does being peacefull and passive like gandhi ji has any relevance in todays world. i think its considered weakness. those men are respected who are fighters not the ones who act like pussies and give away easily. indians are loosing fighting spirit because of too much importance is being given to gandhian way of life. in indian schools they teach us to be tolerating and peacefull at all times. but others likes pakis consider this as our weakness. i think we should be taught to live like fighters. always ready for combat. just like we sikhs are.
in another forum i had a fight with greeks regarding alexanders invasion of india. i was like alexander made a U turn when he met real fighters in india( who was my ancestors of course). porus was a small king and even he fought braverly and dented the confidence of greek soldiers and they mutined when they came to know about even bigger kingdom across indus was waiting for them. it was in punjab that alexander was wounded with an arrow which pierced his lungs and cause his death later on.
now indians just like in this forum instead of backing their compatriot sided with the greeks and kept on attacking me. i kept on fighitng cause i am a sikh and sikhs never give up. now the same greeks are impressed and they want me in their group whereas indians want me to expel me from their group.
wot do u guys think. acting like pussies is good for us. ist it giving a bad name to indians across the world and people view them as apus ?
your thoughts ? i will appreciate
Full Version: just my thoughts?
QUOTE(jatt_with_gutts @ Jul 11 2007, 02:13 PM) 
in another forum i had a fight with greeks regarding alexanders invasion of india. i was like alexander made a U turn when he met real fighters in india( who was my ancestors of course). porus was a small king and even he fought braverly and dented the confidence of greek soldiers and they mutined when they came to know about even bigger kingdom across indus was waiting for them. it was in punjab that alexander was wounded with an arrow which pierced his lungs and cause his death later on.
So, ur saying that when Alexander won war against Indian states, those all Indians were sissies? Lemme just burst your bubble here. When Alexander beat Indian states, they were Punjabis (your so called anscenstors). Alexander ran away not because he was going to meet Punjabis (whom he defeated like Puru or Porus), but because of Magadha (You know Bhaiyaa log). The massive Indian state/army Alexander's armies feared was Magadhan army. No Indian is going to back you up if u say Punjabis are the real fighters and all other indian fighters were sissies. I don't know what happened on that forum, but I can assure you that Alexander (his army) ran away because of the fear of facing the massive Magadhan army.
When Desis say that gandhi is a pussy, how come these same Desis don't call MLK (Martin Luther King) a pussy?
MLK used the same civil disobedience/non-violent tactics and took advice from Gandhi. Is it because Desis are scared that black people are going to kick their @$$ if they talk $hit about Martin Luther King.....
I think people need to realize that being brave and having strength shouldn't be confused with acting like a violent buffoon or beainting somebody up. There are so many ways where you can be a "fighter" and courageous through non-physical means.
Why do you care about what Pakistanis think of as "weak"...Their country made up one of the failed countries index, so something ain't right over there obviously.
MLK used the same civil disobedience/non-violent tactics and took advice from Gandhi. Is it because Desis are scared that black people are going to kick their @$$ if they talk $hit about Martin Luther King.....
I think people need to realize that being brave and having strength shouldn't be confused with acting like a violent buffoon or beainting somebody up. There are so many ways where you can be a "fighter" and courageous through non-physical means.
Why do you care about what Pakistanis think of as "weak"...Their country made up one of the failed countries index, so something ain't right over there obviously.
QUOTE(kkdkckrl @ Jul 11 2007, 02:15 PM)
So, ur saying that when Alexander won war against Indian states, those all Indians were sissies? Lemme just burst your bubble here. When Alexander beat Indian states, they were Punjabis (your so called anscenstors). Alexander ran away not because he was going to meet Punjabis (whom he defeated like Puru or Porus), but because of Magadha (You know Bhaiyaa log). The massive Indian state/army Alexander's armies feared was Magadhan army. No Indian is going to back you up if u say Punjabis are the real fighters and all other indian fighters were sissies. I don't know what happened on that forum, but I can assure you that Alexander (his army) ran away because of the fear of facing the massive Magadhan army.
i never said other desis were sissies. alexander only conquered territories on the west of indus. not the part of punjab where i am from. alexander was injured by malli tribes who are modern sikhs ancestors. it was after meeting porus that alexander wrote a letter to his mother saying there was just 1 alexander in macdonia but here everyone is an alexander.
by the way in that forum my attitude is not like only punjabis are best. i was defending india and indians werent backing me up. instead they were siding with greeks.. now see greeks want me to be in their group and admire me unlike those sissy indians.
QUOTE(jatt_with_gutts @ Jul 11 2007, 02:34 PM)
i never said other desis were sissies. alexander only conquered territories on the west of indus. not the part of punjab where i am from. alexander was injured by malli tribes who are modern sikhs ancestors. it was after meeting porus that alexander wrote a letter to his mother saying there was just 1 alexander in macdonia but here everyone is an alexander.
by the way in that forum my attitude is not like only punjabis are best. i was defending india and indians werent backing me up. instead they were siding with greeks.. now see greeks want me to be in their group and admire me unlike those sissy indians.
by the way in that forum my attitude is not like only punjabis are best. i was defending india and indians werent backing me up. instead they were siding with greeks.. now see greeks want me to be in their group and admire me unlike those sissy indians.
Which topic was this where they were siding with greeks?
QUOTE(ExpressYourself @ Jul 11 2007, 02:35 PM)
Which topic was this where they were siding with greeks?
that forum is not meant for women. its fighters forum.
QUOTE(jatt_with_gutts @ Jul 11 2007, 02:37 PM)
that forum is not meant for women. its fighters forum.
Hey now..there were some female fighters and women known for their bravery in Indian history..even some were Kaurs from what I remember.
QUOTE(ExpressYourself @ Jul 11 2007, 02:40 PM)
Hey now..there were some female fighters and women known for their bravery in Indian history..even some were Kaurs from what I remember.
yea like jhansi kee rani. so are u like one of those?
QUOTE(jatt_with_gutts @ Jul 11 2007, 02:42 PM)
yea like jhansi kee rani. so are u like one of those?
I admit I used to be a weak sissy person when I was young because I didn't know anything, but learning about Rajputs kind of influenced me to be more courageous, harder, and stand up for myself. I'm not physically strong though...but I have other ways of letting people know that they should back off.
That's why I said the spirit of being a fighter isn't limited to physical means, violence, army/military, whatever.
now some patriotic indians are backing me up. good to know, not all desis are sissy
#1 Who cares what Pakistanis and Greeks think? Alexander wasn't even a Greek, the Greeks considered the Macedonians to be barbarians before they got conquered by them, and Pakistan is slowly becoming a hell-hole. Those Greeks you were arguing with are stupid.
#2 Gandhi was against violence, but you don't have a good grasp of history if you considered him or the Indian Independence movement to be passive. Whether you like it or not, Ghandi is one of the most admired figures in history.
#3 Stop with the we Sikhs are warriors crap, you're some student or whatever the hell you do in Canada FFS. I'd be suprised if you've ever fired a weapon.
#2 Gandhi was against violence, but you don't have a good grasp of history if you considered him or the Indian Independence movement to be passive. Whether you like it or not, Ghandi is one of the most admired figures in history.
#3 Stop with the we Sikhs are warriors crap, you're some student or whatever the hell you do in Canada FFS. I'd be suprised if you've ever fired a weapon.
Actually saying punjabis fought the war is somewhat wrong, its just bad luck that you guys were where they invaded from so it isnt like you are better just cause a hundred centuries ago some of your ancestors fought invasion from various people. Hell anyone wouldve fought.
But yes these days, a non violent approach helps your cause more than killing randomly.
Plus just stfu, indians arent weak. Hell just cause most want to live in peace you want a centurion like army ready pounce whenever something happens?
But yes these days, a non violent approach helps your cause more than killing randomly.
Plus just stfu, indians arent weak. Hell just cause most want to live in peace you want a centurion like army ready pounce whenever something happens?
QUOTE(ssjasper2003 @ Jul 11 2007, 05:23 PM)
Actually saying punjabis fought the war is somewhat wrong, its just bad luck that you guys were where they invaded from so it isnt like you are better just cause a hundred centuries ago some of your ancestors fought invasion from various people. Hell anyone wouldve fought.
But yes these days, a non violent approach helps your cause more than killing randomly.
Plus just stfu, indians arent weak. Hell just cause most want to live in peace you want a centurion like army ready pounce whenever something happens?
But yes these days, a non violent approach helps your cause more than killing randomly.
Plus just stfu, indians arent weak. Hell just cause most want to live in peace you want a centurion like army ready pounce whenever something happens?
gandhian approach was good in good old days. now a days that is considered stupidity. one has to fight for his dignity. beging for mercy like gandhi wont do any good.
Sure go ahead & do it if you want to get arrested or be killed.
gandhi was passive? what do you mean?
Gandhi may not have used violence, but he fought as hard as anyone in the Indian Independance movement and he certainly was not a pussy or sissy, but rather an incredibly strong man.
Violence is not the only method available to resolve a conflict, nor has it ever been the best.
Violence is not the only method available to resolve a conflict, nor has it ever been the best.
some desis are pussies, can't even get some descent fu-king support to have a proper fu-king adjective for this forum.
QUOTE(ExpressYourself @ Jul 11 2007, 02:27 PM)
When Desis say that gandhi is a pussy, how come these same Desis don't call MLK (Martin Luther King) a pussy?
MLK used the same civil disobedience/non-violent tactics and took advice from Gandhi. Is it because Desis are scared that black people are going to kick their @$$ if they talk $hit about Martin Luther King.....
I think people need to realize that being brave and having strength shouldn't be confused with acting like a violent buffoon or beainting somebody up. There are so many ways where you can be a "fighter" and courageous through non-physical means.
Why do you care about what Pakistanis think of as "weak"...Their country made up one of the failed countries index, so something ain't right over there obviously.
MLK used the same civil disobedience/non-violent tactics and took advice from Gandhi. Is it because Desis are scared that black people are going to kick their @$$ if they talk $hit about Martin Luther King.....
I think people need to realize that being brave and having strength shouldn't be confused with acting like a violent buffoon or beainting somebody up. There are so many ways where you can be a "fighter" and courageous through non-physical means.
Why do you care about what Pakistanis think of as "weak"...Their country made up one of the failed countries index, so something ain't right over there obviously.
OWNED
In my opinion both ways were effective for India...as it showed Indians in a peaceful site and also could fight back when pushed to the limit, self-defense.
Ghandi's movement of peaceful was effective in its own way. His movement was poerful and influenced the likes of Martin Luther King.
Shaheed Udham Singh one good example of taking revenge when Governer Sir Michael O'Dwyer ordered the shootings in Punjab which killed over thousands. Udham Singh came to London, became his driver, could have killed him there earlier, but wanted to publicise the event, so shot Sir Michael O'Dwyer at Caxton Hall, London after 21 years off the shooting.
The massacre to have occurred with the Governor's full connivance "to teach the Indians a lesson, to make a wide impression and to strike terror through-out Punjab".
Udham Singh took a silent vow and solemn pledge in front of the Golden Temple to wreak a vengeance on the perpetrators of the crime and to restore honour to what he saw as a humiliated nation.
Ghandi and Nehru first condemned the attacks but later Nehru and Congress party referred to it as patriotic and heroism.
Ghandi's movement of peaceful was effective in its own way. His movement was poerful and influenced the likes of Martin Luther King.
Shaheed Udham Singh one good example of taking revenge when Governer Sir Michael O'Dwyer ordered the shootings in Punjab which killed over thousands. Udham Singh came to London, became his driver, could have killed him there earlier, but wanted to publicise the event, so shot Sir Michael O'Dwyer at Caxton Hall, London after 21 years off the shooting.
The massacre to have occurred with the Governor's full connivance "to teach the Indians a lesson, to make a wide impression and to strike terror through-out Punjab".
Udham Singh took a silent vow and solemn pledge in front of the Golden Temple to wreak a vengeance on the perpetrators of the crime and to restore honour to what he saw as a humiliated nation.
Ghandi and Nehru first condemned the attacks but later Nehru and Congress party referred to it as patriotic and heroism.
if it wasnt for Gandhi and his civil disobedience, we would all probably still be in India under the rule of the British. and if it wasnt for Gandhi and India gaining it's independence, then Pakistan wouldn't even exist. so it's absolutely ridiculous for any Paki to call the Indian idea of non-violence weak or passive.
does anyone really believe violence is a more of an effective way of achieving anything these days? look at all the terrorist attacks. how much success have those militant groups actually had with their acts of shear violence? how much have they actually achieved? all they've done is killed many many innocent people.
violence is always a last resort means of defending oneself, and it's often times almost the worst method of doing so.
it takes a LOT more courage, self-control and diligence to fight with your words instead of your fists. it's much easier to punch someone in the face than to walk away with your dignity intact.
does anyone really believe violence is a more of an effective way of achieving anything these days? look at all the terrorist attacks. how much success have those militant groups actually had with their acts of shear violence? how much have they actually achieved? all they've done is killed many many innocent people.
violence is always a last resort means of defending oneself, and it's often times almost the worst method of doing so.
it takes a LOT more courage, self-control and diligence to fight with your words instead of your fists. it's much easier to punch someone in the face than to walk away with your dignity intact.
QUOTE(nimbus @ Jul 15 2007, 10:21 AM)
if it wasnt for Gandhi and his civil disobedience, we would all probably still be in India under the rule of the British. and if it wasnt for Gandhi and India gaining it's independence, then Pakistan wouldn't even exist. so it's absolutely ridiculous for any Paki to call the Indian idea of non-violence weak or passive.
does anyone really believe violence is a more of an effective way of achieving anything these days? look at all the terrorist attacks. how much success have those militant groups actually had with their acts of shear violence? how much have they actually achieved? all they've done is killed many many innocent people.
violence is always a last resort means of defending oneself, and it's often times almost the worst method of doing so.
it takes a LOT more courage, self-control and diligence to fight with your words instead of your fists. it's much easier to punch someone in the face than to walk away with your dignity intact.
does anyone really believe violence is a more of an effective way of achieving anything these days? look at all the terrorist attacks. how much success have those militant groups actually had with their acts of shear violence? how much have they actually achieved? all they've done is killed many many innocent people.
violence is always a last resort means of defending oneself, and it's often times almost the worst method of doing so.
it takes a LOT more courage, self-control and diligence to fight with your words instead of your fists. it's much easier to punch someone in the face than to walk away with your dignity intact.
Well said...I don't even know if Desis today realize that the idea of a Kshatriya is to PROTECT the weak and the innocent. You don't criticize them or brag about how much stronger you are than others....Desis today have just twisted things around and think that joining a gang or getting drunk and beating some guys at a club is "warrior-like."
Im a non-violent person but if somebody came to my house today and start whipping my family and I, then for sure I would not hesitate to fight back in self-defense.
It was the same scenario with the many freedom fighters Hindus/Sikhs/Muslims e.g. Shaheed Udham Singh who took revenge after 21 years by coming to London in 1941. The Gandhi movement worked well, as Indians would resist, it got to the British Empire mentally, but the British started to fire innocent Indians...many massacres occurred.
The Indians in partition were being whipped around like donkeys...in their own territory, homes. The British treated Indians like slaves made them do jobs from 6am to 7pm all day long and getting whipped around and beaten up. There were signs on many places 'No Indians...Dogs allowed'. Indians were tolerant not to fight back and took it on the chin. But suddenely when a few guys appeared not afraid of death and were willing to fight back in self-defense, Indians thought 'wait a minute, if someone like Udham Singh can go all the way to London and take revenge, why cant we fight back?'. Thats when many people start fighting back in self-defense aganist the British Raj and it caused quite an outrage across India.
Inevitably the British Empire began to crumble, the British were clever conquerers, they thought 'damn Indians are fighting back'...so they basically RAIDED India and took as many things as possible to England...even golden doors lol.
"for your today, they gave their tommorow''...I salute the freedom fighters.
6 years later in 1947 British left....
The Non-Cooperation, non violent movement by Gandhi was very effective, it made India democratic. The legacy of the idea still remains today and influenced many people across the world. Equality amongst the classes in India also was practised by Gandhi.
Violence is not the answer to anything...Both ways of non-violence and fighting in self-defense ONLY, after all means of persuasion fails are encouraged in todays society.
It was the same scenario with the many freedom fighters Hindus/Sikhs/Muslims e.g. Shaheed Udham Singh who took revenge after 21 years by coming to London in 1941. The Gandhi movement worked well, as Indians would resist, it got to the British Empire mentally, but the British started to fire innocent Indians...many massacres occurred.
The Indians in partition were being whipped around like donkeys...in their own territory, homes. The British treated Indians like slaves made them do jobs from 6am to 7pm all day long and getting whipped around and beaten up. There were signs on many places 'No Indians...Dogs allowed'. Indians were tolerant not to fight back and took it on the chin. But suddenely when a few guys appeared not afraid of death and were willing to fight back in self-defense, Indians thought 'wait a minute, if someone like Udham Singh can go all the way to London and take revenge, why cant we fight back?'. Thats when many people start fighting back in self-defense aganist the British Raj and it caused quite an outrage across India.
Inevitably the British Empire began to crumble, the British were clever conquerers, they thought 'damn Indians are fighting back'...so they basically RAIDED India and took as many things as possible to England...even golden doors lol.
"for your today, they gave their tommorow''...I salute the freedom fighters.
6 years later in 1947 British left....
The Non-Cooperation, non violent movement by Gandhi was very effective, it made India democratic. The legacy of the idea still remains today and influenced many people across the world. Equality amongst the classes in India also was practised by Gandhi.
Violence is not the answer to anything...Both ways of non-violence and fighting in self-defense ONLY, after all means of persuasion fails are encouraged in todays society.
QUOTE(Proud_Panjabi @ Jul 17 2007, 06:37 AM)
Im a non-violent person but if somebody came to my house today and start whipping my family and I, then for sure I would not hesitate to fight back in self-defense.
That's understandable, but sometimes also people don't fight back because they can't if they're a physically weaker female or a child. In those situations, I don't think it's fair to call them pussies because they would get even more hurt or die if they fought back.
QUOTE
There were signs on many places 'No Indians...Dogs allowed'. Indians were tolerant not to fight back and took it on the chin
In a twisted way, tolerating crap everyday can make you stronger and it does help build character...I think of it as how a lot of kids who were abused or bullied turned out to be very strong and resilient adults.
Yeah, that is understandable...to call people pussies who do not fight back, that are physically unable is stupidity. If thats the case then the person themselve should go and help out the less physical.
The point I made about if someone came to my house and start enforcing, whipping my family and I....was just to show how Indians in India were being treated, self-defense was the key to driving away the British Empire. Also non-violence movement, tolerance was the key to make Indians more tolerant, mentally.
The point I made about if someone came to my house and start enforcing, whipping my family and I....was just to show how Indians in India were being treated, self-defense was the key to driving away the British Empire. Also non-violence movement, tolerance was the key to make Indians more tolerant, mentally.
QUOTE(jatt_with_gutts @ Jul 11 2007, 02:13 PM)
does being peacefull and passive like gandhi ji has any relevance in todays world. i think its considered weakness. those men are respected who are fighters not the ones who act like pussies and give away easily. indians are loosing fighting spirit because of too much importance is being given to gandhian way of life. in indian schools they teach us to be tolerating and peacefull at all times. but others likes pakis consider this as our weakness. i think we should be taught to live like fighters. always ready for combat. just like we sikhs are.
in another forum i had a fight with greeks regarding alexanders invasion of india. i was like alexander made a U turn when he met real fighters in india( who was my ancestors of course). porus was a small king and even he fought braverly and dented the confidence of greek soldiers and they mutined when they came to know about even bigger kingdom across indus was waiting for them. it was in punjab that alexander was wounded with an arrow which pierced his lungs and cause his death later on.
now indians just like in this forum instead of backing their compatriot sided with the greeks and kept on attacking me. i kept on fighitng cause i am a sikh and sikhs never give up. now the same greeks are impressed and they want me in their group whereas indians want me to expel me from their group.
wot do u guys think. acting like pussies is good for us. ist it giving a bad name to indians across the world and people view them as apus ?
your thoughts ? i will appreciate
in another forum i had a fight with greeks regarding alexanders invasion of india. i was like alexander made a U turn when he met real fighters in india( who was my ancestors of course). porus was a small king and even he fought braverly and dented the confidence of greek soldiers and they mutined when they came to know about even bigger kingdom across indus was waiting for them. it was in punjab that alexander was wounded with an arrow which pierced his lungs and cause his death later on.
now indians just like in this forum instead of backing their compatriot sided with the greeks and kept on attacking me. i kept on fighitng cause i am a sikh and sikhs never give up. now the same greeks are impressed and they want me in their group whereas indians want me to expel me from their group.
wot do u guys think. acting like pussies is good for us. ist it giving a bad name to indians across the world and people view them as apus ?
your thoughts ? i will appreciate
Brother, yea your right. But I think you also forget that it was not only Punjabis who fought outsiders, but Marathas(Shivaji) and Rajputs(Prithiviraj) as well.
Also during the time of the Greeks all Punjabis were Hindus. I am assuming you are talking about Raja Porus here.
Overall I agree with you though. My parents are Maratha, but they grew up in Delhi and Chandigarh, and I think it is the 'hotheadedness' of North Indian warriors that has enabled India to survive so many barbarians.
bump
QUOTE(spoonman3 @ Jul 30 2007, 08:44 AM)
Brother, yea your right. But I think you also forget that it was not only Punjabis who fought outsiders, but Marathas(Shivaji) and Rajputs(Prithiviraj) as well.
A lot of Punjabis abroad don't know what a Maratha, a Rajput or a Gurkha is, because these people didn't migrate in large numbers to America. They only know about Punjabis mostly, so they think that Punjabis are the only fighters because that's all what they know.
QUOTE(ExpressYourself @ Aug 1 2007, 04:54 PM)
A lot of Punjabis abroad don't know what a Maratha, a Rajput or a Gurkha is, because these people didn't migrate in large numbers to America. They only know about Punjabis mostly, so they think that Punjabis are the only fighters because that's all what they know.
GURKHAS have nothing to do with Indian history.
But most Punjabis I've met in NY/NJ/CT/MA/VT know exactly who Mahrattas and Rajputs are. There are even monuments in Panipat and other Punjabi/Haryani cities which tell of the Mahratta and Rajput tales.
http://archaeologyharyana.nic.in/kambpanipat2.jpg
one dunno about mahratta in punjab cause mahratta homeland is a bit far from punjab but we are aware of rajputs. every punjabi knows very well who rajputs are. they have a reputation of fighters.
QUOTE
every punjabi knows very well who rajputs are
Chicago ABD's don't know or they have major misconceptions if they've heard the term. Some Chicago Pakistani Punjabis think that all Rajputs are Pakistani Muslims, while I met a Sikh girl who thought that all Rajputs are Sikhs and can't be Hindu.
QUOTE
There are even monuments in Panipat and other Punjabi/Haryani cities which tell of the Mahratta and Rajput tales
That's in India. Desis that didn't grow up in Punjab or Haryana obviously wouldn't know.
QUOTE
But most Punjabis I've met in NY/NJ/CT/MA/VT know exactly who Mahrattas and Rajputs are
I've talked to Rajputs from these states on facebook, and they've all complained that Desis over there
have no clue that Singh is a Hindu Rajput last name. If most ABD's knew about Rajputs, I would think that they would at least know that not all Singhs are Sikh.
QUOTE(ExpressYourself @ Aug 1 2007, 11:31 PM)
Chicago ABD's don't know or they have major misconceptions if they've heard the term. Some Chicago Pakistani Punjabis think that all Rajputs are Pakistani Muslims, while I met a Sikh girl who thought that all Rajputs are Sikhs and can't be Hindu.
That's in India. Desis that didn't grow up in Punjab or Haryana obviously wouldn't know.
I've talked to Rajputs from these states on facebook, and they've all complained that Desis over there
have no clue that Singh is a Hindu Rajput last name. If most ABD's knew about Rajputs, I would think that they would at least know that not all Singhs are Sikh.
That's in India. Desis that didn't grow up in Punjab or Haryana obviously wouldn't know.
I've talked to Rajputs from these states on facebook, and they've all complained that Desis over there
have no clue that Singh is a Hindu Rajput last name. If most ABD's knew about Rajputs, I would think that they would at least know that not all Singhs are Sikh.
Pakistanis? who cares.
Losers. They just run off of our successes.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.