tonyhp32

Sher belongs to a people who basically have lost all right to be called Punjabi. Look at the typical Punjabi Hindu, he is a bania who looks more like an immigrant from Rajasthan than a Punjabi. Unfortunately the biggest tragedy of Punjab is that when the Akalis formulated their strategy to fight against the onset of Muslim rule as envisaged by Jinnah's Pakistan demand, they focussed only on expelling the Muslims from East Punjab and allowed the countless fascist Hindus from West Punjab who should have had no right to settlement in Sikh East Punjab to settle there. These people along with the Bania-Brahmin combine already living in East Punjab have become the Indian fifth column in Punjab. They hate the Sikhs and they look forward to a day when the Hindu will once again be a majority in Punjab due to the immigration of Bhaiyas into Punjab. The mistake made by the Akalis who after 15th of August up until December 1947 virtually controlled all of the present Punjab was not to fight to stop the settlement of Hindus from West Punjab as well as not declaring the Sikh areas of East Punjab as well as the Sikh ruled Princely States as an independent State. This would have led to the West Punjab Hindus going to Delhi and the rest of India and not settling in Doaba as they did. The Sikhs who had to go to Delhi and other places could then have settled in Sikh areas of East Punjab.

As always you are talking out of your backside. The Jats were at best 20% of the population and yet their king Maharaja Ranjit Singh ruled over 70% of Punjab, whole of Jammu and Kashmir, half of Himachal Pradesh and most of the old NWFP. Just because he did not rule the Malwa region of Punjab does not negate the achievement of the Jats. The Malwa region was ruled by Jat Maharajas apart from a few Muslim enclaves like Malerkotla, Raikot etc. Of the Jats who were 20% of the Punjab population only 33% of them or 5% of Punjab population were Sikhs. So now my Hindu Punjabi friend, your people who up until 1880s were equal in number to the Muslims and yet have never even had a minor ruler let alone a Maharaja in Punjab for the last 1000 years, now do you see the achievement of the Sikh Jats? Show me another region where a non-Muslim minority has held power in a Muslim majority region like the Sikhs have in Punjab. It would be best if you spent your time finding out why your people have been slaves for 1000s of years and have never ruled Punjab even when they were the majority.

Just returned from Punjab. The perception I have is that people are so sick of Badal and his politics that they would have voted for any party just to give him a bloody nose. Had AAP not been born then the Congress would have won quite unlike the performance they would have had in the rest of the country. AAP will probably get 4-5 seats, Congress 4 and Akali/BJP 3-4. Simranjeet Singh Mann might get the Khadoor Sahib seat. Badals have virtually been camping in Bathinda as they know that Sukhbir's wife loses then this will be the end of his family in politics. The educated Punjabis and the youth will vote for AAP. The fascist Hindus will vote for BJP or congress and the uneducated Sikhs will vote for the Akalis. There has been a real sea change in politics in Punjab. There was a perception that Badal could do as much damage as he wanted to the Sikh cause and sell out Punjab to the facist Hindus of the BJP and the Sikhs would still vote for him. This is now not the case. But and this is a big but, do not rule out an attempt to steal the elections by the Badals as they have the whole state machinery under their control. The EVMs can be tampered with. The Badals have also outdone themselves from previous elections but the amount of money they have used to buy votes. Individual votes were being bought for Rs 500 to Rs 2000 and votes of entire families were being bought for Rs 10,000.

From commenting on Sikh politics now commenting on Sikh religion! is there no limit to the Hindu 'intellect'?

Another Hindu scholar come to 'enlighten' us! I always say a Hindu soorma is a contradiction but now a Hindu vidhwan may also be a contradiction in terms!

The stupidity of some people knows no bounds. Gandhi knew the 5 k's aren't in the Guru Granth Sahib and for the most part the so-called Mahatma was baiting the Sikhs. The Khalsa was created by Guru Gobind Singh and he gave us the 5 k's. It doesn't matter whether the requirement is within the Guru Granth Sahib or not. It was the injunction given by the Guru who then gave the Guruship to the Guru Granth Sahib. Only the enemies of the Sikhs or fools will ask where the requirement for the 5 k's are in the Guru Granth Sahib. Going by the logic of the 'Hindu' Sher, why do the his people refer to themselves as Hindus, show us where the word Hindu is mentioned in the Vedas, Upanishads or even Bhagavad Gita?

So Gandhi justified violence. So why did he advise the Jews to commit mass suicide? Why did he advise the British to not resist an invasion of the Britihs Isles? A Gandhi justifying violence will be news to some of his blind followers around the world. The Gandhi myth is a creation of west which was then taken over by the Indian govt and hence the reason why they part funded the propaganda film Gandhi. His strategy could only work when the colonial masters were aware of public opinion. He would not have lasted a second had the masters been the Nazis or the Japanese.

Give it a rest. Santa Singh this,. Santa Singh that. You're treating him like his views mattered in Punjab.

The worth of the article can be assessed by the fact that it requires the ramblings of a traitor to gain some credibility!

Simranjeet Singh Mann should have been the CM of Punjab had the suicidal decision to boycott the 1992 election not been taken, I was in India in November -December 1989 when the Lok Sabha elections took place and when the results came in that Mann had won by a record margin in Tarn Taran and that his candidates had routed the traditional Akalis, there was sea change in the atmosphere in Punjab. It could be likened to what happened when the AAP won in Delhi. The Police stopped harassing Sikh youth. The Police pretty much believed that Khalistan would become a reality soon and they saw no reason to fight against it.

Flaws in a Mahatma?

Gandhi was never popular among Sikhs. The Sikh leadership even in the 1920s considered him to be a wily Hindu Lala and they were proved correct in their assessment. The flaws in his personality included racism against blacks. If you tell most people about his racism they will think you are mad. The reason that most people consider him as some kind of saint is due mainly to the Indian govt's partially financed propaganda film Gandhi. The film glosses over his racism, the part where he is in South Africa and 'appears' to be fighting for equal rights was in reality his fight to get the Indians in South Africa better rights than the blacks, He wasn't interested in equal rights for everyone. His other flaws included giving sleeping naked with young girls to test his brahmacharya oath.

That's because the so-called democratic government used death squads to both kill militants as well as innocent youth in extra judicial executions.. If they can murder innocent Sikhs can they also not murder innocent Hindus in order to further their aim of maligning the nationalist movement? Believe me, if they had to murder you or your family to protect their interests then that is nothing to them. The sad fact is that someone like you would probably justify the murder of your own family for your mother India.

Good riddance. Now if only Badal was next and 2014 might become known as the the year of Kanjaran di safaiya.

Thanks again Dalsingh for showing that lack of knowledge about a subject does not stop you from having an opinion on it. Read what Jonny has written, he knows far more about what happens in Punjab than you do listening to the gappan of freshies on building sites.

Maratha this, Maratha that. Give it a rest, Sher, those South Indian Madrasis were a footnote in the history of Punjab. Trying to attribute the fall of the Mughal empire to the Marathas is like attributing the end of the Roman Empire on Atilla the Hun. The Mughal Empire was challenged on all sides. The groundwork for the end of Mughal rule in Punjab was done by Banda Singh Bahadur. His half decade war decimated the Mughal system of revenue collection, disposed of the large Jagirdars in Malwa and gave the land to the tillers. His revolt did far more lasting damage to the Mughal rule in Punjab than any other revolt did in other areas to the Mughal rule in those areas be it the Jats or Satnamis etc. The invasion of Nadir Shah also contributed to the demise of the Mughal Empire. The Marathas came, left their representative Adina Beg in charge and then were decimated a few years later at Panipat that they did not come to Punjab proper again. They made do with minor incursion to try and retrieve the Mughal revenue from the Malwa and Northern Haryana area. The last Maratha to come to Punjab was Holkar who was seeking help from the Sikhs and Afghans against the British.

The whole Maratha - Sikh comparison is pointless I agree, It appears to have started because the Punjabi Hindus wanted to downplay the role of the Sikhs in destroying the Mughal rules in Punjab. Even now Sher does not tire of propagating lies that the Marathas 'saved' the Sikhs of Punjab. The Marathas were a minor interlude in the Mughal-Afghan-Sikh struggle for Punjab. Abdali invaded a number of times after Panipat.

Nice little rant and one that shows your true agenda. You have such a low opinion of the Sikhs of the 18th century and yet use the user name JungChamkaur. I suspect you are a leftist fool trying to ingratiate yourself with some positive posts in the beginning and then you show your true colours. FYI, the Sikhs of the 18th century had the highest moral character. Even their enemies such as Qazi Noor Mohammed have confirmed this. What has the Punjab police's atrocities have to do with this thread. A comparison was made between the Marathas who Sher thinks were Hindu Nationalists fighting the Mughals for the common man and the Sikh Misls. It has been pointed out that the Marathas were hated by the people of North India as they committed atrocities the same as a Mughals. The Marathas had at their disposal hundreds of thousands of troops, they had an base from which they had a majority of the population and operated for the most part in areas that were overwhelmingly Hindu. When they did invade an area that was not majority Hindu ie Punjab they were wiped out like sheep. Comparing the Sikhs with the Marathas makes no sense. The Sikhs probably had at a maximum 50,000 men, they were hindered by the fact that they had to keep the womenfolk and children with them. Sikhs also operated in an area that was majority Muslim. The only comparison one can make between the Sikhs and Marathas is what they achieved given the resources they had. The Sikhs certainly achieved more than the Marathas given what resources they had..

This is the tragedy of the Sikhs, that whereas a few decades ago even a child knew what the Khalsa was and Raj Karega Khalsa meant we have grown men now going to so-called Babas to make recordings of their reactionary views and spread misinformation in the Panth. This so-called Baba has subverted the Rehatnamas which clearly state who a Khalsa is.

You can lead a horse to water but a pencil must be lead! I'll leave it to the other members to decide whether my posts are insightful or not, but rest assured that any BS you come up with will be countered by me. That's a promise!

Debating with you is like debating with a child. I have already pointed out on various threads what little knowledge you have is highly defective. The artificial country that the British left in 1947 called India is akin to Europe rather than a nation state. Europe especially Western Europe also shares a common background with the languages grounded in Latin, a common religion Christianity. Does that mean that Europe is a Nation? You have no understanding of nationalism. Sikhs have the characteristics of being a nation. Just because we have the added layer of a common religion does not negate the fact that Sikhs have a common history, common culture, common language, Sikhs are an ethnoreligious nation such as the Jews.

If Pakistan is not a country and India is less so a country. Why are you not being consistent. Just as a Baloch, Sindhi and Pathans should have their own countries from the ashes of Pakistan, so should the Sikhs, Tamils, Bengalis etc get their own countries from the ashes of Hindustan.

Neo do you actually have anything positive to add to the debate I have written by view about Uggardanti, you cannot accept that the text views the end of the Mughal rule as the destruction of Islam and Hinduism and the triumph of the Khalsa. Rather than respond and add to the debate all you can do is give your usual 'multiple layers' of meanings excuse and call anyone who translates the text faithfully as 'khaliban' So come on, give your views on the Uggardanti, 1. Who is the Devi in the text? 2. Why are Maseets and Mandirs, Veds and Purans and Qurans to be destroyed? 3. What is the teesra Panth that will be supreme after the destruction of the other two?

The one who's community has a long history of treachery to Punjab will always try and deflect blame and point fingers at others and accuse them of treachery. Maharaja Ranjit Singh never assisted the British as a vassal, the only time he assisted the British was in order to bring Shah Shuja to power in Afghanistan and this was in the common interest of both the British and the Khalsa state and the treaty was one of equals. Ala Singh and Patiala Maharajas have a long history of betraying the Sikh cause, the latest nakamma who holds the defunct title is a Congress leader. Not all the Malwa Maharajas were for the British in 1845, Ajit Singh of Ladwa joined the Khalsa Fauj with his forces and after the war lost his kingdom. The Sikh villagers of Malwa were for the Khalsa Fauj and they killed any British stragglers who came in their way. The people of Punjab apart from a few Jangli tribes in West Punjab supported the British because of the atrocities committed by the Purabiyas in Punjab after 1845. Do you really think that the Sikhs would actively assist the resurrection of the Mughal Empire? Just because the Purabiyas got swayed into supporting the effeminate Bahadur Shah Zafar and the minor Rajas and Nawabs who had a issues with the way the British had treated them in the past, does not mean that because the Punjabi did not fall into the same trap that they were traitors. The Punjabis in 1857 were much more politically aware than people like you who want to believe 1857 was a great liberation movement.

You might know about Bhagat Singh but you know crud about the mutiny. A few Sikh troops mainly ones in UP did revolt but the vast majority stayed loyal and even defended the British against overwhelming odds. In Punjab one individual did declare Khalsa Raj and was hung by the British. The old Khalsa Fauj and the jagirdars rallied to the British and they did a great job in the assault on Delhi as well in combing operations in UP. Sardar Jawahar Singh Nalwa, the son of Hari Singh Nalwa was one of the old Khalsa Fauj generals who fought against the British at Challianwala but then joined the British in 1857 and fought against the rebels.