Confused about Sikhism/Hinduism differences

[Treks]

The opposite of a Crip.

Aaahahaha...

 

[Poeticus]

The opposite of a Crip.

Aaahahaha...

Hehehehehehehehe. That's a good one!

 

[helptheworld]

Are their many divisions or branches in Sikhism?

 

[Treks]

There are a few.

The main one just follows the Sikh Rehat Maryada as issues by the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandakh Committee (SGPC).

There is also the Akhand Kirtani Jatha (AKJ) - they are very strict.

There is the Damdami Taksal who have their own Rehat Maryada.

There are Nihung Sikhs who follow a tradition that traces it's origins to the amry of Guru Gobind Singh (I believe).

They are the main 'branches' I can think of.

There are other fringe groups like Nirankaris but they're not very recognisable as Sikhs.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Anyway, it seems Sikh Sangat is quite bigoted; they have issues with Sikhs that celebrate Christmas.

Christmas after all is a Christian festival. Why is it necessary that Hindus or Sikhs should celebrate it? How does this make us bigots? We have our own festivals. Do Christians celebrate Guru Parab or Ram Navami? However, our best wishes to Christians of India and abroad.

 

[ronki23]

Christmas after all is a Christian festival. Why is it necessary that Hindus or Sikhs should celebrate it? How does this make us bigots? We have our own festivals. Do Christians celebrate Guru Parab or Ram Navami? However, our best wishes to Christians of India and abroad.

It's not necessary but some narrow-minded Sikhs have a problems with Sikhs that do celebrate Christmas. What's wrong if they do this? Additionally, what's wrong with Sikhs who worship Hindu deities like the Nihang Sikh video earlier?

Heck, the Jews conveniently have Hannukah near Christmas so everyone can be part of the fun.

If Sikhs say they are supposedly 'proud' to be Indian, then why do they have a problem with the Gandhis (Mahatama and Indira), Hindus worshipping Gurus, or the mingling of Hinduism and Sikhism? If they do not like Hinduism or Gandhi, then they can simply leave. It seems to me Khalistan can function work on its own by the (bias) links I provided.


It seems to me minorities feeling persecuted should either integrate (e.g. equal rights) or leave. Punjab is supposedly being neglected so there's not much that shows me Sikhs have a need to stay in India. As for other nations/religions, the Palestine/Israel situation is more about Jerusalem so this scenario is more about integration, as is the Scottish independence movement (Scotland and England both benefit each other via education,tourism,etc.) whilst Tibet/Uighurs are in the same boat as the Sikhs.

 

[Treks]

ZZZZzzzzzzz......

 

[Aupmanyav]

It's not necessary but some narrow-minded Sikhs have a problems with Sikhs that do celebrate Christmas. What's wrong if they do this? Additionally, what's wrong with Sikhs who worship Hindu deities like the Nihang Sikh video earlier?

If Sikhs say they are supposedly 'proud' to be Indian, then why do they have a problem with the Gandhis (Mahatama and Indira), Hindus worshipping Gurus, or the mingling of Hinduism and Sikhism? If they do not like Hinduism or Gandhi, then they can simply leave.

Punjab is supposedly being neglected so there's not much that shows me Sikhs have a need to stay in India.

Sort of dilution, not really reciprocal. Hindus and Sikhs are a different matter, very close. If one son is Hindu, the other may be a Sikh in many families. All Hindus rever the Sikh gurus. Shiva and Devi were worshiped by Sri Guru Gobind Singh, and Sri Guru Nanak never tired of taking the name of Hari (Vishnu), Rama, Gobind (Krishna). Every line of JapJi has that.

When Sikhs were being massacred in Pakistan during partition, Mahatma was in Chittagong, trying to save the Muslims. When Sikhs have a problem with Indira, they forget the massacre of Hindus in Punjab during the insurgency (on incitement from Pakistan). She did not have much choice but to act harshly. Of course, that period is over. India is their land, where will they go? When they are turned out from other countries, they come to India (Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Burma). Don't cite Khalistan, both Hindus and Sikhs have been through that and suffered heavily. Punjab is one of India's most prosperous states. In what way it is neglected? Gurmukhi is a National language.

 

[ronki23]

Sort of dilution, not really reciprocal. Hindus and Sikhs are a different matter, very close. If one son is Hindu, the other may be a Sikh in many families. All Hindus rever the Sikh gurus. Shiva and Devi were worshiped by Sri Guru Gobind Singh, and Sri Guru Nanak never tired of taking the name of Hari (Vishnu), Rama, Gobind (Krishna). Every line of JapJi has that.

When Sikhs were being massacred in Pakistan during partition, Mahatma was in Chittagong, trying to save the Muslims. When Sikhs have a problem with Indira, they forget the massacre of Hindus in Punjab during the insurgency (on incitement from Pakistan). She did not have much choice but to act harshly. Of course, that period is over. India is their land, where will they go? When they are turned out from other countries, they come to India (Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Burma). Don't cite Khalistan, both Hindus and Sikhs have been through that and suffered heavily. Punjab is one of India's most prosperous states. In what way it is neglected? Gurmukhi is a National language.

Sikhs had Hindu first born sons as converts only in times of war (the early days of Sikhism) and during the British Empire

W.H. Mcleod wrote in his book, Who is a Sikh, "Appreciative of the strength of opposition encountered during the Anglo-Sikh wars & as a result of the assistance which they received from the Sikh princes during the wars, Sikhs were easily accommodated within the British theory of the martial races of India & Sikh enlistment increased steeply. For the British, martial Sikhs meant Khalsa Sikhs, and all who were inducted into the Indian Army as Sikhs were required to maintain the external insignia of the Khalsa". The British paid their soldiers very well, allotted them agricultural land & pension. Other castes like Khatris, Aroras & Ahulwalias did not want to loose out economically so they made the first son a Sikh meaning they had to grow hair etc.

Sikhs do not literally believe in Hindu Gods. Sikhwiki

"Say if Krishan were the Ocean of Mercy, why should the hunter's arrow have struck him? If he can save other families, why did he destroy his own? Say why did he who called himself the eternal and the unconceived, enter into the womb of Devaki? Why did he who had no father or mother call Vasudev his father?" (33 Swayyas, no.14.) "Why call Shiv God and why speak of Brahma as God? God is not Ram Chander, Krishan, or Vishnu who you suppose to be lords of the world. Sukhdev, Parasar, and Vyas erred in abandoning the One God and worshipping many gods. All have set up false religions; I in every way believe that there is but One God. (33 Swayyas, no.15)
This fits with the teaching of the Guru Granth Sahib Ji where Saint Kabir writes: "Beings like Hanuman and Garuda, Indra and Brahma know not, O God Your attributes. The four Vedas, Simritis and Purans, Vishnu and Laksmi know them not. Says Kabir, whoever touches God's feet and seeks Divine shelter shall not wander in reincarnations." (Kabir, Raag Dhanasari). He also clarifies the use of Ram in Guru Granth Sahib Ji. "Kabir, call him Ram who is All-Present; we must make distinction between two 'Rams'. The One Ram is contained in All. Ram Chander is only contained in one thing, himself." (Kabir, Sloks). Ram as a name for God is used by the Sikhs, and as Sunnya (Void), Allah and others. But Ram as Ram Chander is only a created being. Sikhs worship only the One God, and do not associate God with any created being.

http://www.facebook.com/notes/lovy-...b-during-khalistan-movement/10150161688331526

 

[ronki23]

I've not got the time to look up properly, but the Wikipedia states that Punjab is the most important state in India and the Sikhs/Punjabi farmers were being neglected. Then the religion wasn't being recognised properly (though I don't fully understand why Sikhs have an issue being seen on par with the Hindus as it's a compliment/they get Hindu benefits).

India needs the Sikhs more than the reverse. I am a Hindu but it seems to me Sikhs don't want to be in India as they don't like the Congress; Khalistan can operate on its own or the Sikhs could move to countries where they're already many of them: UK,Canada,US,Kenya and Australia

In the 1950s, the country wide movement of linguistic groups seeking statehood in India resulted in a massive reorganisation of states according to linguistic boundaries in 1956. As part of the reorganization, the Patiala and East Punjab States Union (PEPSU) was merged with Punjab, which included large numbers of Punjabi as well as Hindi speakers. At that time, the Punjab state of India included present-day states of Punjab, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh (some parts) along with Chandigarh. The vast majority of the Sikhs lived in this Hindu-majority Punjab. The Government of India was wary of carving out a separate Punjabi language state, because it effectively meant dividing the state along religious lines: Sikhs would form a 60% majority in the resulting Punjabi state.[28]
The Akali Dal, a Sikh-dominated political party active mainly in Punjab, sought to create a Punjabi Suba ("Punjabi Province"). Sikh leaders such as Fateh Singh tactically stressed the linguistic basis of the demand, while downplaying its religious basis — a country where the distinct Sikh identity could be preserved.[30] Fresh from the memory of the partition, the Punjabi Hindus were also concerned about living in a Sikh-majority state. The Hindu newspapers from Jalandhar, exhorted the Punjabi Hindus to declare Hindi as their "mother tongue", so that the Punjabi Suba proponents could be deprived of the argument that their demand was solely linguistic. This later created a rift between Hindus and Sikhs of Punjab. The case for creating a Punjabi Suba case was presented to the States Reorganisation Commission established in 1955. The States Reorganization Commission, not recognizing Punjabi as a language that was grammatically very distinct from Hindi, rejected the demand for a Punjabi state. Another reason that the Commission gave in its report was that the movement lacked general support of the people inhabiting the region. Many Sikhs felt discriminated against by the commission.
However, the Sikh leaders continued their agitation for the creation of a Punjabi Suba. The Akal Takht played a vital role in organizing Sikhs to campaign for the cause. During the Punjabi Suba movement, 12000 Sikhs were arrested for their peaceful demonstrations in 1955 and 26000 in 1960-61. Finally, in September 1966, the Indira Gandhi-led Union Government accepted the demand, and Punjab was trifurcated as per the Punjab Reorganisation Act.[31]
Areas in the south of Punjab that spoke the Haryanvi dialect of Hindi formed the new state of Haryana, while the areas that spoke the Pahari dialects were merged to Himachal Pradesh (a Union Territory at the time). The remaining areas, except Chandigarh, formed the new Punjabi-majority state, which retained the name of Punjab.[27] Until 1966, Punjab was a Hindu majority state (63.7%). But during the linguistic partition, the Hindu-majority districts were removed from the state.[32] Chandigarh, the planned city built to replace Punjab's pre-partition capital Lahore, was claimed by both Haryana and Punjab. Pending resolution of the dispute, it was declared as a separate Union Territory which would serve as the capital of both the states.


The major rivers of Punjab — Sutlej, Beas and Ravi — are of high importance due to the agricultural economy of the region. Before 1966, the issue of sharing river waters and development of projects had led to disputes between India and Pakistan as well as between the Indian states. The Indian Government had initiated planning for development of Ravi and Beas rivers with treaty negotiations, which involved contributions the states of Punjab, PEPSU, Himachal Pradesh, Rajasthan and Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) within the ambit of the already developed Bhakra Nangal Dam project on the Sutlej River. The merger of PEPSU with Punjab led to further complications, leading to the Inter - State River Water Disputes Act 1956.[33]
The 1966 reorganization further created competing demands for the river waters. Before the reorganization, Punjab was a riparian state as far as the rivers Yamuna, Beas and Ravi were concerned. However, after 1966, Yamuna ran only through Haryana, while Beas and Ravi ran only through Punjab and Himachal. Since the Beas project was already underway and was envisaged for the undivided state, Haryana was also given a share of the river waters. However, in 1976, when Ravi was made shareable, Haryana was given a share in it, while Punjab received no share of the Yamuna waters.[34] The Punjab politicians alleged that the decision was highly unjust to Punjab and had been influenced politically by the Haryana chief minister Bansi Lal, who was also a Union Cabinet minister at the time.[34] A section of Sikhs perceived this diversion of river waters to the Hindu-majority Haryana as unfair and as an anti-Sikh measure.

However, i've found an interesting note here

List of Hindu Genocides in Punjab During Khalistan Movement

 

[Poeticus]

Very famous Hindus in India have given their viewpoints regarding this whole issue. They state: 1984 was planned by a communistically motivated Congress Party that wanted to appease the Russo-Indian alliance and make Indian Punjab communistic, but Indian Punjab didn't want communism and they were not budging....so the Congress Party decided to cause disunion.

Dr. Subramanium Swamy-ji, a very notable Hindu persona, talks about his meeting with Bhindranwale-ji and relays the cover-up conducted by the Congress Party and how the Congress Party deliberately pitted Hindus and Sikhs in the Punjab region against one another:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=[youtube]tH_-MbgNCQA[/youtube]

 

[Aupmanyav]

Sikhs had Hindu first born sons as converts only in times of war (the early days of Sikhism) and during the British Empire.

The practice has not stopped. My Hindu grocer has a Sikh son.

Sikhs do not literally believe in Hindu Gods. Sikhwiki

Nothing strange. This is what the Upanishads said. 'Tat twam asi' (You are that - which constitutes all things in the universe). I am an atheist advaitist Hindu. I do not believe in Gods, Hindu or otherwise.

URL

I would prefer to forget that episode as a nightmare, it was equally painful for Hindus as well as Sikhs. My son has close Sikh friends (studied with him from Class 1), my grandson has Sikh Friends, my daughter-in-law hails from a Sikh-Hindu family.

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. but the Wikipedia states that Punjab is the most important state in India and the Sikhs/Punjabi farmers were being neglected. Then the religion wasn't being recognised properly (though I don't fully understand why Sikhs have an issue being seen on par with the Hindus as it's a compliment/they get Hindu benefits).

That is big boolsheet (and inserted by disappointed foreign Sikh separatists). The Sikh/Hindu/Punjab/India bond is absolutely unbreakable. Even the Hindu/Muslim bond is unbreakable, however hard Pakistan may try. At the moment, a Sikh is the Prime Minister of India, and another Sikh is the Chief of Army. The Hindu party BJP is a partner of the Punjab government which is led by Sikh Akali Dal. They fought the Delhi state election just last week on a common platform. India has accepted Personal Law for Sikhs. Yes, they get benefits under 'other backward classes' and 'scheduled castes/scheduled tribes' categories just like the Hindus. In what way Sikh religion could be better 'recognized'?

 

[Poeticus]

That is big boolsheet (and inserted by disappointed foreign Sikh separatists). The Sikh/Hindu/Punjab/India bond is absolutely unbreakable. Even the Hindu/Muslim bond is unbreakable, however hard Pakistan may try. At the moment, a Sikh is the Prime Minister of India, and another Sikh is the Chief of Army. The Hindu party BJP is a partner of the Punjab government which is led by Sikh Akali Dal. They fought the Delhi state election just last week on a common platform. In what way Sikh religion could be better 'recognized'? India has accepted Personal Law for Sikhs. Yes, they get benefits under 'other backward classes' and 'scheduled castes/scheduled tribes' categories just like the Hindus.

The problem with Ronki's argument is that he doesn't take into account the sentiment of native Sikhs in India, but relies solely on statements made by the Sikh diaspora that are patrons of the Khalistan movement.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Very famous Hindus in India have given their viewpoints regarding this whole issue. They state: 1984 was planned by a communistically motivated Congress Party that wanted to appease the Russo-Indian alliance and make Indian Punjab communistic, but Indian Punjab didn't want communism and they were not budging....so the Congress Party decided to cause disunion.

That is not true. After the Bangladesh war, Pakistan tried to create a similar separatist situation in Punjab in revenge and fanned Sikh separatism (probably CIA too gave a hand). After all, Jagjit Singh Chauhan made the Khalistan announcement in New York in 1971. Indira Gandhi tried to pose as a truer friend of Sikhs than the Akali Dal by propping up Bhinderanwale, before things got out of hand. Yes, Communists had a strong presence in Punjab and leaned towards Khalistan, but it was not their show.

 

[Poeticus]

That is not true. After the Bangladesh war, Pakistan tried to create a similar separatist situation in Punjab in revenge and fanned Sikh separatism (probably CIA too gave a hand). After all, Jagjit Singh Chauhan made the Khalistan announcement in New York in 1971. After the Sikh party Akali Dal gained the control of Punjab, Indira Gandhi tried to get back to power by posing as a truer friend of Sikhs by propping up Bhinderanwale, before things got out of hand. Yes, Communists had a strong presence in Punjab and leaned towards Khalistan, but it was not their show.

Watch the video....Swami gives a detailed and documented account of an interaction with him and Bhindranwale...1984 was planned by Congress Party - Punjab did NOT want communism.

 

[ronki23]

That is not true. After the Bangladesh war, Pakistan tried to create a similar separatist situation in Punjab in revenge and fanned Sikh separatism (probably CIA too gave a hand). After all, Jagjit Singh Chauhan made the Khalistan announcement in New York in 1971. Indira Gandhi tried to pose as a truer friend of Sikhs than the Akali Dal by propping up Bhinderanwale, before things got out of hand. Yes, Communists had a strong presence in Punjab and leaned towards Khalistan, but it was not their show.

Sikhs don't worship Hindu Gods. The posts on this forum show they do not believe in Sanatan Sikhism. However, as individuals the Sikh Gurus who gave their lives for Hindus should be revered by Hindus in my opinion

 

[ronki23]

The problem with Ronki's argument is that he doesn't take into account the sentiment of native Sikhs in India, but relies solely on statements made by the Sikh diaspora that are patrons of the Khalistan movement.

The problem with those against Khalistan movement is I see no Sikhs that are pro India on the internet. Especially on the Sikh Sangat, Sikh Network,etc.

You yourself say Congress is at fault.

Congress is India; Mahatma Gandhi,Vallahbhai Patel and Bhagat Singh all fought for independence and Manmohan Singh helped turn India into a second world country through the FDI and cutting of red tape.

If Sikhs don't like Congress' previous heroes, they do not like India.

 

[Poeticus]

The problem with those against Khalistan movement is I see no Sikhs that are pro India on the internet. Especially on the Sikh Sangat, Sikh Network,etc.

Stop looking on the freakin' Internet and buy a ticket and go take a survey of Sikhs in the Indian Punjab. How hard is that for you to understand?

You yourself say Congress is at fault.

Watch the video I posted.

Congress is India; Mahatma Gandhi,Vallahbhai Patel and Bhagat Singh all fought for independence and Manmohan Singh helped turn India into a second world country through the FDI and cutting of red tape.

If Sikhs don't like Congress' previous heroes, they do not like India.

That's a horrible argument. In fact, it's so illogical that I don't even know how to answer this one.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The problem with those against Khalistan movement is I see no Sikhs that are pro India on the internet. Especially on the Sikh Sangat, Sikh Network, etc.

You yourself say Congress is at fault.

Congress is India; ..

Yes, there are Sikhs who get monetary benefits by berating India, either from Pakistan or from some Sikhs residing outside India. They are welcome to write against India and Hindus on internet. It is a free world. But that is not going to achieve anything.

Yes, Congress was at fault. But your statement that 'Congress is India' is laughable. Congress was thoroughly roughed up in the elections in four states just this week (See the result below - INC and symbol 'hand' for Congress. BJP and symbol 'Lotus' for the Hindu party). India is much more than Congress.