more. I am learning here a lot. One thing I am learning is that there are lot of issues in Sikh History I thought people would comment, compare, and criticize---but most folks here don't. It could out of ignorance, perhaps. The issues that folks here get stuck are different than I would have predicted. I know some want to stickit up to the Sikhs (Elst etc.) but they are not even using the issues that Sikhs are most vulnerable on---they are not even attacking on issues that would give them the biggest bang for the buck on pulling Sikhs down.

Anyways, signing off now.

(added red ... probably meaning changed without it.)
Last edited by surinder on 28 Jan 2012 06:04, edited 2 times in total.
Yayavar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4832
Joined: 06 Jun 2008 10:55

Re: Understanding Sikh History-1

Post by Yayavar »

I do not think the earlier article was 'sticking to the Sikhs' (unless we are considering different articles). It was outlining a strand of political history which had a fall-out with the formation of modern state of Punjab (which is not just Sikhs), of the ruling party (Akali Dal), of the differences in Sikhi thoughts which has an impact on the politics (Sacha Sauda for example, or Nirankaris, or others). There is certainly the mainstream Khalsa narrative and these other issues should not take away from the glories of the Khalsa achievement. However, it does get sensitive and it does not help when other folks (hill rajas or others) are run down while alleviating one's heroes. (Which was also the problem with the 'partition thread' with MKG/JLN being run down whether guilty of some omission or not).

It might be worthwhile for you to bring the issues you think are important and steer the discussion in that direction.
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Understanding Sikh History-1

Post by brihaspati »

^^Sorry to say - on the Partition thread claims were made on behalf of MKG/JLN which were not being supported by evidence, and there were counter evidences as to their role. On that thread the demand was that such counter-evidence that showed negative characteristics - could not be brought up - becuase these were "icons" who should remain untouched and unsullied whatever be their actual statements/actions on ground.

On that thread no heroes were being "upped" while factual evidence of the callousness of JLN and outright obvious discrimination in the valuing of Hindu and Muslim life was shown. People chose to ignore all that and still demand that JLN remains unsullied.

If Surinder or Airavat bring up facts of history - both should be listened to. This demand of "sensitiveness" is something behind which outright crimes pass off as heroic shenanigans. For history, there is no hero beyond exposure.

I still have had specific issues raised on that thread which has not been answered - a lot of other stuff brought up but no response to certain specifics. Voices have fallen completely silent - because the fact of the matter is, if people really do answer them - they will be forced to acknowledge incidents and pointers that they have carefully avoided so far to preserve "iconic" images. That is a grave injustice even to the memory of those who fell victims to these icons' megaloimania and sheer sadism in some instances.
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Understanding Sikh History-1

Post by brihaspati »

If there were specific acts by the Sikhs that can be shown to be negative, and also stemming from their religious faith - then those aspects of doctrine can come under critical analysis. If the negative actions cannot be linked to particular aspects of doctrine - then they should be seen in the historical political context, and not seen as specifically "Sikhism" issue. Similarly if the hill rajahs did act negatively that proved disastrous, and it is linked to their particular version of the Hindu faith - then that part of the doctrine should be legitimately come under critical analysis. If no such link to their faith exists - then it should be seen in the political context.

Faith or belief, at least from our viewpoint is an act of continuous refinement, and continuous self-evaluation towards ever increasing depth. No faith or ideology is mature enough to claim acceptance in the world of ideas and humans - if it cannot face up to that what is wrong, that which is narrow, and that which must be shed from the ideology. If such a thing shows up among those who identify themselves as Sikhs - they should face up to the challenge and decide. I am pretty confident that there are many brave sould among them to do so. The same goes for Hindus - who might feel insulted when those they identify with are accused of treachery or narrowness. We should face these and be brave enough to acknowledge past mistakes if any.

I come from backgrounds that were attached at various phases with all that we lambast here - the Brits, EIC, the congrez, the swarajists, the left, landed aristos, a certain varna, GV [both upper and lower]. You will see I have never hesitated to criticize or acknowledge where iI think my ancestors went wrong. I have never hesitated to perhaps viciously attack regionalism and linguistic chauvinism- even that thoise that are connected to me by clans or births.

It is time we learn to be grown ups in ideological terms and our identities. It is time we forge a new nation and a new identity that keeps not only the best of each of our legacies but also that searches for and seizes upon the basic core driving points of our civilization - which is not really about icons or anti-icons, multiple versus single (God/self), or this guru or another guru, or this text or another text. It is all about eternal quest for knowledge and consciousness, and the immortality of the soul that lives across lifes.

Fighting over sectarian defensiveness is childishness.
SBajwa
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5778
Joined: 10 Jan 2006 21:35
Location: Attari

Re: Understanding Sikh History-1

Post by SBajwa »

Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: Understanding Sikh History-1

Post by Agnimitra »

surinder wrote:One thing I am learning is that there are lot of issues in Sikh History I thought people would comment, compare, and criticize---but most folks here don't. It could out of ignorance, perhaps. The issues that folks here get stuck are different than I would have predicted.
surinder ji, when you have the time, please expand on the above. I am curious. TIA.
jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5727
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: Understanding Sikh History-1

Post by jamwal »

SBajwa wrote:Dogra's of Jammu were not fighting sri Guru Gobind Singh!!! and in any case they have been a failure to protect the knowledge of the land in their own land (Kashmir and Jammu whom Sikhs protected) . Dogras were paying tribute to Mughals/Afghans and Persians and whoever was therr mai baap!!! before taking the refuge of Ranjit Singh and taking over his kingdom by deceit.

Dogras of Jammu are responsible for conversion of Kashmiri hindus to islam.
Saying this!!! I would reiterate Jujhar statement to not fight among ourselves!!

Dogras have protected their land, culture and knowledge very well. We don't need a " cut above the rest marital race wannabe" to post garbage like this copy-pasted from anti-Indian Khalistani websites. Don't blame Dogras for your own weakness and infighting among Sikh clans. No Sikh ruler, even your demigod Mahaaraja Ranjit SIngh was able conquer whole J&K, forcing him to choose Gulab Singh as his sword arm in the region. All that followed was just the logical conclusion.

Going by your half-assed attempt at historical narrative, anyone can brand whole Sikhism thing as a British invention aimed at dividing Indians.
Unlike Sikhs, no Dogra has taken up arms against Indian state or religious/ethnic minorities. Even in 1984, Sikhs in Jammu were not harmed as elsewhere. It was Dogras from Jammu who fought to the last man in 1947 against Pakis, even after muslims in the army mutinied and joined the invaders.
Sikhs protected Kashmir, Sikhs protected Hindus...you guys have been drinking some VERY potent kool aid for too long.
What next, General Zoravar Singh was a Sikh too ?
It's really unfortunate to read such posts, specially today. I spent my whole afternoon in Bangla Sahib gurudwara, Delhi and was searching for something related to it's history. and I find this crap.
Kakkaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3866
Joined: 23 Oct 2002 11:31

Re: Understanding Sikh History-1

Post by Kakkaji »

Lot of blue-on-blue going on here. :( No wonder foreigners were able to 'divide and rule' us for so long.

We are digging up our narratives to find instances of when we hurt each other, instead of far more numerous instances of when we fought foreign invaders, together or separately.

Can we not just forget the instances when our ancestors schemed/ plotted/ fought against each other, and acknowledge that at times each did his part to protect our civilization, and that now we have to be united to survive?

Please cease and desist from attacking each others' ancestors..
jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5727
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: Understanding Sikh History-1

Post by jamwal »

Please tell that to wannabe Khalistanis who write bs posts like the one I responded to. These folks have classic symptoms of dreaded Pakiness syndrome and will no stone unturned to distort history and blame others for their own mistakes and shortcomings.
There have been mistakes on both sides. but instead of moving on, they'll keep on getting brainwashed by Khalistani supremacist propoganda. Just professing their so called love for Indic civilization barely hides the contempt they have for Hinduism. As if martial race of Sikhs just dropped out of sky to fight for dark, short coward Yindoos. The way he talked about whole Dogra clan is reserved for Pakis only, atleast on this forum.
SBajwa
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5778
Joined: 10 Jan 2006 21:35
Location: Attari

Re: Understanding Sikh History-1

Post by SBajwa »

Yayavar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4832
Joined: 06 Jun 2008 10:55

Re: Understanding Sikh History-1

Post by Yayavar »

After Ranjit Singh's death there were multiple groups which cross-killed every raja/maharaja or rani who sat on the throne. It was a collapse that the British would have gained from any which way. They did. The particular set of events that occurred have led to various versions. For example: Lal Singh objected to Gulab Singh's deal and was shunted off to Dehradun but otherwise is considered on the wrong side in the standard narrative.
jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5727
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: Understanding Sikh History-1

Post by jamwal »

Yes, go on and post Wiki links about Maharaja Gulab Singh as if it'll make you smell like roses
shyam
BRFite
Posts: 1453
Joined: 29 Jul 2003 11:31

Re: Understanding Sikh History-1

Post by shyam »

Kakkaji wrote:Lot of blue-on-blue going on here. :( No wonder foreigners were able to 'divide and rule' us for so long.
This history narration is knotted deeply somewhere, and this has to be untied to create lasting bonds. What we are seeing is that complicated process. During this mandan process kalakuta-jhahar also will be thrown out, but at the end we should be able to get Amrut.

IMVHO, as long as things don't get personal, bringing out arguments and counter arguments with "data" will only help this thread in the long run.
devesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5129
Joined: 17 Feb 2011 03:27

Re: Understanding Sikh History-1

Post by devesh »

jamwal wrote:Yes, go on and post Wiki links about Maharaja Gulab Singh as if it'll make you smell like roses
enough is enough. you are the one who is poisoning the discussion with your confrontational language. perhaps you can try to be a bit more diplomatic and prove that wikipedia page wrong or give details which aren't there on that page, instead of making blanket claims of being Khalistanis. and if there is blame to be placed on Gulab Singh and Dogras, then it must be placed. the same way that blame must be placed on factions of the Sikhs who colluded with the British. perhaps you should take that route instead of commentary like "weakness of your people"!
Supratik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6470
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 10:21
Location: USA

Re: Understanding Sikh History-1

Post by Supratik »

sbajwa has been on this forum for long. He is no Khalistani. Go easy on him.
Supratik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6470
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 10:21
Location: USA

Re: Understanding Sikh History-1

Post by Supratik »

sbajwa,

We should respect the fact that the Dogras unlike the Jats, Rajputs, Gujjars, Sudhans, Kashmiris were one of the few
groups in the area who did not convert en masse to Islam. They have been able to maintain their identity in a very
hostile environment.
jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5727
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: Understanding Sikh History-1

Post by jamwal »

devesh wrote:
jamwal wrote:Yes, go on and post Wiki links about Maharaja Gulab Singh as if it'll make you smell like roses
enough is enough. you are the one who is poisoning the discussion with your confrontational language. perhaps you can try to be a bit more diplomatic and prove that wikipedia page wrong or give details which aren't there on that page, instead of making blanket claims of being Khalistanis. and if there is blame to be placed on Gulab Singh and Dogras, then it must be placed. the same way that blame must be placed on factions of the Sikhs who colluded with the British. perhaps you should take that route instead of commentary like "weakness of your people"!
Read up his post which I've quoted and if you still have a problem, go and report my post to moderators. I don't need to to be told what to do by you.
SBajwa
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5778
Joined: 10 Jan 2006 21:35
Location: Attari

Re: Understanding Sikh History-1

Post by SBajwa »

We should respect the fact that the Dogras unlike the Jats, Rajputs, Gujjars, Sudhans, Kashmiris were one of the few
groups in the area who did not convert en masse to Islam. They have been able to maintain their identity in a very
hostile environment.
Off course!! Dogras, Jats, Rajputs, Gujjars, Sudhans are the reason that at least half of North India (beyond Panipat) is still majority non-muslim. The other half has become naPak.
Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: Understanding Sikh History-1

Post by Agnimitra »

X-posting from Islamism and Islamophobia thread on main forum:

A scheduled TV program that is supposedly causing tensions between the Sikh and Moslem communities in the UK:

Sangat TV Cancels Scheduled Grooming Interview
London, England (January 20, 2012)–Sangat TV, famed for its broadcasting during the UK Riots in various parts of London, is now facing backlash from Sikh Sangat for cancelling a program which was supposed to be aired tonight. The program was meant to bring to light the story of a Sikh family whose daughter had converted to Islam after being seduced. Sangat TV on the other hand is denying this and alleging its trustees were not aware of the show and it was never advertized to take place.

The originally scheduled interview highlighted how the conversion disrupted the happy Sikh family and left it shattered. The program was well advertised online and was being awaited by Sikh masses living throughout the world and had their eyes on Sangat TV. It has been learned that Sangat TV has faced enormous pressures from third parties due to which it ended up cancelling the program temporarily.

The Sikh couple whose daughter, aged 13 at the time of conversion, highlighted in the interview the sophisticated methods used for entrapment and spoke of their daughter’s grooming along with the failings of the Police and authorities. It has been learned that the interview was conducted at least 3-4 weeks before it was to be aired. It was with extreme courage and bravery that the British Sikh Couple had decided to talk about such sensitive matters that could be life threatening to them.

The story of the Sikh couple that had their daughter seduced and forced to convert is definitely sad, however it’s not a unique story. Many cases of forced conversions have taken place in the UK, but due to many reasons, they are not discussed openly. Had this interview aired as scheduled, it would have brought much needed attention to the issue at hand.

A source close to SangatTV stated: “The Police strongly advised them not to show the [programme] today fearing increase in community tensions. A Muslim community rep today contacted the Sikh community to ask the show is not shown for sake of community cohesion. Sangat TV support the issues being raised by SAS however trustees were not aware of the recorded show nor advertised it. They need to make sure it is presented in a suitable way which does not create legal implications for the station. The two main trustees are abroad and back next week. Next week the trustees will view [the] show and if happy that it is presented in a way which doesn’t cause the channel or the community problems they are happy to put it on.“
Supratik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6470
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 10:21
Location: USA

Re: Understanding Sikh History-1

Post by Supratik »

[quote="Carl"]

A scheduled TV program that is supposedly causing tensions between the Sikh and Moslem communities in the UK:

Am surprised to see Sikh's being bullied that too in the UK.
Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14332
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Understanding Sikh History-1

Post by Aditya_V »

How come Canadian and UK Sikhs have forgotten History so fast and Bhai Bhai with Pakjabis and used against India? Any answers how these emotians were manupulated, was it because of 1984 riots?
SBajwa
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5778
Joined: 10 Jan 2006 21:35
Location: Attari

Re: Understanding Sikh History-1

Post by SBajwa »

How come Canadian and UK Sikhs have forgotten History so fast and Bhai Bhai with Pakjabis and used against India? Any answers how these emotians were manupulated, was it because of 1984 riots?
Well! Hindus and Sikhs are united in their fight against Muslims. Varinder Sharma an MP from Eailing Southall in UK always raise the Sikh issues (his majority constituents are punjabis both Sikhs and Hindus)., for example the issue of Jay Leno using Golden Temple's picture for Mitt Romney joke. The issue of Indian Passports in UK, etc.

1984 happened 27 years ago. Generations have passed since then. The seduced conversion is an issue that started in late 1990s. Mullahs from the mosques actually train the young muslims to seduce any "non-muslim" girl for conversion. Some even have taken these girls back to Pakistan for prostitution. One Canadian Sikh girl escaped from Pakistan and took shelter in the embassy and saved herself. It is not just sikh girls but many many hindu and other non-muslim girls too. Majority of these marriages end in a divorce or death.
SBajwa
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5778
Joined: 10 Jan 2006 21:35
Location: Attari

Re: Understanding Sikh History-1

Post by SBajwa »

According to Sri Guru Nanak Dev ji (Japu ji Sahib)

1. Dharam Khand: the realm of righteous action (pauri 35),
In the first Khand, a person is shown by the Guru that there is a natural order of things in the universe. This world is, a house of Dharma, a house of Vaeh-Guru, meaning a place of righteous actions. All things perform their righteous set duties. Likewise, an individual learning from this natural order of things should find his/her place in this natural order. In other words, they begin their spiritual journey by seeing loving Vaeh-Guru in all and treating the world around them as a 'Dharma Sal' and thus respecting all things in it accordingly. It is only with Karma (deeds/destiny) that one can appreciate that the world is a 'Dharm Sal' and thus enter Dharm Khand.


2. Gian Khand: the realm of knowledge (pauri 36),
The next is gian khand. “In the realm of knowledge, knowledge is ignited, i.e. illumination dawns.” The seeker here becomes aware of the universe and the mystery of existence. Through the creation, he gains knowledge of the Creator from whom it emanates. Knowledge here is not merely intellectual or sensual; it is intuitive awareness, a spiritual consciousness which expands the vision of the seeker. His sense of wonder is born not merely of his awareness of the many forms of life or the ordered movement of numerous celestial spheres, but of his perception of God who is the sole force behind all. In front of this limitless variety of cosmic life, he feels humble. This simultaneous experience of expansion of vision and of the sense of humility leads to vismaya or vismad (wonder).

3. Saram Khand: the realm of spiritual endeavour (pauri 36),
In Saram khand, the person becomes modest and humble in their outlook and the realisation of the Almighty is increased. They begin to understand the deeper reality within the Guru's Word and humility begins to dominate their persona. They shed the last remnants of their ego which still afflict them in spite of experiencing strong emotions of humility in the previous stage of Gian Khand. Armed now with humility and modesty, the person is able to develop an intuitive consciousness, a sharper and more capable intellect and deeper understanding of the mind. The Guru tells us that only when a person has attained this stage of awareness can the consciousness of the spiritual warriors and the persona of Siddhas (spiritual perfect beings) be reached.


4. Karam Khand: the realm of grace, (pauri 37) and
The residents of this domain have the moral strength to speak the unspoken TRUTH and to motivate others to stand up against exploitation & oppression by those who still love duality. Nanak challenges us to walk by him in the plundered streets of massacred humanity raising his voice against tyrants like Babar and their inhuman kingdom. This is a place of formlessness, for here thoughts instead of forming shapes express themselves as formless radiating vibrations. It is these that Guru Nanak Dev Ji calls, “jor”, the force.

Karam Khand ki bani jor.


5. Sach Khand: the realm of Truth (pauri 37).

This is the realm of God, the Nirankar. Since this plane cannot be described by the language of the world of three dimensional forms, Guru Nanak Dev Ji refers to it simply as Satch Khand – the realm of Truth. This is where Nirankar himself dwells. Satch Khand is huge and the whole creation including other 4 Khands are within Satch Khand. Satch Khand surrounds the whole of creation and is inside the whole of creation. In essence Satch Khand is Waheguru himself. It is futile to write anything about it. Guru Nanak Sahib has written that to describe Sach Khand is like chewing iron (Nanak, Kathna KaraRaa Saar).
sanjeevpunj
BRFite
Posts: 971
Joined: 04 Sep 2009 13:10

Re: Understanding Sikh History-1

Post by sanjeevpunj »

I have great respect in my heart for all the great Sikh Gurus, and very specially for Guru Tegh Bahadur Singh ji, who made the supreme sacrifice while battling the last Moghul Emperor.That sacrifice placed the Sikhs and their allies(Hindus) up and above the decaying Moghul Empire, paved the way for exit of Aurangzeb and towards the formation of a new India where Sikhs are playing the most important role even today.It brings tears to my eyes, whenever I recall this supreme sacrifice.
Delhi bears testimony to the event.The Gurdwara Sis Ganj Sahib in Chandni Chowk, Delhi, was built over where the Guru was beheaded, and Gurdwara Rakab Ganj Sahib, also in Delhi, is built on the site of the residence of Lakhi Shah Vanjara, a disciple of the Guru, who burnt his house in order to cremate the Guru's body. Another gurudwara by the same name, Gurudwara Sisganj Sahib at Anandpur Sahib in Punjab, marks the site were in November of 1675, the head of the martyred Guru Teg Bahadur which was brought by Bhai Jaita (Rechristened Bhai Jivan Singh according to Sikh rites) in defiance of the Mughal authorities was cremated here.
Jo Boley So Nihaal, Sat Sri Akaal! Ek Omkaar,SatNaam Wahe Guru Ji!
Ardeshir
BRFite
Posts: 1114
Joined: 15 Jan 2008 03:10
Location: Londonistan/Nukkad

Re: Understanding Sikh History-1

Post by Ardeshir »

Can someone shed some light on the Jatt vs Bhapa Sikh 'rivalry'? I never understood how this has come about, and how these are even used as slurs by some members of the respective communities. It seems to me this is a very recent development, not more than 3-4 decades old, but I could be wrong about that.
SBajwa
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5778
Joined: 10 Jan 2006 21:35
Location: Attari

Re: Understanding Sikh History-1

Post by SBajwa »

Jatt vs Bhapa Sikh 'rivalry'?

Punjabi Jatt's are the farmers like their counterpart in Haryana Jats
Bhapa are the Sikh business class mostly who are "Khatris" ., at one time the word "Bhapa" use to meant only Sikhs from Rawalpindi (after partition where they migrated to) due to their particular accented pothohari/punjabi. These days "Bhapas" in general parlance are all those who are "Khatris". All Sikh Gurus were Khatris though they lived/stayed and ate with everybody (including muslims).

So the jokes are mostly related to "Jats are hardy soldiers" "Bhapas are weak" on the Jat side.
On the Bhapa Side it is that "Jatts are stupid, drunk, loud and vulgar"

Earlier the problem wasn't there as Sikhs were spread out all over punjab but now after partition of India they are concentrated in Punjab and thus this rivalry.

all in a jest!!!
surinder
BRFite
Posts: 1464
Joined: 08 Apr 2005 06:57
Location: Badal Ki Chaaon Mein

Re: Understanding Sikh History-1

Post by surinder »

jamwal wrote: Dogras have protected their land, culture and knowledge very well. We don't need a " cut above the rest marital race wannabe" to post garbage like this copy-pasted from anti-Indian Khalistani websites. Don't blame Dogras for your own weakness and infighting among Sikh clans. No Sikh ruler, even your demigod Mahaaraja Ranjit SIngh was able conquer whole J&K, forcing him to choose Gulab Singh as his sword arm in the region. All that followed was just the logical conclusion.

Going by your half-assed attempt at historical narrative, anyone can brand whole Sikhism thing as a British invention aimed at dividing Indians.
Unlike Sikhs, no Dogra has taken up arms against Indian state or religious/ethnic minorities. Even in 1984, Sikhs in Jammu were not harmed as elsewhere. It was Dogras from Jammu who fought to the last man in 1947 against Pakis, even after muslims in the army mutinied and joined the invaders.
Sikhs protected Kashmir, Sikhs protected Hindus...you guys have been drinking some VERY potent kool aid for too long.
What next, General Zoravar Singh was a Sikh too ?
It's really unfortunate to read such posts, specially today. I spent my whole afternoon in Bangla Sahib gurudwara, Delhi and was searching for something related to it's history. and I find this crap.

This email is interesting. It contains loads and loads of interesting psychological insights, leads that can lead to very interesting conversations, and ideas that though harsh can lead to long threads. The unhinged nature of the post betrays the inherent gold mine this is for people like me who love to argue and discuss. At the surface the post is mad ranting, but is fairly cogent in its argument and stating a viewpoint which though I find illogical untrue is nertheless quite coherent (though not aggreeable).

Maybe a different day and time would have been nice to take up every sentence and convert that into a long dialogue---can't do it justice now.
Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: Understanding Sikh History-1

Post by Agnimitra »

Gosh surinder, get to it already! Rather than wasting time dissecting every sentence of that post, I would take you up on this comment you had made earlier. It provides a more general template to explore issues. I am reproducing my response:
Carl wrote:
surinder wrote:One thing I am learning is that there are lot of issues in Sikh History I thought people would comment, compare, and criticize---but most folks here don't. It could out of ignorance, perhaps. The issues that folks here get stuck are different than I would have predicted.
surinder ji, when you have the time, please expand on the above. I am curious. TIA.
surinder
BRFite
Posts: 1464
Joined: 08 Apr 2005 06:57
Location: Badal Ki Chaaon Mein

Re: Understanding Sikh History-1

Post by surinder »

Carl, this weekend. Promise. You can hold me to it.

But I have set myself up--handing out the intel on the weak parts of Sikh society will make the weapons in the hands of the criticizers more potent. Will give it a shot.
Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: Understanding Sikh History-1

Post by Agnimitra »

^ No big deal. Dharma is like a flowing river that changes according to terrain.
jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5727
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: Understanding Sikh History-1

Post by jamwal »

For people who haven't been to historical Bangla Sahib Gurudwara in Delhi, some pictures. Very impressive work by volunteers there.
Link
achit
BRFite
Posts: 153
Joined: 14 Feb 2005 20:07
Location: USA

Re: Understanding Sikh History-1

Post by achit »

jamwal wrote:For people who haven't been to historical Bangla Sahib Gurudwara in Delhi, some pictures. Very impressive work by volunteers there.
Link
Nice pictures.
I was surprised to see a 'nariyal' in image 15. Is this normal/routine to offer nariyal in Gurudwara?
SBajwa
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5778
Joined: 10 Jan 2006 21:35
Location: Attari

Re: Understanding Sikh History-1

Post by SBajwa »

Nariyal does not matter! It is just a food. Any food could be offered.

in some village gurdwaras people offer many things (from Lentils to Vegetables) and sometimes when there are too many different vegetables., the volunteers (Sewadar) just mix them all up and create "mixed vegetable" for langar.
Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: Understanding Sikh History-1

Post by Agnimitra »

A close Sikh friend of mine many years back would sometimes ask to stop by the Gurudwara, and she would usually offer a nariyal.
SBajwa
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5778
Joined: 10 Jan 2006 21:35
Location: Attari

Re: Understanding Sikh History-1

Post by SBajwa »

About food at Gurdwara that is suppose to be available 24x7

1. Karah Prashad is a pudding made from equal parts of butter, sugar and flour which is prepared in the langar facility.
2. Dry Prashad which is Patashas (sugar) and/or mixed with popped rice (donated)
3. Dry fruits (donated).
Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: Understanding Sikh History-1

Post by Agnimitra »

Conversation from Epics GDF thread, should have been here:

shiv wrote:Could someone explain this translation of Guru Nanak's verse to me?
Guru Nanak's verse (Mitti Mussalmam ki pede pai kumhar) "The Ashes of the Musalman (Muslim) fall into the potter's clot, it is moulded into pots and bricks, and they cry out as they burn".
Carl wrote:It is using the word 'Musalman' for a character that is corrupt, and so the corrupt will undergo the fate of mud in a potter's wheel, to have its form annihilated and then reshaped into new forms.

This is a controversial verse from GurBani that Aurangzeb protested against. He summoned Guru Har Rai ji's son Ram Rai to the Delhi durbar to give an explanation. In order to placate Aurangzeb's ire, Ram Rai changed the verse, substituting 'be-imaan' (faithless, corrupt) for the word 'Musalman'. For this, Aurangzeb gave Ram Rai a jagir in Dehradun (I think), whereas Guru Har Rai ji debarred Ram Rai from Guruship and conferred that honour on his younger son Guru Har Kishan ji.
shiv wrote:Thanks Carl. The story associated with that line is better known than the meaning of the line. I have heard a different interpretation where Guru Nanak did not say mussalman when he meant beimaan. He said mussalmaan as an example of the fact that any body buried turns into dirt (mud/clay) which is then reborn as something else via a potter. I think this was a reference to statements about fates of bodies (and souls) and whether they should be buried or cremated and that it makes little difference either way to the soul. It would appear to me that Guru Nanak would have meant something much more profound - given his philosophy rather than a crass mussalmaan==beimaan even if it became perfectly true as it did in the time of Aurangzeb. Guru Nanak lived just before Akbar when the so called Mugahl empire was relatively young and could probably see the deterioration in Hindu society and the assault from a faulty Islamic doctrine that made him realize the true path to divinity.

I can understand why people on the ground equated mussalman with beimaan but I suspect that Ram Rai scored a self goal by changing the meaning. It's not just a buried beimaan's mitti that is reborn in a potters wheel, but anyone and everyone who is buried can be reborn that way. Aurangzeb was stupid enough to be pleased by the substitution and surely unable to understand the true implication of Nanak's words which is why the murderous paranoid ba$tard asked for an explanation.
Carl wrote:^^^ Shiv ji, that's quite possible. From the point of view of Indic philosophy your explanation fits to a T. The body returns to dust while the subtle mind moves on to inhabit a new body, while the soul is separate. However, this idea does not fit in the context of Islamic philosophy. In Islam, various mufassireen (commentators) have made the point that the *souls* of non-Moslems are simply annihilated. And they do not accept the concept of transmigration of the soul, or if they do, they have a different spin on metempsychosis.
shiv wrote:I think that is precisely why Guru Nanak used the word Mussalmaan. Not as beimaan but to demolish the misconception that burial makes a difference. He was just pointing out (perhaps subtly) that the dirt that carries a Mussalmaan's body could be shaped into a Hindu idol or even a brick in a piss-pot.

The more I read about Guru Nanak and the gurus that followed (which I am doing as I try and parse the history of Punjab in the Shitistan thread) the more I am inspired by their greatness.
Carl wrote:You can say that again. They saved Vedic civilization in north India, and possibly the whole of India. They also left us a memetic method that demands to be studied a lot more deeply to develop extensions in present time. At least 8% to 10% of India needs to be Sikh-ized, taken from all states.
shiv wrote:+1 to that. Absolutely.

What is not realized is that Sikhs tend to get noted for their appearance. But the distinctive appearance, the beard, hair covered by a turban, the kada etc belie the fact that up until the time Guru Gobind Sngh initiated the Khalsa that all Sikhs are recognized by today, it was only the philosophy that set Sikhs apart, not appearance. And once the Khalsa came into existence, their valor and capacity to fight to the last drop of blood was what actually sealed the western border of India.

Sikhs have a reputation for ferocity, which is good and bad. The reputation makes them wanted as allies and feared as foes, but it hides the fact that they are a sensitive and gentle people behind that fierce demeanor and ebullient language. Just like anyone else. To me, pisko wise it indicates that Guru Gobind Singh had instinctive knowledge of human psychology far beyond that shown by the average leader of any group, and knew that the appearance and pride in one's appearance are as important as all one's internal philosophy-shilosophy etc. You take an average SDRE Indian who has no pride in himself or his kind - he has to learn the way pride was inculcated out of truth and dharma among Sikhs. Sorry. OT for this thread.
Carl wrote:True. It took 10 Gurus (many of whom physically lead battles and some of whom were martyred) to bring the Sikh out of the dhoti quiver. They took implementing Vedic civilization far beyond the comfortable yoga shoga, philosophical pravachan and moral high ground. I think the Macauliffe distortion in Sikhi needs to be removed, and then large scale prachaar needs to resume nationwide.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Understanding Sikh History-1

Post by ramana »

X-post...
SBajwa wrote:
by Shiv
But what is clear from all the above references are the common ground that all have:

1. Forcible conversion to Islam caused some families to be split among Muslim/Sikh lines, but these families maintained ties with each other
2. There was definite communal strife because of fundamental religious differences
3. Despite that cultural relations were maintained with Sikhs being invited for Iftar and Muslims taking part if non Muslim festivities. Both communities shared music and some other cultural events
4. The western districts were Muslim dominant and the eastern districts were Sikh/Hindu predominant.


Jats are those Rajputs who took to farming. All Jats agree that they originated from Rajasthan and settled at current Punjab between Indus and river Ganga. So!! Sikh Jats have their areas which are as following

1. Sandhu clan is from Gujranwala and its vicinity. It is the largest Sikh Jat clan. Maharaja Ranjit Singh was "Sandhu" and thus majority of Sandhu's now are from Lahore.

2. Bajwa clan is from Sialkote and sorrounding (Raja Sialu was a Bajju Rajput and thus Bajwa) The whole area of Sialkote/Gurdaspur/Batala is also referred as "Bajwait" i.e. "The land of the Bajwa. Baj means "Hawk" and Bajwa means "Tribe of the Hawk".

3. Majority of the Sidhus/Brar are from the Patiala area., Captain Amarinder Singh is a Sidhu.

4. Dhillons are from the Southern Amritsar/northern Ferozepur area (Badal is a Dhillon)

5. Randhawa clan is from Amritsar.

6. Virk clan is from the area called Virkgarh which was renamed by the Mughal Jahanjir to "Sheikhupura" on his name. The nick name of Jahangir was "Shaikhu". So Sheikhupura in Pakistan was originally called "Virkgarh" i.e. "citadel of the Virks" just like Bhatinda is "Citadel of the Bhatti Rajputs who are both Rajputs and Jats"

The reason why Akbar was calling Jahangir a "Shaikhu" was because he was the first Mughal to be born in India.
Since then any locally converts by Mughals if they are not of high caste call themselves as "Shaikh" or "Sheikh".
Brahmins who converted to Islam became "Sayyids"


and so forth!!!

So Punjab is extended Rajputana with changes due to impact of Islam and the reaction to it.
Locked