What's new

Indian Denial Accepting Sikhism, Buddhism and Jainism as Separate Religions

Recently, particularly after the Sikh Genocide 1984, IA is opening SLI up to others. This is again something the Sikhs resent. But even in these mixed units, companies and kitchens follow strict religious and cast lines.
Can any army guy confirm this @Abingdonboy

I have been to a navy mess, no separate kitchen, eat whatever sh*t they give or get lost.... :P
kitchen staff agreeing to special rules on caste lines will be completely absurd and impossible to operate.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Can any army guy confirm this @Abingdonboy

I have been to a navy mess, no separate kitchen, eat whatever sh*t they give or get lost.... :P
kitchen staff agreeing to special rules on caste lines will be completely absurd and impossible to operate.

That's just Bangladeshi professionalism you are witnessing!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
this is for our great professional @asad71,who apparently knows a lot.. :lol:


Guru Nanak Devji the first Guru was born in Hindu family of Mehta Kaalu Bedi. From that time He has been called Guru of Hindus. After first Guru all the Guru including Guru Gobing Singh were called Guru of Hindus by Moghal emperors specially. Moghal emperors like Orangjeb were making hindus to muslims forcibly which was against humanity. Guru Nanakdevji had refused to wear holy thread(Jane-oo), saying to Pandit that he had worn the Janeoo of truth. But when this Janeoo was being removed, sikhs had faught against this. It was felt by Gurus that Hindus were not able to protect themselves and their religion being a weaker class. Then the 10th Guru had organized them giving them a separate identity of Singh. Not only separate ID, but also given Shabad Guru to their pupils(Sikhs), since the Pandits were misinterpreting the Vedas and Shashtras for sake of self motos and were misleading the people. As said in Guru Granth Sahib "VED KATAIB KAHO MAT JHOOTHEY JHOOTHA JO NA BEECHARAE." (Prabhati Kabirji Page 1350) and "VEDA(N) MEH NAAM UTTAM SO SUNHAE NAAHEE PHIREH JEU(N) BETAALIAA." (Ramkali M. 3 page 919) But the impression of 'Gurus of Hindus' remained continued at the time of making the constitution, where as the base of sikhism is the truth that worships only one God and obeys the order of Guru. Though the Constitution needs necessary amendment, but if not, it would hardly have any affect on sikhism as it is so great that it needs not help of constitution of india..

Sikhism Religion India, Principles of Sikh Religion, Sikh Religion Panth, Foundation of Sikh Religion, Sikh Religion Gurus, India
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's hardly any surprise , as Hinduism is a mambo jumbo religion.

Its has no structure or clear definition - its plain tribalism, worshipers of Satan, the devil, ghost and spirits, fake gurus/humans (e.g Sai Baba etc) and animals are considered as God and automatically labeled as Hindus.

As if the religions are any better with any clear definition and structures.


The above might be true to some extent with Northern India esp Punjab/Sindh - intermarrying/adoption of Sikhis. That isn't the case with in South India. There was no love between the Buddhists/Jains and Hindus esp in the states of Tamilnadu and Andhra Pradesh !!! Theravada Buddhist were prosecuted by Tamil Hindu kings and they had to flee to Lanka and thus carry with them their anti Hindu sentiments which is reflected in their later day works

Lies and more lies,Srilanka is not South India and Tamil Hindu kings namely, the Pallavas, Cholas, Cheras, and Pandyas patronized Buddhism.It was only Sunga Pusyamitra persected buddists and he was not even a Tamil King.Under the Cholas (9th to the 13th century AD) Nagapattinam became a major centre of Buddhism. Pathmanathan says that Rajaraja Perumpalli and the Rajendra Chola Perumpalli were the principal monastic establishments during Chola rule in the Coromandel coast.These were named after Chola Kings who were worshippers of Shiva. These establishments were handsomely funded by merchants and artisans as well as royalty.

You should also know that It was Tamil Nadu gave shelter to fleeing Lankan monks When Magha of Kalinga persecuted Buddhists during his rule in Sri Lanka in the early 13th century, monks from the island fled to Tamil Nadu.They remained in Tamil Nadu until King Vijayabahu III (1232-1235 AD) brought the Buddhist refugees back and established peace in Srilanka.Your tale of so called persecution of Theravada Buddhist in South India is nothing more than a part of selective reading of History.
 
Recently, particularly after the Sikh Genocide 1984, IA is opening SLI up to others. This is again something the Sikhs resent. But even in these mixed units, companies and kitchens follow strict religious and cast lines.
For officers the SLI has always been open to them- regardless of their religion. Muslim, Hindu and Christian officers have all served in the SLI. Traditionally the SLI has been composed of mostly Sikh NCOs and Jawans but it is not unheard of to see non-Sikh NCOs and Jawans in the SLI but given where the SLI HQ is and where they recruit from 99% of the SLI is bound to be Sikhs. There is NO SUCH thing as a deliberate attempt to "de-Sikh" the SLI. All regiments raised post 1947 have been "all-India" regiments were there is no religious identity of the unit. There is thus bound to be certain levels of this "all India" mindset seeping into ALL Indian army units but this has ZILCH to do with 1984 or anything like that.

In the IA there is NO such thing as caste and officers follow the religion of their men.


And there is NO resentment in the SLI or Sikh regmt- why should there be? The men of the SLI do not care about the relgion of the man next to them- this is a FACT. The SLI is one of the most decorated and elite units in the IA- they simply care about maintaining this prestige.

This is coming from someone whose uncle served in the Sikh LI and later PARA regmt.


It is utterly shameful that a "professional" feels the need to spout such nonsense.
 
Hindu Indians are fools to imagine any Sikh, Jain or Buddhist likes to be called a Hindu. Sikhs have separate Regts. Kitchens and dining are separate for each. Temples are different. They hardly intermarry. Religious scriptures are different. Priests are different. They don't eat in each others houses. Will not share utensils or village wells. All this is a Chanokya move to devour the minorities. Muslims and Christians will be targeted in the next phase.

Separate kitchens? Not in the Indian military. Separate temples? Not in the Indian military.



The newly constructed hospital will be 1047 bedded ground plus six storied building and is being built near the Military Hospital Cardio Thoracic Centre, Pune on Kondhwa road.crores, will be housed in a self sufficient and environment friendly ‘Green Building’, equipped with facilities like rain water harvesting, modern fire fighting equipment, modern laundry services, dietary services with modern kitchen equipment and ultra modern effluent treatment plant. On completion, this will the largest hospital of the Indian Armed Forces and will be at par with the best hospitals in the country. — in Pune, Maharashtra.

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/milita...ilitary-picture-thread-370.html#ixzz2aNLCxHMs


1003279_139916646204973_1898534662_n.jpg





969079_139916546204983_1897038720_n.jpg



What do you see there???



In the Indian military the base's/unit's Mandirs, Masjids, Gurudwars and Churches are all under one roof and the entire unit will visit and pay respects to each holy book.


You're speaking utter BS sir.
 
The continued institutionalized oppression of Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists through constitutional and legal measures in India even after 65 years of its independence is a gross violation of human rights and has been embedded in Indian History. Shameful as it is, using racist slurs as butchers for followers of other religions is just the tip of the iceberg of racism that exists amongst the majority Hindu population against other religions or those who convert to other religions.

Involvement of Indian politicians and governmental institutions in planned atrocities and terror acts and fake encounters has been proven and some of the Indian media has now started openly discussing this.

I would like to quote from an article to open your eyes to the realities as they exist. These articles talk about atrocities against Buddhists which also have a historical perspective.

[Extracts] Hope for India's 'broken' Buddhists
By Kalinga Seneviratne

We were converted into Buddhists in 1956, but we still face a lot of discrimination, injustice and violence.

In contemporary India, while attacks by Hindu militant groups on the minority Muslim and Christian communities have drawn the attention of the Indian and international media, atrocities on Buddhists go unreported, mostly because they fall into the lowest rungs of the caste ladder.

In September 2006, a family of Buddhist Dalits - 45-year-old Surekha Bhotmange, her 18-year-old daughter Priyanka, sons Roshan and Sudhir - was lynched by an upper caste mob in Khairlanji about 30 kilometers from here.


On October 24, 2008, eight people were convicted for the massacre and six of them given the death sentence. But Ghodeshwar says that was a rare instance of justice catching up on such atrocities perpetrated by upper caste Hindu fanatics.

One problem for the Buddhists is that the Hindu establishment does not accept the fact of their conversions or even that Buddhism is a separate faith system. Officially, less than 1% of 1 billion Indians are listed as Buddhist, but most people agree that the majority of the 200 million Dalits of India follow the Buddhist faith.


"We have converted but still the Hindus aren't accepting that we have been converted and they don't understand that we belong to a separate group now. They refer to the Buddha as the ninth incarnation of the Hindu deity Vishnu and do not see Buddhism as a separate religion,'' said Ghodeshwar.


"We are seen as part and parcel of Hinduism and this is also linked to our oppression and discrimination as Dalits,''Ghodeshwar added.

Sulekhatai Kumbhare, a former minister in the state government of Maharashtra and a Buddhist leader here, argues that the number of Buddhists in India is not large enough to affect political changes. ''We need to get the support of other communities. But Hindus think that because we left their religion we cannot be friends,'' she says.

Asia Times Online :: South Asia news, business and economy from India and Pakistan

The discrimination against Buddhists is not a recent phenomenon and has historical roots.

[Excerpts] Why did Buddhism disappear from South Asia? Brahmin atrocities that destroyed Buddhism in the Subcontinent

………. Dr. Dr MS Jayaprakash, professor of history at Kollam – throw some deep insights into the dark history of India when Buddhism was systematically eliminated by Brahminical forces who control Hinduism, then and now.
‘Hundreds of Buddhist statues, stupas and viharas have been destroyed in India between 830 and 966 AD in the name of Hindu revivalism. Both literary and archaeological sources within and outside India speak volumes about the havoc done to Buddhism by Hindu fanatics. Spiritual leaders like Sankaracharya and many Hindu kings and rulers took pride in demolishing Buddhist images aiming at the total eradication of Buddhist culture.

After all, in places such as Bengal and Sind, which were ruled by Brahminical dynasties but had Buddhist majorities, Buddhists are said to have welcomed the Muslims as saviours who had freed them from the tyranny of ‘upper’ caste rule. This explains why most of the ‘lower-caste’ people in Eastern Bengal and Sind embraced Islam. Few, if any, among the ‘upper’ castes of these regions did the same.

LankaWeb – Why did Buddhism disappear from South Asia? Brahmin atrocities that destroyed Buddhism in the Subcontinent

I hope that the Indian members wake up to the realities regarding majority Hindu discrimination against minorities as it existed in history and as these exist now.
 
You should also know that It was Tamil Nadu gave shelter to fleeing Lankan monks When Magha of Kalinga persecuted Buddhists during his rule in Sri Lanka in the early 13th century, monks from the island fled to Tamil Nadu.They remained in Tamil Nadu until King Vijayabahu III (1232-1235 AD) brought the Buddhist refugees back and established peace in Srilanka.Your tale of so called persecution of Theravada Buddhist in South India is nothing more than a part of selective reading of History.

1) Provide the source to support your claim - Tamilnadu sheltering Buddhist monks ?

Magha invaded the country from Kalinga in eastern India, usurping the throne from Parakrama Pandya, in 1215. His reign saw the massive migration of native Sinhalese to the south and west of Sri Lanka, and into the mountainous interior, in a bid to escape his power

Kalinga Magha Invasion



Lies and more lies,Srilanka is not South India and Tamil Hindu kings namely, the Pallavas, Cholas, Cheras, and Pandyas patronized Buddhism

King Asoka too patronised Buddhism so what your point in dragging the 3 Tamil Kingdoms, Patronage and prosecution depends on which religion the Kings aligns himself !

In 300 CE the Kalabras who were Jains/Buddhists prosecuted the Tamil Hindus. Pallava and Cholas did destroy Buddhist stupas and had Hindu temples built upon them. The saivite Cholas even prosecuted the vaisnavites



The Tamil threat to the Sinhalese Buddhist kingdoms had become very real in the fifth and sixth centuries A.D. Three Hindu empires in southern India--the Pandya, Pallava, and Chola-- were becoming more assertive. The Sinhalese perception of this threat intensified because in India, Buddhism--vulnerable to pressure and absorption by Hinduism-

An Early History of Sri Lanka - Welcome to Sri Lanka by Ari Withanage
 
It's hardly any surprise , as Hinduism is a mambo jumbo religion.

Its has no structure or clear definition - its plain tribalism, worshipers of Satan, the devil, ghost and spirits, fake gurus/humans (e.g Sai Baba etc) and animals are considered as God and automatically labeled as Hindus.


The above might be true to some extent with Northern India esp Punjab/Sindh - intermarrying/adoption of Sikhis. That isn't the case with in South India. There was no love between the Buddhists/Jains and Hindus esp in the states of Tamilnadu and Andhra Pradesh !!! Theravada Buddhist were prosecuted by Tamil Hindu kings and they had to flee to Lanka and thus carry with them their anti Hindu sentiments which is reflected in their later day works

Yeah, I agree. They are delusional people, they reject reality and make up lies to back up their absurd claims.
 
Hindu Indians are fools to imagine any Sikh, Jain or Buddhist likes to be called a Hindu. Sikhs have separate Regts. Kitchens and dining are separate for each. Temples are different. They hardly intermarry. Religious scriptures are different. Priests are different. They don't eat in each others houses. Will not share utensils or village wells. All this is a Chanokya move to devour the minorities. Muslims and Christians will be targeted in the next phase.

who is the genius who made him "Prfessinal" ?
 
i am from ANDHRA PRADESH we know the truth, Again this is BS.If people of andhra pradesh were against buddhists why would they intall a largest buddha statue in the middle of hussain sagar lake in their capital city hyderabad?

Indians have a fetish for statues ... so dont read too much into Hussain sagar !!

th


BSP election symbol :omghaha:

th
 
I think it went.... Vedas --> Hinduism --> Buddhism/Jainism

So technically they are branches of Hinduism.

Though their followers are not necessarily Hindus.

Hinduism is recently coined term by foreigners (Persians). The actual religion is Vedic religion/'Sanatan Dharma'. The Hindu refers to 'Sindhu river' (Indus river, where India also gets its' name from. Which ironically flows mostly in Pakistan) which was a natural boundary between ancient Persia and India so they called everyone living on east side of this river 'Hindu' so all the religions that originated on east side of the river are Hindu religions and everyone following any of this religion is a Hindu. So Hinduism constitutionally isn't a religion it is a set of 'Dharmik beliefs'. Hence, only the Abrahmic religions are considered different which are mainly missionary religions hoping to 'dominate the world'.

These Pakistanis always need some straws to grasp on to justify their country's existance :)
 
Pakistanis throwing barbs in the air over total bullshit in this thread is amusing..when shias,hindus and sikhs have been exterminated or ongoing extermination in their own country.
 
Back
Top Bottom