nkg1@ihlpg.UUCP (Neeraj K. Gupta) (10/08/86)
To: ihnp4!cbatt!clyde!caip!elbereth!rutgers!husc6!panda!genrad!mit-eddie!mit-trillian!martillo Subject: Re: An Independent Sikh State In-reply-to: your article <1232@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU> I belong to Punjab State. I and all my ancestors, as far long ago as I can know, were born in Punjab. There is a big difference comparing Muslim and Hindu, AND Sikh and Hindu religion. The Sikh religion grew out of Hindu religion. Till about 40-50 years back, it was very common for the eldest son of a Hindu family to become a Sikh. Marriage between Hindus and Sikhs is very common, even now. There are thousands of families, nay tens of thousand families, with both Hindu and Sikh blood reletives. The Sikhs and Hindus both cremate there dead and immerse the ashes in river. The marriage customs are very very similar. AND to top it all, Guru Granth Sahib, The Holy Book, is full prayers to Rama and Shiva. At one place it says, a real Sikh is he, who says the name Rama atleast 10 times every day. Visiting the Sikh Gurudwaras and Hindu temples by both communities has been very common. The reverence to Sikh Gurus is same amongst Hindus as for Sikhs. The Holy places to visit are very common, the reason being, the Sikh Gurus visited and prayed at places which were holy to Hindus at that time. The Golden Temple was built with great contribution of both Hindus and Sikhs. And I can go on and on -----. None of this is true for any other two religions. Even today the trouble or the contradictions are not over Hindus not accepting Sikh Gurus or Sikh temples but purely over political power. Some selfish people are exploting the two communities for their own selfish motive. There are many subgroups amongst Sikhs, not accepted as such by EXTREMISTS: Nirankaries, etc. Will they not ask for political power in future for themselves? Even with in the rank of extremists, has there not been group fights over who takes the higher positions ? With this kind of ideas one can fragment any land into very small communities, and call them COUNTRIES!!!??. The artificial integeration of INDIA ? Even before the English, India was joined together by one king many times, in fact it included Afghanistan and parts of USSR (Samarkand and Tashkent). Chandragupta Mauraya, Ashoka are some of the very old examples, Akbar is a later example. But then China also had its share of smaller kingdoms at times. At which time period of history do you draw the cut off point. At different times different communities ruled over various areas of land, with the same land overlapping for different communities. Who gets that land?
martillo@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU (Yakim Martillo) (10/09/86)
In article <2536@ihlpg.UUCP> nkg1@ihlpg.UUCP writes: >To: ihnp4!cbatt!clyde!caip!elbereth!rutgers!husc6!panda!genrad!mit-eddie!mit-trillian!martillo >Subject: Re: An Independent Sikh State >In-reply-to: your article <1232@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU> >I belong to Punjab State. I and all my ancestors, as far long ago as I can >know, were born in Punjab. There is a big difference comparing >Muslim and Hindu, AND Sikh and Hindu religion. The Sikh religion grew >out of Hindu religion. Till about 40-50 years back, it was very common for >the eldest son of a Hindu family to become a Sikh. Marriage between Hindus >and Sikhs is very common, even now. There are thousands of families, nay >tens of thousand families, with both Hindu and Sikh blood reletives. The >Sikhs and Hindus both cremate there dead and immerse the ashes in river. >The marriage customs are very very similar. AND to top it all, Guru Granth >Sahib, The Holy Book, is full prayers to Rama and Shiva. At one place >it says, a real Sikh is he, who says the name Rama atleast 10 times every day. >Visiting the Sikh Gurudwaras and Hindu temples by both communities has been >very common. The reverence to Sikh Gurus is same amongst Hindus as for Sikhs. >The Holy places to visit are very common, the reason being, the Sikh Gurus >visited and prayed at places which were holy to Hindus at that time. The >Golden Temple was built with great contribution of both Hindus and Sikhs. >And I can go on and on -----. I have also read this as well and I am not sure if I believe it. If there is a knowledgeable Sikh on the net, I would be interested in comments. I was under the impression Sikh religion rejected a lot of specifically Hindu practices like caste. Further I am under the impression Sikh religion owes a lot to Islam and is basically monotheist. I do not understand what would be the caste status of the children of a Hindu/Sikh marriage. The only Sikh/Hindu marriages I know of are between people who are totally removed from traditional Hindu or Sikh culture. >None of this is true for any other two religions. Even today the trouble >or the contradictions are not over Hindus not accepting Sikh Gurus or >Sikh temples but purely over political power. Some selfish people are >exploting the two communities for their own selfish motive. Well, a lot of it applies to Judaism and Islam. And it does not make contradictions any less valid if they are political. Maybe people have selfish motives for keeping a united India. >There are many subgroups amongst Sikhs, not accepted as such by EXTREMISTS: >Nirankaries, etc. Will they not ask for political power in future for >themselves? Even with in the rank of extremists, has there not been group >fights over who takes the higher positions ? With this kind of ideas >one can fragment any land into very small communities, and call them >COUNTRIES!!!??. So what? Almost all the countries in Europe are tiny even compared to India. >The artificial integeration of INDIA ? Even before the English, India was >joined together by one king many times, in fact it included Afghanistan and >parts of USSR (Samarkand and Tashkent). Chandragupta Mauraya, Ashoka are some >of the very old examples, Akbar is a later example. But then China also had >its share of smaller kingdoms at times. At which time period of history >do you draw the cut off point. At different times different communities ruled >over various areas of land, with the same land overlapping for different >communities. Who gets that land? Europe has been united under the Romans, the Holy Roman Empire, the French and the Germans but that is hardly any reason to say Europe should be one country today. Chinese culture is a unitary culture in a way that European culture or Indian culture is not but to tell the truth, most Chinese would probably be a lot better off if the People's Republic were split up into several countries.
raj@umcp-cs.UUCP (Raj Bhatnagar) (10/09/86)
In article <1245@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU> martillo@trillian.UUCP (Yakim Martillo) writes: >In article <2536@ihlpg.UUCP> nkg1@ihlpg.UUCP writes: >>To: ihnp4!cbatt!clyde!caip!elbereth!rutgers!husc6!panda!genrad!mit-eddie!mit-trillian!martillo >>Subject: Re: An Independent Sikh State >>In-reply-to: your article <1232@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU> > >>........... Till about 40-50 years back, it was very common for >>the eldest son of a Hindu family to become a Sikh. Marriage between Hindus >>and Sikhs is very common, even now. There are thousands of families, nay >>tens of thousand families, with both Hindu and Sikh blood reletives. The >>............. > >I have also read this as well and I am not sure if I believe it. If >there is a knowledgeable Sikh on the net, I would be interested in >comments. I was under the impression Sikh religion rejected a lot of >specifically Hindu practices like caste. Further I am under the >impression Sikh religion owes a lot to Islam and is basically >monotheist. I do not understand what would be the caste status of the >children of a Hindu/Sikh marriage. The only Sikh/Hindu marriages I >know of are between people who are totally removed from traditional >Hindu or Sikh culture. So you don't believe what somebody from India may have to say about India. You don't even say why not. Okay....Go to India and see for yourself!!! But if you want to close your eyes from reality and live in an imaginary world, don't be ridiculous by showing it off to the real world!! > >Maybe people >have selfish motives for keeping a united India. > Yes, 700 million people have such selfish motives. Mr Martillo, what is your objection? >> With this kind of ideas >>one can fragment any land into very small communities, and call them >>COUNTRIES!!!??. > >So what? Almost all the countries in Europe are tiny even compared to >India. > But what about 700 million people with selfish motives who like a united India?? > >Europe has been united under the Romans, the Holy Roman Empire, the >French and the Germans but that is hardly any reason to say Europe >should be one country today. Yes, that also is hardly any reason to say that India should be Balkanized!! Chinese culture is a unitary culture in >a way that European culture or Indian culture is not but to tell the >truth, most Chinese would probably be a lot better off if the People's >Republic were split up into several countries. Thanks for your advice but sorry, there are no takers!!! Why do you so strongly feel that India should split up? What have you got against a united India? ---raj
baparao@bacall.UUCP (Bapa Rao) (10/10/86)
In article <1245@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU> martillo@trillian.UUCP (Yakim Martillo) writes: [basically a lot of ignorant opinions about Indian history and culture stated as facts] And in article *?*** <generic-net.indian>@some-place writes, [trying to convince martillo that India does have, and has had, a basically unified culture, caste and religious boundaries notwithstanding] It seems to me that some purpose may be served by providing a concrete example of cultural homogeneity in India. I am indebted to Martillo himself for the inspiration leading to this example. Somewhere around AD 100, during the reign of emperor Chandragupta II (known to fans of Betal stories as Vikramadithya, the Sun of Valor), his half-brother the scholar Bhartrihari wrote a classic treatise on the subject of the Fool, or Moorkha. In it, he defines a Moorkha as "one who knows not, but is filled with arrogance and will not learn". He then expounds on the futility, even the dangers, of attempting to reason with a Moorkha, and concludes that the wisest policy is to learn to recognize a Moorkha when you see one, and thereafter seek assiduously to dissociate oneself from him. If confronted with one nonetheless, it is best to hold one's peace. Regrettably, (says Bhartrihari) history is littered with examples of those who have become involved with Moorkhas and brought themselves and others to grief. The point is that the precise notion of a Bhartriharian Moorkha has been pervasive throughout India ever since. Let a random Indian, (be he Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Christian, Jain, Buddhist, Animist, Brahmin, or Dalit, man or woman) be confronted with Martillo, and he will nod his head and marvel that Martillo must indeed be old, since he had, so obviously, been known to the wise Bhartrihari himself. The more impetuous among the random Indians will leap into the fray, and begin to reason with this prototypical Moorkha. Others, grizzled veterans of many a fray that they are, will smile ruefully and go about their business. Yet others will succumb to the temptation of pointing out the entire phenomenon to their brethren. --K.V. Bapa Rao
baparao@bacall.UUCP (Bapa Rao) (10/10/86)
In article <2164@bacall.UUCP> baparao@bacall.UUCP (Bapa Rao) writes: >The point is that the precise notion of a Bhartriharian Moorkha has been >pervasive throughout India ever since. Let a random Indian, (be he Hindu, | >Muslim, Sikh, Christian, Jain, Buddhist, Animist, Brahmin, or Dalit, man or >woman) be confronted with Martillo, and he will nod his head and marvel that >Martillo must indeed be old, since he had, so obviously, been known to the >wise Bhartrihari himself. Sorry, I should have said "(be he Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Christian, Jain, Buddhist, Animist, Jew, Brahmin, or Dalit, man or woman)" instead of leaving out "Jew" as I did. Of course a random Jewish Indian is as adept as any other Indian at knowing Martillo to be a Moorkha. --Bapa Rao.