<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Even when he was caught and tortured, he refused to convert to Islam and he was perhaps more brave than any Sikh in history.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->You can praise the one without making superlative comparisons to others. This is not a contest. Also, when one person refuses to convert to islam under fatal torture and another does the same - how can anyone decide that one of these two is braver than the other?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I told him Sikhs should be ashamed of their role in 1857 as one of the main reasons 1857 did not succeed was because Sikhs sided with the British in 1857 instead of fighting along with their fellow Indians against the Brits.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->The Brits always played the divide and rule game. They chose to isolate the Sikhs on purpose, to specifically recruit them into their army and favour them particularly. The Brits wanted to inculcate Sikh gratitude and ensure their eventual segregation from the rest of Dharmic population. And they succeeded to large measure. Basically those Sikhs who sided with the Brits were the product of a calculated chance the Brits took.
But then, their policies have ever paid off: British colonialism has left a very divisive legacy all over Bharat.
Don't just think of 1857, because there are many cases in Indian history where Dharmics have fought beside tyrants (muslims, Brits) against other Dharmics. It's not just the Sikhs who are guilty of this. We might well have long ago freed ourselves of islamic tyranny or at least of the Brits if no Dharmic Indian had betrayed his own people for momentary comforts.
EDIT: I see you were talking to a Khalistani-type person.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->claimed Hindus make them eat dead animals for 2000 years. These Sikhs came from Sacramento, CA, Davis, Ca and Yuba City, CA.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Certain I'm missing something here, because even Khalistanis ought to know that their religion is not 2000 yrs old...
Were they really claiming Hindus made them become non-veg (that's the meaning of 'eating a dead animal' after all; besides I don't think anyone wants to be eating <i>live</i> animals). <!--emo&:blink:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blink.gif' /><!--endemo--> I don't understand their logic.
Post 52:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->For several hundred years Sikhs would have been bewildered and dejected had any Hindu claimed that Sikhs were not Hindu. Now it is the turn of Hindus to be dejected and bewildered that Sikhs do not consider themselves Hindus.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Not meaning to nitpick, just indicating that I missed the point being made in this statement. It contains a logic error. It says
(1) in the past Sikhs <i>would have</i> been bewildered <i>had any</i> Hindus claimed Sikhs were not Hindu. That is, this statement does not argue that Hindus had ever made such a claim. It is conceptual - a 'what-if' scenario.
(2) Then the 2nd part says: now it's the turn of Hindus to feel bewildered that Sikhs don't consider themselves Hindu. This is a concrete case. This 2nd statement now states that it is our turn to feel <i>in reality</i> what others would have felt <i>in theory</i> (1st statement)....
Will you restate it with the intended meaning?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I told him Sikhs should be ashamed of their role in 1857 as one of the main reasons 1857 did not succeed was because Sikhs sided with the British in 1857 instead of fighting along with their fellow Indians against the Brits.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->The Brits always played the divide and rule game. They chose to isolate the Sikhs on purpose, to specifically recruit them into their army and favour them particularly. The Brits wanted to inculcate Sikh gratitude and ensure their eventual segregation from the rest of Dharmic population. And they succeeded to large measure. Basically those Sikhs who sided with the Brits were the product of a calculated chance the Brits took.
But then, their policies have ever paid off: British colonialism has left a very divisive legacy all over Bharat.
Don't just think of 1857, because there are many cases in Indian history where Dharmics have fought beside tyrants (muslims, Brits) against other Dharmics. It's not just the Sikhs who are guilty of this. We might well have long ago freed ourselves of islamic tyranny or at least of the Brits if no Dharmic Indian had betrayed his own people for momentary comforts.
EDIT: I see you were talking to a Khalistani-type person.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->claimed Hindus make them eat dead animals for 2000 years. These Sikhs came from Sacramento, CA, Davis, Ca and Yuba City, CA.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Certain I'm missing something here, because even Khalistanis ought to know that their religion is not 2000 yrs old...
Were they really claiming Hindus made them become non-veg (that's the meaning of 'eating a dead animal' after all; besides I don't think anyone wants to be eating <i>live</i> animals). <!--emo&:blink:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blink.gif' /><!--endemo--> I don't understand their logic.
Post 52:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->For several hundred years Sikhs would have been bewildered and dejected had any Hindu claimed that Sikhs were not Hindu. Now it is the turn of Hindus to be dejected and bewildered that Sikhs do not consider themselves Hindus.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Not meaning to nitpick, just indicating that I missed the point being made in this statement. It contains a logic error. It says
(1) in the past Sikhs <i>would have</i> been bewildered <i>had any</i> Hindus claimed Sikhs were not Hindu. That is, this statement does not argue that Hindus had ever made such a claim. It is conceptual - a 'what-if' scenario.
(2) Then the 2nd part says: now it's the turn of Hindus to feel bewildered that Sikhs don't consider themselves Hindu. This is a concrete case. This 2nd statement now states that it is our turn to feel <i>in reality</i> what others would have felt <i>in theory</i> (1st statement)....
Will you restate it with the intended meaning?