The rise of Khalistans voice

[Ahmet Pasha]

tell her to do purdah and stop doing this kufra dancing .

Maybe I should tell you to mind your own business???

 

[Knight Rider]

pakistan should not waste money on khalistan , khalistanis are double agent .


baloch and pashtuns don't love you .

Reality Check !
Pakistan is being ruled by a Pashtun PM. A Baloch Regiment General is our Army Cheif. Khalistan is a reality now, get over it. See a Doctor.

 

[Adonis]

Why were you so afraid of us that you hid behind Sikh gurus then? It's your temple money we wanted. They protected you brahminists and for what in return? 1984? Assaults on farmers?

Maybe the gurus regret siding with jackals against lions.

I guess you need to read.... Sikhism started as a branch of Hinduism....All their gurus (first 9) have Hindu names....To stop forced conversion and atrocities on Hindus by then Muslim ruler (Aurangzeb) the eight Guru took arms and was brutally executed by Aurangzeb in Delhi. The last Guru...son of eight guru Teg Bahadur, formed militia against atrocities committed by Muslim rulers and created "Khalsa"...the warrior clan...all of them were Hindus who were sworn into Khalsa.....
Sikhs will never leave India or create Khalistan...majority of them fought against it in 80s and still the supporters of Khalistan are confined to Canada, UK,Australia and US......

 

[masterchief_mirza]

I guess you need to read.... Sikhism started as a branch of Hinduism....All their gurus (first 9) have Hindu names....To stop forced conversion and atrocities on Hindus by then Muslim ruler (Aurangzeb) the eight Guru took arms and was brutally executed by Aurangzeb in Delhi. The last Guru...son of eight guru Teg Bahadur, formed militia against atrocities committed by Muslim rulers and created "Khalsa"...the warrior clan...all of them were Hindus who were sworn into Khalsa.....
Sikhs will never leave India or create Khalistan...majority of them fought against it in 80s and still the supporters of Khalistan are confined to Canada, UK,Australia and US......

So Brahmins created Sikhs to do the job they didn't want to do and that Kshatriyas failed to do? Naturally.

The fact still persists though, that these individuals could have chosen to live free of Brahmin hegemony and fought as equals amongst warrior kings who actually rode into battle to protect their own amassed wealth.

 

[hussain0216]

if kashmiris hate india ,
afghans , baloch, pashtuns have the same feeling for punjabis .
any way nobody is on your side .

Afghanis we give as much a fcuk about as Hindus

The rest are muslims in a Muslim state

When do get riots in our cities?, When 100,000 Baloch surround Islamabad then you can compare us to your hindutva extremist communal shithole

 

[Baibars_1260]

I guess you need to read.... Sikhism started as a branch of Hinduism....All their gurus (first 9) have Hindu names....To stop forced conversion and atrocities on Hindus by then Muslim ruler (Aurangzeb) the eight Guru took arms and was brutally executed by Aurangzeb in Delhi. The last Guru...son of eight guru Teg Bahadur, formed militia against atrocities committed by Muslim rulers and created "Khalsa"...the warrior clan...all of them were Hindus who were sworn into Khalsa.....
Sikhs will never leave India or create Khalistan...majority of them fought against it in 80s and still the supporters of Khalistan are confined to Canada, UK,Australia and US......

Adonis,

The biggest lie is that Sikhism arose as a reaction to forced conversion of Hindus.
Guru Nanak founded Sikhism during his life time (1469-1539
C.E.). India had been under a Turko Afghan Muslim- Hindu Rajput alliance rule for almost 300 years before ( if we take the Second Battle of Tarain 1192 C.E. ) as a bench mark.
By the late 1400s there was a already significant and growing Muslim population in Western Punjab.

Sikhism was not a reaction against Islam, or conversions but rather a reaction of the Hindu lower caste agricultural peasants of Punjab against Khatri Rajput landlords who had a mutual support alliance to whichever coalition was ruling from Delhi.
I guess you should be reading the Sikh scriptures, which speak against the Sanatana Dharma varna system.
Guru Nanak had a comfortable relationship with the Sufi mystics and one of them Bhai Mardana was a rababi accompanying Guru Nanak and singing his shabd kirtans
(devotional songs based on the writings of the Granth Sahib).
It is said that Guru Nanak even performed the Hajj ( ritual pilgrimage of Muslims to Mecca).

Like the Sufi mystics who found a syncretic resonance amongst the rural peasantry Sikhism found a widespread appeal to the masses. In a feudal India where to the Muslim nobility the class order was important and to the Hindu nobility the caste order was important. Disturbing the political socio-economic order by awakening the masses was dangerous. Both Sufism and Sikhism were targeted by the autocratic Mughal rulers that represented both Hindu caste and Muslim class interests.

"Islamic" roots notwithstanding Sarmad a Sufi Sindhi mystic ( along with many others ) was beheaded just as callously as a Sikh Guru.

Unlike the Sufis who suffered silently the Sikhs took up arms against the Mughals and their Rajput allies after a century of persecution.

Of course the Sufi message was far more widespread and not constrained by language or culture. The message was spread from Shahbaz Qalandar in the West, and going as far as Bengal in the East; where Shah Jalal spread the message, and now Bangladesh is Muslim majority. Sufism carried the message North and South from Kashmir to Kerala.

The Sikhs continued fighting the Mughals, and became more parochial confining their religion to region language and culture. East Punjabi culture is deeply intertwined with the Sikh faith. To be a Sikh one must conform to the Punjabi language as spoken in East Punjab with Sanskrit words, write Punjabi in the Gurmukhi script and recite the shabd in Punjabi only.
Which is why you don't have a native Tamil or Malayalam speaking
Sikh. If the theory of Sikhs protecting Hindus is correct then Sikhs should have been fighting Tamil and Malayalam speaking Muslims down South who were "converting" Hindus.

Even in Punjab there is no evidence that Sikhs fought for Hinduism.
Following the collapse of the Mughal Empire ( largely the result of defeats at the hands of both the Persians and Marathas), the Sikhs briefly established an empire in what is today Afghanistan, Kashmir, and Pakistan in the late 1700s to the 1840s.
Oddly enough this region ( except for East Punjab ( Punjab in India today) was already Muslim majority, and the Sikh rule was tenuous held together only by shifting alliances with Afghan warlords who were bribed or paid off. Conversions of Hindus to Sikhism had tapered off by the mid 1700s. The Muslims under Sikh rule did not convert and there were frequent rebellions in Afghanistan and modern day Khyber Pakhtun Khwa with heavy losses to the Sikh forces. One of these rebellions claimed the life of the famous Sikh General and war hero, Hari Singh Nalwa. He was captured and beheaded by Afghan resistance fighters.
There were also frequent internal wars amongst the Sikh factions known as misls.
In desperation the Sikhs drew a line between their empire and Afghanistan hoping to isolate the Afghans. The Sikh Empire was too fragile to last. The British took over very quickly and hired the Sikhs as staff and mercenaries in their armed forces to quell the Afghans .
That didn't work either, so the British fortified the old Sikh border into the Durand line which is the Afghan Pakistan border today,

Any questions?

 

[Bambi]

Some pics

 

[GumNaam]

Contains some explicit language

@PAKISTANFOREVER @waz

aho, don't get carried away with it...this "desi rapper" is one of those talentless rappers that jump on every social bandwagon to gain attention for their otherwise "zero" talent thus making an otherwise genuine cause look like a mere gimik and a publicity stunt.

^^^ here she is jumping on the "mera jism meri marzi" bandwagon.

 

[Adonis]

So Brahmins created Sikhs to do the job they didn't want to do and that Kshatriyas failed to do? Naturally.

The fact still persists though, that these individuals could have chosen to live free of Brahmin hegemony and fought as equals amongst warrior kings who actually rode into battle to protect their own amassed wealth.

Searched this Brahmins thing...I got your plan...You want to play religion and within religion the caste in your arguments.....Great.

So these Brahmins did not created Sikhs...their 1st Guru (Nanak) was a trader caste...so are most of their Gurus...Besides the atrocities were committed not only on Brahmins but Sikhs, Buddhists, other Hindu caste alike....Isn't it evident from present day Pakistan? How you treat your minorities....Do you differentiate between Brahmins there?

anyways Good luck harping on others ....and keep closing your eyes when it come to correcting own's faults.

 

[airmarshal]

Give 5 more years to Modi and there will be permanent solution to India problem.

 

[Adonis]

Adonis,

The biggest lie is that Sikhism arose as a reaction to forced conversion of Hindus.
Guru Nanak founded Sikhism during his life time (1469-1539
C.E.). India had been under a Turko Afghan Muslim- Hindu Rajput alliance rule for almost 300 years before ( if we take the Second Battle of Tarain 1192 C.E. ) as a bench mark.
By the late 1400s there was a already significant and growing Muslim population in Western Punjab.

Sikhism was not a reaction against Islam, or conversions but rather a reaction of the Hindu lower caste agricultural peasants of Punjab against Khatri Rajput landlords who had a mutual support alliance to whichever coalition was ruling from Delhi.
I guess you should be reading the Sikh scriptures, which speak against the Sanatana Dharma varna system.
Guru Nanak had a comfortable relationship with the Sufi mystics and one of them Bhai Mardana was a rababi accompanying Guru Nanak and singing his shabd kirtans
(devotional songs based on the writings of the Granth Sahib).
It is said that Guru Nanak even performed the Hajj ( ritual pilgrimage of Muslims to Mecca).

Like the Sufi mystics who found a syncretic resonance amongst the rural peasantry Sikhism found a widespread appeal to the masses. In a feudal India where to the Muslim nobility the class order was important and to the Hindu nobility the caste order was important. Disturbing the political socio-economic order by awakening the masses was dangerous. Both Sufism and Sikhism were targeted by the autocratic Mughal rulers that represented both Hindu caste and Muslim class interests.

"Islamic" roots notwithstanding Sarmad a Sufi Sindhi mystic ( along with many others ) was beheaded just as callously as a Sikh Guru.

Unlike the Sufis who suffered silently the Sikhs took up arms against the Mughals and their Rajput allies after a century of persecution.

Of course the Sufi message was far more widespread and not constrained by language or culture. The message was spread from Shahbaz Qalandar in the West, and going as far as Bengal in the East; where Shah Jalal spread the message, and now Bangladesh is Muslim majority. Sufism carried the message North and South from Kashmir to Kerala.

The Sikhs continued fighting the Mughals, and became more parochial confining their religion to region language and culture. East Punjabi culture is deeply intertwined with the Sikh faith. To be a Sikh one must conform to the Punjabi language as spoken in East Punjab with Sanskrit words, write Punjabi in the Gurmukhi script and recite the shabd in Punjabi only.
Which is why you don't have a native Tamil or Malayalam speaking
Sikh. If the theory of Sikhs protecting Hindus is correct then Sikhs should have been fighting Tamil and Malayalam speaking Muslims down South who were "converting" Hindus.

Even in Punjab there is no evidence that Sikhs fought for Hinduism.
Following the collapse of the Mughal Empire ( largely the result of defeats at the hands of both the Persians and Marathas), the Sikhs briefly established an empire in what is today Afghanistan, Kashmir, and Pakistan in the late 1700s to the 1840s.
Oddly enough this region ( except for East Punjab ( Punjab in India today) was already Muslim majority, and the Sikh rule was tenuous held together only by shifting alliances with Afghan warlords who were bribed or paid off. Conversions of Hindus to Sikhism had tapered off by the mid 1700s. The Muslims under Sikh rule did not convert and there were frequent rebellions in Afghanistan and modern day Khyber Pakhtun Khwa with heavy losses to the Sikh forces. One of these rebellions claimed the life of the famous Sikh General and war hero, Hari Singh Nalwa. He was captured and beheaded by Afghan resistance fighters.
There were also frequent internal wars amongst the Sikh factions known as misls.
In desperation the Sikhs drew a line between their empire and Afghanistan hoping to isolate the Afghans. The Sikh Empire was too fragile to last. The British took over very quickly and hired the Sikhs as staff and mercenaries in their armed forces to quell the Afghans .
That didn't work either, so the British fortified the old Sikh border into the Durand line which is the Afghan Pakistan border today,

Any questions?

Mate...you are mixing up many things here.....I mentioned Khalsa sect was established from Sikhs to fight Atrocities by Muslim rulers....

Chhota Ghallughara - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Martyrdom of Guru Arjan - SikhiWiki, free Sikh encyclopedia.

www.sikhiwiki.org

Martyrdom of Guru Tegh Bahadur - SikhiWiki, free Sikh encyclopedia.

www.sikhiwiki.org

Second battle of Chamkaur Sahib - SikhiWiki, free Sikh encyclopedia.

www.sikhiwiki.org

Most of above links are from a Sikh website...if the source is not reliable enough..I can provide links from Encyclopedia Britannica.

On affinity of East Punjab with Sikhs....that got evident in 1947.

On Khalistan...I think Sikh history, their Gurus, their Sikh empire etc has much more to do with Pakistan side of Punjab than Indian Punjab....so what if they claim it too?

 

[Baibars_1260]

Mate...you are mixing up many things here.....I mentioned Khalsa sect was established from Sikhs to fight Atrocities by Muslim rulers....

So where is the disagreement?

I already told you that it was the Mughals whom the Sikhs were
fighting not Muslims. Mughals had Rajput allies as well. If it was Muslims the Sikhs were fighting they would have gone to fight on behalf of the Marathas against Tipu Sultan and Ahmed Shah Abdali as well. They would have fought against all Muslims and continued fighting. When the Mughal Empire collapsed the Sikhs in their empire did not kill Muslims, rather tried to coopt them. The Sikhs massacred Muslims in East Punjab during Partition. Since 1947, no Muslims have been killed by Sikhs within India. If Sikhs were seeking revenge for Muslim atrocities they would also have been attacking and killing Muslims today.

Most of above links are from a Sikh website...if the source is not reliable enough..I can provide links from Encyclopedia Britannica.

Here is the reference to my statement that Sikhism refutes the Vedas and Hinduism ( including caste)

Hinduism and Sikhism - Wikiquote

en.m.wikiquote.org

Extracts :

The Guru sahib had rejected the Vedas calling them creators of discord, preachers of sin and a treasure of worldly greed that takes one away from God. And he had called the followers of the Vedas as selfish liars who shall be punished by angels of death."

• • Pandit Kartar Singh Dakha (1888-1958), Sri Guru Vyakaran Panchayan - Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji da Shiromani Vyakaran, 1935
• Guru Nanak never accepted and respected the authenticity of the Vedas as is done by the Vedic people. He did not believe the Vedas to be ‘revealed books’ nor did he believe the Vedic dogmas taught the whole truth."
  • Prof. Sher Singh MSC - Guru Nanak The Saviour of the world (1469-1538), Published 1935.
• Most of the ‘Gurbani’ deals with the refutation of Hinduism. It preaches very effectively against the superstitious Hindu ideology."
  • Late Giani Lal Singh, Kakar Philosophy(2004), ISBN 81-7601-601-2.
• It has been usual to regard the Sikhs as essentially Hindu... yet in religious faith and worldly aspiration, they are wholly different from other Indians, and they are bound together by an objective unknown elsewhere.
  • Joseph D. Cunningham, History of the Sikhs, Publisher: Rupa & Co. (January 1, 2002), ISBN-13: 978-8171677641

On affinity of East Punjab with Sikhs....that got evident in 1947.

Yes, only East Punjab, and not much anywhere else.
Example;
The Hindus of Rajamundry in Andhra Pradesh did not convert to Sikhism, and nor did the Afridi tribe in Khyber ( over whom the Sikhs briefly ruled).

For that matter there were far more Hindus than Sikhs in what is Pakistan today because even in West Punjab the conversions from Hinduism to Sikhism had tapered off in late 1700s.

There was not much love lost in East Punjab either. Right after Partition the Sikhs found themselves in a minority in the Punjab in India, then comprising Haryana, and Himachal so they started the Punjabi Suba movement till they finally got a tiny slice of the old pre-Partition Punjab where their majority is a slim 56%.
Check out the Hindu Sikh rivalry beginning with the Punjabi Suba agitation. 200 Sikhs were killed by security forces in a raid on the Golden Temple in 1955.

Punjabi Suba movement - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Punjabi Suba | proposed Indian state | Britannica

Other articles where Punjabi Suba is discussed: Sant Fateh Singh: …were advocating the establishment of Punjabi Suba, a Punjabi-speaking autonomous state in India in which Sikh religious, cultural, and linguistic integrity could be preserved intact.

www.britannica.com

On Khalistan...I think Sikh history, their Gurus, their Sikh empire etc has much more to do with Pakistan side of Punjab than Indian Punjab....so what if they claim it too?

Correct, IF you read my post that is EXACTLY what I said. I also mentioned the entire history of their brief empire and how difficult it was for them to retain control, how they first gave up on Afghanistan and then collapsed under the stress and heavy losses to end up serving the British as mercenaries. Their empire didn't end well with their last king Duleep
Singh exiled to England,converting to Christianity, recanting then reconverting to buried as a Christian.
Read the history of the Sikh Empire and their close co-operation with the mullahs and qazis and the various Muslim warlords and adventurers in their ranks.
Read the history of the Sikh Empire.
Makes pretty depressing reading.

Sikh Empire - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

If they had problems holding Pakistan and Afghanistan at that time, wonder how a tiny Khalistan of East Punjab will conquer and hold a nuclear armed nation of 220 million.
By the way Pakistan has no illusions that there ever will be a Khalistan, though if by a miracle it does happen we wish the Sikh community all the very best.
We do however enjoy the pain that our mortal enemy gets each time the Sikhs demand their right of self determination.

 

[GHALIB]

Give 5 more years to Modi and there will be permanent solution to India problem.

we solved kashmir .

So Brahmins created Sikhs to do the job they didn't want to do and that Kshatriyas failed to do? Naturally.

The fact still persists though, that these individuals could have chosen to live free of Brahmin hegemony and fought as equals amongst warrior kings who actually rode into battle to protect their own amassed wealth.

all hindus were persecuted in invader muslim rule , sikhism later khalsa was born to save hindus from musalmans who came from arab turk countries .

 

[Adonis]

So where is the disagreement?

I already told you that it was the Mughals whom the Sikhs were
fighting not Muslims. Mughals had Rajput allies as well. If it was Muslims the Sikhs were fighting they would have gone to fight on behalf of the Marathas against Tipu Sultan and Ahmed Shah Abdali as well. They would have fought against all Muslims and continued fighting. When the Mughal Empire collapsed the Sikhs in their empire did not kill Muslims, rather tried to coopt them. The Sikhs massacred Muslims in East Punjab during Partition. Since 1947, no Muslims have been killed by Sikhs within India. If Sikhs were seeking revenge for Muslim atrocities they would also have been attacking and killing Muslims today.



Here is the reference to my statement that Sikhism refutes the Vedas and Hinduism ( including caste)

Hinduism and Sikhism - Wikiquote

en.m.wikiquote.org

Extracts :

The Guru sahib had rejected the Vedas calling them creators of discord, preachers of sin and a treasure of worldly greed that takes one away from God. And he had called the followers of the Vedas as selfish liars who shall be punished by angels of death."

• • Pandit Kartar Singh Dakha (1888-1958), Sri Guru Vyakaran Panchayan - Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji da Shiromani Vyakaran, 1935
• Guru Nanak never accepted and respected the authenticity of the Vedas as is done by the Vedic people. He did not believe the Vedas to be ‘revealed books’ nor did he believe the Vedic dogmas taught the whole truth."
  • Prof. Sher Singh MSC - Guru Nanak The Saviour of the world (1469-1538), Published 1935.
• Most of the ‘Gurbani’ deals with the refutation of Hinduism. It preaches very effectively against the superstitious Hindu ideology."
  • Late Giani Lal Singh, Kakar Philosophy(2004), ISBN 81-7601-601-2.
• It has been usual to regard the Sikhs as essentially Hindu... yet in religious faith and worldly aspiration, they are wholly different from other Indians, and they are bound together by an objective unknown elsewhere.
  • Joseph D. Cunningham, History of the Sikhs, Publisher: Rupa & Co. (January 1, 2002), ISBN-13: 978-8171677641

Yes, only East Punjab, and not much anywhere else.
Example;
The Hindus of Rajamundry in Andhra Pradesh did not convert to Sikhism, and nor did the Afridi tribe in Khyber ( over whom the Sikhs briefly ruled).

For that matter there were far more Hindus than Sikhs in what is Pakistan today because even in West Punjab the conversions from Hinduism to Sikhism had tapered off in late 1700s.

There was not much love lost in East Punjab either. Right after Partition the Sikhs found themselves in a minority in the Punjab in India, then comprising Haryana, and Himachal so they started the Punjabi Suba movement till they finally got a tiny slice of the old pre-Partition Punjab where their majority is a slim 56%.
Check out the Hindu Sikh rivalry beginning with the Punjabi Suba agitation. 200 Sikhs were killed by security forces in a raid on the Golden Temple in 1955.

Punjabi Suba movement - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Punjabi Suba | proposed Indian state | Britannica

Other articles where Punjabi Suba is discussed: Sant Fateh Singh: …were advocating the establishment of Punjabi Suba, a Punjabi-speaking autonomous state in India in which Sikh religious, cultural, and linguistic integrity could be preserved intact.

www.britannica.com

Correct, IF you read my post that is EXACTLY what I said. I also mentioned the entire history of their brief empire and how difficult it was for them to retain control, how they first gave up on Afghanistan and then collapsed under the stress and heavy losses to end up serving the British as mercenaries. Their empire didn't end well with their last king Duleep
Singh exiled to England,converting to Christianity, recanting then reconverting to buried as a Christian.
Read the history of the Sikh Empire and their close co-operation with the mullahs and qazis and the various Muslim warlords and adventurers in their ranks.
Read the history of the Sikh Empire.
Makes pretty depressing reading.

Sikh Empire - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

If they had problems holding Pakistan and Afghanistan at that time, wonder how a tiny Khalistan of East Punjab will conquer and hold a nuclear armed nation of 220 million.
By the way Pakistan has no illusions that there ever will be a Khalistan, though if by a miracle it does happen we wish the Sikh community all the very best.
We do however enjoy the pain that our mortal enemy gets each time the Sikhs demand their right of self determination.

1. They did fight against Ahmad Shah Abdali and were mercilessly slaughtered..

Vadda Ghalughara - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

2. If Sikhs are so deprived in India then why 30% of Indian Army consists of Sikhs...we very well know how furiously they fight in wars with us. Also in India..Sikhs have been Prime Ministers, Presidents, Chief Justice, Chief Election Commissioners, Chief of Army Staff etc...So I don't buy this minority oppression crap. Instead...we don't have much to boast when it comes to giving rights/ equal opportunities to our minorities.

3. Sikhs will not hold a nuclear powered country of 220 Million instead they can demand a separate country altogether like Bangladesh fro us, can't they?....if we are ok for them to demand that sort of Khalistan from India than why not Pakistan...which actually formed much of their history and Sikh empire?

 

[Zapper]

Khalistan