Confused about Sikhism/Hinduism differences

[Poeticus]

So why do people complain about India's drug and alcohol problem/infrastructure problems if it's a developing country? It needs time

As for the Khalistan 'dream' what do you mean? If Pakistan sees them as an enemy wouldn't they trade with them? Or is it because of Pakistan's track record with Kashmir,Bangladesh,Afghanistan and India that we doubt they'd support Khalistan?

Also, couldn't you argue that the Khalistan dream is no worse than Tibet, East Turkestan, Georgia or PALESTINE?!

Khalistan has every right to exist, just as any movement has a right to exist and voice its objections and views. It is the practicality of the movement, however, that many find to be doubtful. And the whole of India doesn't really have a full-blown drug problem. I thought that was made clear a few posts back, Ronki.

 

[ronki23]

Khalistan has every right to exist, just as any movement has a right to exist and voice its objections and views. It is the practicality of the movement, however, that many find to be doubtful. And the whole of India doesn't really have a full-blown drug problem. I thought that was made clear a few posts back, Ronki.

In addition to my former post, I wonder whether you and Aupmanyav think Sant Ji can be compared to Arafat or Khomeini? Even with those 2 there's a huge percentage of people in their own religion and nationality against them but with Sant Ji it's miniscule.

That and the fact Indira Gandhi was shot by her own bodyguards makes me think 'maybe Bhindranwale was right'. Of course my views were/are influenced by emotion

and r.e. Khalistan, do you say that 'it could work' with Pakistan as Pakistan's against India? At the same time you say it's unlikely Khalistan and Pakistan would trust one another so it'd depend on their relations with China and the West?

 

[Aupmanyav]

So why do people complain about India's drug and alcohol problem/infrastructure problems if it's a developing country? It needs time.

Also, couldn't you argue that the Khalistan dream is no worse than Tibet, East Turkestan, Georgia or PALESTINE?!

We have had enough time, independent since 67 years. Actually the newer drugs are not in our culture. Marijuana, Charas, and Ganja, IMHO are OK. Moreover, these drugs come from Pakistan and profits help the terrorists.

Pakistan will be glad with any balkanization of India in revenge for Bangladesh. Be it Kashmir, Khalistan, North-East, or Tamilnadu. Only that any such thing is not going to happen. India is too strong for it and soon will be even stronger.

 

[ronki23]

Just to let you know along with SikhSangat, SikhNet has disapproved my threads on Hindu-Sikh relations. But I had my threads on Iran and Israel deleted too; I thought all of these sites have a forum for such topics.

Bhindranwale could be seen as another Arafat or Khomeini. If you read the bias Indian news, to Hindu Punjabis he's seen as harshly as Osama.

Osama,

To restore Islam, he said a vanguard movement of righteous Muslims was needed to establish "true Islamic states", implement sharia, and rid the Muslim world of any non-Muslim influences, such as concepts like socialism and nationalism. Enemies of Islam in Qutb's view included "treacherous Orientalists"[81] and "world Jewry," who plotted "conspiracies" and "wicked[ly]" opposed Islam.

Bhindranwale

"Indira and Congress have labelled me a terrorist. If getting Sikhs to take amrit and stay away from drugs, alcohol, meat, abstain from trimming their hair and beards, defending the honor of our sisters and the spilling blood of the shaheeds is the work of a terrorist then yes I am a terrorist."

Of course I don't think he was a bad guy; if he was then you'd get Sikhs against him and condemning the 1984 Khalistan movement. But none do this except Nirankaris. I don't think the 1984 movement is the same as the Babber Khalsa who bombed Air India.


Bhindranwale was dead before the Air India bombing and he can't be responsible for the actions of Khalistani separatists,

We wholeheartedly support the unity of India …. But we cannot lives as slaves…. It is a historical truth that the Sikhs are a separate nation …. For sacrifices the Hindus need Sikhs, but when it comes to the rewards, the Sikhs are then condemned as second class citizens …. We will not live in humiliation….". The declared mission of the Bhindranwale is quoted by Mark Tully in "Amritsar" at page 113: "I am only responsible for the couse of Sikhism, preaching the fundamentals of the Sikh faith. My responsibility is to see that your beards remain intact, your hair is uncut and that you do not go after the evil things of life, like alcohol and drugs."

I'd say Sant Ji was more like Ayatollah Khomeini or Yasser Arafat, although these 2 have had criticsims. What makes Sant Ji any better?

 

[Aupmanyav]

I too do not think Bhinderanwale was a bad person. He was a prisoner of his times.

 

[ronki23]

I too do not think Bhinderanwale was a bad person. He was a prisoner of his times.

What about Khomeini or Arafat? Because strangely enough I used to think the former was bad and the latter was good but my views have changed for both- Iran wasn't great before Khomeini so he didn't make it much worse (he implemented Sharia and cracked down on crime but the Shah was heavy handed too and people living in Saudi Arabia don't complain about Sharia) and Arafat was controversial. Bhidranwale seems like Khomeini a bit

Do you see the similarity in bin Laden and Bhindranwale's views though? The only difference is Bhindranwale doesn't kill women and children

I see from your and MV's post that Khalistan's feasible though...

 

[Poeticus]

What about Khomeini or Arafat? Because strangely enough I used to think the former was bad and the latter was good but my views have changed for both- Iran wasn't great before Khomeini so he didn't make it much worse (he implemented Sharia and cracked down on crime but the Shah was heavy handed too and people living in Saudi Arabia don't complain about Sharia) and Arafat was controversial. Bhidranwale seems like Khomeini a bit

Do you see the similarity in bin Laden and Bhindranwale's views though? The only difference is Bhindranwale doesn't kill women and children

I see from your and MV's post that Khalistan's feasible though...

I have never stated that I find Khalistan to be feasible, Ronki. Personally, I doubt the practicality of a geo-political entity that would come to be known as a sovereign Khalistan. Incidentally, I also find the movement to be too emotional rather than fully practical. And the fact that it has obvious and stringent theological undertones for its foundational purposes turns me off even more. As stated earlier, theological states have a horrible track record of succeeding socially, economically, and politically in the long run. Instead, I stated that the movement has an innate right to exist, just as ideas have every right to exist and be voiced.

 

[ronki23]

I have never stated that I find Khalistan to be feasible, Ronki. Personally, I doubt the practicality of a geo-political entity that would come to be known as a sovereign Khalistan. Incidentally, I also find the movement to be too emotional rather than fully practical. And the fact that it has obvious and stringent theological undertones for its foundational purposes turns me off even more. As stated earlier, theological states have a horrible track record of succeeding socially, economically, and politically in the long run. Instead, I stated that the movement has an innate right to exist, just as ideas have every right to exist and be voiced.

Didn't the Sikhs have their own country before British took over? I thought like Churchill said, India wasn't an official country before and was several independent states

Well Sikhism isn't 'hierarchical' like Shia Islam; if Khalistan were to have happened I don't think it would've worked like Iran. If I recall correctly, wasn't Khomeini quite important in Shia Islam?

If Khalistan were to have been made they would've had Bhindranwale as the leader. Or they would have had Dr Jagjit Singh Chauhan. But today I don't know who it would be.

Perhaps it could have been a democracy with Shiromani Akali Dal Amritsar as one party and Khalistan National Council as another.

But the reason I was asking about Arafat and Khomeini is because they could be seen in the same light as Sant Ji. Of course so could bin Laden but bin Laden wasn't a politician nor was he particularly religious (he had several mentors who were more into their religion: Abdullah Yusuf Assam, Ayman Al Zawahiri and Sayyid Qutb).

Whereas Iran has been doing fairly well, Palestine hasn't (civil war between Hamas and Fatah); could this have happened in Khalistan if it came into fruition? I recall there was a fight at Amritsar about this on June 6 this year (my birthday).

Even the Taliban with Mullah Omar resorted to gun control over Afghanistan. Is this and Palestine's civil issue what you fear would happen with Khalistan?

I thought you and Aupmanyav said Khalistan would trade with Pakistan so 'it could work'. I am assuming by Pakistan's record with her neighbours you doubt it?

 

[Poeticus]

I thought you and Aupmanyav said Khalistan would trade with Pakistan so 'it could work'. I am assuming by Pakiststan's record with her neighbours you doubt it?

I doubt the movement based on the fact that it is militant and aggressively secessionist in nature. That's it. End of story.

</Please end thread now.>

 

[ronki23]

I doubt the movement based on the fact that it is militant and aggressively secessionist in nature. That's it. End of story.

</Please end thread now.>

Iran (1979) and Israel (1947) were the same. Palestine has been like that since 1949 (a year after the establishment of Israel).

Khomeini, Ben Gurion & Begin, Arafat, Bhindranwale= 5 individuals and 4 movements based on religion

Iran and Israel work quite well. Fairly high GDP and infrastructure.

 

[Aupmanyav]

You are way away from your OP.

 

[ronki23]

You are way away from your OP.

Khalistan= Sikhs wanting independence from Hindu rule

Bhindranwale= figurehead of change and seen as Mandela to Sikhs and bin Laden to Hindu Punjabis. More of a Khomeini in my eyes.

Dr Chauhan= Sikh pioneer of change

Indira Gandhi= Most hated woman and probably most hated Hindu in Sikhism. Literally history in the making; the riots were similar to Kristalnacht in Nazi Germany

Still doesn't explain why Udasi panth was formed and Hindu Gods are mentioned in SGGS

Sikhs and Hindus come from the same tree; branches may be separate but same root

Of course there will be co-worship in Mandir and Gurudwara if this also happened during the time of the Gurus. Why the complaints/ emphasis on difference?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Sikhs and Hindus come from the same tree; branches may be separate but same root

Of course there will be co-worship in Mandir and Gurudwara if this also happened during the time of the Gurus. Why the complaints/ emphasis on difference?

That is really no Sikhi. When the gurus said - I am not a Hindu and I am not a Muslim, they did not mean to start a new religion but to get out of religious differences. Sikhs made themselves into a religion. That is not what the gurus intended.

 

[ronki23]

That is really no Sikhi. When the gurus said - I am not a Hindu and I am not a Muslim, they did not mean to start a new religion but to get out of religious differences. Sikhs made themselves into a religion. That is not what the gurus intended.

I was told the naive/ silly story of how Sikhs were made to protect Hindus from Muslims. But upon further reading we can see that Guru Gobind Singh fought the Hindu hill people.

and it seems that Sikhism is some sort of reformation act; I think the complications of rituals and the caste system of Hinduism became too overwhelming for the people of Punjab (although one could argue Sikhism is not easy to abide by e.g. covering head, bowing down to a book in place of praying to idols, langar etiquette,etc.)

I don't understand your answers- if the Gurus didn't intend to create a new religion and wanted to sort out differences, why are they different today? I guess Sikhism has its own virtues and its three pillars; similar to Islam. But do Sikhs not talk much about Muhammad if they wanted to draw upon Islam? Guru Nanak's wife was originally Muslim and Bhai Mardana was also Muslim but I think Bhai Mardana converted to Sikhi

&#2606;&#2617;&#2622;&#2598;&#2624;&#2600; &#2581;&#2631;&#2596;&#2631; &#2602;&#2653;&#2608;&#2623;&#2597;&#2624; &#2606;&#2622;&#2562;&#2589; &#2617;&#2626;&#2589; &#2405; &#2616;&#2606;&#2632; &#2566;&#2602;&#2600;&#2624; &#2566;&#2602;&#2600;&#2624; &#2565;&#2672;&#2596; &#2606;&#2626;&#2589; &#2405;&#2664;&#2669;&#2405;,
Many Muhammads had been on the earth. They were born and then died in their own times.

&#2606;&#2617;&#2622;&#2598;&#2624;&#2600; &#2596;&#2604; &#2602;&#2653;&#2608;&#2605; &#2569;&#2602;&#2608;&#2622;&#2588;&#2622; &#2405; &#2565;&#2608;&#2604; &#2598;&#2631;&#2616; &#2581;&#2635; &#2581;&#2624;&#2600;&#2635; &#2608;&#2622;&#2588;&#2622; &#2405;&#2664;&#2668;&#2405;

Then I created Muhammed, who was made the master of Arabia.


What you said Aupmanyav, sounds more like Shirdi Sai Baba; though like with Sikhism he's been elevated to divinity in Hinduism but not mentioned much in Islam.

I see no mention of Shirdi Sai Baba or the Sikh Gurus in countries like Jordan, Egypt, Syria or Yemen.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Won't you compliment Hinduism for that?

 

[ronki23]

Won't you compliment Hinduism for that?

for what? I didn't really get your answer

 

[ronki23]

Seems to me Khalistan wouldn't have worked in 1947; without a doubt the Sikhs would've wanted Lahore but Pakistan and India claimed it for themselves. Pakistan got the majority of Punjab and got Lahore; and India would never have given up Punjab to Khalistan or Pakistan (the Hindus of Punjab would've said this). I see that the Sikhs wanted their own country as the Muslims got one but I don't know why they didn't get Khalistan in 1947

Mathematically, Hindus have the 'least ' right to Punjab as Muslims are the largest religion (if you add both Punjabs together), Sikhs second and Hindus third. But I guess Hindu Punjabis were the voice that kept it in India and India listened to them as opposed to the Sikhs.

[youtube]cksHuVMbYFM[/youtube]

I can't see any other reason for Khalistan not being awarded to Sikhs except the British and INC must have thought 'they're not Muslim so they can live in India'. Khalistan had a right to exist in 1947 but I guess India was already reluctant in giving up land in Punjab?????

and Aupmanyav I didn't understand what you meant by

Won't you compliment Hinduism for that?

 

[Aupmanyav]

I can't see any other reason for Khalistan not being awarded to Sikhs except the British and INC must have thought 'they're not Muslim so they can live in India'. Khalistan had a right to exist in 1947 but I guess India was already reluctant in giving up land in Punjab?

This is 2014. Now, what are you going to do? Turn the clock back?

 

[Treks]

Perhaps at the time, Khalistan wasn't an idea very well developed in the Sikh culture. Perhaps it has only taken off in more recent times.

 

[ronki23]

Don't really understand why Khalistan didn't happen in 1947- I guess both India and Pakistan wanted Punjab so maybe there wasn't enough of it to go around?