The rise of Khalistans voice

[masterchief_mirza]

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.

What you talking about now kiwi?

Nobody is bothered about who slaughtered whom centuries ago. My question is simply why did the Brahmin classes not march out to protect their own stash of treasure? I am well aware that they asked lower castes to do the dirty work for them. No surprise that guru this and guru that were not Brahmins.

Tell you what kiwi, go ask some singhs if they're happy with their eternal employer's behaviour over the centuries. Better still, ask them directly if they're a branch of Hinduism. I'm genuinely curious as to what their answer may be.

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?

Lolz. Can Rome claim Britain because it held Britain for a long time? Maybe Ptolemaic Egypt can be restored too, just for giggles?

Sikhs chose Hindustan. Now Sikhs must fight Hindus if they want their freedom. We Pakistanis will support them every step of the way.

 

[Baibars_1260]

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

You are referring to a post Battle of Panipat situation. There was no Sikh participation in the Third Battle of Panipat ( 1761) in alliance with the Marathas. The Sikhs did not assist the Marathas in installing a Maratha king in Delhi and instead were neutral to the compromise between the Marathas and Abdali to let Shah Alam II be enthroned as an enfeebled but still symbolic remnant of Mughal power.

Even when the Sikh Empire was briefly established Ranjit Singh gave refuge to Zaman Shah the Durrani governor of Kabul who fled Kabul during an internecine power struggle. Eventually the Sikhs compromised with the Afghans and Persians, preferring to hold on to what they had ( basically Punjabi and portions of KPK ), and even that very tenuously and briefly.
Sikhs did not fight "Muslims" beyond Punjab such as in the Gangetic plains ( Rohilla region), Delhi, Hyderabad , Bhopal, Mysore.
It was the Marathas who took on the Mughals, and their splinter groups ( various Nawabs and Nizams etc. ) and that too very briefly , and that too in alliance with sub-splinter tiny Muslim groups like the kingdoms of Golconda and Vijaynagar.

Even the Marathas never deposed the weak Mughal kings in Delhi ; not even briefly like Nadir Shah. It took the British to kick the last Mughal the bumbling half blind Bahadur Shah Zafar into the history books.

Sikhs were nowhere in the picture in the final downfall of the Mughals. It was first the Marathas, some Jats, and then finally the British.

The last display of "martial prowess" and "victory" the Sikhs displayed was in 1947 when they cleansed entire East Punjab of its tiny minority of Muslims. They made a pretty thorough job of it "on behalf of the Hindus ". What they got for their efforts is unclear, because they lost access to some their most important sacred temples in Pakistan, apart from suffering a vigorous retaliation on their own population there. The most unfortunate aspect of this Sikh victory on "behalf of the Hindus" is that the Hindus in Pakistan ( who were nowhere connected with the East Punjab massacres) paid the price. Shortly afterwards in 1948 the Sikhs started their demand for a Punjabi Suba to expel Hindi speaking Hindus from East Punjab, a large number of which were themselves refugees from then West Pakistan.

Not much political wisdom has been shown by Sikhs down the ages. Their failure to effectively ally with Marathas is one example and the loss of their sacred temples in Pakistan is another .

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.

Good questions. Of course it's crap. The Sikhs never had it better. If anything Sikhs are over represented far beyond their numbers. Their over representation in the armed forces is due to a legacy of mercenary "martial race" service with the British, and the myth that they alone are the warriors who will defend India from the horrible Muslims. So the blame lies not on the Sikhs but on a peculiar apprehensive mindset of the 80% majority population of India that relies on a single "martial " religious sect comprising less than 2.5% of the population for its "protection ".
Since it brings them benefits the Sikhs are happy to perpetuate the myth. So far as martial prowess goes only four of the 21 PVCs awarded have gone to keshdhari Sikhs.
However let's be fair...
Are Sikhs claiming minority rights?
Last I heard they were still classified as being part of the Hindu family like Jains, Buddhists, Arya Samajis.
So let's not blame them for their plight which is completely psychological and an unwillingness to accept a status in a democratic India where obviously majority culture and sentiments will prevail.

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?

Yes, they can demand whatever they want. If the old Sikh Empire is what a future Khalistan they are envisaging, than they should spell that out.
Which is why if "Hindus" had any sense they would encourage the formation of a Khalistan stretching from Chandigarh to Kabul and from Karachi to Kandahar.
That is the easiest way to destroy the Taliban, Iranians, the Pakistani Punjabi, Baluchi, Sindhis, Afridis, Mohmandis and Tajiks.
They will laugh so much, and laugh so long, that they will simply die laughing.
Isn't that a good way to have a Khalistan?

 

[Adonis]

What you talking about now kiwi?

Nobody is bothered about who slaughtered whom centuries ago. My question is simply why did the Brahmin classes not march out to protect their own stash of treasure? I am well aware that they asked lower castes to do the dirty work for them. No surprise that guru this and guru that were not Brahmins.

Tell you what kiwi, go ask some singhs if they're happy with their eternal employer's behaviour over the centuries. Better still, ask them directly if they're a branch of Hinduism. I'm genuinely curious as to what their answer may be.

Lolz. Can Rome claim Britain because it held Britain for a long time? Maybe Ptolemaic Egypt can be restored too, just for giggles?

Sikhs chose Hindustan. Now Sikhs must fight Hindus if they want their freedom. We Pakistanis will support them every step of the way.

Dear MC

Nobody is bothered?...so that nobody is you?....rest of Sikhs in India, and most of whom I know here in Aus/NZ do bother. And if it a sect our of Hinduism or not...it is not in it's entirity but have very close affiliations and believes...please refer books or ask Indian Sikh....not Khalistanis there in UK/Canada.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism_and_Sikhism#:~:text=Hinduism and Sikhism are Indian,15th century by Guru Nanak.&text=In the days of the,being forcibly converted to Islam.

On Brahmin caste...read history...it was a Brahmin only (Ram Mohan Roy) who fist stood against this caste system....And don't you know that India gives reservations to Dalits/lower castes/Schedule tribes and even minorities in all the government hirings?...upto 50% of total advertised posts/vacancies at all levels are reserved and so call Brahmins/high cast have to compete for non-reserved seats. With the reult, there has been a massive uplift of lower castes in India since 1947....Be fair in your arguments mate.

 

[Baibars_1260]

Dear MC

Nobody is bothered?...so that nobody is you?....rest of Sikhs in India, and most of whom I know here in Aus/NZ do bother. And if it a sect our of Hinduism or not...it is not in it's entirity but have very close affiliations and believes...please refer books or ask Indian Sikh....not Khalistanis there in UK/Canada.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism_and_Sikhism#:~:text=Hinduism and Sikhism are Indian,15th century by Guru Nanak.&text=In the days of the,being forcibly converted to Islam.

Hey Adonis,

You be fair in your arguments mate.
Answer my post below.

Also your Khalistan Empire hero Duleep Singh , the last Sikh King converted to Christianity, recanted, then reconverted to Christianity.
Also please counter my post referencing where Guru Nanak despised the Vedas.
Will paste it here again if you wish...

Don't cherry pick arguments.

You are referring to a post Battle of Panipat situation. There was no Sikh participation in the Third Battle of Panipat ( 1761) in alliance with the Marathas. The Sikhs did not assist the Marathas in installing a Maratha king in Delhi and instead were neutral to the compromise between the Marathas and Abdali to let Shah Alam II be enthroned as an enfeebled but still symbolic remnant of Mughal power.

Even when the Sikh Empire was briefly established Ranjit Singh gave refuge to Zaman Shah the Durrani governor of Kabul who fled Kabul during an internecine power struggle. Eventually the Sikhs compromised with the Afghans and Persians, preferring to hold on to what they had ( basically Punjabi and portions of KPK ), and even that very tenuously and briefly.
Sikhs did not fight "Muslims" beyond Punjab such as in the Gangetic plains ( Rohilla region), Delhi, Hyderabad , Bhopal, Mysore.
It was the Marathas who took on the Mughals, and their splinter groups ( various Nawabs and Nizams etc. ) and that too very briefly , and that too in alliance with sub-splinter tiny Muslim groups like the kingdoms of Golconda and Vijaynagar.

Even the Marathas never deposed the weak Mughal kings in Delhi ; not even briefly like Nadir Shah. It took the British to kick the last Mughal the bumbling half blind Bahadur Shah Zafar into the history books.

Sikhs were nowhere in the picture in the final downfall of the Mughals. It was first the Marathas, some Jats, and then finally the British.

The last display of "martial prowess" and "victory" the Sikhs displayed was in 1947 when they cleansed entire East Punjab of its tiny minority of Muslims. They made a pretty thorough job of it "on behalf of the Hindus ". What they got for their efforts is unclear, because they lost access to some their most important sacred temples in Pakistan, apart from suffering a vigorous retaliation on their own population there. The most unfortunate aspect of this Sikh victory on "behalf of the Hindus" is that the Hindus in Pakistan ( who were nowhere connected with the East Punjab massacres) paid the price. Shortly afterwards in 1948 the Sikhs started their demand for a Punjabi Suba to expel Hindi speaking Hindus from East Punjab, a large number of which were themselves refugees from then West Pakistan.

Not much political wisdom has been shown by Sikhs down the ages. Their failure to effectively ally with Marathas is one example and the loss of their sacred temples in Pakistan is another .



Good questions. Of course it's crap. The Sikhs never had it better. If anything Sikhs are over represented far beyond their numbers. Their over representation in the armed forces is due to a legacy of mercenary "martial race" service with the British, and the myth that they alone are the warriors who will defend India from the horrible Muslims. So the blame lies not on the Sikhs but on a peculiar apprehensive mindset of the 80% majority population of India that relies on a single "martial " religious sect comprising less than 2.5% of the population for its "protection ".
Since it brings them benefits the Sikhs are happy to perpetuate the myth. So far as martial prowess goes only four of the 21 PVCs awarded have gone to keshdhari Sikhs.
However let's be fair...
Are Sikhs claiming minority rights?
Last I heard they were still classified as being part of the Hindu family like Jains, Buddhists, Arya Samajis.
So let's not blame them for their plight which is completely psychological and an unwillingness to accept a status in a democratic India where obviously majority culture and sentiments will prevail.



Yes, they can demand whatever they want. If the old Sikh Empire is what a future Khalistan they are envisaging, than they should spell that out.
Which is why if "Hindus" had any sense they would encourage the formation of a Khalistan stretching from Chandigarh to Kabul and from Karachi to Kandahar.
That is the easiest way to destroy the Taliban, Iranians, the Pakistani Punjabi, Baluchi, Sindhis, Afridis, Mohmandis and Tajiks.
They will laugh so much, and laugh so long, that they will simply die laughing.
Isn't that a good way to have a Khalistan?

 

[lastofthepatriots]

sikhs know who killed their gurus . they also know who killed and expelled 5 millions of them from pakistan.

One of their supposed gurus was Muslim. So what do you have to say about that my little bharti fraaand?

 

[Adonis]

You are referring to a post Battle of Panipat situation. There was no Sikh participation in the Third Battle of Panipat ( 1761) in alliance with the Marathas. The Sikhs did not assist the Marathas in installing a Maratha king in Delhi and instead were neutral to the compromise between the Marathas and Abdali to let Shah Alam II be enthroned as an enfeebled but still symbolic remnant of Mughal power.

Even when the Sikh Empire was briefly established Ranjit Singh gave refuge to Zaman Shah the Durrani governor of Kabul who fled Kabul during an internecine power struggle. Eventually the Sikhs compromised with the Afghans and Persians, preferring to hold on to what they had ( basically Punjabi and portions of KPK ), and even that very tenuously and briefly.
Sikhs did not fight "Muslims" beyond Punjab such as in the Gangetic plains ( Rohilla region), Delhi, Hyderabad , Bhopal, Mysore.
It was the Marathas who took on the Mughals, and their splinter groups ( various Nawabs and Nizams etc. ) and that too very briefly , and that too in alliance with sub-splinter tiny Muslim groups like the kingdoms of Golconda and Vijaynagar.

Even the Marathas never deposed the weak Mughal kings in Delhi ; not even briefly like Nadir Shah. It took the British to kick the last Mughal the bumbling half blind Bahadur Shah Zafar into the history books.

Sikhs were nowhere in the picture in the final downfall of the Mughals. It was first the Marathas, some Jats, and then finally the British.

The last display of "martial prowess" and "victory" the Sikhs displayed was in 1947 when they cleansed entire East Punjab of its tiny minority of Muslims. They made a pretty thorough job of it "on behalf of the Hindus ". What they got for their efforts is unclear, because they lost access to some their most important sacred temples in Pakistan, apart from suffering a vigorous retaliation on their own population there. The most unfortunate aspect of this Sikh victory on "behalf of the Hindus" is that the Hindus in Pakistan ( who were nowhere connected with the East Punjab massacres) paid the price. Shortly afterwards in 1948 the Sikhs started their demand for a Punjabi Suba to expel Hindi speaking Hindus from East Punjab, a large number of which were themselves refugees from then West Pakistan.

Not much political wisdom has been shown by Sikhs down the ages. Their failure to effectively ally with Marathas is one example and the loss of their sacred temples in Pakistan is another .



Good questions. Of course it's crap. The Sikhs never had it better. If anything Sikhs are over represented far beyond their numbers. Their over representation in the armed forces is due to a legacy of mercenary "martial race" service with the British, and the myth that they alone are the warriors who will defend India from the horrible Muslims. So the blame lies not on the Sikhs but on a peculiar apprehensive mindset of the 80% majority population of India that relies on a single "martial " religious sect comprising less than 2.5% of the population for its "protection ".
Since it brings them benefits the Sikhs are happy to perpetuate the myth. So far as martial prowess goes only four of the 21 PVCs awarded have gone to keshdhari Sikhs.
However let's be fair...
Are Sikhs claiming minority rights?
Last I heard they were still classified as being part of the Hindu family like Jains, Buddhists, Arya Samajis.
So let's not blame them for their plight which is completely psychological and an unwillingness to accept a status in a democratic India where obviously majority culture and sentiments will prevail.



Yes, they can demand whatever they want. If the old Sikh Empire is what a future Khalistan they are envisaging, than they should spell that out.
Which is why if "Hindus" had any sense they would encourage the formation of a Khalistan stretching from Chandigarh to Kabul and from Karachi to Kandahar.
That is the easiest way to destroy the Taliban, Iranians, the Pakistani Punjabi, Baluchi, Sindhis, Afridis, Mohmandis and Tajiks.
They will laugh so much, and laugh so long, that they will simply die laughing.
Isn't that a good way to have a Khalistan?

Hey Adonis,

You be fair in your arguments mate.
Answer my post below.

Also your Khalistan Empire hero Duleep Singh , the last Sikh King converted to Christianity, recanted, then reconverted to Christianity.
Also please counter my post referencing where Guru Nanak despised the Vedas.
Will paste it here again if you wish...

Don't cherry pick arguments.

Sorry Mate ...I don't have courage to read and understand whole of that. I will be happy to provide you my views if you could summarise your questions please.

On Duleep Singh converted to Christianity...what is the big deal? There is no sermon of killing in other religions on conversion but for Islam. He could have converted to Islam also (going by your logic of close affinity between Sikhism and Islam)..but he didn't. May be he did not have choice after loosing everything to the Britishers, may be did so to save himself from a death penalty (just my assumption).

On Guru Nanak despised the Vedas...Who told you. He questioned the strictness of access of these Hindu books to general masses (Brahmins controlled them)..but not otherwise....

Guru Granth Sahib on Vedas - SikhiWiki, free Sikh encyclopedia.

www.sikhiwiki.org

 

[Saudang]

It will be really fun if the Shikhs demand their Historic Capital to be part of Khalistan.

And all the Pakistanis cheering Khalistan, it is a dead cause since 1980s, unless you have some magic to bring it back to life.

Your grandpa/grandma will tell you their horror stories of facing Khalsha swords during partition.

Shikh farmers may have some grievances with current laws. But for Pakistanis to believe them to be your friend is like deer trying to befriend a tiger..

 

[xyx007]

Indian Bhakat comedy never stops

 

[nahtanbob]

Ironically, the Arab and Palestinian woes are self inflicted because they staged the Great Arab Revolt in 1916 putting their parochial, ethnic tribal chauvinism at the disposal of British Imperialism to be used against the Ottoman Empire. The collapse of the 600 year Ottoman Empire and the emergence of Zionism, displacement of European Jews brought about the establishment of Israel. Middle Eastern ethnic Jews, Muslims and Christians had been getting along fairly well for 600 years.
So callous as it may sound the Arabs (all Arabs which includes, all faiths from Chaldean Christians, Druze, Alawites, Hashmis ) brought this on themselves. I still think that the generation of Palestinians who got displaced had no part in the breakup of the Ottoman Empire and didn't deserve the fate. Along with the Jews of the region the Palestinians have an equal right to the land. Still the differences are over territory not religion.

Ottoman Empire was a piece of shit. It is the main reason the Arabs are a backward society

 

[PAKISTANFOREVER]

Ottoman Empire was a piece of shit. It is the main reason the Arabs are a backward society

Can't be that backward if they have millions of indians wanted to go and live in the Gulf Arab states........... ............Also, every Arab country has a significantly higher GDP per capita than india does...........

It will be really fun if the Shikhs demand their Historic Capital to be part of Khalistan.

And all the Pakistanis cheering Khalistan, it is a dead cause since 1980s, unless you have some magic to bring it back to life.

Your grandpa/grandma will tell you their horror stories of facing Khalsha swords during partition.

Shikh farmers may have some grievances with current laws. But for Pakistanis to believe them to be your friend is like deer trying to befriend a tiger..

Really?......NOT happening because we could effortlessly wipe the sikhs of the face of the planet with ease now if they tried anything funny with Pakistan.........

 

[Baibars_1260]

Sorry Mate ...I don't have courage to read and understand whole of that. I will be happy to provide you my views if you could summarise your questions please.

On Duleep Singh converted to Christianity...what is the big deal? There is no sermon of killing in other religions on conversion but for Islam. He could have converted to Islam also (going by your logic of close affinity between Sikhism and Islam)..but he didn't. May be he did not have choice after loosing everything to the Britishers, may be did so to save himself from a death penalty (just my assumption).

On Guru Nanak despised the Vedas...Who told you. He questioned the strictness of access of these Hindu books to general masses (Brahmins controlled them)..but not otherwise....

Guru Granth Sahib on Vedas - SikhiWiki, free Sikh encyclopedia.

www.sikhiwiki.org

Mate, I sympathize with your limited attention span, and your inability to accept facts you can't refute so I am reposting a portion of my earlier post, showing references how the Sikh faith refutes the Vedas.
Please answer this time.

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

Where did I say Sikhism and Islam had an affinity?
The only vague common feature between the faiths is that at least in the early phases, Sikhism did not promote caste. Much later the Sikhs were fighting amongst themselves in misl ( misels).
Please read your history again.
The last Khalistani King Duleep Singh left India to reside in the UK.
There was no compulsion on him to convert.

Duleep Singh - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

His brother Kharak Singh didn't fare well with the British either.

To the Hindu historians here:,
There had once been a Khalistan
which survived for only 50 years.
No one converted to Sikhism under Khalistan. Not even the so called "forcibly converted "
Punjabi Muslims supposedly former Hindus re-converted to Sikhism. So whatever "atrocities" the " Muslims " might have inflicted on the population remained unresolved and the region of Pakistan which is mostly the empire of Khalistan is 96.1 % Muslim today. Whatever remnants of Sikhism remained in Afghanistan has diminished reducing the Sikhs there to a few thousand. The total population of Muslims in Afghanistan and Pakistan today is over 240 million.
Not much of a success in fighting "forced conversions"
The global population of Muslims is 1.7 billion; the global population of Sikhs is 25 million so once again for whatever reason Sikhism has failed to attract converts . Haven't seen an Indonesian Bhasa speaking Sikh yet.

The future Khalistan (if ever there is one) will be mostly in the municipality of Amritsar and Punjab in India today.
There are only 20.8 million Sikhs today, about 2% of the population.
There is a bare majority of 56% in Indian Punjab today. Don't see how there can be a Khalistan?

Sikhism in India - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Khalistan? The Sikhs had a Khalistan and lost it .

 

[masterchief_mirza]

Dear MC

Nobody is bothered?...so that nobody is you?....rest of Sikhs in India, and most of whom I know here in Aus/NZ do bother. And if it a sect our of Hinduism or not...it is not in it's entirity but have very close affiliations and believes...please refer books or ask Indian Sikh....not Khalistanis there in UK/Canada.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism_and_Sikhism#:~:text=Hinduism and Sikhism are Indian,15th century by Guru Nanak.&text=In the days of the,being forcibly converted to Islam.

On Brahmin caste...read history...it was a Brahmin only (Ram Mohan Roy) who fist stood against this caste system....And don't you know that India gives reservations to Dalits/lower castes/Schedule tribes and even minorities in all the government hirings?...upto 50% of total advertised posts/vacancies at all levels are reserved and so call Brahmins/high cast have to compete for non-reserved seats. With the reult, there has been a massive uplift of lower castes in India since 1947....Be fair in your arguments mate.

Don't read Wikipedia. Ask some local Sikhs if they are a derivative/subgroup/sect (or any variation of this theme) of Hinduism. Can't be any fairer than that.

As I've said before elsewhere, Sikhs and Muslims of the subcontinent have a complex history, which arose because Sikhs chose to be contracted by Hindus to do their dirty work. That's their choice and if they threw their lot in with these caste supremacists, events like 1984 and now 2021 are inevitable as Sikhs will need to be reminded of their relative hierarchical position in the brahminist league of dharmic superheroes. Did they not see how buddhists were treated by their dharmic friends? Or how dalits are still treated?

Supremacy based on caste can never ever function alongside any merit-based culture. The only real crime of the mughals and the British was their failure to eradicate brahminism when they had a chance.

 

[Baibars_1260]

Don't read Wikipedia. Ask some local Sikhs if they are a derivative/subgroup/sect (or any variation of this theme) of Hinduism. Can't be any fairer than that.

As I've said before elsewhere, Sikhs and Muslims of the subcontinent have a complex history, which arose because Sikhs chose to be contracted by Hindus to do their dirty work. That's their choice and if they threw their lot in with these caste supremacists, events like 1984 and now 2021 are inevitable as Sikhs will need to be reminded of their relative hierarchical position in the brahminist league of dharmic superheroes. Did they not see how buddhists were treated by their dharmic friends? Or how dalits are still treated?

Supremacy based on caste can never ever function alongside any merit-based culture. The only real crime of the mughals and the British was their failure to eradicate brahminism when they had a chance.

Good observations.
If you read my posts Sikhism didn't eliminate casteism either. The SC roster of castes in India has a list of Sikhs schedule castes as well.

Mazhabi Sikh - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

The Scheduled Castes in the Sikh Community - A Historical Perspective

Download Citation | The Scheduled Castes in the Sikh Community - A Historical Perspective | East Punjab is a Sikh majority state. After its re-organisation in 1966, (when the Hindi speaking areas were separated to constitute the new state... | Find, read and cite all the research you need on...

www.researchgate.net

There is a divide between Mazhabi and Jat Sikhs.

 

[Baibars_1260]

There is no sermon of killing in other religions on conversion but for Islam.

Your ignorance on the spread of Islam is profound. Can't help your lack of education, and ADD as you don't have the intellectual stamina to read my posts let me adopt your tactics and cut and paste references.
Read about Charlemagne and the way most of Europe converted to Christianity. He "converted" the Muslim Moors too.

Charlemagne: Facts, Empire & Holy Roman Emperor ‑ HISTORY

Charlemagne, or Charles the Great, was a medieval king who established a vast Carolingian empire and was eventually crowned Holy Roman Emperor by the pope.

www.history.com

"Charlemagne waged a bloody, three-decades-long series of battles against the Saxons, a Germanic tribe of pagan worshippers, and earned a reputation for ruthlessness. In 782 at the Massacre of Verden, Charlemagne reportedly ordered the slaughter of some 4,500 Saxons. He eventually forced the Saxons to convert to Christianity, and declared that anyone who didn’t get baptized or follow other Christian traditions be put to death."

If you read a little with an open mind instead of ingrained Islamophobic hysteria it helps.
I could tell you what the Portuguese did in Goa as well.
If you would listen...
"Mate ? "

 

[Baibars_1260]

Duleep Singh - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

To the Hindu historians here:,
There had once been a Khalistan
which survived for only 50 years.
No one converted to Sikhism under Khalistan. Not even the so called "forcibly converted "
Punjabi Muslims supposedly former Hindus re-converted to Sikhism. So whatever "atrocities" the " Muslims " might have inflicted on the population remained unresolved and the region of Pakistan which is mostly the empire of Khalistan is 96.1 % Muslim today. Whatever remnants of Sikhism remained in Afghanistan has diminished reducing the Sikhs there to a few thousand. The total population of Muslims in Afghanistan and Pakistan today is over 240 million.
Not much of a success in fighting "forced conversions".
The global population of Muslims is 1.7 billion; the global population of Sikhs is 25 million so once again for whatever reason Sikhism has failed to attract converts . Haven't seen an Indonesian Bhasa speaking Sikh yet.

The future Khalistan (if ever there is one) will be mostly in the municipality of Amritsar and Punjab in India today.
There are only 20.8 million Sikhs in India today, about 1.72 % of the population.
There is a bare majority of 56% in Indian Punjab today. Don't see how there can be a Khalistan?

Sikhism in India - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Khalistan? The Sikhs had a Khalistan and lost it .
@PAKISTANFOREVER
Like your post below.

Really?......NOT happening because we could effortlessly wipe the sikhs of the face of the planet with ease now if they tried anything funny with Pakistan.........

As of now most Sikhs wish Pakistan well.
Unfortunately they are likely to be caught up in a nuclear war between India and Pakistan which is not their fault at all.

An Indo-Pak nuclear war will kill off 86% of the global Sikh population and all their holiest gurudwaras and their entire 600 year heritage. The war will also take out 90% of their economic assets.

It is unlikely that Sikhism will survive as a functional religion in the rest of the world, Sikh populations in Canada, and UK notwithstanding.

It is a sobering realization for Sikhs which is why they have such a vital interest in promoting friendship between India and Pakistan. They wouldn't want to go into the history books just because Hindutva hysteria is raging in India.