Sikh History

[doppelganger]

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.

Even when Hindu influence spilled over our shores, there was no widespread conversion. Yes, the culture spread, of which you can see the remnants in terms of the temple ruins etc. But if as you say there was widespread conversion, then most of SE Asia would have been Hindu today. If anything it was Buddhism more than Hinduism that spread beyond dharmic shores and bloodlines.

Even today to an extent some arms of our religion allow conversion, but that is more as a response to expansionist faiths in the Indian context and the methods employed than as religious doctrine. Please read up on shuddhi karan. Bottom line being that Hindus see it as reversion and not conversion. You will not find Hindu evangelists roaming the earth pulling people into the dharmic fold.

Also, what do you mean by Hinduism spreading fast? We have been around for more than 10,000years as a "religion" (in the modern sense of the word). Yet we remain concentrated to the region we started off in, the subcontinent. And we number about a billion worldwide, counting diaspora.

Christianity spread from Jerusalem all over the world and grew to 2.1 billion in 2000 years.

Islam spread from Arabia and grew to 1.6 billion in 1300 years (0.5 billion of them former Hindus).

Yet you feel a religion that has been around for 10,000 years and numbers just a billion and remains in its ancestral birth cradle, is expansionist?

[Bigfella]

Even when Hindu influence spilled over our shores, there was no widespread conversion. Yes, the culture spread, of which you can see the remnants in terms of the temple ruins etc. But if as you say there was widespread conversion, then most of SE Asia would have been Hindu today. If anything it was Buddhism more than Hinduism that spread beyond dharmic shores and bloodlines.

Even today to an extent some arms of our religion allow conversion, but that is more as a response to expansionist faiths in the Indian context and the methods employed than as religious doctrine. Please read up on shuddhi karan. Bottom line being that Hindus see it as reversion and not conversion. You will not find Hindu evangelists roaming the earth pulling people into the dharmic fold.

Also, what do you mean by Hinduism spreading fast? We have been around for more than 10,000years as a "religion" (in the modern sense of the word). Yet we remain concentrated to the region we started off in, the subcontinent. And we number about a billion worldwide, counting diaspora.

Christianity spread from Jerusalem all over the world and grew to 2.1 billion in 2000 years.

Islam spread from Arabia and grew to 1.6 billion in 1300 years (0.5 billion of them former Hindus).

Yet you feel a religion that has been around for 10,000 years and numbers just a billion and remains in its ancestral birth cradle, is expansionist?

:SIGH: I don't have the time for this right now, but suffice to say it is full of logical absurdities & questionable assertions (you can probably work those out without my help). I'll get back to it when I have more time.

[doppelganger]

:SIGH: I don't have the time for this right now, but suffice to say it is full of logical absurdities & questionable assertions (you can probably work those out without my help). I'll get back to it when I have more time.

Its ok.

[Bigfella]

Its ok.

On second thought I don't really want to derail Tronic's thread wiht this argument. He is trying to do something worthwhile here about his faith & I feel uncomfortable draggin it off into a side argument that really doesn't have much to do with that. If you want to have the discussion we need to do it elsewhere.

[doppelganger]

On second thought I don't really want to derail Tronic's thread wiht this argument. He is trying to do something worthwhile here about his faith & I feel uncomfortable draggin it off into a side argument that really doesn't have much to do with that. If you want to have the discussion we need to do it elsewhere.

Thats ok too.

[lemontree]

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

That is what I was implying, kallaripayatu was taken to China by Bodhi Dharma.

[doppelganger]

That is what I was implying, kallaripayatu was taken to China by Bodhi Dharma.

Sir before I forget.

We have a brig gen here? Who?

[lemontree]

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

I know dude, I was differentiating from a non-sikh, but a follower of the Guru's teachings (the non-sikh punjabis).

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.

That is correct, and the Sikhs out grew the Shivaliks much after Guru Tegh Bahadur was executed by Aurangzeb.

The Mughals and later the Afghans (Durrani Empire) posed the only challenge to Sikh ascendance in Punjab.

The era we are talking about is 1700's. Aurangzed was already dead by 1707 and the Marathas were much more of a force to threaten the Mughals in Delhi, while the Khalsa Army became a force to reckon with a bit later.

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

There was nothing complex about it...

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;

We have all the time, and do it in a phased manner. Will clear some of my cobwebs and your too.

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.

The policy of religious tolerance was followed by Akbar, while Humayun was in no position to be choosy as he was on the run most of the time.

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.

It was not just a matter of taking political sides, accounts of the orthodox muslims in Jahangir's court give a different picture, as the memoirs of Jahangir Tuzuk-i- Jahangiri. Jahangir's views towards the sikhs may have been influenced by political events, while the orthodox elite had a different agenda and Jahangir's memoirs reflect the same orthodox view point. Jahangir had developed an extermist view towards the Sikhs and he used the Khusrao rebellion to please the orthodox muslims and execute Guru Arjan Dev.

Everything above has a tinge of communal politics played by the Mughal court.

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.

Aurangzeb was a fanatic who would not have needed an excuse to presecute the Sikhs anyway.

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.

So how does this prove that Aurangzebs court was not against the Sikhs?.... they found a puppet in Ram Rai and would have wanted to control the Sikhs. Remember that Mughal armies were fighting a prolonged Maratha insurgency, hence Aurangzeb would have liked to limit his troops deployment.

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

You are gain being unfair to me. This is getting interesting, so lets not stop this debate.

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.

That was the general politics of the era....the Khalsa nation was already taking shape, born out of a zeal to prevail inspite of the Mughal Empire.

If that's what they teach you, than yes, it's crap.

You are in no position to judge that, because you have not being taught this by military historians.

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.

Exactly, you dont learn this in school. So why jump the gun and judge.

[lemontree]

We have a brig gen here? Who?

We had, Brig Ray here. But he does not post here anymore.

[astralis]

doppelganger,

We have been around for more than 10,000years as a "religion" (in the modern sense of the word). Yet we remain concentrated to the region we started off in, the subcontinent. And we number about a billion worldwide, counting diaspora.

for your historical awareness:

- hinduism has NOT been around for "10,000 years". the best historical archaelogy can really get at is roughly 5,000 years, to a theorized proto-indo-european religion where several major world religions can trace origins from. (for instance: the P.I.E. sky-father god, "dyeus phater"-- translated to greek as "zeus pater"...and to sanskrit as "dyaus pita".)

as such early vedic religious rites were probably very similar to early greek religious rites, complete with limited eating of beef.

- most religions in the ancient period were largely limited by geography, and as such developed very limited inclusion. hinduism was actually relatively expansionist for its time, seeing as how its influences spilled beyond the himalayas. buddhism to a greater extent, but by then road/trade networks were far more prevalent.

even more so with christianity and islam. although for the latter two, it's certaily true that their theology is naturally expansionist.

[cataphract]

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.

Lies? :confu: A tad harsh way to debate.
What part of forced conversions to Islam and Christianity are lies to you? It does not mean there were no forced conversions to Buddhism or any other -isms, particularly during wars, but the memory of those does not linger. Islam and Christianity, with their triumphalism, continue to chafe against the indigenous culture in India.

As for conversions to Hinduism, you have to understand that they cannot happen by sword. Do I think there was a more earthly incentive for Champans, Khmer, Javans, etc for converting to Hinduism? Duh, of course. But did they happen by the sword? That's your assertion and the onus lies upon you to prove it.

Anyways, this digresses too much from the thread. We can continue in a separate thread if you'd like.

[Bigfella]

Lies? :confu: A tad harsh way to debate.
What part of forced conversions to Islam and Christianity are lies to you? It does not mean there were no forced conversions to Buddhism or any other -isms, particularly during wars, but the memory of those does not linger. Islam and Christianity, with their triumphalism, continue to chafe against the indigenous culture in India.

As for conversions to Hinduism, you have to understand that they cannot happen by sword. Do I think there was a more earthly incentive for Champans, Khmer, Javans, etc for converting to Hinduism? Duh, of course. But did they happen by the sword? That's your assertion and the onus lies upon you to prove it.

Anyways, this digresses too much from the thread. We can continue in a separate thread if you'd like.

I also don't want to drag this too far off track, but you seem to be debating a point I have not raised. Where at any point did I mention forced conversion? That seems to be the focus of your entire post, yet not only have I neither mentioned nor alluded to it and it is completely & utterly irrelevant to my point.

I was simply addressing what I see as mythmaking by Indians about the religions that have originated there. Doppelganger seems determined to lengthen that list considerably wiht his '10,000 years' and 'oldest religion' claims. I suspect that if this drags on for a while I'll have quite the set of myths.

Oh, thanks for making my point about conversions of Javanese, Chapmans, Khmer etc., though your 'Duh' was a lot harsher than my 'lies'. Remember that I am the one pointing out that conversion MUST have taken place in the face of Indians who point blank refuse to concede the possibility. Yes, it is blindngly obvious. The 'Duh' should be directedat your countrymen, not me.

Given the sort of stuff that has been popping up on this thread I fear derailment may be inevitable.

[doppelganger]

It is a little difficult to explain the concepts of sanatan dharma, hinduism to most of you, but the fact remains that Hinduism does not have the concept of acceptance as a pre-requisite to belief. You can be a hardcore nastik (unbeliever) and still be a perfectly fine Hindu. Therefore expansionalism in the way of the sword as practiced by Christiantiy or Islam is simply not possible. Hindu kings ventured out. Hindu kings conquered. Hindu kings made life easy and comfortable for themselves and offshoot relatives/vassal kings by bringing a touch of home to unknown lands. The concept of mlecchas was ever strong. And unions of Hindu men with SE Asian women, if at all, were the organic/inorganic spread. The common theory is that the advent of Christianity and Islam limited the spread of Hinduism. While the reality was that Hindu kingdoms simply moved back to the mother land, and the loosely "converted" neo Hindus they left behind now accepted a new faith to ease their existence.

[doppelganger]

Doppelganger seems determined to lengthen that list considerably wiht his '10,000 years' and 'oldest religion' claims. I suspect that if this drags on for a while I'll have quite the set of myths.

Do you live in a world where Hinduism is NOT the oldest religion known to man? 5,000 years is simply the texts dating back to the Rig Veda. Our Puranas are way older, and just because they are too old for modern science to put a date to, does not mean that the 5,000 year dateline favored by the West becomes sacrosanct.

[Bigfella]

Do you live in a world where Hinduism is NOT the oldest religion known to man? 5,000 years is simply the texts dating back to the Rig Veda. Our Puranas are way older, and just because they are too old for modern science to put a date to, does not mean that the 5,000 year dateline favored by the West becomes sacrosanct.

I live in a country where it is not the oldest religion. I can get 40,000 years without even trying, 60,000 plus depending on which archaeologist you believe. I'm betting that with a bit of digging I can find more examples. You need to stop being so chauvinistic.