palm_w1

that is really good and well thought out

they went around killing and murdering there fellow human beings. carpet bombing cities such as coventry and dresden. dopping nuclear bombs on towns in Japan wiping out mass civilian life. chardi kala sewa. just because people went to war does NOT mean they did sewa man.

he's quoting fact man, if the book is biased it is biased, simple as.

alledgedly. but i can't actually MC to save my life

On a lighter note guys you could have allowed arguing and all the friction and just come to the bhangra night i was hosting at UCL union on the same day as the alledged talk ironically enough. It was a great success and I am sure I will see you all at the next one Come along, line a peg and move your feet to the dhol beat. it is a great stress reliever and a possible alternative to some of the other methods being suggested! [align=center:db8abdb310][/align:db8abdb310]

I believe one certain member of BOSS is rumoured to have used SP friends to intimidate people at one event last year. Does this make all of BOSS corrupt? Do the actions of Phoola make all Nihungs raping mass murderers?

I strongly agree with you that this them and us mind set is wrong. It is leading to too many arguments and people are just simply deciding not to turn up to sikh society events when they see the fracas' created. While i do agree with you that many 'mainstream' sikhs are deregotary towards 'sanatan' sikhs and do not respect their views i think the same is true in the other direction. Many sanatan sikhs have massive hatred towards anything that is mainstream. for e.g. the ridiculing of gatka when the W Mids sikh soc poster was posted on this forum. My benti is for everyone to live and let live, and this applies equally to sanatan sikhs as well as 'mainstream' sikhs. You can't condemn mainstream sikhs for their actions when sanatan sikhs are just as bad and sometimes even worse.

this thread seems to be going off topic fast and turning into another feud. please stick to the subject of the UCL sikh soc. ok, ok, ok. let me try answering the points and questions put to me 1 by 1. to Beast: You ask for an example of intimidation. I think I may have jumped the gun by making that statement but its just that the original email was talking about not mentioning someones name because they were scared but then the actual email went on to name Kultar. This was followed by posts which named other people such as Harjit Singh Watford, Nav Cheema and Satinder Singh (these posts have now been removed). It seemed that a name was being withheld to protect that person then certain contributors to this thread went and named others. I assumed (perhaps wrongly) that naming these other people amounted to some sort of veiled threat as Harpreet doesn't name his source. These suspicians in me grew even stronger after seeing the posts were removed, perhaps because the contributors thought they were threatening or maybe the moderaters did. I don't know. Or maybe i am suffering from psychosis due to excessive deg consumption. i dunno. to shaka: What are the consequences? That a rival factions (to which you are affiliated) event got cancelled? bhaji you talk about sikh societies not taking action against BOSS. I have been a student in london for a long time and to be honest BOSS has helped to set up and support many sikh socieites all over london. to my knowledge i don't know of any others who have done this. I don't want to get caught up in the mudslinging between sanatan sikhs and BOSS, but i think BOSS has done a lot of good for Sikh Societies all over the country. if it wasn't for them a lot of sikh socieites wouldn't exist. Example, the flyer for the lecture series claims that Warwick Uni sikh soc supports the event. Warwick uni's sikh society was dead for years until BOSS helped revive it 2 years ago. rather than abusing BOSS perhaps the haters should help to promote and setup sikh socieites. then perhaps the socieites would be more receptive to sanatan sikhs holding lectures in their institutions. I suggest if what you claim is true you take your evidence to the police. In this country drug dealing, rape, pimping and 'crime' is in fact illegal. These are very serious crimes and should be stopped, I am sure the CPS would be interested in prosecuting BOSS and SP if you could provide them the evidence which you seem to possess. This is of course if you are telling the truth. Again this is also illegal. However i do know Dilpreet personally and I have asked her if she was threatened. She has stated categorically it is a LIE. Bahadur Singh you have once again gone on to fabricate the truth and make up lies. The person you claim was threatened has told me it is a lie. Please do refrain from fabricating evidence as this does not do you or other Sanantan Sikhs any favours. Dilpreet will soon be posting here to explain her side of the story. Do not stir up emotions to promote your propoganda, especially when the emotions are made up of lies. To Harpreet: You raise many interesting points. Firstly let me apologise for you feeling i am having a go at you. This was not my intention, I love all people but when accusations are being made against my universities sikh society I do take an interest. However it is hard to discuss 'facts' that are posted by a secondary person on an internet forum. regarding Sarb and Dilpreet. They may had been aware of the Sanatan event but were not told about the content. The comittee only changed their mind when they noticed that some lectures in the series had content which is likely to lead to arguments. We have already been threatened with the closure of our sikh society because of arguments at the sikhi week event by certain sanatan and non sanatan sikhs. Take your fights elsewhere, our university is not a battleground. you don't do a good job of hiding you friends identity. It is easy to guess the secretary of UCL sikh soc wrote the email by the lines in your post which say: "here is a copy of an email they sent to their students behind my back after BOSS and Kultar Singh intervention." and " This email was not sent by the secretary(who was responsible for the emails)" With little research you can find out who this is. I won't mention his name but i will talk to this 3rd year medic soon to discuss his grievances. I can't believe your audacity. It is a blatant lie. A spelling mistake would be writing SAAS instead of SOAS. Claiming SOAS has a sikh society which supports the event is classed as a lie and a fabrication of the truth. Regarding the lecturer, he is a PHD student who lectures part time in Hindu Law. How does this qualify you to claim SOAS's non-existent sikh society supports the event? It is baseless lies like the ones you are trying to propogate which motivate me to research more. Well research i did and it turns out that the event was in fact cancelled at UCL! it did not take place at UCL like your friends email claims. It also turns out that other sikh socieities who do not support the event are placed on the flyer. namely LSE and in the end UCL. As someone who is defending the author of the flyer perhaps you should ask them to stop making the event look like it is supported by people who do not support it. Furthermore i am quite confident that it is also a lie that Warwick uni supported this event, i will confirm this soon i hope. This leads me to question how many other 'facts' that are on this thread are also in reality fabrications and outright lies. I have done and have spent a lot of time on this post, and going through your posts. I strongly suggest you take the time to read and understand my post. Also please try and answer some of the questions i pose as you have ignored them in my previous post. I make many allegations of lies which I stand by and have first hand proof for. Please stick to the truth. Also ask your friend anonymous friend D***EET to take up his issues at the committee meeting rather than dragging the sikh socieites name through the mud in this public fashion. It does nobody any favours. Next time before posting your friends hate mails you should try and verify what he says and find out if it is truthful. The email was sent by the person you claim is president. I could be wrong but i think the president outranks the secretary!!! If the president sent it how can it be without the sikh societies permission. Behind their backs! Again a lie. Also please don't give me the usual spiel that you never wrote the email blah blah. Perhaps you should make a statement saying it may contain many factual errors as is know being proven to be the case. Or come out and make a staement that you support the email and its contents. Rather ironic you should say that. to Akali_Singh: I can answer this as unlike some of the contributors here who are assuming I have spoken to the person involved. She has NOT been threatened and says she did not feel intimidated in any way. However she is upset by the lies being spread on this forum. Well done guys. Looks like the agressor has been crying wolf on this forum mate. to N30 S!NGH: "Kalyug to the max man!" I agree. But do you agree now presented with evidence that these accusations are a lie that the actual Kalyug is the lies being spread by two contributors here. Also please don't jump the gun without knowing what is going on. I also hope you are just as disgusted by the lies as you were by the baseless accusations which were based upon these lies. to Sanatan Sikhs in general: Please refrain from fabricating evidence. You do yourselves no favours and bring down the name of true sanatan sikhs like Nidar Singh. Promote your thought process through facts and arguments; not lies, deceit and emotion. Apologies to all the decent sanatan sikhs out there, i don't mean to brush you all with the same labels but some of your comrades don't refrain from chatting poo. I hope this now puts an end to the matter.

I think all sides are telling lies in this scenario. While i have no problem with sanatan sikhi being promoted i do not think it should be done so when the host organisations do not support it. Firstly Harpreet: "UCL sikh Society gave thier word(according to their own commitee member) last Monday saying that they supported the Snatan Sikh Event at their uni." Which committee member said this exactly? Does one members approval mean the whole sikh soc rubber stamped the event? did UCLU sikh soc book the lecture theatre for this event? "Then all of a sudden after their sikhi week talk(run by BOSS) on tuesday they changed their mind ! (Dilpreet the president, was surrounded by KultarSingh and Harjit Singh watford for 35 mins)" If you were at the election you would have observed that Dilpreet actually lost the election and Sarb was elected president. She was nominated co-president WITHOUT being elected. "Fact2: THEY WERE OFFICALLY INFORMED MANY WEEKS AGO, HENCE WHY THIER NAME IS ON THE FLYER !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" who was informed? also after having looked at the flyer i notice the author has lied. For example they say SOAS sikh soc supports the event. SOAS does NOT even have a sikh society. Check: www.soasunion.org/main/sportssocs/societies. I could be mistaken but I think whoever is advising Nidar Singh is deceiving him as well as others. "Fact 3: This email was not sent by the secretary(who was responsible for the emails), it was done without their permission, BEHIND their BACK!!!!!!!!!!!" Who sent the email then? as far as i know only committee members have access. was the secretary not aware? did he object? ultimately it is the presidents decision. "Fact 4: One of the main people who were against this event taking place and influenced this email, namely KULTAR SINGH(UCL) was not even on the commitee!" So. he is at UCL and a member of the sikh soc which is more than can be said for most of the haters on this forum. And what happened to not mentioning names as you said at the start your post. Shaka: " in order to force the Sikh societies to comply with their fascist views." to be honest i have never felt intimidated by BOSS. however I am worried that by expressing my views I will become a vicitm of the hatred being displayed on this thread. Even when i went to Nidar Singhs classes i felt comfortable but the hatred that some of you express towards people who don't comply with your views is astounding. After having spoken to Niddar Singh I think he is quite a decent person and would be surprised if he agreed with your intimidation tactics.

amazing how you manage to turn totally unrelated topics into khalistan bashing threads.

falluja is not even remotely similar to amritsar in 84. the reasons for the fight, the type of fight, the outcomes of the fight are totally different. Having said that i wish the residents of falluja well in their battle for freedom.

I don't think 1947 has been forgotten but the reasons behind the murders of sikhs and others in 47 are over. I don't think anybody doesn't recognise the shaheediya of singhs/singhnis pre -84. This includes the valiant shahidiya by the nihung dals. However the reason 84 shahidiya are so widely remembered is that: 1. they are living memory 2. the issues which started it still exist, i.e. sikhs are still 2nd class citizens in india. Also regarding the KCF and Babbars neo, i think their shahidiya are very valid and its a bit rich to belittle the shaheeds by saying where were they during the british times. I also think it is a valid argument to say certain nihung dals neglected their duty during the times of mass terror in punjab.

yeah sorry man, looking back at my post it was a bit harsh but at the time it seemed u were trying to promote SV using this unfortunate incident. i agree with people here who say sikhs (and others) do need to learn to protect themselves from abuse, be it by learning SV or other forms of combat.

N30 it is very unfortunate that this innocent person was attacked in such a brutal and racist manner but don't use him as a propoganda piece to further the cause of shastar vidiya unless you have his permission. while i agree that people should learn the vidiya because it is very useful that was a pretty low attempt at getting some recruits.

can a guru help u find truth within urself?

GanM u seem to have a very rose tinted view of the world. it is a fact that there are violent people in all socieites and weapons are needed not just for offensive purposes but also defensive purposes.

i was under the impression that politics and dharam were inseperable in sikhi. hence the locating of the akal takht within the darbar sahib complex. its up to us, the sikhs of today to decide and define what khalistan is and wether sikhi should be the basis for it. also i don't see why having a political framework based upon sikhi would limit sikhi. again maybe your right. but one thing is for sure sikhi definately isn't protected from these kinds of attacks in india as has been amply demonstrated by history. so why not see if another political solution would be better as it can't be worse than what were under at the moment, where the indian govt finances people like bhindrawale then attacks sikhs on mass to kill their own creation. also even though i respect your view that u believe khalistan would not protect sikhi it would be interesting to know how u came to this conclusion. i disagree. why will sikhs become a target for attacks. undoubhtedly india and probably even pakistan would try and destablise any such country but once they see the benefits they themselves recieve in increased trade and security i don't see why they would carry on. also how would other groups degrade sikhi if there was a khalistan. for e.g. britain and iraq are currently at war. britian is a christian country in the sense that the official religion is christainty. iraq was secular but is overwhelmingly muslim. even though they are (were?) at war does this degrade either christianty or islam? in my eyes the gurus weren't interested in personal profit however they definately were interested in politics as it is political and military power that ensures survival. for e.g. in mughal politics the gurus supported khusru to become the succesor of the mughal empire. they also fought against certain mughal forces to reduce their political power over certain areas, and hence alleviate the tyranny they were causing. its a lot easier to keep things going when u have political backing. acces to funding, state protection, guarantees of security, a base, non-prejudicial media reporting etc etc. for e.g. look at the current issue in france. what can the sikhs there do? short of commiting terrorist acts, sweet F.A. if there was a soverign khalistan at least these people would have somewhere to go to if they felt their liberties were being infringed unduly. also it would lead to a lot more diplomatic pressure on the french and a bigger media spotlight on the plight of sikhs. from my understanding of punjabi and the context of the word khalsa it could simply refer to those who are 'pure'. does that necassarily mean sikhs? i think khalsa is derived from the word khalis which means pure. maybe i am wrong. finally i hope no1 takes this personally, i post to challenge peoples conventional views on khalistan, those both in favour and against. this is beacuse i believe most ppls views are based on misconceptions about what khalistan and punjabi separatism is. neway be glad u can openly express those views, unless u live in punjab of course. i had an article by Jasdev Singh Rai of the SHRG. it was quite interesting and was what made me really think about khalistan and india. if i can find it i will post it. what do others think of him as a speaker?

it would be interesting to know how peoples perceptions of khalistan are shaped. to all the people that know anything about this imaginary state of khalistan how did u come to your views? what makes u think it would be a fundamentalist sikh state? if that is what u believe of course. are your views shaped mainly by the media? lets face it most indian journalism is strongly biased in indias favour. even all the punjabi press with the exception of awaze quam is anti-khalistan with a venom. or is it shaped by your views of what u imagine a supposed khalistan to be like? what ur parents, friends, jatha and peers tell u? has ne1 actually read the constitution of khalistan here? i percieve khalistan to be a state of freedom and liberalness, not a sikh state per se. just that sikhs would be able to live in freedom there unlike in india at the moment. it does not mean that there is no room for others.

only some sikhs want a khalistan (in the same way that even a few hindus do). when u talk of differences between sikhs and hindus there are many, even if we ignore the basic differences of different religions (in the conventional sense), history shows these divisions as were demonstrated by the attacks on darbar sahib and the massacre of sikhs in delhi (and elsewhere) by hindu mobs. were they showing there similarities by murdering sikhs in cold blood? and this is before we even take into account the genocide of sikhs which has been taking place since indian 'independance' their was no such thing as india at the time of the gurus, india is a very recent construct. also i don't see how the gurus kept 'india' as a whole, were they a political force in 'india' @ the time? once again india never existed. also guru nanak dev ji went to many places, including mecca for example. should we claim that as part of the indian construct also. who is to judge the path of righteousness at the moment? it could be argued that those that take up arms against indias paramilitary forces are righteous. guru gobind singh ji fought the mughal empire because it was repressive, also the mughal empire was not in control of the whole of 'india'. good stuff but i wouldn't class him as a guru. personally i don't think sikhi will survive in india as it is. personally i think punjab would become the next economic miracle if it went independant. instead of being economically shackled by india it could stand on its own feet and industry would be unhindered by the current IAS discrimination against economic development in punjab. if they can live together in india why not anywhere else? agree with first point, not 2nd who knows? congratulations i am sure many khalistanis will be glad to have your blessings. btw, how come u guys were gonna put up the same message? is it sum sort of circular going round or something?

with the standards of canadian journalism as embodied by kim bolan the media would probably side with the agressors to spite the sikhs. worth a try however.

i think (from persoanl experience) that in most cases it definately is about an inferiority complex.

it asks you to contemplate on the works, not to agree with what they say. i think the essence of the quote is not to slander the books of other religions out of spite and menace

I believe u chat sh*t. how dumb can u be? i can't believe that staement. people keep turbans and beards because there were no hair dressers!! i think u and new age sikh blatently have some sort of agenda.

newAge, i have to agree with commander that ur analysis is totally flawed. shudras are allowed into hindu temples now (some neway) but they cannot become brahmin and therefore cannot run the temples. U r born brahmin, simple as. no other way to become one. any1 can become amritdhari. shudra, brahmin, sikh, chinese, the list is endless. therefore anybody could go onto become a giani or run a gurudwara. ironically enough i don't think u even need to be amritdhari to run a gurudwara. many people on gurudwara commitees are not even kes dhari, never mind amritdhari. so in answer to ur question: 'Can a non AmritDhari Sikh become a Gurdwara priest' yes. tell the person to learn about sikhi. take amrit, and i am sure no1 will be to fussed if he becomes a giani. i don't think sikhs actually have priests per se. "Take a careful look at your posts. You assume, mock, deride and insult. There is no humility in your manner. These are not the ways of a Gursikh." i agree with this analysis. yet u say u r just looking for answers. that is what leads me to believe u have ulterior mtives.

i don't carry a kirpan. if u had paid attention to my posts in other topics u wud know i was not amritdari! also i never knew it was necessary to have kirpans licensed. is that the case where u live? your statement about the 38 seems to be in contrast to ur protestations of peace etc in other threads and also i do also get the feeling that lion king may be right in his analysis of your religious leanings.