Amrita Pritam

Re: # 291
Drlokraji,
Problem lies when Hindus started asserting that Sikhs are Hindus, because at that time Hindus realized that Sikhs are not needed anymore.

Kahn Singh`s book was a reposnse to Arya Samaji movement, please read the Arya Samaj`s founder`s words about Guru Nanak
``Idhar Udhar se JorR ke Chalaya hai Panth``.
Even Aurengzeb did not write so negatively about Guru Nanak as Arya Samajis did. What do you expect Sikhs to do, cut their hair and become Arya Samajis and join Hindus after doing Shudhi and wearing Janoyes?????
You are only paying attention to a subset of time, not the whole picture.
Singh Sabha movement was started when Arya Smaajis have started churning the poisson in Punjab against the Sikhs.

I also have Hindu and Sikh relatives in my own family but your assesment is totally wrong about Kahn Singh`s book.

I am totally against the innocent Hindus being killed in Punjab in 80ies, even though I almost lost my own life twice. But please do not undermine the Sikh`s entity in your words.

Guru Tegbahadur, certainly was a representative of the Kashmiri Brahmins, though he was himself against the philosophy of Manu Smirities.

Would you call Christ as a Jew and Christians as Jews?
or for that matter, Hindus as Adivasis, who lived in India prior to Aryan invasion?

Re: # 301

thanks for the info. do you know that hindu sindhis revere Guru Nanak. My sindhi friends pray to Guru Nanak as they would to other hindu gods. Infact while watching there wedding ceremony I realised that they do go to Sikh Gurudwaras to tie the knot in presence of the living guru, Granth Sahib. At my college the prinicipal, a Sindhi hindu had a portrait of Guru Nanak in his office.

Netizen

Most Punjabis growing up in Pakistan now have not seen a Sikh in their lives (barring Indian movies). They heard stories about them but they have no idea about the cultural similarities or even about Sikh religion.
This is almost the third generation after the partition and it does not seem like that they will need to learn about Sikh religion in the next few generations either.
Tahmed or I can learn about Sikh religion on our own but the social contact is not there for us to pick up mundane info about Sikh religion or Sikhs generally etc.
So, it is not at all necessary for a Pakistani Punjabi to know about Sikhs.

I thank guys for the info that I gleaned thru this thread but honestly, on my own I may not have tried. Tahmed, at least Googled for it and people should respect that.

#300 ``who know thru elders or books, feign ignorance.``

Again it is your assumption. How many people really care about history? I have read about the Sikh rule but as part of Indian history nothing more nothing less.

If Tahmed was born before partition, he should know about sikhs. It is surprising that his parents talked about the old village but not sikhs.

Most Pakis are not taught about the ``glorious chapter`` of sikh rule - those who know thru elders or books, feign ignorance.

I don`t know what caused Tahmeed`s amnesia.

#279 by dost-mittar

“I have been scanning Pakistani news media for almost ten years and I have not read a single article which says that Aurangzeb was not a true Muslim.”

Did you find any article that said Dara Shikoh WAS NOT a true Muslim?
How subjective you guys can be?
Newspapers don’t carry Historic records, they carry news. Like Newspapers in India, Pakistani newspapers have their own agenda and no single Paper has exclusive control over Pakistan domain. They write and publish what fits their policies.
You obviously lack the sophistication like many Indians on this site to even understand what political thoughts newspapers represent and where they are coming from.
It is so funny reading that Indians are learning about Pakistan from reading English or even Urdu Newspapers. It is okay to quote newspaper for news, quoting newspapers for evidence in historical issue is sheer stupidity.

Re: # 292
Oye Dullya tu vi relative niklya Tahmed da.

Re: # 296

HP,

sikhs represent ~20 % of punjabi culture and were/are a significant part of its tradition and history. Isn`t Ranjit Singh the only Punjabi kingdom in punju history with Lahore as its capital. Even some punju pakis admitted that it was a glorious chapter in punjabi history. Some punju pakis were talking about a Punjabi nation comprising all punjus. In light of all these I was amazed. and yes tahmed is an all-arounder hence i was stumped.
With regard to sindhis I do know about them, i graduated from a college managed by Sindh Collegiate Board, Hyderabad. After partition they set up colleges in ulhasnagar later in mumbai. I have sindhi freinds with whom i studied. So I do know about sindhis. about Balochis no. Never met one. But that doesn`t correspond to tahmed ignorance about basic Sikh tenets. You can be excused if you don`t know you are not punju. But a punjabi, that too tahmed. Toaba toaba.

#295 by jang
#294 by Netizen

Why is it necessary or everybody to know about Sikhism? I don’t know a whole lot, neither do I care (don’t mean to offend anybody here). People get info when they need them. Do you guys know every thing about Baloch or Sindhi?
Sikh and Hindu live in India, and Indian should know about each other. why a Pakistani should worry about that in Pakistan or even in the USA.

You guys are just hilarious!

#294 heh heh ...
look dont harass the great panjabi... he only posted with much relief once he realized that the tenets are compatible with islam (and iconoclastic to boot)

Re: # 292

``Tahmad sahib, how old are you? So finally in year 2005..at the age of 13 you have googled and found the truth about something that was happening or is in your backyard?:-) ``

I too was stumped when I realised that the all knowing, mostly sensible punjabi googling to know about the basic tenets of Sikhism. I guess no one is perfect ;)

291,

Dr LR,

1. Sikh Gurus were against oppression by ALL against ALL. Sikh sardars had laid down lives to save mostly Hindu and muslim girls from Abdali. When Nakkai (Chunnia) Sardars attacked Kasur, they were trying to save a Hindu girl. It was not uncommon for Hindus and muslims to seek help from sikhs. Muslim subedars in Punjab often recruited sikhs` help to fight their battles. Teg Bahadur simply spoke against oppression and laid down his life to fight zulm.

2. During the earlier stages of sikhism. Most converts were from Hindu conversions. They did have relatives and culture of Hindus that was a big part of them; so of course, their was no contrast and clear line between the two communities.

3. Sikhs only married Hindus as last resort. It is not the first choice. or highly sought after relations unless caste plays a role. A sikh jat would rather marry into a Hinud Jat than a sikh mazbi or even a khatri. (thats mostly a Jat thing). but, they will give first priority to a Sikh Jat. Same thing goes with a Sikh Khatri, Ramgaria, etc.

Hindu Right wingers like RSS and others have become notorious for their assertions due to POLITICAL and PSYCHOLOGICAL reasons only. They are trying to ``correct`` and ``rewrite`` history. Their actions are reactionary to the failings of Hindus over the past 10 centuries or so. They even claim Indian muslims and want them to reconvert. They had MORE TRAITORS than heroes in their amidst for the past 10 centuries. So, they want to claim whatever and whoever they can. If they can go to such extremes and absurdity that Taj Mahal is Hindu temple. laying claim to Guru Gobind Singh is a minor thing to them....Do note, many Hindus esp. Brahmins opposed the Gurus and their teachings - they undermined them in several ways.

Hindu rituals have CREPT into sikhism with time and converts bringing their OLD baggage. It doesn`t mean that there is no difference.

#249 by tahmed32 on May 20, 2005 7:05am PT
delhiwala/kaura: I googled sikh religion, and learnt a bit about the basic tenets. It is clearly a mixture of islam and hinduism: monotheism and equality of man is from islam, while concept of reincarnation is from hinduism. The mughals (aurangzeb) do seem to have tried to get sikhs to become muslims - but that seems to have been for political reasons, since (as Guru Gobind`s letter to him posted by kaura indicates) even Aurangzeb was basically a ``bearded politician`` and nothing more.

our ancestral village was in sassoli, district hoshiarpur. lived there since at least the early 1800`s, since the line of ancestors, :-) ends with a certain chaudhry baga (wolf) who romped around at that time.

---

Tahmad sahib, how old are you? So finally in year 2005..at the age of 13 you have googled and found the truth about something that was happening or is in your backyard?:-)

as for Baagha...one of my ancestors was also named Baagha Singh:-)

Re: # 279
DM ji,about the times you are talking,there were no clearcut boundaries between hindu and sikh religeons.In many hindu famlies,it was tradition to make their eldest son sikh.This whole separation process started after Bhai Kahn Singh Nabha`s book,``Hum Hindu NahiN``.
Guru Teg Bahadur sacrificed his life for protecting Hinduism.Still most of sikhs say that the ninth guru gave his life for the sake of hinduism.Now tell me honestly,was Aurangzeb a dumb person who accepted someone as a representative of a religeon to which he did not belong?
I am a critic of the communal agenda of BJP and its mentor RSS,but on this account,they have some valid arguements which are not easy to dispute.

#269 dehliwala

You seem to be a knowledgeable person but you are wrong about the Koran. It includes a good deal of hate-speech towards non-muslims, including specific instructions for murder.

Here is a specific verses:

009:029: Fight those who do not believe in Allah…nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.

There are many others. They are no better or no worse than those found in many other religions.

But they clearly show how far from the truth folks like tahmed go when they claim ``islam preaches equality of all men``. It is shameful that an educated person should spin truth in such a fashion.

Re: # 288
Jang,
By your logic anyone who is not christian is a low caste because, Christians are controlling the world for the last 500 years.

Bhuankya: Lidh Unhu khialye jidda tu agent hai.

dilli,
``Regardless, Tahmed is a great man due to his worth not his race, religion or anything else.``

..our race, religion etc plays a great role in what our ``worth`` is, on the average..so if he is worthy due to his race and religion, then his religion and race is superior, else he is extra-ordinary and trancended his otherwise ordinary race and religion.

kind of like me.. a sikh admirer inspite of not being ``born`` sikh ;-)