Sikh History

[Tronic]

But you've already done that when you established the Khalsa

The Khalsa did not change Sikh ideology, it defended it. When the Khalsa wrested control of Punjab from the Mughals and Afghans, they continued their ideology of religious tolerance and pluralism by putting Muslims, Christians and Hindus in administrative positions in the Sikh Confedaracy.

- a military response to the terrible repression by the Mughals and as you claim, their Hindu client states.

It's not just "as I claim"...

It's written, recorded history: Battle of Bhangani - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And your assertion is incorrect. The Sivalik wars against the Sikhs, prior to 1701, had nothing to do with the Mughals. Infact, just prior to that battle, the Sivalik Kingdoms had just fought a war against the Mughals and had been assisted by Guru Gobind and the Sikh armies themselves. It was the Battle of Nadaun, and a battle which the Mughals lost. So the claim that the Sivalik Kingdoms were acting as clients of the Mughals at Bhangani is far from the truth. It was only after the Battle of Bhangani did the Sivalik kingdoms began to cement their ties with the Mughals in order to eliminate the Sikhs.

[cataphract]

The Khalsa did not change Sikh ideology, it defended it. When the Khalsa wrested control of Punjab from the Mughals and Afghans, they continued their ideology of religious tolerance and pluralism by putting Muslims, Christians and Hindus in administrative positions in the Sikh Confedaracy.

Your own words:

Sikhism today is not exactly the same religion as the one founded by the first Guru. Baba Nanak and the first 4 Gurus proselytized the religion, but the 5th Guru onwards, Sikhism started to shape itself into a military order, due to the strong political turbulence in Punjab during that time. Today's Sikhism is largely influenced by the historic 'Misls' and 'Jathas' (military orders which are/were based along ethnic identities). Converts don't really figure into these Jathas, not having a military history or lineage to stand by, hence converts aren't greeted with the same enthusiasm as in other religions.

While establishing the Khalsa and organizing themselves into Misls, the Sikhs left no route for new converts to fit in, something that went against their own proselytization. I.e. it decreased the openness of the Sikh religion

It's not just "as I claim"...

It's written, recorded history: Battle of Bhangani - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And your assertion is incorrect. The Sivalik wars against the Sikhs, prior to 1701, had nothing to do with the Mughals. Infact, just prior to that battle, the Sivalik Kingdoms had just fought a war against the Mughals and had been assisted by Guru Gobind and the Sikh armies themselves. It was the Battle of Nadaun, and a battle which the Mughals lost. So the claim that the Sivalik Kingdoms were acting as clients of the Mughals at Bhangani is far from the truth. It was only after the Battle of Bhangani did the Sivalik kingdoms began to cement their ties with the Mughals in order to eliminate the Sikhs.

I didn't mean to dispute your assertion about the Sivalik kingdoms, I only say "claim" because I did not know anything about it until now. The Mughal oppression of Sikh gurus on the other hand is common knowledge.

[Tronic]

While establishing the Khalsa and organizing themselves into Misls, the Sikhs left no route for new converts to fit in, something that went against their own proselytization. I.e. it decreased the openness of the Sikh religion.

That's true. Though the difference is, it was the last Guru who established the Khalsa and brought about that change in character. "Sikhism" today denotes the religion built by all 10 Gurus. Though it was only the first Guru, Baba Nanak, who had the religion revealed to him. The succeeding Gurus took charge as political heads of the Sikhs and organized the religion into what it is today.

[lemontree]

That's true. Though the difference is, it was the last Guru who established the Khalsa and brought about that change in character. "Sikhism" today denotes the religion built by all 10 Gurus. Though it was only the first Guru, Baba Nanak, who had the religion revealed to him. The succeeding Gurus took charge as political heads of the Sikhs and organized the religion into what it is today.

That is the difference between your indepth understanding of your faith and my understanding.
You speak of Sikhism as taught by the 10 gurus, for me there is a difference between a guru's follower and a khalsa.

When you speak of the Shivalik rajas, it was a small affair compared to the Mughal period religious presecution, it was not communal in nature as we all agree. It did not threaten the existance and way of life of the guru's followers, but the Mughal Empire's religious ideiolody threatened it. Hence, the Khalsa panth was formed for protection.

I am aware of the the examples of mulsims being generous towards the sikhs, but those are acceptions. Like the Nawab of Malerkotla who spoke up in the defence of Guru Govind's sons tried to prevent their execution (buried alive in a brick wall). He was given a blessing that his 7 generations will survive (the legend proved true). The religious affinity of the Sikhs towards sufi followers is natural and known. The teachings of the guru's and the sufi saints are similar.

Please dont take the word "communal origins" in the negative light. The Khalsa panth rose to protect the non-muslims and that is a fact that cannot be deny. If that is not true, then all that is being taught in the Indian army and civilian educational institutions is crap.

[lemontree]

Sikhism does not have the caste system per se, but all South Asians do, regardless of religion....

True to a large extent, but segregation exists for the Ramdasia and Mazabhi sikhs and they considered low caste by the Jatt Sikhs.

[doppelganger]

If you are pointing to ethnic Indic attributes, I would understand, however, if you are hinting at Pan Hinduism as a sort of cradle, I would disagree. Hinduism had its own divides and segregations.

Sir Hinduism is the world's oldest religion. And it has survived till today and unlike other ancient religions we are still 1 billion strong because of the strength of our faith and the fact that we have adapted and adopted and accepted and assimilated over the centuries, and yet we have stayed true to our roots. The Indian civilization and culture is Hindu and is colored by Hinduism in every aspect of our lives, regardless of what faith many of us follow today. If that is pan Hinduism, then it is a fact and it is what makes us what we are. Its the canvas on which all other colors came later.

[doppelganger]

Another trend I've noticed, to establish camps which pit the "Dharmic" religions against the "Abrahamic" religions.. Sikhs view all of humanity the same. And so too, I believe the Buddhists.

If it makes you more comfortable, you could say indigenous Indian and transplanted Foreign.

[doppelganger]

'people can only be born hindu, they can't convert' etc.

Sir Hinduism is big on purity of blood. Those of impure blood, outsiders, have always traditionally been called mlecchas, and kept out of our bloodlines.

There are some neo Hindu sects who take in converts. But Hinduism per se does not proselytize or convert. And unlike faiths that do, Islam and Christianity, we have always been most satisfied remaining limited to our own ancestral land for the better part of our reorded history.

[lemontree]

Sir Hinduism is big on purity of blood. Those of impure blood, outsiders, have always traditionally been called mlecchas, and kept out of our bloodlines.

There are some neo Hindu sects who take in converts. But Hinduism per se does not proselytize or convert. And unlike faiths that do, Islam and Christianity, we have always been most satisfied remaining limited to our own ancestral land for the better part of our reorded history.

That is true to a large extent mainly due to the fact that Hinduism does not have a formal clergy/church/temple system like the Christians/Muslims/Buddhists. But history shows that whenever Hinduism had an organised structure or an Indian ruler expanded his influence overseas, Hindu culture and religion was spread. The temples of Ankorwat, Hindus in Bali, are a legacy of our past. The script of the languages spoken in Burma, Thailand, Cambodia and Laos are Indian origin.

Indian, religions (Hinduism & Buddhism) expanded overseas only there was a strong Indian Empire (Ashoka or the Cholas of south India). Lack of overseas expansion by Indian rulers limited the spread of Hinduism.

Spread of Christianity and Islam was more due to patronism by the rulers of those nations eg: the Romans, Spain, Portugal, and not to forget the zeal of Sallauddin.

The biggest cultural gift to China came from India in the form of Bodhi Dharma, the establishment of the Shaolin Temple and Kung fu.

[doppelganger]

The biggest cultural gift to China came from India in the form of Bodhi Dharma, the establishment of the Shaolin Temple and Kung fu.

I think not only kung fu. I have heard that kallaripayatu is the mother martial art from which all martial arts originate.

[Tronic]

That is the difference between your indepth understanding of your faith and my understanding.
You speak of Sikhism as taught by the 10 gurus, for me there is a difference between a guru's follower and a khalsa.

LT, a "Khalsa" is simply a baptized Sikh.

When you speak of the Shivalik rajas, it was a small affair compared to the Mughal period religious presecution, it was not communal in nature as we all agree. It did not threaten the existance and way of life of the guru's followers, but the Mughal Empire's religious ideiolody threatened it. Hence, the Khalsa panth was formed for protection.

Sivalik war against Sikhs may seem small compared to what came afterwards, but it was the biggest organized campaign the Sikhs had fought at that time. It's a case of the bigger fish eating the smaller one. Once the Khalsa Panth was established, the Sikh Jathas far outgrew the Sivalik Kingdoms, and those kingdoms were either conquered, or made tributaries. The Mughals and later the Afghans (Durrani Empire) posed the only challenge to Sikh ascendance in Punjab.

And the Mughal-Sikh relations are far more complexed than that simplified equation:

I can go in details, but writing down 4 centuries is rather tedious work, so I'll briefly describe the relations here, though I can go in details wherever you request them;

Mughal Emperor, Humayun, was cordial with Sikhs and even seeked Guru Angad's blessings in his war against Sher Shah Suri. His son, Akbar, had cordial relations with the succeeding Gurus, Guru Amar Das, Guru Ram Das and Guru Arjan.

Akbar's son, Jahangir, revolted against his father and fought wars of succession in which Sikhs found themselves on the opposite side. Sikhs supported Khusrao Mirza against Jahangir and this resulted in the enmity between Guru Arjan (who was eventually executed by Jahangir) and Guru Hargobind (who Jahangir imprisoned). Guru Hargobind later on went to lay down the first foundation of the militarization of the Sikhs, and also established the Akal Takth (the political seat of the Sikhs), which started the first turf wars with the Mughals under Shah Jahan.

Once Aurangzeb mercilessly toppled his father, Shah Jahan, the Sikhs under Guru Har Rai supported the heir, Dara Shikoh, against Aurangzeb, and the rest is history.

And it should also be noted here that Aurangzeb actually tried to play his own game of succession by attempting to install a puppet, Ram Rai, as the next Sikh Guru. Aurangzeb's initial wars against Guru Gobind Singh were not wars to wipe out Sikhs, but rather to put in place Ram Rai as the next Guru, who was friendly to Aurangzeb. To reward Ram Rai for his loyalty, he even gave him his own Jagir in Dehradoon, where to this day, Ram Rai's followers, known as the 'Ram Raiyas' reside.

After the death of Aurangzeb, another war of succession took place in which the Sikh horse in the race, Bahadur Shah I, came out on top and took control of the Delhi throne. Though by now, the Mughals had started disintegrating, and other challengers, the Durrani Afghans became the main opposition.

Anyhow, LT, that's briefly done, but point being, Sikh-Mughal relations were far more complexed than understood by you.

I am aware of the the examples of mulsims being generous towards the sikhs, but those are acceptions. Like the Nawab of Malerkotla who spoke up in the defence of Guru Govind's sons tried to prevent their execution (buried alive in a brick wall). He was given a blessing that his 7 generations will survive (the legend proved true). The religious affinity of the Sikhs towards sufi followers is natural and known. The teachings of the guru's and the sufi saints are similar.

Again, you have it wrong. It was never an equation of Muslims and Sikhs, but between the power holders. Pashtuns were themselves revolting against the Mughals, and at several instances Pashtun and Sikh armies even found themselves shoulder to shoulder against the Mughals. The same Pathans who quickly turned enemies as soon as the Durrani Empire came onto the scene. And the ordinary Muslims of Punjab held no power throughout this time, and after the Afghans ravaged Lahore multiple times, it were none other than the Muslim Qazis of Lahore who asked for Sikh assistance and helped Ranjit Singh take over the city of Lahore from the Bhangi Sardars, by flinging open the doors of the city at night.

Please dont take the word "communal origins" in the negative light. The Khalsa panth rose to protect the non-muslims and that is a fact that cannot be deny. If that is not true, then all that is being taught in the Indian army and civilian educational institutions is crap.

If that's what they teach you, than yes, it's crap. And I finished my highschool in India, and that is not what I was taught. Infact, the CBSE boards barely touch on Sikh history, if at all.

[Tronic]

True to a large extent, but segregation exists for the Ramdasia and Mazabhi sikhs and they considered low caste by the Jatt Sikhs.

True, but it has nothing to do with the Sikh religion, but a product of one ethnic group trumping another in a given region. Even the Gujjars and Gakhars are considered "low caste" in Indian Punjab, but they dominate in the hills South of Kashmir and Pakistan's northern and central Punjab. Rajputs play second fiddle to Jatts in Punjab, but they dominate Rajasthan and look at Jats as "low caste" there. So, these "castes" are akin to turf wars between different ethnic groups unlike the Varna caste system of Hinduism where hierarchy is fixed.

The Ramdasis and Mazahbis are 'untouchable' converts from Hinduism and thus, unfortunately, starting off powerless and at the bottom of the food chain on all sides of the border. That said, unlike the 'untouchables' across the border in Pakistan or Haryana, the Ramdasis and Mazahbis have a much stronger identity in Indian Punjab. The Mazahbis have a proud martial tradition which stretches back to the Battle of Saraghari where 21 Sikh soldiers took on thousands of Pashtun militiamen. All 21 of those Sikhs were Mazahbis.

[doppelganger]

True, but it has nothing to do with the Sikh religion, but a product of one ethnic group trumping another in a given region. Even the Gujjars and Gakhars are considered "low caste" in Indian Punjab, but they dominate in the hills South of Kashmir and Pakistan's northern and central Punjab. Rajputs play second fiddle to Jatts in Punjab, but they dominate Rajasthan and look at Jats as "low caste" there. So, these "castes" are akin to turf wars between different ethnic groups unlike the Varna caste system of Hinduism where hierarchy is fixed.

The Ramdasis and Mazahbis are 'untouchable' converts from Hinduism and thus, unfortunately, starting off powerless and at the bottom of the food chain on all sides of the border. That said, unlike the 'untouchables' across the border in Pakistan or Haryana, the Ramdasis and Mazahbis have a much stronger identity in Indian Punjab. The Mazahbis have a proud martial tradition which stretches back to the Battle of Saraghari where 21 Sikh soldiers took on thousands of Pashtun militiamen. All 21 of those Sikhs were Mazahbis.

Tronic, what are bhappa sardars? I see Jat Sikhs making fun of them?

Also there are Sikhs in Maharashtra who are pretty dark and wear the turban differently. I think they are scheduled caste type versions of Sikhs. Possibly originating from Nanded area. What are they called?

Thanks.

[Bigfella]

Can you blame us? Historically, our experience with Islam and Christianity has been traumatic. Btw it is true that orthodox Hinduism does not allow conversion.

Can I blame you for telling lies to yourselves in order to fuel a myth? Yes. Every time without hesitation. I take the same attitude to my own culture. No excuses.

On the issue of conversion, my argument wasn't with the point you made, but with the assertion (made by a former memebr of this board.....who was Indian but not hindu) that it was never possible to convert to hinduism. it was an assertion that simply cannot be true based on the historical spread of hinduism. The person in question point blank refused to accept the possibility that he might be wrong.

[Bigfella]

Sir Hinduism is big on purity of blood. Those of impure blood, outsiders, have always traditionally been called mlecchas, and kept out of our bloodlines.

There are some neo Hindu sects who take in converts. But Hinduism per se does not proselytize or convert. And unlike faiths that do, Islam and Christianity, we have always been most satisfied remaining limited to our own ancestral land for the better part of our reorded history.

No need to call me sir, I'm just another civillian around here.

As for the rest, my argument is not with hinduism in its current form but the scale of its historic spread. it is simply impossible for hinduism to have spread as far as it did as fast as it did wihtout some form of conversion being possible at some point. It may be that the religion was practiced somewhat differently in just these areas or somewhat differently historically, but different it must surely have been.

Always be wary of reading the present into the past.