Did Singhs do an Ardaas for an Azaad Pakistan?

Vaheguru ji ka khalsa
Vaheguru ji ki fateh!

As silly as this question may sound, I'm asking this because the creation of Pakistan would not have been possible, had Sikhs resisted, and maybe used logic. I mean, how can something so anti-Panthik and disastrous be possible, unless Gursikhs collectively had supported the idea of free Pakistan.

1) A place where most of our history lies, a place where so many Shaheediyan have been laid, how is it possible for such a place to become a separate entity for the Sikhs?

2) How is it possible that so many Gurudwaras were left abandoned in Pakistan, not only that, but many have been turned into mosques, schools, libraries, etc., is it possible or true Gursikhs intentionally left that part of Punjab, and voluntarily accepted the idea of free Pakistan?

3) Why did some Sikhs attack innocent Muslims and force them to head west, and when some Muslims boarded trains heading west, some Sikhs stopped those trains to kill the Muslims in those trains?

4) Why didn't the Panth listen to Bhai Sahib Randhir Singh ji who suggested that at least 500 Singhs gather at Nankana Sahib to celebrate Vaisakhi in protest of the creation of Pakistan? Did Panth Khalsa intentionally support the creation of Pakistan? Did the Sikhs back then not see the destruction this would cause?

Thank you and Good bye

Vaheguru ji ka khalsa
Vaheguru ji ki fateh!

PAKISTAN ZINDABAD!



ਪਾਕਿਸਤਾਨ ਜ਼ਿੰਦਾਬਾਦ!

The matter was very complicated but Sikhs did not make good use of the opportunity. Creation of Pakistan dependent upon Muslim League decision which demanded for a Muslim state since the Congress refused to guarantee reserved rights and instead pushed for majority rule. Muslims realized the danger and intent behind this crafty move of the Congress and opted for Pakistan. Sikhs fell for Congress and gave away their decision making authority. Since Sikhs were more prosperous in the West and they had their history and Gurdwaras there, the matter became complicated because Muslims were the majority. Sikhs were not majority in any major area. So the question remained on the borderline which wasn’t announced until the day Pakistan became independent. Sikhs always opposed Pakistan. Their argument was that the country shouldn’t be divided and if it has to be divided then Khalistan should also be created. The latter argument was only an excuse used by the Akalis to oppose Pakistan. Although many Sikhs supported Khalistan and wrote books and articles on the subject but since Akalis were the leaders (who were uneducated and inexperienced) the movement could not take any shape. Once it was finalized that Pakistan would be created, the fight lingered on for the accession of Nankana Sahib and some other Gurdwaras but no result. British offered a Sikh country from Nankana Sahib to Panipat but Akalis did not think of themselves capable enough to run a country because they lacked in every field compared to Hindu and Muslim leaders. Akalis also made sure that the educated lot stayed away from their party so they could remain the undisputed leaders. This is why Ambedkar and millions of Vanzaras and Bengalis were turned away from Sikhi. Tara Singh, Kartar Singh, Baldev Singh, Fateh Singh etc. ensured that doom of the Sikh community. While they always opposed Pakistan they could not formulate a concrete plan for the future of the Panth. You will need to study this in depth to better understand it.

Quote

Why did some Sikhs attack innocent Muslims and force them to head west, and when some Muslims boarded trains heading west, some Sikhs stopped those trains to kill the Muslims in those trains?

Muslims started the attacks first in Hazara, Calcutta. Then attacks started in Punjab. When Sikhs received 2-3 trains full of dead bodies at Amritsar, they decided to do the same to Muslims. When 2-3 trains were sent to Pakistan the same way, Muslims stopped killing the passengers but attacked the Sikh residents in Pakistan. Sikhs responded in retalliation though both were wrong to kill, loot and rape. Muslims also kept most of the captured women while almost all Muslim women were sent back to Pakistan after 1947. Dr. Kirpal Singh has written some books on this subject.

Quote
Jaspreet Singh
3) Why did some Sikhs attack innocent Muslims and force them to head west, and when some Muslims boarded trains heading west, some Sikhs stopped those trains to kill the Muslims in those trains?

The reason they give is. "They killed so many of us, we too had to retaliate." It was a volatile situation.
Personally don't understand the senseless killings myself , but it made me think something somewhere is very wrong with the desi mentality. (sorry if I sounded rude but judging the situation)

My Lahori friend has grown up all life in Lahore without seeing any local Lahori Sikh.About, 5-10 Sikh families live is Lahore, a Paki Sindhi told me. It was such an important city, that many old printed lareevaar saroops available today were printed in Lahore.

There was a bauli built by Guru Amardass jee in Lahore, seems to

Here is a documentary in by BBC on partition, which presents interesting points:
[www.youtube.com]
The borders were not even known before Independence was declared according to the documentary.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Personally, whatever Vahiguroo's decision was, it cannot be wrong. Nothing is out of his will.

Imagine if partition didn't occur.
We would be hearing of of Hindu-Muslim riots taking place all the time.
Pseudo-Islamic terrorism is on the rise.(will not cease anytime soon)

But, if Sikhs lost their Guru-dhams due to creation of Pakistan. They too lost their Masjidil Al-Aqsa(Temple Mount), Islam's 3rd holiest mosque in 1967 to Israel. They hate Israel to bits for it.
Call it Karma.

sigh...i read too much of world history

Chota veer

Quote

1) A place where most of our history lies, a place where so many Shaheediyan have been laid, how is it possible for such a place to become a separate entity for the Sikhs?

Such was the Bhaana of Vaheguru. What can we mortal beings say about Vaheguru jee's Hukam? Why ask this question. I would rather ask, why did we lose an able ruler like Kanvar Naunihaal Singh in a stupid accident (or conspiracy)? Why did we did we lose the Anglo-Sikh wars? There are too many such questions, to which we don't have answers. We as Sikhs, are supposed to obey Bhaana and then work towards getting favourable conditions for Khalsa Panth.

Quote

2) How is it possible that so many Gurudwaras were left abandoned in Pakistan, not only that, but many have been turned into mosques, schools, libraries, etc., is it possible or true Gursikhs intentionally left that part of Punjab, and voluntarily accepted the idea of free Pakistan?

True Sikhs did not support formation of Pakistan and Bhai Sahib Randhir Singh jee wanted to go to Pakistan and punish the aggressors and free our Gurdwara Sahibaan but the leaders of that time were not supportive of the idea.

Quote

3) Why did some Sikhs attack innocent Muslims and force them to head west, and when some Muslims boarded trains heading west, some Sikhs stopped those trains to kill the Muslims in those trains?

uninformed Sikhs retaliated with similar aggression and force as Muslims who committed atrocious atrocities against Sikhs for about 2-3 years. Sikhs retaliated for only few weeks but they did equal damage in this time. I have met an old Sikh man who with his own hands killed 500 Muslims in 1947. Then he went to Bhai Sahib to confess. Bhai Sahib was upset but then told him to do Ardaas and Paaths for forgiveness. Same thing happened with a close companion of Bhai Sahib who killed a Muslim aggressor in 1947 but later regretted doing so.

That was the time of sheer madness when no one was thinking rationally. When Sikhs saw trains full of Sikh victims arriving from Pakistan, they too lost it and committed similar acts of violence, against innocent Muslims. It was a sad situation for Sikhs, Muslims and Hindus. No one won.

Quote

4) Why didn't the Panth listen to Bhai Sahib Randhir Singh ji who suggested that at least 500 Singhs gather at Nankana Sahib to celebrate Vaisakhi in protest of the creation of Pakistan? Did Panth Khalsa intentionally support the creation of Pakistan? Did the Sikhs back then not see the destruction this would cause?

Sikhs tried their best to stop the formation of Pakistan in Punjab but they could not stop it. At first, even the area west of river Beas was being given to Pakistan but facing stiff opposition from Sikhs this idea was dropped. Pandit Nehru was given the choice to have either Lahore or Calcutta but he chose Calcutta which resulted in Lahore going to Pakistan and along with Lahore, Nanakana Sahib too was left in Pakistan. This is one of the biggest loss for us. But I have faith that in due time, these Gurdwara Sahibaan will come back to Panth.

Kulbir Singh

keeping the past as it is.....

Just an update. Parkash of Sree SGGS jee never took place in Chuna Mandi Lahore, Where Gurdwara Janam Asthan Guru Raam Daas Jee is situated. Parkash is being done daily as of recently.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are not many Sikhs in Pakistani Punjab. However, there are loads of Sindhis in Sindh,Pakistan who have loads of sharda in Gurbani and also do Gurbani Keertan. Many do not keep hair tho.

Its unfortunate no one in the panth is taking interest to do parchar in Pakistan. PSGPC is non-operational. SGPC has strict limited access. Indian gursikhs cant do much due to political turmoil.

Below is a Gurdwara(non-historical) established by Sindhis in Karampur,Sind, Pakistan. They are gathered here for Shaheedi Purb of Guru Arjan Dev Ji, 2011. Many of them do kirtan of Gurbani and can read gurbani.


There is so much parchar of gurmat can be done by rehitvaan gursikhs in Sindh,Pakistan and NorthWest Frontier region where there are Pastun Sikhs ...alas no one is interested. Amrit Sanchars are not frequent in Pakistan.
I am also told there is a historical Gurughar in Shikarpur run by Sindhis where Satguroo Nanak Dev ji stayed for 40 days, and the tree where he rested is still preserved.
Info from contacts from Paki Sindhi friends.

Chota veer

Excellent and very informative post, Chatrik jeeo.

Indeed, there is a dire need for Samagams and Amrit Sinchaars in Pakistan but as you mentioned, no one is interested in doing anything about it.

Kulbir Singh

Thank you Chatrik jee for sharing the info and photos. Please keep us updated.

Quote
Kulbir SIngh

Such was the Bhaana of Vaheguru. What can we mortal beings say about Vaheguru jee's Hukam? Why ask this question. I would rather ask, why did we lose an able ruler like Kanvar Naunihaal Singh in a stupid accident (or conspiracy)? Why did we did we lose the Anglo-Sikh wars? There are too many such questions, to which we don't have answers. We as Sikhs, are supposed to obey Bhaana and then work towards getting favourable conditions for Khalsa Panth.

SIngho, I dont think we can classify the creation of Pakistan as WaaheGuru Jis bana. In SIkhi, the terms Bhana, Naam, and Hukum mean one
and the same thing which is WaaheGurus will/order. There is Gods will ( gurmat) and there is mans will ( manmat) . God created manmant to teach people to follow one over the other. Those who folllow Gods will are GUrmukhs those who follow their own will are MANMUKHs. Now the creation of Pakistan was created by some self willed politicians ( Manmukhs) not Gurmukhs; thus, we cannot classify at is as Gods will.

Quote
Kublir SIngh
.
True Sikhs did not support formation of Pakistan and Bhai Sahib Randhir Singh jee wanted to go to Pakistan and punish the aggressors and free our Gurdwara Sahibaan but the leaders of that time were not supportive of the idea.

True nor did Bhai Sahib support a separate Hindu state or a separate Sikh state. BHai Sahib believed these "modern nation states" went against the praupakaree spirit of SIkhi in which Khalsa sees everyone as a friend and does not make distinctions based on ethnicity/nationality. BHai Sahib believed "modern states" made man selfish and only concerned with his own interest or the interest of his own people which again goes against the praupakaree spirit of Khalsa. Bhai Sahib gives an example of how Pehli Paatshah travelled across the world to redeem all of Humanity. He also states Khalsa wishes for the well being of all humanity not just their own kind. ( GUrmat Lekh, Kaumeeat atey Roohanet).

If we have SIkhs based in a modern nation state like Pakistan and other SIkhs based in another modern nation state like Hindustan they will naturally feel allegiance to the nation they live in, thus keeping them from practicing praupakaree spirit in the truest sense. SInghs are praupakaree cosmopolitans ( Citizens of the WOrld) and do not owe allegiance to any ethic nation. Guru Sahib did not stay bounded in Punjab ; instead, Guru Sahib will travel to places where the people needed help as in his eyes none was a stranger and none was a enemy on the other hand modern states are based on the concept Alliances vs Adversaries.

ਨਾ ਕੋ ਬੈਰੀ ਨਹੀ ਬਿਗਾਨਾ ਸਗਲ ਸੰਗਿ ਹਮ ਕਉ ਬਨਿ ਆਈ ॥੧॥
No one is my enemy, and no one is a stranger. I get along with everyone.

Here is another example of how Gods will differs from mans will.
In the 70's and 80's some panthic Gurmukhs who believed in the MiriPiri sedant could no longer tolerate the injustice and slavery imposed on their brothers by self willed politicians ( manmukhs). Thus; according to Gurmat ( Gods will) they fought and demanded for greater autonomy. Because they were fighting for the rights of others in other words practicing praupakaree spirit they were following GOds will. On the opposite hand the self willed/ self interested politicians were looking only out for their own concerns, killing the innocent and so forth were practicing their own will ( manmat) not GOds will ( Gurmat).

So Sukhdeep Singh jee, are you saying that Babbar Singhs were wrong in their action to fight for Khalistan?

Sukhdeep Singh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> True nor did Bhai Sahib support a separate Hindu
> state or a separate Sikh state.

Let us not lump a Sikh state with a Muslim and Hindu state. Didn't Bhai Sahib support a separate Sikh state? he even went to the Maharaja of Patiala telling him it would be in the best interest of the Panth if he demanded a Sikh state since Patiala Maharaja held a lot of influence and could have done so.

Khalsa Raaj in some shape or form will happen. So many Sikhs since the last 300 years have given countless Shaheedis for Khalsa Raaj. So much bloodshed happened in 84 and after. Are we to beleive that all this happened for nothing? I don't know what the political boundaries will be but Khalsa Raaj will happen for sure.

Now the question is, will Khalsa Raaj be a democracy or a monarchy or something totally different?

In Pakistan there are millions of Hindus. These Hindus are mostly in the Sindh province. If Sikhs can do parchar so many Hindus can become Sikhs. Not just in Pakistan but look at the potential in India. India is full of Hindus who belong to the low castes and are termed as Dalit Shudras. We don't even do parchar to them.

If Sikh parcharaks really care for the growth of Sikhi, then just within a decade or two India's Sikh population can grow to 200 million and match India's Muslim population. Only thing is, some serious parchar is needed like it was done during the Singh Sabha movement. The Panth needs Singhs like Prof Gurmukh Singh and Giani Ditt Singhs to dedicate their lives to just Sikh parchar. These two men were the driving force behind the Singh Sabha movement. But when they died the Singh Sabha parchar and the growth of the Panth that came with it also vanished.

Singhs should try to learn as much Gurmat as possible so they can become able parcharaks themselves. I always see these Christians from America and other western countries going to India and doing their Christian parchar. Why can't we Sikhs living in the western world do the same? Let us make a goal in our lifetime to help in the growth of the Sikh panth in some shape of form whether we do parchar ourselves or we should support some Sikh sanstha/organization that is dedicated to Sikh parchar amongst non Sikhs.

rsingh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sukhdeep Singh Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > True nor did Bhai Sahib support a separate
> Hindu
> > state or a separate Sikh state.
>
> Let us not lump a Sikh state with a Muslim and
> Hindu state. Didn't Bhai Sahib support a separate
> Sikh state? he even went to the Maharaja of
> Patiala telling him it would be in the best
> interest of the Panth if he demanded a Sikh state
> since Patiala Maharaja held a lot of influence and
> could have done so.
>
> Khalsa Raaj in some shape or form will happen. So
> many Sikhs since the last 300 years have given
> countless Shaheedis for Khalsa Raaj. So much
> bloodshed happened in 84 and after. Are we to
> beleive that all this happened for nothing? I
> don't know what the political boundaries will be
> but Khalsa Raaj will happen for sure.
>
> Now the question is, will Khalsa Raaj be a
> democracy or a monarchy or something totally
> different?


R SIngh Jeeo,

Please provide the evidence in which Bhai Sahib asked a Manmukh like
the MahaRaja of Patiala to get a SIkh state. Since when did Khalsa
ask Manmuhks for such things. Read Bhai Sahibs writings on the subject
and you will see for yourself BHai Sahib did not support a separate modern
state. Keep in mind this separate modern state based on ethnic boundaries
was something created by the British it never really had anything to do with SIkhi,
and Gurmat principles.

I dont think for the last 300 years Shaheed SInghs became Shaheed
for a modern national state. Most Singhs became Shaheed when protecting
the rights of others, defending Gurdwara Sahibs, and so forth. It was never
over land since Khalsa sees no difference between dust and wealth/property etc.

The only people who support today Modern State Khalistan are rehatless politicians in the West, and
confused youth. Nothing scares me more then seeing a bunch of Desi Politicians running
Punjab. They already run most of our institutions God forbid they run a whole state.

Jaspreet SIngh Jeeo I think you are confused on about what SInghs like Shaheed BHai Fauja SIngh JI and
SHaheed Sant Jarnail SIngh Ji fought for. Both SInghs fought against the slavery which was being
administered by a tyrannical Government. They never once demanded "Khalistan". The issue was never about Khalistan. It was people lIke Indra
Gandhi who made such claims so she can have a basis to attack Sri Harmandir Sahib.

piyasi chatrik Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> There is so much parchar of gurmat can be done by
> rehitvaan gursikhs in Sindh,Pakistan and NorthWest
> Frontier region where there are Pastun Sikhs
> ...alas no one is interested. Amrit Sanchars are
> not frequent in Pakistan.
> I am also told there is a historical Gurughar in
> Shikarpur run by Sindhis where Satguroo Nanak Dev
> ji stayed for 40 days, and the tree where he
> rested is still preserved.
> Info from contacts from Paki Sindhi friends.


Very few of our Parchariks are like the late Bhai Rajinder SIngh Ji, BHai Rama Singh Ji etc. THey would
never hesitate to go to dangerous places like Pakistan and do parchar. Our so called modern
parchariks like to do " parchar" in the wealthy West. Hmmm I wonder why?

[www.chaldavaheer.com]

Sukhdeep Singh Ji I have personally read Bhai Sahib's writing about division of India. I dont remember the whole writing clearly, and will try finding it. As I remember, it was somewhere along the lines that Bhai Sahib had asked MahaRaja of Patiala for about 500 Singhs. Bhai Sahib said he would have stopped nowhere less than Sri Panja Sahib or Sri Nankana Sahib. I am sure it was Sri Panja Sahib. Bhai Sahib was always true to his words and would have certainly achieved it. Imagine if Bhai Randhir Singh Ji and Sant Gurbhachan Singh Ji Bhinranwale had lead Sikhs, we would have had a whole different history.

Sukhdeep Singh Jee I don't know what you mean by "modern national state". Point is Singhs for the last 300 years became Shaheed for a Sikh Khalsa Raaj. We temporarily achieved Khalsa Raaj during Baba Banda Singh Bahadur time, Misl period and finally during the time of Maharaja Ranjit SIngh. We could have easily achieved a Sikh Raaj during 1947 when it was being offered to the Akalis and even the Maharaja of Patiala. Sirdar Kapoor Singh Jee writes about this in detail in his book Saachi Saakhi.

If we go by your argument that Sikhs never fought for their own Raaj, then Sikh warriors would have only stayed within the vicinity of central and eastern Punjab where Sikh population was mainly dwelling. But we see in history that various Sikh misls had fought for the extension of Sikh Raaj into non Sikh areas such as modern day Haryana, Himachal, Jammu regions. Baba Banda Singh Bahadur's Khalsa Raaj was in modern day east Punjab but also extended into non Sikh areas of Himachal and Haryana. Maharaja Ranjit Singh's Sikh empire also extended into noSikh areas such as Muslim areas of west Punjab, Kashmir and even NW Frontier, into Buddhist area of Ladakh, and into Hindu dominated Himachal. He even had plans for conquering Muslim dominated Sindh but the British had bounded him by treaties. By most accounts, Sikh Raaj was the most tolerant Raaj ever experienced by the people who lived in those areas.

Bhai Randhir Singh Jee did tell the Patiala Maharaja to form a Sikh state but it seems Vaheguru Jee had other plans for his Sikhs. Yes the Patiala family was manmukh. But going by our standards so was Maharaja Ranjit Singh who formed a fabulous Sikh empire. One thing is for certain, if Sikhs had managed to form their own Raaj, then we would not have seen the Sikh Ghalugara of 84. Bhai Randhir Singh Jee prophecised that Khalsa Raaj will happen one day in one of his books where he talks of Khalsa Halemi Raaj. Bhai Rama Singh Jee also prophecised of Khalsa Raaj.

Gurnam SIngh Jeeo,

I dont have any doubts that BHai Sahib would go to Pakistan to punish those doing beadbi
at the Gurdwara Sahibs and killing innocent people. But I doubt he would want a "modern"
SIkh state in either Pakistan or Hindustan. Khalsa is a spiritual nation not an ethnic nation. If Khalsa
Is AKal Purakh Ki Fauj how can it be an ethnic nation bound by boundaries?

If Khalsa was governed by Panj SInghs during these times we would have a completely different history.
2 Gurmukhs SInghs do not have the same power of panj singhs.

Sukhdeep Singh jee, I don't understand what's wrong with a Sikh state (modern or not) governed by Gursikhs? Even if we have not yet reached the ideal Khalsa Raj level, still I would prefer Sikhs being governed by Sikhs as opposed to Hindus (or Muslims for that matter).

Quote

SIngho, I dont think we can classify the creation of Pakistan as WaaheGuru Jis bana. In SIkhi, the terms Bhana, Naam, and Hukum mean one
and the same thing which is WaaheGurus will/order. There is Gods will ( gurmat) and there is mans will ( manmat) . God created manmant to teach people to follow one over the other. Those who folllow Gods will are GUrmukhs those who follow their own will are MANMUKHs. Now the creation of Pakistan was created by some self willed politicians ( Manmukhs) not Gurmukhs; thus, we cannot classify at is as Gods will.

When Babar came to India and plundered and looted Indians, was it not Vaheguru jee's Bhaana? Please read 4 Shabads related to Babar, in Gurbani to understand. Vaheguru works through people to punish or reward and to settle Karmic debts of people. Pakistan got created despite opposition by Sikhs and many Hindus. We tried to not let Punjab get divided but it still happened. I would say, this was Bhaana.

Bhaana means Marzi, Raza, or will. Only Vaheguru's Bhaana works in the world. No other entity's Bhaana can work in this world. When Khuda did Khasmana (mehar) on Khurasan (from where Babar was), then Khurasan won and Hindustan get defeated. It is all the Khel of Vaheguru.

Kulbir Singh

Sukhdeep Singh, if Sikhs live under Muslim or Hindu governments, then eventually, some Sikhs start adopting their ways and customs. Also, we can not expect peoples of differing values and customs to fully understand or grasp the essence of Sikhi.

Watch this video, look how this "Sikh man" converts to Islam:





Also, now watch this video. Look at the "respect" India is giving Sikhs:



So, isn't it better if Sikhs governed their own state. At least Sikhs values and customs will be tolerated, accepted, understood and taught.


When I visited Punjab last year, I was told by someone that in some schools in India, students are taught in their textbooks that Guru Gobind Singh jee was a terrorist, and this is why Aurangzeb was so apt in always attacking and capturing Him. Even our history is being distorted. So what sort of freedom is this?

Quote
KUlbir SIngh
Sukhdeep Singh jee, I don't understand what's wrong with a Sikh state (modern or not) governed by Gursikhs? Even if we have not yet reached the ideal Khalsa Raj level, still I would prefer Sikhs being governed by Sikhs as opposed to Hindus (or Muslims for that matter).

KUlbir SIngh Jeeo,

A modern state would simply emulate a nation based on European standards and such standards
have no place in the world of Sikhi. For the very reason BHai Randhir SIngh Ji has mentioned, people
living in such a modern state would naturally become selfish and forget the praupakaree spirit of Khalsa.
SIkhi is not an ethnic nation . In fact, we are very distinct from other religions . What other religion places
a Nishaan Sahib in their place of worship despite whatever country they live in. Surely this shows we are
a spiritual kaum not an ethnic one. Most of all, the Nishaan Sahib of Gurmukhs is Naam and they take
this Nishaan Sahib were every they go; thus, they are not bound or attached to any physical boundaries.

ਯਕ ਨਫ਼ਸ ਬੇ ਯਾਦਿ ਊ ਨ ਗੁਜ਼ਾਸ਼ਤੰਦ
ਖ਼ੁਸ਼ ਅਲਮ ਬਰ ਨੁਹ ਤਬਕ ਅਫ਼ਰਾਸ਼ਤੰਦ
- Zindigama, BHai Nand Lal

BHai Sahib mentions the GUrmukhs wave their
flag/nishaan sahib ( ਅਲਮ) in the 9 continents/whole world (ਨੁਹ ਤਬਕ)
Bhai Sahib mention the Gurmukhs can not live one second without waving this
Nishaan Sahib ( Naam Khanda).

I understand your point that in modern times where other modern nation states
exist the need of a Sikh state would be a good way to preserve SIkhi, but before
we govern a state we need to learn how to govern ourselves, and people of Punjab
have not showed any signs that they can achieve self governance. If we allow people
to create such a state they would only bring shame to the name of Sikhi.

In regards to Babar. Babar and people of India were not working in Gods will. Instead
they were paying off their debts which was a result of executing their own will. Gods will
is always pleasing to GOd, while mans will is never pleasing to God. Refer to Bachitar Natak
in which GUru Sahib mentions previous avtaars followed their own will and not GOds will. Babar
was no different. He was manmukh who followed his own will. It does not seem right to say he followed
Gods will, because GOds will is kind and compassionate. There is a big difference between GOds will
and mans will. WHen we say Gods Will or WaaheGurus Marzi ( choice) its different then saying Mans Marzi.
Generally speaking in Gurmat, BaNa refers to Gods will ( Hukum).

Quote
rsingh
In Pakistan there are millions of Hindus. These Hindus are mostly in the Sindh province. If Sikhs can do parchar so many Hindus can become Sikhs. Not just in Pakistan but look at the potential in India. India is full of Hindus who belong to the low castes and are termed as Dalit Shudras. We don't even do parchar to them.

Dass doesn;t see gurmat as a missionary religion as how Islam and Christianity is.
Veer jeo, the reason for for highlighting these Sindhis is because many already read Gurbani, listen to kirtan and have sharda is Guru Sahib. Though they may be flawed in spirituality ......as they might also believe in hindu dieties, Sai baba and etc.

But, Gurbani already has a place in their jivan. It just needs to be watered with Naam for the tree of Gursikhi to grow in them. Hence, hence the need for Gurmat Parchar.
Another advantage is, fake "Sant/Dera/Mahapursh" disease is less prominent in Pakistan as compared to India.

Chota veer

Quote
R Singh

Sukhdeep Singh Jee I don't know what you mean by "modern national state". Point is Singhs for the last 300 years became Shaheed for a Sikh Khalsa Raaj. We temporarily achieved Khalsa Raaj during Baba Banda Singh Bahadur time, Misl period and finally during the time of Maharaja Ranjit SIngh.

R SIngh Jeeo,

What I mean by modern national state is a state based on European standards. A state that is a democracy not a Gurmat theocracy.
Puratan Singhs never fought for a state and I dont know where you are getting this info from. Banda Singh Bahadru Ji was sent up north
to punish people like Wazir Khan for the atrocities they had committed. In addition, Baba Ji was ordered to destroy the tyrannical feudal
system managed by the bahamans and in return create Khalsa currency. This allowed common man to be independent where they did not
work under the slavery of a tyrant. In addition, Khalsa had their own currency and property so they didnt have to trade or work for a
foreigner. Baba Ji did not set up his own government and act like a king. He simply gave power to the common masses and allowed
them to live a Bibekee styled lifestyle which was completely different then Raj or Ranjit SIngh.Khalsa never fights for land and only fights for the rights of others.

THe type of governments which were created during Banda Singh Bahadurs time are completely different then the modern nation states we see today. In those days, independent provinces were similar to the Greek provinces in ancient times in which each group/tribe
had the autonomy to govern themselves however they prefer. When attacked by a foreign force the individual provinces would fight under one umbrella .

Places like Kartarpur , Goindal, AMristsar, Kiratpur, Anadpur, AMritstar etc would be considered as a separate province within a larger country.
The only difference between Ancient India and Greece was was not united under Mughal rule; however, difference provinces
would aide one another. One example is Guru Sahib aiding Emperpor Bahadur Shahs province in Nander. This type of Government does not go against Gurmat.

Let me give you an example on what I mean . Guru Tegh Bhadur Sahib Ji was settled in province Sri Anandpur Sahib. There was some Brahmins pandits who lived in Kashmir. They were forced to convert to Islam and threatened. In return they came to Guru Sahib and asked for help and GUru Sahib saved them. Modern Nation states competing with one another cannot adopt this type of praupakaree mentality. For a modern state to survive and compete with other nations it must think for its self interest. In SIkhi, such mentality doesnt exist.

oh sukhdeep singh ji, i always had faith in u, but ur posts in this thread have left me in a state of shock, i can believe u cud write something so against Sikhi. OMG! im starting to get a feeling ur an agent of the government, are you?

Sukhsehaj Kaur

Sukhdeep Singh Jee, if you are against a modern national state like the Euro nations, what is wrong with a Sikh state built along the lines of Baba Banda Singh Bahadur's Khalsa Raaj or Maharaja Ranjit Singh's raaj? during their times, the Singhs of all walks of life supported their Raaj. Would you see anything wrong with a new Sikh Raaj being created by a Singh who is just as Chardikala as Bhai Sahib or Sant Jee?

Khalsa Raaj is coming veerjee. Many Singhs including Bhai Sahib has prophecised about it's coming. Countless SInghs have given Shaheedi for it's attainment. It cannot be avoided.

K Sehej jee, let us please not call someone a gov agent or something like that.

rsingh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sukhdeep Singh Jee, if you are against a modern
> national state like the Euro nations, what is
> wrong with a Sikh state built along the lines of
> Baba Banda Singh Bahadur's Khalsa Raaj or Maharaja
> Ranjit Singh's raaj? during their times, the
> Singhs of all walks of life supported their Raaj.
> Would you see anything wrong with a new Sikh Raaj
> being created by a Singh who is just as Chardikala
> as Bhai Sahib or Sant Jee?
>
> Khalsa Raaj is coming veerjee. Many Singhs
> including Bhai Sahib has prophecised about it's
> coming. Countless SInghs have given Shaheedi for
> it's attainment. It cannot be avoided.
>
> K Sehej jee, let us please not call someone a gov
> agent or something like that.

R SIngh Jeeo

I would never be against any province which was similar to the
one Banda SIngh Bahadur Ji set up since it was in accordance
to GUru Jis demands because Panj Pyaarey had sole authority.

Of course I would be against something set up by any single Gurmukh.
Once again Khalsa Raj will not be a democracy or monarchy ( one ruler)
it will be a Gurmat Theocracy and its boundaries and form of government
will be nothing like a modern nation state. If some people want to support
those beer bully, beard tying , red dastar wearing politicians who boast about Khalistan then please
free to do so.

Sukhdeep Singh Jee, whenever Khalsa Raaj happens it will not be a mere "province" it will be an independent Raaj. Ideally the Khalsa Raaj will be set up like the one Banda Singh Bahadur set up where one Jathadar is backed up by the authority of 5 pyaras.

Sikh leaders made a huge mistake for not taking a Khalistan when we had the chance. As a result the Panth has been suffering since 1947.

piyasi chatrik Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dass doesn;t see gurmat as a missionary religion
> as how Islam and Christianity is.
> Veer jeo, the reason for for highlighting these
> Sindhis is because many already read Gurbani,
> listen to kirtan and have sharda is Guru Sahib.
> Though they may be flawed in spirituality
> ......as they might also believe in hindu dieties,
> Sai baba and etc.
>
> But, Gurbani already has a place in their jivan.
> It just needs to be watered with Naam for the tree
> of Gursikhi to grow in them. Hence, hence the
> need for Gurmat Parchar.
> Another advantage is, fake "Sant/Dera/Mahapursh"
> disease is less prominent in Pakistan as compared
> to India.


Chatrik Jee, no religion can be spread without doing Parchar. If we do not do Parchar we will remain in small numbers like the Jews and since we do not do Parchar to nonSikhs and also have a low birth rate, do not be surprised if we end up the like the Parsis who are shrinking every year. Parchar is needed to increase our numbers and in an age where democracy is in place numbers matter.

Look at the Muslims, they managed to get Pakistan simply because of the weight of their high population numbers while Sikhs were such a small community even in United Punjab before partition where we were not more than 12 to 14% of the entire population of Punjab. Sikhs need to do Parchar and also have a positive birth rate.

Every Sikhs family you see has mostly has only 1 or 2 children. Even 3 children are becoming a rare occurrence in a Sikh family. This is comparable to the low Parsi birth rate. Studies have shown that larger families tend to be more religious. Sikhs(even Amritdaris) have small families(1 to 3 children) and then wonder why their children are not religious when they grow up.