punjab is anti hindu and anti dalit ...

punjab is anti hindu and anti dalit state

Posted in the Sikh Forum

First Prev
of 9
Next Last
pandit

Mumbai, India

#1 May 25, 2012
yes punjab is anti hindu state.34 percent hindus of punjab are voiceless.hindu saint are not allowed
in punjab.they want khalistan,they want to divide
this country.they betrayed india.sikh dalit are not allowed in jatt gurudwara upper cast sikh
oppressored dalits.they are anti sanatan,anti arya
samaji,anti nirankari,anti ravidasi,anti dera,they
are anti india.
Fateh

Brampton, Canada

#2 May 25, 2012
pandit wrote:
yes punjab is anti hindu state.34 percent hindus of punjab are voiceless.hindu saint are not allowed
in punjab.they want khalistan,they want to divide
this country.they betrayed india.sikh dalit are not allowed in jatt gurudwara upper cast sikh
oppressored dalits.they are anti sanatan,anti arya
samaji,anti nirankari,anti ravidasi,anti dera,they
are anti india.
You Hindus have the rest of India to f*ck off in, why are you after Punjab. If Hindu's don't like Punjab they can f*ck off to Haryana. Punjab is Sikh state and will remain a Sikh state.
londoner

Croydon, UK

#3 May 25, 2012
me te kenda sare punjabi ik ho javiye east te west baki sadhe lun te charo!
hindu nation

Mumbai, India

#4 May 25, 2012
Fateh wrote:
<quoted text>
You Hindus have the rest of India to f*ck off in, why are you after Punjab. If Hindu's don't like Punjab they can f*ck off to Haryana. Punjab is Sikh state and will remain a Sikh state.
ohy refugee of pakistan calm down.punjab is sikh state?befor partition sikh were 19 percent in east punjab when punjab was hindu
and muslim majority sikh came as refugee dont forget your history how you claim punjab is sikh state.truth is this sikh are anti india and anti hindu.give me answer of my question.
why hindu saint are not allowed?
why sikh opposeed arya samaja and other sect?
what about 34 percent punjabi hindu they are voiceless?
Fateh

Brampton, Canada

#5 May 25, 2012
hindu nation wrote:
<quoted text>
ohy refugee of pakistan calm down.punjab is sikh state?befor partition sikh were 19 percent in east punjab when punjab was hindu
and muslim majority sikh came as refugee dont forget your history how you claim punjab is sikh state.truth is this sikh are anti india and anti hindu.give me answer of my question.
why hindu saint are not allowed?
why sikh opposeed arya samaja and other sect?
what about 34 percent punjabi hindu they are voiceless?
What an idiot. Lets talk before the British came when India was a free nation. Punjab was owned by Sikhs and not the small Punjab of today. I mean the Punjab that included Himchal, Haryana, and Kashmir.

After partition happend the sullahs got their own land and Hindu got India. The Sikhs only asked for the land they owned before the British came which was Punjab. Even the Sikhs were happy with Punjab being apart of India but still controlled by Sikhs. But your gandu Nehru backstabbed Sikhs at the last minute and cancelled the idea of Sikh controlled Punjab. That's why we have this whole Khalistan movement happening.

If Gandu Nehru allowed Punjab to be semi-autonmous governming body controlled by Sikhs everything would be ok. But greedy Hindus like you want even Punjab, they are not satisfied enough by controlling the rest of India.

Punjab is Sikh state and with stay a Sikh state.
Fateh

Brampton, Canada

#6 May 25, 2012
why hindu saint are not allowed?
why sikh opposeed arya samaja and other sect?
what about 34 percent punjabi hindu they are voiceless?

Who said Hindu saints aren't allowed. I see so many different Hindu saints and Mandirs in Punjab.

Who said Sikhs oppose arya samaj, Sikhs welcome everyone.

34% cannot be voiceless because even though it is a minority it is a huge visible minority. 34% can change all of Punjab if they want.

What about Sikhs outside of Punjab? How come they are voiceless? How come seperate Sikh marriage act only got recognized now?

What about 2% Sikh in India? How can they compete with 90% Hindu?

If 2% Sikh can make a huge impact on India then 34% Hindu in Punjab shouldn't be complaining. More than enough people to make a differnce. They are not voiceless.
Champloen

New Delhi, India

#7 May 25, 2012
Fateh wrote:
<quoted text>
What an idiot. Lets talk before the British came when India was a free nation. Punjab was owned by Sikhs and not the small Punjab of today. I mean the Punjab that included Himchal, Haryana, and Kashmir.
After partition happend the sullahs got their own land and Hindu got India. The Sikhs only asked for the land they owned before the British came which was Punjab. Even the Sikhs were happy with Punjab being apart of India but still controlled by Sikhs. But your gandu Nehru backstabbed Sikhs at the last minute and cancelled the idea of Sikh controlled Punjab. That's why we have this whole Khalistan movement happening.
If Gandu Nehru allowed Punjab to be semi-autonmous governming body controlled by Sikhs everything would be ok. But greedy Hindus like you want even Punjab, they are not satisfied enough by controlling the rest of India.
Punjab is Sikh state and with stay a Sikh state.
before British, Punjab was Maratha ruled state even upto 1803 east Punjab remained under the rule of Marathas so how come should it be called a Sick state?

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#8 May 25, 2012
Fateh wrote:
<quoted text>
What an idiot. Lets talk before the British came when India was a free nation. Punjab was owned by Sikhs and not the small Punjab of today. I mean the Punjab that included Himchal, Haryana, and Kashmir.
After partition happend the sullahs got their own land and Hindu got India. The Sikhs only asked for the land they owned before the British came which was Punjab. Even the Sikhs were happy with Punjab being apart of India but still controlled by Sikhs. But your gandu Nehru backstabbed Sikhs at the last minute and cancelled the idea of Sikh controlled Punjab. That's why we have this whole Khalistan movement happening.
If Gandu Nehru allowed Punjab to be semi-autonmous governming body controlled by Sikhs everything would be ok. But greedy Hindus like you want even Punjab, they are not satisfied enough by controlling the rest of India.
Punjab is Sikh state and with stay a Sikh state.
why are u calling muslims sullahs i thought u were better than that ?
pandit

Mumbai, India

#9 May 25, 2012
Fateh wrote:
<quoted text>
What an idiot. Lets talk before the British came when India was a free nation. Punjab was owned by Sikhs and not the small Punjab of today. I mean the Punjab that included Himchal, Haryana, and Kashmir.
After partition happend the sullahs got their own land and Hindu got India. The Sikhs only asked for the land they owned before the British came which was Punjab. Even the Sikhs were happy with Punjab being apart of India but still controlled by Sikhs. But your gandu Nehru backstabbed Sikhs at the last minute and cancelled the idea of Sikh controlled Punjab. That's why we have this whole Khalistan movement happening.
If Gandu Nehru allowed Punjab to be semi-autonmous governming body controlled by Sikhs everything would be ok. But greedy Hindus like you want even Punjab, they are not satisfied enough by controlling the rest of India.
Punjab is Sikh state and with stay a Sikh state.
sikh were never been majority of punjab.punjab also ruled by brahmins more than 200 eyers so should brahmin claim punjab is their own land?brahmin ruled more than sikh kings.punjab also ruled by mugals.
so muslim claim punjab is their own land?haryanvi,himachali,kashmi ri are not punjabi they are hindus they
just ruled by sikh kings.sikh rambling like moths all over the
india.hindu got their own land because hindus were majority in all
india accept kashmir,nagaland.and one more thing india is secular
country india prime minister is sikh however his puppet of sonia
gandhi,next army chief will be sikh.you can controll punjab we dont
want your punjab who want most dirtyest place in earth.
but truth is this fathead punjab and punjabi sikh are anti hindu
why hindu saint are not allowed in punjab?why akali dal dont give
ticket to hindus? mostly sikh support khalistan sikh have always
crying for 1984 what about hindus who killed by sikhs.
dalit and punjabi hindus are voiceless and you cant deny.
Punjabi warrior

UK

#10 May 25, 2012
Pandit why are hindus anti sikh ask yourself that question first..idol worshipping bastard
pandit

Mumbai, India

#11 May 25, 2012
Fateh wrote:
why hindu saint are not allowed?
why sikh opposeed arya samaja and other sect?
what about 34 percent punjabi hindu they are voiceless?
Who said Hindu saints aren't allowed. I see so many different Hindu saints and Mandirs in Punjab.
Who said Sikhs oppose arya samaj, Sikhs welcome everyone.
34% cannot be voiceless because even though it is a minority it is a huge visible minority. 34% can change all of Punjab if they want.
What about Sikhs outside of Punjab? How come they are voiceless? How come seperate Sikh marriage act only got recognized now?
What about 2% Sikh in India? How can they compete with 90% Hindu?
If 2% Sikh can make a huge impact on India then 34% Hindu in Punjab shouldn't be complaining. More than enough people to make a differnce. They are not voiceless.
you see punjabi hindu saint not other i never see any hindu saint pravachan in punjab.
sikh just not oppose arya samaj they also oppose nirankari,dera,
radhaswami ravidasi many sect dont say this.
punjabi hindu nothing for sikh in punjab.how many hindu won assembly election in punjab?not more than 10.
34% hindus are second class peopel in punjab they live under the
sikh goverment.
by the way hindu are not 90 percent in india.
svas

Baldwin, NY

#12 May 25, 2012
pandit wrote:
<quoted text>
you see punjabi hindu saint not other i never see any hindu saint pravachan in punjab.
sikh just not oppose arya samaj they also oppose nirankari,dera,
radhaswami ravidasi many sect dont say this.
punjabi hindu nothing for sikh in punjab.how many hindu won assembly election in punjab?not more than 10.
34% hindus are second class peopel in punjab they live under the
sikh goverment.
by the way hindu are not 90 percent in india.
u silly RSS ghandu brahmin- what nonsense are u barking about now- banthar.
king bala ji rao brahmin

Mumbai, India

#13 May 25, 2012
Punjabi warrior wrote:
Pandit why are hindus anti sikh ask yourself that question first..idol worshipping bastard
abe gandu we arenot anti sikh thats why sikh muslim christian lived
this country.
svas

Baldwin, NY

#14 May 25, 2012
Champloen wrote:
<quoted text>
before British, Punjab was Maratha ruled state even upto 1803 east Punjab remained under the rule of Marathas so how come should it be called a Sick state?
are us stupid- marathas were raped by the afghan abdali lot-

the Sikhs ruled punjab prior to the british-

what a pea brain u are not knowing history-- try to stop reading nonsense RSS history books all fantasised by ur rss fanatics.
Champloen

New Delhi, India

#15 May 25, 2012
svas wrote:
<quoted text>
are us stupid- marathas were raped by the afghan abdali lot-
the Sikhs ruled punjab prior to the british-
what a pea brain u are not knowing history-- try to stop reading nonsense RSS history books all fantasised by ur rss fanatics.


they just lost a battle unlike Sikhs who lost each n every battle they fought abdali. P rule, Punjab was under Maratha rule, dude! read history
Fateh

Brampton, Canada

#16 May 25, 2012
xXNazir_ShahXx wrote:
<quoted text> why are u calling muslims sullahs i thought u were better than that ?
whats wrong with that, I call my muslim friends sullah all the time. I didn't use it in a negative way but if you were offended my apologies. I didn't know you were so sensitive.
Fateh

Brampton, Canada

#17 May 25, 2012
Champloen wrote:
<quoted text>
they just lost a battle unlike Sikhs who lost each n every battle they fought abdali. P rule, Punjab was under Maratha rule, dude! read history
Hahaha thats pure baqwas. Sikhs whooped the afghans. If Sikhs didn't rule north india when the British came then what were the anglo-sikh wars about Mr. Gandu.
Fateh

Brampton, Canada

#18 May 25, 2012
pandit wrote:
<quoted text>
sikh were never been majority of punjab.punjab also ruled by brahmins more than 200 eyers so should brahmin claim punjab is their own land?brahmin ruled more than sikh kings.punjab also ruled by mugals.
so muslim claim punjab is their own land?haryanvi,himachali,kashmi ri are not punjabi they are hindus they
just ruled by sikh kings.sikh rambling like moths all over the
india.hindu got their own land because hindus were majority in all
india accept kashmir,nagaland.and one more thing india is secular
country india prime minister is sikh however his puppet of sonia
gandhi,next army chief will be sikh.you can controll punjab we dont
want your punjab who want most dirtyest place in earth.
but truth is this fathead punjab and punjabi sikh are anti hindu
why hindu saint are not allowed in punjab?why akali dal dont give
ticket to hindus? mostly sikh support khalistan sikh have always
crying for 1984 what about hindus who killed by sikhs.
dalit and punjabi hindus are voiceless and you cant deny.
weak argument and very dumb reasoning. According to your reasoning since Dinosaurs ruled the world millions of years ago they are entitled to call the land. The last person to rule is the rightful owner of the land jackass doesn't matter who was before.
Fateh

Brampton, Canada

#19 May 25, 2012
Champloen wrote:
<quoted text>
before British, Punjab was Maratha ruled state even upto 1803 east Punjab remained under the rule of Marathas so how come should it be called a Sick state?
Maharaja Ranjit Singh (13 November 1780 – 20 June 1839) was the first Maharaja of the Sikh Empire.

Ranjit Singh was crowned on 12 April 1801 (to coincide with Baisakhi). Sahib Singh Bedi, a descendant of Guru Nanak Dev, conducted the coronation.[23] Gujranwala served as his capital from 1799. In 1802 he shifted his capital to Lahore. Ranjit Singh rose to power in a very short period, from a leader of a single Sikh misl to finally becoming the Maharaja (Emperor) of Punjab.

He then spent the following years fighting the Afghan invaders, driving them out of the Punjab. He also captured Pashtun territory including Peshawar (now referred to as North West Frontier Province and the Tribal Areas). This was the first time that Peshawari Pashtuns were ruled by Punjabis. He captured the province of Multan which encompassed the southern parts of Punjab, Peshawar (1818), Jammu and Kashmir (1819). Thus Ranjit Singh put an end to more than a thousand years of Muslim rule. He also conquered the hill states of punjab including north of Anandpur Sahib, the largest of which was Kangra.
Champloen

New Delhi, India

#20 May 25, 2012
Fateh wrote:
<quoted text>
Hahaha thats pure baqwas. Sikhs whooped the afghans. If Sikhs didn't rule north india when the British came then what were the anglo-sikh wars about Mr. Gandu.
You didn't understand my comment I reckon. You are foolishly showing your chutiyapan. I was talking about Ahmad Shah Abdali not Afghans of later reign. First think and then speak!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 9
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Sikh Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Mujhe gande galiya do boys (Apr '15) 1 hr RAJ real king of ... 1,114
kis ladki ko Lund chusna pasand hai (Jun '15) 1 hr RAJ real king of ... 730
meri maa behan ko chodo (Mar '15) 12 hr Rahul 8,436
Apni biwi ko real me dusre mard se chudwane ka ... (Jan '16) 22 hr RAJ real king of ... 416
Arshiya Mulla from Navi Mumbai Nerul 22 hr RAJ real king of ... 4
kis ne apni wife ko real me negro se chudwaya hai (Nov '16) 22 hr RAJ real king of ... 10
kaun si actress ko apni randi banann chahoge (Apr '15) Thu Desi 355
More from around the web