1. indiafacts.co.in/introspecting-operation-bluestar/
(GRRR. Feeling anger well up. This is never a good sign.)
But if Hindus know all the above already - well, I didn't know the last item in detail and didn't know 4 at all, but I'm pretty ignorant in general - why are Hindu nationalists still running after Sikhs for their good favour? Even in general, why should Hindus care so much for other people's positive opinion? Hindus should take care of their own. Everyone else is looking after their own interests already.
If good individuals who are not ingrates need Hindoo help, then that's fine. But Hindus can stop involving "Sikhism" in general as something Hindoos must rally around.
Maharaja Ranjeet Singh and other Sikhs of that era were Hindoos. Sikhism back then was still but a local subsect of Hindoo heathenism.
Also, in online Sikh fora, Sikhs denounced I think it was this very same Maharaja Ranjeet Singh as a Hindu (IIRC Sati and other "Hindoo" stuffs were held against him as the incriminating evidence of his Hindoo heathenism a.o.t. anything today's Sikhs vocalising there could recognise as Sikhism). Works for me: he was obviously a Hindoo, and I certainly claim him for Hindoo heathenism onlee. No sharing.
2. I tracked down a comment in a review at amazon.co.uk for Shinobi, a Japanese movie about Shinobi i.e. Ninjas.
One of the Shinobi in the movie - an immortal who had been alive for around 2 centuries at least - used two chakras as his distinctive choice of weaponry. The movie's weapons design documentary mentioned that they (or probably the Basilisk manga=JP comic the movie was based on) developed his character's background as having been to India one or two centuries prior to the events of the movie and there learnt to use the chakra from the Sikhs in British India at that time. (It is known that Sikh warriors even in 18th and possibly 19th centuries wore and used Chakras. Note they were specifically still Hindoos then, and their Chakra use was a Hindoo one.)
What was surprising about the review comment was that the commenter imagines that Sikhs "invented" the chakra as a weapon - oh the hysteria:
First, IIRC (I have the disc but it is some years since I watched the special features) the movie documentary on the weapons never said Sikhs invented it, only that the immortal Shinobi learnt of the chakra from the Sikhs in India in that late century.
Also, Japanese are *quite* knowledgeable about India and it is unlikely they'd claim that Sikhs invented the Chakra. (Lots of Japanese popular media make detailed and well backed up references to ancient Asian histories, not just China and India but even Zoroastrian Persia. Japanese are one of the last heathen populations even remotely interested in other heathens' heathenisms and histories.)
Secondly, the chakra predates not only Sikhs and their use of it, but Sikhism itself - by millennia. Indra and Vishnu are famous for the chakra as weapon (other Gods use it too, incl Shiva and Uma and Vishnu's own Lakshmi, but Vishnu himself and Indra are *very* famous for it, even by their shared name: Chakri. Indra is supposed to be known as Chakri in IIRC Rig Vedam and Ramayanam too). The use of the Chakra as a weapon in Hindoo hathenism is well documented ever since *ancient* sacred Hindoo literature, all the way since the Vedam. So no one else in India - not even the late but pre-Sikh religions of Buddhism and Jainism can pretend they came up with the chakra weapon. It's but yet another feature that's exclusively Hindoo heathen, and all else merely got it from Hindoo heathenism.)
So what is this nonsense about the "founders" of the chakra weapon being Sikhs? How can there even exist people who delude themselves in this way, when Sikhism never appeared until a very recent time indeed in India's history?
(And Sikhs weren't the first human Indians to use the chakra either - nor the only community in India to use it so late, albeit they were more popular/visible for it - though when Sikhs were still known for its use, they were still famously Hindoo onlee.)
I looked up the reviewer's name of 'Sahota'. An early search result shows it as apparently being a prakritising of "Sahotra" or something. Sounds a Vedic name. Either way, another search result indicated that it's supposed to be a common name in the Punjab and occurs among Jats. Since I don't see "Singh" as the surname, I assume that it is a Hindoo not a Sikh who wrote that comment.
So, Q: why would a Hindoo - even one living in the UK - be so ignorant about chakra weapons, that they would express it as having been "founded" by "Sikhs"? (Never mind that when the Sikhs used it they were still Hindoo type Sikhs, and not the modern "Sikhism is not a Hinduism" type Sikhs.)
I respect the fact that there are features to Sikhism - well, the modern version certainly - that are not Hindoo in origin or derivation. But the chakra weapon - like the OMkaaram - are obviously from long pre-existing Hindoo-ism. Even if Sikhism is declared a standalone religion now, this fact is not going to change.
Hindus should stop "sharing" pointlessly. More imperatively, the likes of Sahotra should stop gifting original Hindoo stuffs to everyone else. (What else would one call the absurd claim that Sikhs had "founded" the use of the chakra weapon?) The movie background merely has the Shinobi character learning it from Sikhs. Still doesn't mean they "invented" it, which is clearly a falsehood.
The reason that Hindus get successfully converted by all the many evangelical religions is because Hindus think that self-respect and asserting the greatness of Hindoo heathenism or even stating bare facts about which religion first demonstrated distinctive features suddenly dubbed "all-Indian" - or at least (all-)"Dharmic" - now might be an "affront" to the sensitivities of the missionary religions. Honestly, who cares? The last thing any missionary religion wants is for heathens to feel pleased in/with their own heathenism, else no one will want to convert out to the replacement religions, surely.
And the missionary religions regularly launch exclusivist claims, including to originating stuff that is so very obviously derived from Hindu heathenism. So it's not wrong to counter such falsehood with facts and people should counter it.
Quote:m p ââ¬Â¢ 15 hours ago
This one-sided description of sikh plight indirectly helps khalistani cause. Same is true of exaggerated description of 1984 riots. In the short run it would embarrass congress but in the long run it helps Khalistanis.
At min. a balanced analysis should cover following:-
1) Arya Samaj was more harsh towards Shakti worshipers then Sikhs.
(This AS criticism of Shaktas - I know no details - was it another effect of colonialism? The way Arya Samaj [then] being monotheistic and against idolatry and the puranas - sounding more 'Sikh' than Hindoo when expressed that way - was due to the influences of the time and region.)
2) Hindu Mahasabha supported formation of SGPC and forced take over of Gurudwaras and hindu/sikh temples.
3) In 1920s, Many Gurudwaras were like hindu temples with multiple deities. All Hindu traces,like painting & sculpture in Golden temple, were removed. It didn't matter that some of those painting were placed there by Maharaja Ranjeet Singh himself. All the hindu priest were attacked and fired.
4) From 1978 to 1984, 100s of Hindus were killed with impunity in Punjab. At least in delhi leaders like Tytler faced court case and media criticism. In sharp contrast, No action has been taken against punjab akali/cong leaders who added fuel to the fire.
5) RSS was #1 target of Khalistani terrorist. In Mogia, 20+ RSS members were massacred by terrorist. Yet, in 1984 it was RSS/BJP which saved 100s of sikh lives.
(GRRR. Feeling anger well up. This is never a good sign.)
But if Hindus know all the above already - well, I didn't know the last item in detail and didn't know 4 at all, but I'm pretty ignorant in general - why are Hindu nationalists still running after Sikhs for their good favour? Even in general, why should Hindus care so much for other people's positive opinion? Hindus should take care of their own. Everyone else is looking after their own interests already.
If good individuals who are not ingrates need Hindoo help, then that's fine. But Hindus can stop involving "Sikhism" in general as something Hindoos must rally around.
Maharaja Ranjeet Singh and other Sikhs of that era were Hindoos. Sikhism back then was still but a local subsect of Hindoo heathenism.
Also, in online Sikh fora, Sikhs denounced I think it was this very same Maharaja Ranjeet Singh as a Hindu (IIRC Sati and other "Hindoo" stuffs were held against him as the incriminating evidence of his Hindoo heathenism a.o.t. anything today's Sikhs vocalising there could recognise as Sikhism). Works for me: he was obviously a Hindoo, and I certainly claim him for Hindoo heathenism onlee. No sharing.
2. I tracked down a comment in a review at amazon.co.uk for Shinobi, a Japanese movie about Shinobi i.e. Ninjas.
One of the Shinobi in the movie - an immortal who had been alive for around 2 centuries at least - used two chakras as his distinctive choice of weaponry. The movie's weapons design documentary mentioned that they (or probably the Basilisk manga=JP comic the movie was based on) developed his character's background as having been to India one or two centuries prior to the events of the movie and there learnt to use the chakra from the Sikhs in British India at that time. (It is known that Sikh warriors even in 18th and possibly 19th centuries wore and used Chakras. Note they were specifically still Hindoos then, and their Chakra use was a Hindoo one.)
What was surprising about the review comment was that the commenter imagines that Sikhs "invented" the chakra as a weapon - oh the hysteria:
Quote:Needs a sequel!
By Mr. R. S. Sahota on 25 April 2009
[...]
BIG THUMBS UP to the director.. you can tell he loves his work and researches well. For instance, the most interesting weapon in the film (the chakra) was rightly attributed to it's founders; the Sikhs of India.
Well done!
First, IIRC (I have the disc but it is some years since I watched the special features) the movie documentary on the weapons never said Sikhs invented it, only that the immortal Shinobi learnt of the chakra from the Sikhs in India in that late century.
Also, Japanese are *quite* knowledgeable about India and it is unlikely they'd claim that Sikhs invented the Chakra. (Lots of Japanese popular media make detailed and well backed up references to ancient Asian histories, not just China and India but even Zoroastrian Persia. Japanese are one of the last heathen populations even remotely interested in other heathens' heathenisms and histories.)
Secondly, the chakra predates not only Sikhs and their use of it, but Sikhism itself - by millennia. Indra and Vishnu are famous for the chakra as weapon (other Gods use it too, incl Shiva and Uma and Vishnu's own Lakshmi, but Vishnu himself and Indra are *very* famous for it, even by their shared name: Chakri. Indra is supposed to be known as Chakri in IIRC Rig Vedam and Ramayanam too). The use of the Chakra as a weapon in Hindoo hathenism is well documented ever since *ancient* sacred Hindoo literature, all the way since the Vedam. So no one else in India - not even the late but pre-Sikh religions of Buddhism and Jainism can pretend they came up with the chakra weapon. It's but yet another feature that's exclusively Hindoo heathen, and all else merely got it from Hindoo heathenism.)
So what is this nonsense about the "founders" of the chakra weapon being Sikhs? How can there even exist people who delude themselves in this way, when Sikhism never appeared until a very recent time indeed in India's history?
(And Sikhs weren't the first human Indians to use the chakra either - nor the only community in India to use it so late, albeit they were more popular/visible for it - though when Sikhs were still known for its use, they were still famously Hindoo onlee.)
I looked up the reviewer's name of 'Sahota'. An early search result shows it as apparently being a prakritising of "Sahotra" or something. Sounds a Vedic name. Either way, another search result indicated that it's supposed to be a common name in the Punjab and occurs among Jats. Since I don't see "Singh" as the surname, I assume that it is a Hindoo not a Sikh who wrote that comment.
So, Q: why would a Hindoo - even one living in the UK - be so ignorant about chakra weapons, that they would express it as having been "founded" by "Sikhs"? (Never mind that when the Sikhs used it they were still Hindoo type Sikhs, and not the modern "Sikhism is not a Hinduism" type Sikhs.)
I respect the fact that there are features to Sikhism - well, the modern version certainly - that are not Hindoo in origin or derivation. But the chakra weapon - like the OMkaaram - are obviously from long pre-existing Hindoo-ism. Even if Sikhism is declared a standalone religion now, this fact is not going to change.
Hindus should stop "sharing" pointlessly. More imperatively, the likes of Sahotra should stop gifting original Hindoo stuffs to everyone else. (What else would one call the absurd claim that Sikhs had "founded" the use of the chakra weapon?) The movie background merely has the Shinobi character learning it from Sikhs. Still doesn't mean they "invented" it, which is clearly a falsehood.
The reason that Hindus get successfully converted by all the many evangelical religions is because Hindus think that self-respect and asserting the greatness of Hindoo heathenism or even stating bare facts about which religion first demonstrated distinctive features suddenly dubbed "all-Indian" - or at least (all-)"Dharmic" - now might be an "affront" to the sensitivities of the missionary religions. Honestly, who cares? The last thing any missionary religion wants is for heathens to feel pleased in/with their own heathenism, else no one will want to convert out to the replacement religions, surely.
And the missionary religions regularly launch exclusivist claims, including to originating stuff that is so very obviously derived from Hindu heathenism. So it's not wrong to counter such falsehood with facts and people should counter it.