mrsingh

Singh 2 wrote-;



Below is from a paper written by Amar Singh Jhubal's grandson. For someone who keeps trying to talk up Jhubal you don't know much about him.



Singh 2 wrote-;


You gave a reference from a mickey mouse website. There was no Jathedar at Akal takht from the time of the British annexation until Teja Singh Bhuchar was made jathedar by the Akalis in 1920. You were asked to give a reference and you have failed miserably. I am surprised that MDS and Shaheediyan haven't been able to pull out any references. So it looks like Sahib Singh and his Nihangs attempted to seize the Akal Takht from the Akalis who had only a few days before taken it over from the Pujabris who were under the control of the Sarbrah. The Nihangs came from Burj Akali Phoola Singh which is over a mile away from Akal Takht. Under the Sarbrah the Nihangs like other Sikhs could visit Akal Takht but they had no special status or custodianship over it. This is history.

I would expect Neo to apologise for speading the bukwas story told to him by a Nihang that the Akali removed Sahib Singh from Akal takht of which he was the Jathedar and used women to beat him as they knew that he would not fight back against the women. That story has been shown here to be false. Over to you Neo.

Singh2,

Please stop spreading your ignorance. Amar Singh Jhubal joined the Congress party in 1919 and was instrumental in organising the grass roots of the party in rural areas of Punjab but mostly in Amritsar district. While the Akali movement was at it's height, he was the president of the District Congress Committee for Amritsar district. How else could the party of Banias and Brahmins get so strong amongst Sikhs in Punjab. It was due to the organising abilities of people like Jhubal that by 1946 elections in Punjab the Congress won 10 seats reserved for Sikhs whilst the Akali Dal won only 23 reserved Sikh seats. You obviously have some sort of agenda and a poor sense of history. You want to push back the Jhubal involvement with the Congress to the 1940s as that was when it became common for many Sikhs to associate with the Congress but Jhubal was one of the main reasons that Congress got such strong support from Sikhs. While the Muslim vote was being consolidated in the Muslim league, the Sikh vote was being divided and thus ensured that Nehru could treat the Akali Dal as a minor party as he could count on his puppets like Jhubal the original 'Congressi Sikh'

Why do you persist like a broken record to bring up writings from the 1830s when they are not relevant to the question at hand. You jump from the 1830s to 1984 as if that will prove the point. For each Nihang in 1984 who did something positive for the Panth there were ten others who went with the government. Sahib Singh in 1920 and Santa Singh in 1984, both sought to subvert the Sikh movements of their day, both sought to bring back the Nihang Jathedari over Akal Takht. The Sikhs in 1920 were able to get their hands on Sahib Singh and beat his ambition out of him. No doubt given the anger of Sikhs at Santa Singh's antics, had they been able to get pasr the cigarette smoking CRPF security of Santa Singh whilst he was at Akal Takht they too would have beaten him senseless.

But lets not divert the thread. Either provide proof of a Nihang Jathedar being in charge at Akal Takht in 1920 or shut up. It's that simple.

For those interested in reading the one sided account of how bad and evil Kartar Singh Jhabbar was you can read the whole paper here-;

http://export.writer.zoho.com/public/adhillon/Akal---Independence-Movement---Liberation-of-Gurdwara-Tarn-Taran1/fullpage

Just remember that the writer is the grandson of Amar Singh Jhubal. Read how he places the whole blame for the clash at Tarn Taran on Kartar Singh Jhabbar and exonerates the Pujaris who had assaulted a woman at the complex a few days before and who had filled the complex with their hired goons many of whom were drunk.

Singh2,

The fact that Nihangs were custodians at Akal Takht during the time of Akali Phula Singh is NOT in dispute. Your posting of reports from the early eighteenth century serves no purpose. What is in dispute is that in 1920 there was a Nihang who was the Akal Takht jathedar and who was manhandled out of his hereditary role by Akalis when they took over the Akal Takht. As of yet, no concrete evidence has been presented.

As for your quote about the activities of Kartar Singh Jhabbar, there were two factions in Akali Dal who although they agreed on the need to liberate the Gurdwaras, disagreed on the methods and time frame. On faction wanted to involve M K Gandhi and adhere to his sanctimonious advice that the liberation of the Gurdwaras should be postphoned until India got it's independence. Kartar Singh Jhabbar was amongst the faction that thought that it would be harder to liberate the Gurdwaras with a Hindu government in place rather than under the British.

FYI Amar Singh Jhubal was on the congress side and he was instrumental in creating congress committees in Punjab. With the recent attempts to rewrite history and portray the Akali movement as illegitimate, so some family members of Jhubal are attempting to rewrite history to reduce the role of leaders like Kartar Singh Jhabbar. Whereas as most of the Akali leaders suffered all or a majority of their imprisonment for the Akali movement, Amar Singh Jhubal, out of nearly 5 years imprisonment only went to prison for three months for the Akali movement and the rest of the time for activities linked with the Congress party of Gandhi and Nehru.

Interesting enough in the quote you gave from "Real Story of Liberation of Gurdwara Tarn Taran" where the author spares no attempt to malign Kartar Singh Jhabbar, even he does not use the sanatan myth of the Nihang jathedar being kicked out of Akal Takht.

Shaheediyan,

Have a read of Amritpal Singh's site and you will know why I made that statement. Propogating fairy stories about a Nihang jathedar sitting in Akal Takht in 1920 and being thrown out by the Akalis are some of the myths that are being told by Nihangs and starry eyed kids in the west. You, MDS and Maha Singh attempted to show that the aggression was on the part of the Akalis and that they were ending the Nihang jathedari from the times of Guru Hargobind. No evidence apart from some grainy images proving nothing were provided. The likelihood is that Nihang custodianship of Akal Takht ended after Akali Phula Singh while Maharaja Ranjit Singh was still ruling over Punjab. The British just continued the trend of government appointed Sarbrahs until the Akalis took over in 1920.

Is this the same Kirpal Singh who went on Indian TV after Bluestar and LIED that the Akal Takht had not been damaged? What I was seeking was a contemporary account from someone who visited the complex around the time of the Akali takeover and who confirms that there was Nihang Jathedar at Akal Takht. It shouldn't be difficult given the number of newspapers that were published at that time. What I provided was evidence from 1859 when the document relating to the administration was created and there is no mention of Nihangs at all as having any role in the administration of the complex! I also provided evidence from a contemporary accounts of the takeover which state that the Nihangs tried to take over the Akal Takht on behalf the ousted Pujaris. You may argue that these accounts are biased because they are from Akali leaders who took part but even where writers wanting the defame Kartar Singh Jhabbar such as the grandson of Amar Singh Jhubal they have not given the story about the beating of the Nihang Jathedar when such a story would greatly assist the writer's case.

Singh2,

For the last time will you stop regurgitating the same old quotes prior to 1849. Do you not know the difference between 1849 and 1920?

Proving you to be ignorant is getting boring now. The article by the grandson of Jhubal, he should know more about his father than you would.

http://share.zoho.com/preview/writer/66266000000006005/Sardar%20Amar%20Singh%20Jhubal-%20A%20Stalwart%20of%20Akali%20and%20Independent%20Movements

The Nihangs had the control over Akal Takht during the Misl days not because they were viewed as having had some great commission from Guru Gobind Singh but as they belonged to a Misl that did not seize lands as the other Misls did, they could be seen as being neutral in the disputes between the different Sardars and Misls. Maharaja Ranjit Singh had no need for a neutral force as he had taken over the other Misls and hence sometime during the later years of reign (possibly after the death of Akali Phula Singh) he did away with the Nihang custodianship of Akal Takht appointing his own Sardars as Managers of the complex, the one at the time of the British annexation being Lehna Singh Majithia. Your theory of the seperation of administrative and religious duties falls down flat when we consider that the person who was the manager of the complex during the days of Maharaja Ranjit Singh was a member of a committee of Sardars that wrote the administrative document of 1859 and he makes no mention of Nihangs or Akalis as it does of Pujaris, Ragis and Rababis. The administration document covers Harmandir Sahib and Akal Bunga as well as some other Bungas in the complex.

Singh2,

So you know more that Jhubal's grandson about whether he joined Congress party in 1919. Thst just shows that what you lack in intelligence you make up for in ego.

goneee

It is possible. Anything is possible.
bhoolan andar sab ko, abhul guru kartaar

The mind gets affected if we think it will get affected. When a person has full faith on guru the mind won't ever get affected. A person has to have a strong will like the puratan shaheeds. The only way we can get a strong will is if we have full faith on the guru.
This quote from osho is what drives me toward the guru
Osho once said, 'when you meet the true Guru, you will not find answers to your questions, but your questions will become irrelevant.' 
When you find the true guru anything can happen.

This could be said of many things. What can smelling that fragrance do to the mind or going to an astrologer do to the mind etc. A person has to have full faith on the true guru and then nothing will affect him.

None of this isthe point dalsingh101... the point is, does Sikhi have gender equality or not?? Are women in Sikhi given the same rights when it comes to religious duties, family etc as men? Or are they given less? And if they ARE given less rights and freedoms, is it Sikhi that is somehow teaching this, or is it culture??
Don't mix up what I suggested before... that some people male and female choose to be in a dominant / submissive relatinship. Ever hear of BDSM? Some people willingly enter into a relationship as a 'slave' for whatever reason and it excites them sexually etc. to be controlled.  Men do it as well btw.  Some men also even pay to be the submissive!!! I was suggesting that maybe (whether they openly admit it or not) have some of the same attraction to being told what to do, when to do it etc. and not have to ever think on their own... This however, is NOT the ideal!!!!
My stance is and has always been, that NOBODY should be pigeonholed into roles based on their gender.  If a man wants to stay at home with the kids let him... if she has the higher paying career etc... and if a woman wants to work and have a career and feels more fullfilled contributing to society then let her.  It's not hurting you so why should you care? It worls for them... But nobody should be told they 'are not allowed' do something because they have a vagina (or a penis).  Especially in religious / spiritual affairs.  If women want to lead spiritually, let them... if they feel the calling to pursue leadership positions in the sangat then let them explore those roles.  Men don't always have to lead and women don't always have to be submissive followers.
How can anyone ever consider this thinking to be 'nutjob'???
A nutjob would be someone who forces another into a role they despise and make their life miserable... in the name of 'gender roles'.  And this goes both ways...male and female.
btw this makes me an equalist not a feminist.

This topic is solely on Prem Sumarag. What do you think of my view and especially the last point, which might not be a solid one standing independently but it needs to be taken into consideration.
Regarding Prem Sumarag, there is not a single manuscript of the early 18th century, its all hearsay or this scholar claimed this or that. No proof or locations of such manuscripts are provided. Only existing MS are from the 19th century. I do not believe in hearsay, and nor should you. Atleast if you try to be objective.
Mcleod has a strong opinion that the first chapter might have been appended later to the Prem Sumarag, a view I share because several manuscripts with only 1 Chapter of Prem Sumarag exist. Besides that the Nitnem is repeated once in Chapter 1 and then in Chapter 6, the Nitnem in Chapter 6 does not specify which bani to do in morning but it says 'read from the Granth Pothi (SGGS)'. Therefore the main Prem Sumarag text does not mention the DG as much, the Bachitar Natak evening Nitnem is only there in Chapter 1 and not Chapter 6.
Besides that Prem Sumarag is a Granth dating to the Misl period or after because it mentions Kalals when it mentions other Sikh 'groups'. Kalals were practically unknown and too few in numbers to be mentioned amongst the other groups. Even in the British census they formed about 0.004% of Sikhs in 1881, which is too insignificant. The Kalals only became known after Jassa Singh Ahluwalia, before that there is not a single prominent Kalal Sikh and they have always been numerically insignificant till Misl period. This is my own observation not based on any other scholar.

A few weeks ago, a group of British Sikhs forcibly stopped an inter-faith marriage from taking place at a Gurdwara (Sikh temple) in Leicester. Organisers of the protest boasted: “On the weekend a outerfaith wedding where a Punjabi bimbo was marrying a non-Sikh (white Christian) was forcefully stopped by the Khalsa, Respect to these lads for standing up for whats right and standing up to a corrupt gurdwara commitee.” Note the usage of the words “bimbo” and “outerfaith”.
A similar protest by the same group earlier in July this year in Bradford was unsuccessful; though a video of the protest shows one of protester saying on camera: “Are we from this mosque? I don’t think we’re from this mosque,” when denied entry by police. Apparently Sikhs who don’t abide by their rules become Muslims.
Put their casual misogyny and bigotry aside for a minute (I’m sure Guru Nanak would have been proud), because this is more about how a group of hardliners are trying to terrorise Sikhs across the country and destroy people’s big day unless they adhere to their rules.
Two years ago a group of 40 such hardliners (it may not be the same group) stopped the wedding of a Sikh woman and her (Christian) husband in Swindon and even posted a video of the incident to YouTube as a warning to others. A BBC Asian Network report last year found Sikhs afraid to speak out because of a continuing campaign of harassment and intimidation; people had their windows smashed and faced other forms of intimidation simply because they wanted a religious ceremony at a Gurdwara.
This is relevant now because this week the Sikh Council UK published ‘guidelines’ on inter-faith marriages at Gurdwaras, reiterating that they shouldn’t be allowed unless the non-Sikh partner converts to Sikhism and undergoes a detailed test to ensure it was genuine. I’ve been inundated with private messages from Sikhs horrified that this form of extremism is gaining ground and being imposed on Sikh Gurdwaras. It’s time we spoke out.
Imagine this scenario. A Sikh man falls in love with a non-Sikh woman and they want to get married. Both agree to a religious ceremony at a Gurdwara. This gives her an opportunity to learn more about the Sikh religion and understand the basic tenets of this progressive religion. It gives her a sense of familiarity and the couple may decide to raise their children as Sikhs.
But what if no Gurdwara is willing to host the religious ceremony? The couple will undoubtedly feel that the Sikh community has ex-communicated them. ‘Married out of the religion? We don’t want to know you’. What are the chances they will now bring up their children as Sikhs? Who wants to be associated with a bunch of narrow-minded bigots?
This is discrimination against non-Sikhs and unadulterated bigotry. I’m perfectly aware that other religious groups do the same. That alone should make some Sikhs think twice: why be as narrow-minded as them? Why not embrace non-Sikhs, as we do when they enter a Gurdwara for langar? Keep in mind that allowing mixed-couple to marry at a Gurdwara wouldn’t hurt anyone. It wouldn’t destroy anything. It would make Sikhs look open and welcoming of people of other faiths.
I’m aware of the counter-argument. If the Sikh wedding ceremony – the Anand Karaj – is interpreted in strict, literalist form, it is aimed only at two Sikhs. But that misses the point. It doesn’t have to be interpreted in that way – Sikhism is also a state of mind and way of life. Plus, most British Sikhs who currently get married in Gurdwaras cut their hair straight after the ceremony and celebrate by drinking alcohol. Will they be forced to go through tests too?
The unsaid truth is that groups such as the Sikh Council UK and many Gurdwaras across the UK are pushing these strict, literalist guidelines not because Sikhism is being destroyed. They are doing it because they’re unwilling to challenge these hardliners. If they wanted strict adherence to the Anand Karaj guidelines, they would call for a ban on most Sikh weddings in the UK. But of course, they would much rather protest against women they call “bimbos” and stop them from marrying a white or black guy at a Gurdwara.
The narrow-mindedness behind such mentality is depressing for a growing number of secular Britons from Sikh families like myself. We may not go to the Gurdwara on a regular basis but we still identify as cultural Sikhs. But this strand of thinking would rather excommunicate and expel all those who don’t follow their strict interpretations, until just their kind are left.
A once powerful and progressive ideology is being ruined by the bigotry of hardliners who want everyone to follow their narrow interpretations. This is a recipe for turning Sikhism from a global inclusive religion into a narrow cult.

Bro, one does not become a warrior by eating meat only. There is no relation between, being very cautious (especially in Canada) about meat eating and being a warrior.
Having said that, if one accidentally eats meat, it should not be taken as a big sin. It is a small one, which can be easily forgiven by Satguru jee.
Warrior (Khatri) is also a person, who wins over his own mind.
Btw, what do you mean by being "ultra paranoid"?
Bhul chuk maaf

Don't forget that on here quite a few of the Singhs on this forum do not believe Sikhi has (or ever was supposed to have) gender equality...

It's because developed nations show results first and then get paid, ...whereas the Indians take the cash first and leave you hanging for results !
 
 

Developed nations have best scientists in Physics , Chemistry , Biology and we have seen results for them and improvement in life they have done for their people . India have world's best astrologers and still we have yet to see results about improvement in life of people in India 

have you read my post? 
 
Put in as much effort in doing bhagti and you won't need an astrologer. Why care about learning the future that could be wrong? With bhagti a person will know the future with the Kirpa of the true guru. Did baba nand Singh go to an astrologer? Or did any of the DDT Sants? None have.

For example I can call the Pythagorean theorem crap but I have not insulted the maker of it.
 
PS: I don't think the Pythagorean theorem is crap I'm just giving an example.

what??????? Bro just calm down.  How the hell is it an indirect nindia? I'm calling astrology crap not no rishi.
 
Bro you are taking this astrology stuff waaaaay to seriously. Put this much effort in you bhagti and maybe you might not need an astrologer.  

Astrology is not needed in sikhi. A person can follow a sikh lifestyle without doing any astrology crap.

Are you trying to say that astrology is part of Sikhi? My ancestors were from pakistan and They never believed in astrology , there was no concept of kundali matching among sikhs. Though they believed in Jaadu tona .Astrology was never part of sikhism 

Most likely, most missionaries will say that Astrology is not a part of Sikhi.
Bhul chuk maaf