Religious Demographics in India

Status
Not open for further replies.

Singh

Phat Cat
Super Mod
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
20,312
Likes
8,374
Country flag
@Singh

From what i have found in last two days, there is no mention of this kashmiri pandit story in any source before 1750 so I do not think it is going anywhere.
Why not take the date as 1752 ? Why 1750 ? :rofl:

I never doubted the martyrdom or all details but the kashimiri stuff is not mentioned in bachittar( vichitra as we say in hindi) natak which is most reliable written by Guru Gobind Singhji so case closed.
ਹਰੀਕ੍ਰਿਸਨ ਤਿਨ ਕੇ ਸੁਤ ਵਏ ॥ ਤਿਨ ਤੇ ਤੇਗਬਹਾਦਰ ਭਏ ॥੧੨॥
Har Krishan (the next Guru) was his son; after him, Tegh Bahadur became the Guru.12.

ਤਿਲਕ ਜੰਵੂ ਰਾਖਾ ਪ੍ਰਭ ਤਾ ਕਾ ॥ ਕੀਨੋ ਬਡੋਕਲੂ ਮਹਿ ਸਾਕਾ ॥
He protected the forehead mark and sacred thread (of the Hindus)which marked a great event in the kali age.

ਸਾਧਨ ਹੇਤਿ ਇਤੀ ਜਿਨਿ ਕਰੀ ॥ ਸੀਸੁ ਦੀਆ ਪਰਸੀ ਨ ਉਚਰੀ ॥੧੩॥
For the sake of saints, he laid down his head without even a sigh.13.

ਧਰਮ ਹੇਤਿ ਸਾਕਾ ਜਿਨਿ ਕੀਆ ॥ ਸੀਸੁ ਦੀਆ ਪਰਸਿਰਰੁ ਨ ਦੀਆ ॥
For the sake of Dharma, he sacrificed himself. He laid down his head but not his creed.

So for the sake of argument,

Lets say all Sikh sources are lies, and invented except Bachitar Natak. And Kashmiris never came to Guru Tegh Bahadur.

It quite clearly says that Guru Tegh Bahadur gave up his life for the sake of the Pandits to wear Tilak and Janeu.

Now, to counter your assertion

1. Sikhs couldn't save the Hindus because their Gurus couldn't save themselves, has been directly contradicted by Guru Gobind Singh

2. Brahmins were the bulwark against Islam has also been proven false. The Sikh Guru did give up his life to save Brahmins.

So either you are a liar or Guru Gobind Singh is a liar.


Let us stop here and accept that it was later story spread by some people otherwise, it would have been mentioned at length.

There is one passage which is open to many interpretation and far from being satisfactory.
Let us stop here and accept that you are a bigot.

You have called Sikhism an Islamic Sect, Quasiabhramic sect, and a warrior cult. Laughed at their claims, rubbished Sikh sources, and have questioned the character of Sikh Gurus.

===
 
Last edited by a moderator:

MAYURA

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
888
Likes
248
@Singh

Why not take the date as 1752 ? Why 1750 ?

Why anyone is called juvenile as per IPC before 18 years and not before 18 years and 3 weeks?


He protected the forehead mark and sacred thread (of the Hindus)which marked a great event in the kali age.
This is the passage i was talking about as it is open to many interpretations.
For the sake of saints, he laid down his head without even a sigh.
This is no proof yet again as i do not see any pandit here.


For the sake of Dharma, he sacrificed himself. He laid down his head but not his creed.

Correct and this I never disputed but where is kashmiri pandit in all this?


So for the sake of argument,

Lets say all Sikh sources are lies, and invented except Bachitar Natak. And Kashmiris never came to Guru Tegh Bahadur.

It quite clearly says that Guru Tegh Bahadur gave up his life for the sake of the Pandits to wear Tilak and Janeu.
There is no mention of kashmiri pandits nor of any other story. what it really says is that Guru Tegabahadurji gave his head to protect dharma which is open to many interpretations. You are inventing the rest stuff.

Now, to counter your assertion

1. Sikhs couldn't save the Hindus because their Gurus couldn't save themselves, has been directly contradicted by Guru Gobind Singh

2. Brahmins were the bulwark against Islam has also been proven false. The Sikh Guru did give up his life to save Brahmins.
1. Nothing has been contradicted as Guru Gobind Singh does tell us that his father had to give up his head which proves my point. Aurangzeb was not normal hindi filmi villain, he was a curse on humanity and so his becoming human is ridiculous.

2. You are too ignorant to understand my second point which was that communities exposed to brahminic civilization were less likely to convert than other communities like east bengalis or Jats and Khokhars. I have much sophisticated theories than you may digest . I do not believe in brahmins were bulwark thing as brahmins were not fighters in muslim era.

However, If you believe in coward brahmin things, do know that Peshwas ruled from Tamil Nadu to Peshawar a thing no other could do from indic stock( be it sikh, rajput , jat etc.).

So either you are a liar or Guru Gobind Singh is a liar.
Do not bring him between us and there is no such thing as Gobind singhji never mentions story so since he is true, i am also true.

Let us stop here and accept that you are a bigot.
Abuses are ten a penny.

You have called Sikhism an Islamic Sect, Quasiabhramic sect, and a warrior cult. Laughed at their claims, rubbished Sikh sources, and have questioned the character of Sikh Gurus.
I have called sikhism an islamic sect based on writings of TP Hughes, quasiabrahmic sect by use of akali establishments of abrahmic concepts but i do not remember warrior cult thing.

I have laughed at claims like freeing 52 rajput princes, saving hinduism in india etc. as they deserve much more than laughing and it was kind of me to just laugh at them.

I have rubbished any non contemporary sources be they hindu, sikh or buddhist so I do not believe in pandyas living at time of Srirama.


Last charge is lie and i am considering to give a defamatory notice to you if such thing is allowed here:rofl:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

MAYURA

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
888
Likes
248
@Singh

This is my position on Bichittar Natak testimony

Guru Gobind Singh Ji has used the word "Prabh" or "Prabhu" 40 times in the Bachitar Natak
portion of Dasam Granth. Eleven times it has been written as "Prabhu", which clearly means
God. The word "Prabh" has been used 29 times by Guru Gobind Singh to mean God,
including the line, "Tilak Janju Rakha Prabh ta ka", (ch. V.13) Giani Bishan Singh of Khalsa
College, Amritsar (1957) has translated the entire Dasam Granth. He has translated the
line, "Tilak Janju Rakha Prabh Ta Ka" as "The Almighty
God protected the Tilak and Janju
of the Hindus." Translating the next line "Dharam het saka jin kiya," Giani Bishan Singh
writes its meaning as, "Guru did this saka (incident) for the sake of Dharma." He does not
say the Guru did this saka for 'Hindu Dharma'.


So now i am waiting for you.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Singh

Phat Cat
Super Mod
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
20,312
Likes
8,374
Country flag
@Singh

Why anyone is called juvenile as per IPC before 18 years and not before 18 years and 3 weeks?
You have not answered my question,
Why are you taking the year 1750 as the cut off date ?

=======

He protected the forehead mark and sacred thread (of the Hindus)which marked a great event in the kali age.
This is the passage i was talking about as it is open to many interpretations.
To reiterate the passage says :

ਤਿਲਕ ਜੰਵੂ ਰਾਖਾ ਪ੍ਰਭ ਤਾ ਕਾ ॥ ਕੀਨੋ ਬਡੋਕਲੂ ਮਹਿ ਸਾਕਾ ॥
He protected the forehead mark and sacred thread (of the Hindus)which marked a great event in the kali age.


For the sake of saints, he laid down his head without even a sigh.
This is no proof yet again as i do not see any pandit here.
So how will you interpret this passage ? You will triangulate this with Sikh history and tradition ?

But since you claim that all of Sikh history and tradition is false. So we have nothing left to convince the great son of Kashi ie you otherwise.

So lets try another approach.

Guru Gobind Singh clearly states this

"ਤਿਲਕ ਜੰਵੂ ਰਾਖਾ ਪ੍ਰਭ ਤਾ ਕਾ ॥ ਕੀਨੋ ਬਡੋਕਲੂ ਮਹਿ ਸਾਕਾ ॥"
He protected the forehead mark and sacred thread which marked a great event in the kali age.

Now which religious group wore Tilak and Janeu during that period ? He saved them.

So, since Brahmins do(or atleast did) wear Tilak and Janeu he ie Guru Tegh Bahadur protected them.

===
Correct and this I never disputed but where is kashmiri pandit in all this?
There is no mention of kashmiri pandits nor of any other story.

"
ਤਿਲਕ ਜੰਵੂ ਰਾਖਾ ਪ੍ਰਭ ਤਾ ਕਾ ॥ ਕੀਨੋ ਬਡੋਕਲੂ ਮਹਿ ਸਾਕਾ ॥
He protected the forehead mark and sacred thread (of the Hindus)which marked a great event in the kali age."

Now which religious group wore Tilak and Janeu during that period ? He saved them.

So, since Brahmins do(or atleast did) wear Tilak and Janeu he ie Guru Tegh Bahadur protected them.


===

The texts which specifically do mention them, you have discredited them. So, can't help it.

===

what it really says is that Guru Tegabahadurji gave his head to protect dharma which is open to many interpretations. You are inventing the rest stuff.
No what it says is this
"
ਤਿਲਕ ਜੰਵੂ ਰਾਖਾ ਪ੍ਰਭ ਤਾ ਕਾ ॥ ਕੀਨੋ ਬਡੋਕਲੂ ਮਹਿ ਸਾਕਾ ॥
He protected the forehead mark and sacred thread (of the Hindus)which marked a great event in the kali age."

To understand the rest of the passage you will have to rely on other Sikhs texts, which you claim are full of lies.

====
1. Nothing has been contradicted as Guru Gobind Singh does tell us that his father had to give up his head which proves my point.
To reiterate
"ਤਿਲਕ ਜੰਵੂ ਰਾਖਾ ਪ੍ਰਭ ਤਾ ਕਾ ॥ ਕੀਨੋ ਬਡੋਕਲੂ ਮਹਿ ਸਾਕਾ ॥
He protected the forehead mark and sacred thread (of the Hindus)which marked a great event in the kali age."

====

Aurangzeb was not normal hindi filmi villain, he was a curse on humanity and so his becoming human is ridiculous.
:rofl:

===
2. You are too ignorant to understand my second point which was that communities exposed to brahminic civilization were less likely to convert than other communities like east bengalis or Jats and Khokhars. I have much sophisticated theories than you may digest . I do not believe in brahmins were bulwark thing as brahmins were not fighters in muslim era.
Quite clearly, one community ie the Sikhs were not exposed to "Brahminic" civilization, and yet they ended up saving Hindus as is evident from this passage

"
ਤਿਲਕ ਜੰਵੂ ਰਾਖਾ ਪ੍ਰਭ ਤਾ ਕਾ ॥ ਕੀਨੋ ਬਡੋਕਲੂ ਮਹਿ ਸਾਕਾ ॥
He protected the forehead mark and sacred thread (of the Hindus)which marked a great event in the kali age."


===
However, If you believe in coward brahmin things, do know that Peshwas ruled from Tamil Nadu to Peshawar a thing no other could do from indic stock( be it sikh, rajput , jat etc.).
You had a crackpot theory about Brahminic Civilization. I never talked about Coward Brahmins.

Your theory has been proved wrong.

===

Do not bring him between us and there is no such thing as Gobind singhji never mentions story so since he is true, i am also true.
You just called all of Sikh history a lie, and on top of that you called Sikhism an islamic sect, a warrior cult and a quaisabrahmic sect.

===
Abuses are ten a penny.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
===
I have called sikhism an islamic sect based on writings of TP Hughes, quasiabrahmic sect by use of akali establishments of abrahmic concepts but i do not remember warrior cult thing.
'You quoted Reverend Hughes of the Church. Why would you quote him, if you don't agree with him ?

===

Stop being a goddamn coward.

=====

I have laughed at claims like freeing 52 rajput princes,
That day is called Bandi Chor Diwas and coincides with Diwali. If you read Sikh literature, you will find that it did happen.

====
saving hinduism in idia etc.
This is what Guru Gobind Singh writes
"ਤਿਲਕ ਜੰਵੂ ਰਾਖਾ ਪ੍ਰਭ ਤਾ ਕਾ ॥ ਕੀਨੋ ਬਡੋਕਲੂ ਮਹਿ ਸਾਕਾ ॥
He protected the forehead mark and sacred thread (of the Hindus)which marked a great event in the kali age."

Now you are laughing at his claim ? and yet calling him as truthful as you are.

as they deserve much more than laughing and it was kind of me to just laugh at them.
You are more than welcome to laugh at the Sikhs. From being a persecuted minority, today the Sikhs are synonymous with all that is positive.

====
I have rubbished any non contemporary sources be they hindu, sikh or buddhist so I do not believe in pandyas living at time of Srirama.
I dont' care what you rubbish. Who are you? Seriously ?

========
Last charge is lie and i am considering to give a defamatory notice to you if such thing is allowed here:rofl:
this is what you said
sikh gurus could not save themselves and were ridiculously tortured and murdered by cruel and bastard mughals how can they save anyone when they themselves were not able to save themselves?
ever heard of Mayura helping bankrupt ambanis? this is funny at best.

I don't think you are fit to be a member of this site.
You have broken rules, insulted as many people as you can, your agenda is quite clear and if that wasn't enough you are threatening to file lawsuits.
You are being banned pending consultation with staff.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Singh

Phat Cat
Super Mod
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
20,312
Likes
8,374
Country flag
@Singh

" Guru Gobind Singh Ji has used the word "Prabh" or "Prabhu" 40 times in the Bachitar Natak
portion of Dasam Granth. Eleven times it has been written as "Prabhu", which clearly means
God. The word "Prabh" has been used 29 times by Guru Gobind Singh to mean God,
including the line, "Tilak Janju Rakha Prabh ta ka", (ch. V.13) Giani Bishan Singh of Khalsa
College, Amritsar (1957) has translated the entire Dasam Granth. He has translated the
line, "Tilak Janju Rakha Prabh Ta Ka" as "The Almighty
God protected the Tilak and Janju
of the Hindus." Translating the next line "Dharam het saka jin kiya," Giani Bishan Singh
writes its meaning as, "Guru did this saka (incident) for the sake of Dharma." He does not
say the Guru did this saka for 'Hindu Dharma'. "
This is my position on Bichittar Natak testimony

So now i am waiting for you.
Yes, if you read Sikh texts, they clearly state the Sikh Gurus were not merely concerned with protecting Brahmins or "Hindu" Dharma per se. The fact is in their struggle against tyranny and injustice, they did end up saving Hinduism as is evident by the statement:
" ਤਿਲਕ ਜੰਵੂ ਰਾਖਾ ਪ੍ਰਭ ਤਾ ਕਾ ॥ ਕੀਨੋ ਬਡੋਕਲੂ ਮਹਿ ਸਾਕਾ ॥
He protected the forehead mark and sacred thread (of the Hindus)which marked a great event in the kali age."

In fact when the Sikhs say Raj Karega Khalsa, they don't mean merely the Sikhs alone.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

LurkerBaba

Super Mod
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Messages
7,572
Likes
5,877
Country flag
That day is called Bandi Chor Diwas and coincides with Diwali. If you read Sikh literature, you will find that it did happen.
I'm not sure why @MAYURA is in such denial. A casual search through Google Books throws up loads of non-Sikh references





Foreign Author + Foreign Publisher :lol:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Singh

Phat Cat
Super Mod
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
20,312
Likes
8,374
Country flag
I'm not sure why @MAYURA is in such denial. A casual search through Google Books throws up loads of non-Sikh references





Foreign Author + Foreign Publisher :lol:
He wants contemporary sources. And only those sources which prove him right, any source which he disagrees with, he disregards it.

And he doesn't like anything foreign, or academic or scientific unless its by Reverend TP Hughes, who calls Sikhs an Islamic Sect in his seminal work published last century called "Dictionary of Islam".
 
Last edited by a moderator:

MAYURA

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
888
Likes
248
He wants contemporary sources. And only those sources which prove him right, any source which he disagrees with, he disregards it.

And he doesn't like anything foreign, or academic or scientific unless its by Reverend TP Hughes, who calls Sikhs an Islamic Sect in his seminal work published last century called "Dictionary of Islam".
When did I disregard Bichittar Natak written by Guru Gobind Singh?
Anyway, I am yet to see any detailed account of persecution of kashmiri pandits being mentioned in any of the sikh sources of that time.
 

MAYURA

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
888
Likes
248
I'm not sure why @MAYURA is in such denial. A casual search through Google Books throws up loads of non-Sikh references





Foreign Author + Foreign Publisher :lol:
Do you know negotiating the release of prisoners does not mean " freeing 52 Rajput princes". Princes was the term used by @Singh and now show me foreign authors talking about 52 "princes".
 
Last edited by a moderator:

MAYURA

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
888
Likes
248
@Singh

This is what Guru Gobind Singh writes
"ਤਿਲਕ ਜੰਵੂ ਰਾਖਾ ਪ੍ਰਭ ਤਾ ਕਾ ॥ ਕੀਨੋ ਬਡੋਕਲੂ ਮਹਿ ਸਾਕਾ ॥
He protected the forehead mark and sacred thread (of the Hindus)which marked a great event in the kali age."
Giani Bishan Singh of khalsa college in Amritsar translated dasam granth and as per him suitable line is " almighty god protected the tilak and janeu of hindus in kali age".

Now, you need to explain to me how a passage which is open to such differences of radical nature in its interpretation can be and should be read as you are insisting.

That is why I said that even pro sikh Khuswant Singh has failed to give evidence of kashmiri pandits being saved in his monumental history of sikhs which goes into many volumes.


You are ignoring entire context, fact that no mughal sources mention any directed attempt at conversion of kashmiri pandits and the last significant thing that your passage has been questioned by many sikhs also many who have achieved far more than you and me.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

LurkerBaba

Super Mod
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Messages
7,572
Likes
5,877
Country flag
Do you know negotiating the release of prisoners does not mean " freeing 52 Rajput princes". Princes was the term used by @Singh and now show me foreign authors talking about 52 "princes".
Yet another casual search through Google Books. The keyword I used was "52 princes sikh". Pretty simple




I'm sure you'll come up with better references after spending a few minutes.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

MAYURA

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
888
Likes
248
@Singh

You have not answered my question,
Why are you taking the year 1750 as the cut off date ?
Did you reply my question which was pertinent to the context?


You had a crackpot theory about Brahminic Civilization. I never talked about Coward Brahmins.

Your theory has been proved wrong.
My theory is supported by scholars unlike your sword arm theory popular in public.



That day is called Bandi Chor Diwas and coincides with Diwali. If you read Sikh literature, you will find that it did happen.
Where are the evidences for "52 princes" thing?

Quite clearly, one community ie the Sikhs were not exposed to "Brahminic" civilization, and yet they ended up saving Hindus as is evident from this passage
It was the other way round as hindu marathas saved sikhs from mughal tyranny . The Sikhs did some remarkable service in saving honour of their hindu sisters in wake of Abdali invasion but that is different from saving hinduism. Ranjit Singh was a hindu king so his victories must be credited to brahmanism rather than sikhism.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

MAYURA

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
888
Likes
248
Yet another casual search through Google Books. The keyword I used was "52 princes sikh". Pretty simple




I'm sure you'll come up with better references after spending a few minutes.
his claim was 52 rajput " princes" and do not joke princes does not mean lords or barons but simply sons of kings and where is the evidence for 52 rajput princes being freed by him?
 

MAYURA

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
888
Likes
248
his claim was 52 rajput " princes" and do not joke princes does not mean lords or barons but simply sons of kings and where is the evidence for 52 rajput princes being freed by him?
BTW, just because some whiteman in his account mentions traditional story does not mean he is damn right, if it has no primary source than no matter how entrenched one's position is , i do not take him seriously.

JN Nehru tells to his daughter that ST. thomas came to india in 52 ad which is just a myth . Being PM does not make him correct so books you are throwing may be wrong if not supported by primary sources in both sikh and mughal.

History is not as simple as people think. Xuangzang's account is one such example( perhaps you do not know about his flaws and how he has tricked the indologists ) of how even primary sources should be checked with other sources if available.
 

LurkerBaba

Super Mod
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Messages
7,572
Likes
5,877
Country flag
his claim was 52 rajput " princes" and do not joke princes does not mean lords or barons but simply sons of kings and where is the evidence for 52 rajput princes being freed by him?
Don't shift goal posts.

This was was your original argument

"Do you know negotiating the release of prisoners does not mean " freeing 52 Rajput princes" "Princes was the term used by @Singh and now show me foreign authors talking about 52 "princes"
Now that I found a reference to "52 princes" (via 5seconds of Google), you've shamelessly changed it to "52 rajput princes".

Apart from being a racist you're also dishonest

BTW, just because some whiteman in his account mentions traditional story does not mean he is damn right, if it has no primary source than no matter how entrenched one's position is , i do not take him seriously.
I hope you see the irony in your statement.
 

MAYURA

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
888
Likes
248
Don't shift goal posts.

This was was your original argument
I am not .


I hope you see the irony in your statement.
No I do not see any irony in this statement as i have withdrawn my racist theory long ago.


Now that I found a reference to "52 princes" (via 5seconds of Google), you've shamelessly changed it to "52 rajput princes".

Apart from being a racist you're also dishonest
You need to read my post once again the line which you highlighted talks clearly of 52 rajput princes and if later on in that line i used princes how is that being dishonest?
 

MAYURA

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
888
Likes
248
@LurkerBaba

this was my original statement

Do you know negotiating the release of prisoners does not mean " freeing 52 Rajput princes". Princes was the term used by @Singh and now show me foreign authors talking about 52 "princes".
So the line clearly talks about rajput princes and if in next part i did not use rajput term it was because of laziness. it is amazing as why else would i dispute his claim? I am disputing his claim not my own .
 
Last edited by a moderator:

LurkerBaba

Super Mod
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Messages
7,572
Likes
5,877
Country flag
You need to read my post once again the line which you highlighted talks clearly of 52 rajput princes and if later on in that line i used princes how is that being dishonest?
Err no. This is what you said.

Do you know negotiating the release of prisoners does not mean " freeing 52 Rajput princes"
You merely dismissed them as common prisoners. But presented with references to them being Princes, you want me to confirm their caste :lol:

The princes were in Gwalior fort. Take a wild guess at their caste
 

Mad Indian

Proud Bigot
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2012
Messages
12,835
Likes
7,742
And How and where exactly did Anti-Brahminism come in here? Seriously, seems like lot of venting out is happening here, now that more and more Shudras are joining Middle class ranks thanks to free market...

Anyway interesting stuff.. Please continue:style:
 

MAYURA

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
888
Likes
248
Err no. This is what you said.



You merely dismissed them as common prisoners. But presented with references to them being Princes, you want me to confirm their caste :lol:
I have not started all this and i disputed his claim of " 52 rajput princes" and any future post will be in that connection only.

I do not want anything but simply proof for the claim( i am not forcing anyone as i am a small rat on this forum but for sake of truth )

1. That on diwali 52 Rajputs were released due to sixth guru

2. they all were rajputs

3. They were " princes" that is sons of kings of rajputana


I am not saying this is impossible but i do need any primary source or i will take it as seriously as Srikrishna freeing 88,000 " kings" from clutches of Jarasandha.

I use same scale and rigor when it comes to history.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top