05-12-2006, 09:58 AM
Post 39:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Bauddhas, Jains, Sikhs and others are Hindus too. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Who are the Bauddhas?
Post 48:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Sikhism is a separate religion and that the Khalsa was not created to defend Hindus<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> The truth is different, but I suppose for reasons of expediency we must consider alternatives and concentrate on our own troubles.
What would the impact be for the future though, if we make official statements contrary to the truth? How would a closed door on both sides affect future Sikhs? Upto now one side was wide open, the other side was slightly ajar.
Post 42:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->we should unite all Hindus instead of begging Sikhs to be Hindus (which will only increase sikh separatism).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I agree with this. What if we make no statement about Sikhs at all, neither of them being Hindu nor of them being a separate religion? That way, we make no final decisions either way. The door remains open, but within people go about their business not noticing the visitor. This is neither inviting nor forbidding.
The Sikhs who claim to be Hindus should know that they are welcome. Declaring a separate term as Sikh-Hindus/Hindu-Sikhs is a dangerous move I think. It would make the We're Not Hindu group more alarmed, although it is meant to be less threatening. (There are already many Sikhs who believe they are Hindus, without us having done anything to convince them of it. Therefore, we are only letting them know that we think of them in the same manner.) What a dilemma.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Pakis have been recently renovating Nankana Sahib as part of their khalistani divide and rule strategy.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Do the khalistanis think that Islam is going to threat them any differently? They might imagine themselves to be monotheists and expect to receive the same treatment as People of the Book, but they are <i>not</i> People of the Book. Do they understand that they too will be seen as Kafirs just like the rest of us? Do they know that being People of the Book has not stopped genocides by Muslims against Jews and Christians and Zoroastrians?
Do the khalistanis only want to carve out a homeland from within India, or are they being fair and asking for the relevant part of Pakistan as well?
Post 55:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The moderator of www.jattworld.com claims that this was true only for the Khatri community. He says Punjabi Jatts were never Hindu to begin with.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> I know quite a few Jats who'd say otherwise. They insist Jatts were always Hindu. But I guess that is why jattworld's propaganda is necessary, to convince the hesitant people who <i>can</i> be convinced of the opposite.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Bauddhas, Jains, Sikhs and others are Hindus too. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Who are the Bauddhas?
Post 48:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Sikhism is a separate religion and that the Khalsa was not created to defend Hindus<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> The truth is different, but I suppose for reasons of expediency we must consider alternatives and concentrate on our own troubles.
What would the impact be for the future though, if we make official statements contrary to the truth? How would a closed door on both sides affect future Sikhs? Upto now one side was wide open, the other side was slightly ajar.
Post 42:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->we should unite all Hindus instead of begging Sikhs to be Hindus (which will only increase sikh separatism).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I agree with this. What if we make no statement about Sikhs at all, neither of them being Hindu nor of them being a separate religion? That way, we make no final decisions either way. The door remains open, but within people go about their business not noticing the visitor. This is neither inviting nor forbidding.
The Sikhs who claim to be Hindus should know that they are welcome. Declaring a separate term as Sikh-Hindus/Hindu-Sikhs is a dangerous move I think. It would make the We're Not Hindu group more alarmed, although it is meant to be less threatening. (There are already many Sikhs who believe they are Hindus, without us having done anything to convince them of it. Therefore, we are only letting them know that we think of them in the same manner.) What a dilemma.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Pakis have been recently renovating Nankana Sahib as part of their khalistani divide and rule strategy.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Do the khalistanis think that Islam is going to threat them any differently? They might imagine themselves to be monotheists and expect to receive the same treatment as People of the Book, but they are <i>not</i> People of the Book. Do they understand that they too will be seen as Kafirs just like the rest of us? Do they know that being People of the Book has not stopped genocides by Muslims against Jews and Christians and Zoroastrians?
Do the khalistanis only want to carve out a homeland from within India, or are they being fair and asking for the relevant part of Pakistan as well?
Post 55:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The moderator of www.jattworld.com claims that this was true only for the Khatri community. He says Punjabi Jatts were never Hindu to begin with.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> I know quite a few Jats who'd say otherwise. They insist Jatts were always Hindu. But I guess that is why jattworld's propaganda is necessary, to convince the hesitant people who <i>can</i> be convinced of the opposite.