How RSS and indian media manipulate sikhs

[SecularNationalist]

He did not claim Sikhs can capture Pakistan in 2 hours. The way he talks he thinks Sikhs can do that. But he did say that Sikhs can make Khalistan in an hour.

He was saying if indian media thinks Sikhs can capture pakistan in two hours then they should be worried they can make khalistan as well ,basically was just trying to elaborate that indians should stop try fooling them .

 

[BringHarmony]

Are you really a Chinese?

No, I am not a Chinese, what makes you say that?

 

[Nilu Pule]

No, I am not a Chinese, what makes you say that?

What are you then?

You sound like an Indian

 

[peagle]

Many of my Indian friends are Sikh, I have to say I am surprised at the anger, not regards to India as such, because, some feel proud to be Indian and others do not, there are also some who have mixed feelings. But, a large majority feel hatred towards the idea that Sikhism is a part of Hinduism, as recognized by the Indian constitution.

There is an intensely strong Sikh identity that flows above national identity. If India is not careful, a lot of religious and ethnic communities will start exerting their rights as a separate nation, which will not be good for India.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Many of my Indian friends are Sikh, I have to say I am surprised at the anger, not regards to India as such, because, some feel proud to be Indian and others do not, there are also some who have mixed feelings. But, a large majority feel hatred towards the idea that Sikhism is a part of Hinduism, as recognized by the Indian constitution.

There is an intensely strong Sikh identity that flows above national identity. If India is not careful, a lot of religious and ethnic communities will start exerting their rights as a separate nation, which will not be good for India.

This is, on their part, an immature conclusion; the reasons for the wording and the placement of Sikhism with Hinduism is due to the legacy of older laws passed before 1947. Before I am misunderstood to be saying that the clubbing together was a British error, let me confuse the issue by saying that it WAS a British error. It lies in the error that surrounded personal law. I really don't feel like going into the details at 2 in the morning, but if @saiyan0321 can be persuaded to return long enough to explain the details, a clue to the situation lies in the fact that Brahmos insisted that they too were NOT part of Hinduism - most confusing - and demanded their own legislation governing personal law, especially marriage and inheritance. The Sikhs and the Jains, even the Buddhists didn't press home the point, leading to today's unnecessary heartburn.

Of course, now that we have this utterly dense group in power, we will see no progress in the matter, a matter that can be resolved with one short, clear piece of law-making. Our Sanghi idiots will make it a matter of manhood and martial pride, and refuse to budge, leading, if not to anger, to great irritation.

Many of my Indian friends are Sikh, I have to say I am surprised at the anger, not regards to India as such, because, some feel proud to be Indian and others do not, there are also some who have mixed feelings. But, a large majority feel hatred towards the idea that Sikhism is a part of Hinduism, as recognized by the Indian constitution.

There is an intensely strong Sikh identity that flows above national identity. If India is not careful, a lot of religious and ethnic communities will start exerting their rights as a separate nation, which will not be good for India.

Some of us have been pointing out these potential cracks in Indian unity for more than a decade and a half now. The Sangh Parivar's captivity to the three dominant castes among Hindus, the Brahmin, the Banian and the Rajput, leads them to slight, intentionally, or, even worse, unintentionally, the others - caste Hindus outside that grouping, Scheduled Caste Hindus again subjected to ignominious treatment, Scheduled Tribes, the Dalit and the other religions, Abrahamic and Indic.

There was the Kalidasa meme of the pandit burning for revenge who came across an idiot on a tree's branches, cutting off the very branch he was sitting on, and realised that the man was stupid enough to give him an instrument for revenge. As it happened, after an unhappy start, that idiot boy educated himself and became the greatest poet of those times, Kalidasa.

I am not sure that such an intellectual re-birth is possible for the Sanghi. Take the recent budget, for example; there can be no hesitation in saying that now that poor Rajan Jaitley is no more, our former spokesperson is now the wisest fool in Hindustan.

 

[peagle]

This is, on their part, an immature conclusion; the reasons for the wording and the placement of Sikhism with Hinduism is due to the legacy of older laws passed before 1947. Before I am misunderstood to be saying that the clubbing together was a British error, let me confuse the issue by saying that it WAS a British error. It lies in the error that surrounded personal law. I really don't feel like going into the details at 2 in the morning, but if @saiyan0321 can be persuaded to return long enough to explain the details, a clue to the situation lies in the fact that Brahmos insisted that they too were NOT part of Hinduism - most confusing - and demanded their own legislation governing personal law, especially marriage and inheritance. The Sikhs and the Jains, even the Buddhists didn't press home the point, leading to today's unnecessary heartburn.

Of course, now that we have this utterly dense group in power, we will see no progress in the matter, a matter that can be resolved with one short, clear piece of law-making. Our Sanghi idiots will make it a matter of manhood and martial pride, and refuse to budge, leading, if not to anger, to great irritation.



Some of us have been pointing out these potential cracks in Indian unity for more than a decade and a half now. The Sangh Parivar's captivity to the three dominant castes among Hindus, the Brahmin, the Banian and the Rajput, leads them to slight, intentionally, or, even worse, unintentionally, the others - caste Hindus outside that grouping, Scheduled Caste Hindus again subjected to ignominious treatment, Scheduled Tribes, the Dalit and the other religions, Abrahamic and Indic.

There was the Kalidasa meme of the pandit burning for revenge who came across an idiot on a tree's branches, cutting off the very branch he was sitting on, and realised that the man was stupid enough to give him an instrument for revenge. As it happened, after an unhappy start, that idiot boy educated himself and became the greatest poet of those times, Kalidasa.

I am not sure that such an intellectual re-birth is possible for the Sanghi. Take the recent budget, for example; there can be no hesitation in saying that now that poor Rajan Jaitley is no more, our former spokesperson is now the wisest fool in Hindustan.

I do understand where your logic is coming from, and largely I agree with you.

I do find it strange and troubling that after over 70 years of democratic rule, these issues among others, especially relating to social, ethnic and religious harmony should have been resolved by now. But, rather than improving, these issues have become worse.

As a person of Pakistani origin by birth, I have a lot of issues to complain about regarding India, things that fill me with anger, but not hatred. But, It is also important to mention that I see India and Indians as my brothers and sisters, and as an elder brother, we expected better from India.

I do hope and pray that we have a peaceful future. Sadly, for the first time, I do not see it.

 

[SecularNationalist]

Many of my Indian friends are Sikh, I have to say I am surprised at the anger, not regards to India as such, because, some feel proud to be Indian and others do not, there are also some who have mixed feelings. But, a large majority feel hatred towards the idea that Sikhism is a part of Hinduism, as recognized by the Indian constitution.

There is an intensely strong Sikh identity that flows above national identity. If India is not careful, a lot of religious and ethnic communities will start exerting their rights as a separate nation, which will not be good for India.

This is, on their part, an immature conclusion; the reasons for the wording and the placement of Sikhism with Hinduism is due to the legacy of older laws passed before 1947. Before I am misunderstood to be saying that the clubbing together was a British error, let me confuse the issue by saying that it WAS a British error. It lies in the error that surrounded personal law. I really don't feel like going into the details at 2 in the morning, but if @saiyan0321 can be persuaded to return long enough to explain the details, a clue to the situation lies in the fact that Brahmos insisted that they too were NOT part of Hinduism - most confusing - and demanded their own legislation governing personal law, especially marriage and inheritance. The Sikhs and the Jains, even the Buddhists didn't press home the point, leading to today's unnecessary heartburn.

Of course, now that we have this utterly dense group in power, we will see no progress in the matter, a matter that can be resolved with one short, clear piece of law-making. Our Sanghi idiots will make it a matter of manhood and martial pride, and refuse to budge, leading, if not to anger, to great irritation.



Some of us have been pointing out these potential cracks in Indian unity for more than a decade and a half now. The Sangh Parivar's captivity to the three dominant castes among Hindus, the Brahmin, the Banian and the Rajput, leads them to slight, intentionally, or, even worse, unintentionally, the others - caste Hindus outside that grouping, Scheduled Caste Hindus again subjected to ignominious treatment, Scheduled Tribes, the Dalit and the other religions, Abrahamic and Indic.

There was the Kalidasa meme of the pandit burning for revenge who came across an idiot on a tree's branches, cutting off the very branch he was sitting on, and realised that the man was stupid enough to give him an instrument for revenge. As it happened, after an unhappy start, that idiot boy educated himself and became the greatest poet of those times, Kalidasa.

I am not sure that such an intellectual re-birth is possible for the Sanghi. Take the recent budget, for example; there can be no hesitation in saying that now that poor Rajan Jaitley is no more, our former spokesperson is now the wisest fool in Hindustan.

I do understand where your logic is coming from, and largely I agree with you.

I do find it strange and troubling that after over 70 years of democratic rule, these issues among others, especially relating to social, ethnic and religious harmony should have been resolved by now. But, rather than improving, these issues have become worse.

As a person of Pakistani origin by birth, I have a lot of issues to complain about regarding India, things that fill me with anger, but not hatred. But, It is also important to mention that I see India and Indians as my brothers and sisters, and as an elder brother, we expected better from India.

I do hope and pray that we have a peaceful future. Sadly, for the first time, I do not see it.

Historically India was never one country infact from where does this word "India" came from? Indian subcontinent was just a wide geographical term it was not at all one nation.
The constitution of India is a piece of paper which unites India artificially, and when you will start messing with that piece of paper we all know what will be the end result.
My question to those indians who quite often argue that pakistan is a failed ideology ,so tell me is united India ideology any better?

 

[Joe Shearer]

I do understand where your logic is coming from, and largely I agree with you.

I do find it strange and troubling that after over 70 years of democratic rule, these issues among others, especially relating to social, ethnic and religious harmony should have been resolved by now. But, rather than improving, these issues have become worse.

As a person of Pakistani origin by birth, I have a lot of issues to complain about regarding India, things that fill me with anger, but not hatred. But, It is also important to mention that I see India and Indians as my brothers and sisters, and as an elder brother, we expected better from India.

I do hope and pray that we have a peaceful future. Sadly, for the first time, I do not see it.

Painfully on message. I didn't like reading it, all the more because it is so close to the bone. Those two points you made (in red, above) are in effect etched in acid on our collective Indian hides.

Historically India was never one country infact from where does this word "India" came from? Indian subcontinent was just a wide geographical term it was not at all one nation.
The constitution of India is a piece of paper which unites India artificially, and when you will start messing with that piece of paper we all know what will be the end result.
My question to those indians who quite often argue that pakistan is a failed ideology ,so tell me is united India ideology any better?

Reading this was a relief, in a perverted kind of way. You know that I have a great deal of time for your point of view, and for your orientation, in general. In this case, however, I have to say, more in sorrow than in triumph, you are dead wrong. It is 7:30 in the morning now, breakfast and a busy day beckon, and I cannot allow myself to be diverted into a response right now, right here. But in very, very brief, I am surprised to see you walk into the dead end of assuming Indian identity to be linked to the outsiders name for the country, India. The Indian sub-continent has been a unitary whole for centuries, and that includes the border marches termed 'co-terminous Pakistan by my redoubtable friend @Indus Pakistan, or whatever he calls himself nowadays.

Perhaps later, perhaps elsewhere....

PS: For reasons other than the wrong premises that you seem to have assumed from the right consequences, I agree with you that fiddling with the constitution is fraught with danger. That is because it brings to the fore the concept of a brute majority, often a concocted brute majority, taken as a whole with its apposite adjective, prevailing over the rule of law, even prevailing over the core idea of an individual's human rights.

PPS: My personal disdain for the brutish constituent of the brute majority has never been higher. In my 70 years of co-terminous citizenship of the formal secular democratic nation governed by a constitution, never have I, as a Bengali, felt more alienated from the BIMARU states and their inhabitants. This feeling, from all indications, is shared by very large numbers outside those states; for once, the eleven states governed by the BJP delineate a different political and social philosophy knitted together by a bigoted and artificially xenophobic outlook, and, a painful acknowledgement for a rooted opponent of the Congress, for once the ten states ruled by the Congress or its alliances similarly delineate an opposed political and social philosophy, knitted together, to the observer's great relief, by an essentially inclusivist outlook. It is in including the moronic cow-belt that the inclusivist outlook starts to make alarmingly stressed noises.

Historically India was never one country infact from where does this word "India" came from? Indian subcontinent was just a wide geographical term it was not at all one nation.
The constitution of India is a piece of paper which unites India artificially, and when you will start messing with that piece of paper we all know what will be the end result.
My question to those indians who quite often argue that pakistan is a failed ideology ,so tell me is united India ideology any better?

Just a quick aside: the thankful acknowledgement was of a rational argument, and does not indicate agreement, even a glancing and peripheral agreement.