SUKHBIR

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh, For those who oppose the concept of a Sikh state. I am afraid it's creation is as inevitable as is the break up of the huge social experiment known as india, one way or another be it in the aftermath of nuclear war with Pakistan or other means. Khalistan to me is a place where Sikhs will be able to practice their faith without fear of persecution or the meddling of other's who will use religion in furtherance of their own agenda. Where Sikhs will not be under the constant pressure of assimilation and where they can except to be treated fairly by all societies institutions, importantly a place where they are gauged by their treatment of their minorities. Many people who miss the point say "how do we know it would be run properly" well I would simply say they couldn't do a worse job then india has in the past fifty odd years. Remember the struggle continues, it can take decades, it can take different form's whether its the AK or the ballot box depends more on the global picture at the time. Most Sikhs at least support the concept whether it be as an ideology or a reaction to the indian state injustice against the Sikhs over the past twenty years and more but there is at this time a great deal of general apathy.To return to the groundswell of support of the mid and late eighties will require the indians to commit another huge and public atrocity against the Sikh nation unfortunately this is not a question of if but when. There is no one in their right mind who would want to see this happen but as I have said it is as inevitable as the reaction. I listen to some Sikhs say that they do not support 'Khalistan' in some ways the term has been so maligned by the power's that by over such a long period I am not surprised, but if they do not support the creation of a independent Sikh state than they are simply waiting to be dealt another blow by a state that cares nothing for it's minorities least of all those that it considers 'the enemy within' There is of course, to india, a acceptable Sikh identity as espoused by the popular media of the day which wastes no time in remodelling the Sikh ethos to fit indias need and there is no doubt there are those who feel that we can forget the past and carry on but for all their good intentions they are missing the point. Our future is not dependent on our behaviour towards the majority rather it is the reverse our future is dependent on their behaviour towards us. You know the real irony of the 84 Sikh massacres in Delhi? The victims were the indian text book Sikhs largely Hindi speaking, non-secessionist urbanites more partial to the Mahabharat than any talk of Sikh sovereignty, they considered themselves indians, did that help/save them? You know the answer to that question, you see regardless of their attempts at integration they were considered different, aliens if you will, to be taught a lesson and of course clearly visible as Sikhs. Do you think its history? Well here's food for thought a assassin not a Sikh but dressed in the bana of a Sikh assassinates Mr Vajpayee tomorrow what do you think will be the result? Im sure you know but forsaking pointing out the obvious I will tell you, thousands more Sikhs murdered, burned, more Sikh children orphaned or worse, widescale rape of Sikh women and girls the burning and looting of their homes, shops and gurudwara. All this while the apparatus of the state stands by or in many cases joins in the 'fun'. Like it or not this is the reality for Sikhs in that country, I for one do not want my community to be left to that sort of unpredictable vulnerability and anyone that does is clearly not in their right mind. You see for me the Sikh state is not a question of desire but one of necessity we must protect ourselves for if we cannot how can we protect anyone? Gur Fateh Sukhbir Singh P.S. Moderators (N30, TruthSingh) your views on the issue are crystal clear.

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh, Jagdeep, Nihang, Teja , Narsingha, browncookie or whatever pseudonym your using this week. What again? By my reckoning that's the third time you have chosen to 'retreat', I have always believed that a Sikh should stand by any resolution made, especially when made in the presence of the 'sangat' cyber or otherwise, yet you simply renege, it seems that this level of gumption is either far beyond you or you do not define yourself as such. Name calling is symptomatic of a climate that you, yourself have created, your contempt and disdain for any of the usual etiquette applied in discussion has been responsible for this situation. Intellectual seems to be a real word of choice with you, doesn't it? Is this a genuine fondness for the word or just indicative of a limited vocabulary? I doubt there are few of your posts where it hasn't been employed, you flatter yourself beyond reason if you consider your own abilities to be superior to other posters, based purely upon the structure and 'standard' of your post's, your reasoning and understanding or lack of it and not your affiliations, I would say that your of average competence, for a tertiary college student. It is clear that you are unable to provide an answer under any circumstances as has been suitably demonstrated by this thread. To accuse someone of slander is yet again a case of the "pot calling the kettle black" as is evident from your comment. Showing a lack of respect to fellow posters has been your 'forte' for some time even though its nothing more than a 'cheap rouse' intended to portray a aloofness of spirit, which as is evident in your more revealing posts, does not exist. Further you have no right to 'cry wolf' on the issue of personal attack or name calling since you are one of this sites most accomplished perpetrators. Is this the sort of thing your referring to? From your last post! The voices of truth? Truth? From an individual who adopts multiple post identities to deceive, truth from an individual who would rather lie and use diversion than admit he cannot answer a question? Truth from an individual who declares he is to leave the site three times and fails to do so? So your request for anyone to trust you is a very, very hollow request indeed. 'Backing away', retreat, surrender, give up, throw in the towel, use any combination you like to explain your actions but you have yet again been 'outed' this is not the first time or as I have discovered the first site that has lifted your thin veil. More to come? More lies, more deception, more manipulation, more denials, more empty declarations. I doubt anyone waits with baited breath. Gur Fateh Sukhbir Singh Note for moderator : This post is neither slanderous nor personal it is based solely on post material to date, any derogatory comment made in this post by me has only arisen as a considered and equal response to earlier comment made within this thread and I would be more than happy to justify/validate any and all comments that I have made. F.A.O. The Truth. Veer, citing the use of the word 'admin cut' as 'his' reason for not replying is nothing more than a petty excuse. An answer was not forthcoming before the comment was even made, further, equally derogatory comments had already been made by 'nar...etc.' before the 'admin cut' posting.

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh, Yes Clearly, the question pertains to a assertion made on the website that you are representing on this forum, would you disagree that you are a representative of the site(s) in question on this forum? If you are unable to answer the question then a simple admission would reflect far more favourably than your current tact. If however you refuse to answer the question then this begs the query, what is the point of this 'thread'? The previous 'thread' degenerated as a direct result of this reluctance or inability to provide a 'straight' answer to a 'straight' question. The first half of this sentence is nothing more than a 'swipe' although it could have been regarded as a general comment the direct accusation in brackets defies that description. The further accusation of 'laziness' is no less of a personal attack. There is no need for accusations, it is indeed our actions which in this case can be summarised as what we type, which will be the sole basis upon which readers will make their decisions as to who is arrogant, open, enlightened, obstructive etc. Giving what I believe to be the site etiquette in relation to this thread I will not respond to the above flippant remark I urge other 'posters' to show restraint. On a general note I have till now abstained from this 'discussion' because I thought it was ill conceived and given the previous posting behaviour of certain individuals, it could not hope to meet the requirements it had set itself. It would seem this thread is following the exact same course as its predecessor that being obstruction, frustration, diversion, denial. Indeed the intention of this thread was a noble one but I am afraid that we must be realistic in our estimations of certain individuals, groups, organisations. Gur Fateh Sukhbir Singh

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh, As for all of the above it would be incorrect to answer points which are specifically directed at another, suffice to say that I have always believed in matter's such as this that 'actions speak louder than words' and my understanding is that your chosen action has been to decline. It would be unfair of me to discuss another thread that I have not been closely involved with but as far as this thread is concerned the 'record' of the thread will show that it was non other than you that initiated the use of personal remarks out of desperation. As a quick example of your immature nature please see above remark "Maybe this explains his lack of friends..." a remark that would be in keeping with any junior high school playground. The websites have been disputed on levels both within and outside of your intellectual capacity not wanting something to be the case is not enough, besides your penchant for denial is well known and noted. I Yes, you very well could be, you know what they say 'many a true word spoken in jest' The websites and yourself have been 'rubbished' several times in the course of this thread, its there for posterity so take a look. After your last leave of absence you returned to question the posting of 'Mr Blues' article and again the discussion was characterised by your impotence. You made a few lack lustre attempts but upon realising your folly you resorted to personal attack followed by submission followed by denial, which wasn't surprising since, Its exactly what happened the last time you decided to 'bow out'. The frustration evidently took its toll on you hastening you to make yet another retreat your now well known 'modus operandi' (BTW how can someone 'inherently' push you or is this the sanantan definition of the word Like this you mean ".. .. 5 or 6 people, you are once more deluding yourself, like to have a poll? I wouldn't count your chickens (or should that be goats) too soon, most that attend your various events are entirely ignorant of the contents of your site(s) and the 'message' you preach. How many times are you going to attempt to 'clear the matter' any amount of posting isn't going to clear the 'matter from your end' you have been comprehensively exposed and it's no wonder you keep drawing yourself back to the forum to try and vindicate yourself, like a moth to the flame. Its not a question of discussion forums its a question of faith and yes some people do take that very seriously, any objections? If you were simply putting forward your own perverse notions it wouldn't be a issue. However you are trying to propagate your message to win hearts and minds so scrutiny of you and your site is entirely valid. Your hardly in a position to lecture on personal attacks, I was going to post some quotes by yourself as examples but frankly their are enough within this very post to illustrate the point. On the question of locking this 'discussion' I would agree that this thread and the arguements of the s/vidiya exponents have been exhausted at this time. Gur Fateh Sukhbir Singh

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh, Sukdev, Im glad you decided to post, well done. Gur Fateh Sukhbir Singh P.S. A lot of the Sikhnet info. is in keeping with your own thoughts.

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh, Im not the one fronting a website on the internet. Do you remember this," It seems that yet again your reading but not comprehending, my quote that you have used reads "..no offence but I doubt I would make the time..." now the key word is 'would' not could i.e. not whether I had the time but whether I would 'make the time' the reason I have time to speak against your sites is because I think it's important so I want to 'make the time'. By the way no thanks necessary, the privilege is all mine." Yet again I am having to explain something quite rudimentary I never claimed to have no time I said I had no time for you, two very different things. Well that's your summary but its unlikely to be a familiar picture to the many who have been reading your and Bikramjit's posts. Entertained? Not quite the word I would use. As for returning to push buttons, feel free it wouldn't be the first time you have returned after saying farewell, but one request the next time be better prepared for the response. I don't think he's the only one annoyed at your presence and contrary to what you seem to be implying its hardly something to be proud of. Yes, goodbye as I have already mentioned this isn't the first time we have said goodbye and I doubt It will be the last and you forgot to mention your latest invention nihang.com, you must need a break its unlike you to miss an opportunity to 'plug' a site. Gur Fateh Sukhbir Singh

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh, So this is what now passes as a reply, is it? Replies such as this are no more than an admission, it is no different than the recent 'towel chucking' by your cohort Lalle. Of course there is nothing wrong with 'bowing out' after all its not the first time is it? We only need look back through this thread to see it's not your first time. As for me and Bikramjit being related, well I suppose to your mind there is a direct correlation, your postings to me expose your intellectual deficiencies and Bikramjit has recently exposed your physical cowardice. So I suppose we share some common bonds. Gur Fateh Sukhbir Singh Mugermach go for the dictionary, future best seller no doubt.

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh, It seems I have managed to hurt the sensibilities of both you and Lalle, sorry, I never realised you were quite so sensitive as for your other remark, really there's no need for flattery. It seems that yet again your reading but not comprehending, my quote that you have used reads "..no offence but I doubt I would make the time..." now the key word is 'would' not could i.e. not whether I had the time but whether I would 'make the time' the reason I have time to speak against your sites is because I think it's important so I want to 'make the time'. By the way no thanks necessary, the privilege is all mine. Read it again, it wasn't actually a retort, it was a request to someone who is clearly fatigued or worse, when you make the mistake of assuming too much your likely to be surprised. Didn't really want to dignify this last comment with a reply, you are truly scraping the proverbial barrel aren't you? So you see a war on the horizon do you? Between Sikhs and you Sanatanis? Well don't worry if you show the same ability and lack of control as you do on this site I don't think there's much for anyone to worry about. Gur Fateh Sukhbir Singh Mugarmach don't worry about your spelling, its your defintion of verbal that needs some attention. Or like I said before maybe your a IT genius :wink: .

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh What a comprehensive reply Lalle, far exceeds your previous efforts. Seems like your losing it a wee bit there, calm down. The resorting to personal attack like that just illustrates your frustration and inability to deal with this situation. Gur Fateh Sukhbir Singh

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh, Narsingha, that's a awful lot to credit me with, amazing how I manage to fit it in. Anyway sorry to disappoint you but I never 'promised' you anything, since our only communication is via this site and mail I would like to see copy of me 'promising' I don't think you will find it. Besides it is by now very clear that any commentary by me or other will no doubt receive the standard Narsingha reply i.e.. "your paranoid, your opinions are subjective, your a brainwashed Brit Singh etc.etc.". I would rather place information before the 'masses' and let them draw their own conclusions. Further If you recall following my first mail outlining my objections to your site you or someone replied and in turn I answered with my reply, It was never answered, I still have those mails I can post them if you like? So your not keen then? Hardly surprising that you would accuse him of the above given that it's your usual estimation of anyone who isn't glowing in their regard for Mr Niddar Singh or your sites or Sanatanism(?) I suppose had he been positive, in his remarks you would be nominating him for a Justicia award. Sorry, now that is a confusing paragraph, "It also highlights our own bais against Sanatan..." What? Your now saying that your biased against Sanatan as well? Your definitely consistent, I give you that ! I wasn't trying to discredit Mr Singh as I have said before you seem to do a sterling job in that respect, his 'personal experience' is explained in his column, where he went, what he read etc. I am not responsible for Mr Blue's opinion, although my own opinion based largely on interaction with you and reading the websites you advocate is not that far removed, however the only way to find out the inner workings of Mr Blue's mind is to ask him. Personally I think Mr Blue's column is self explanatory, since your the curious one I suggest you ask him. As far as me considering his 'work' to be 'viable and a genuine representation of the facts' as you put it. I am entirely convinced that the column is a genuine representation of Mr Blue's opinion in much the same way as any other column, I thought we had gone through "familiarising yourself with newspapers 101"? . Thanks for the invite, no offence but I doubt I would make the time to meet with the 'organ grinder' given that interaction with his mon.. ahem. assistants has been, to date , well, let's say less than enlightening. Muggermach, inventor of the amazing talking post computer, your either a genius or in need of a dictionary. :wink: Gur Fateh Sukhbir Singh

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh, No group Singh, thank's indeed a valuable article. Whilst there saw this essay as well very enlightning. N.B. For those without the spare three to four years to learn various languages, I suggest you start with the english translation, if anyone is intrested in getting their hands on a copy, mail me. Gur Fateh Sukhbir Singh

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh, Strange the post was 'put up' almost a month ago and was yet to receive a reply and then 'lo and behold' you three 'guys' post on the same day within a couple of hours of each other ! Coincidence? Telepathy? Anyway it's not important but glad you did, although Narsingha I would have thought that given your earlier 'faux pas' of only a few days ago when you started name calling without being in receipt of the facts,(talking of pathetic narrow mindedness in response to Truthsingh) you would apply a little more due care and attention, but it seems that some people have a mental block when it comes to learning from their mistakes. What I am talking about is the application of your characteristic amateur psychology which seems to be limited to the diagnosis of paranoia in all cases, it seems you are not familiar with the format of a newspaper so allow me to enlighten you 'Mr Blue' is a columnist, he has a 'column' in the 'SIKH TIMES' now columnists are employed by newspapers to write limited topical articles on anything that takes their fancy,they are allowed to express their opinion and draw on personal experience, it could be likened in many ways to a diary entry. The nature of a 'column' in this sense is far outside the measures of a academic work or article therefore your comments regarding fortitude and research are entirely irrelevant. I had assumed that the reader would be familiar with such basic knowledge, perhaps the words column at the top of the post were not big enough or perhaps newspapers are unfamiliar to you, either way you have yet again 'gone off half cocked' with your assumptions and limited repertoire of insults, it's not for me to defend Mr Blue but you should get his writing in perspective. Anyway I am glad you gents enjoyed the article should I come across any other writings on your "chatka gatka ustad" (I thought that was quite amusing) I will post them for your perusal. One last thing Mugermach I am intrigued as to your 'verbal and written diahorea' comment, does your computer speak to you? As for myself my computer only allows me to read what's written It's obviously way behind yours. Gur Fateh Sukhbir Singh

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh And I and other readers should take your word for it should we?, sorry but your word fall's far short of evidence, besides there are points within the article that could not be termed 'wrong' by any measure. Firstly how convenient that it's not available and yet again were back at go and read this or learn such and such a language, as with your earlier statement's (see below), nothing more than poor diversionary tactics. . Oh, I took it alright, but it seem's you cannot take the response, their is an old adage that goes something like "if you can't take it don't dish it out in the first place" Firstly you claim article(s)? again you need to check your fact's its article (singular ie. one) Further you got the debate, my point's are entirely clear there is no point in repeating them here since you have never countered one, as for quoting from your post's yes that is annoying for you isn't it? Well im afraid if you make comments and later contradict yourself or they have are incorrect then I have every right to point them out. Further they are comment's written by you are they not? If you don't like them to be brought up, perhaps you should not have written them in the first place. I quote from your post's because unlike you all my observations regarding yourself and your shortcomings both personally and in terms of your argument have been based solely on the evidence you provided yourself. Here's another adage for you " give someone enough rope and they will hang themselves" Like I said before if you cannot take it that's fine, bye, hopefully in the future you will think twice before making these sort's of comment's, . Yes, you wrote all of this and by the virtue of this forum there's no denying it you have no right whatsoever to call other people blind with regards to their faith, you have no right to attach meaningless labels like SGPC Sikhism to those who wish to follow the path of Guruji, you have no right to call people you do not agree with ignorant fool's and you should not be so self glorifying as your final "cripple/ dancer" comment suggests. In saying goodbye to you I sincerely hope that you learn some respect for people other than yourself. Gur Fateh Dhan Dhan Sri Guru Granth Sahib Jee Maharaj

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh, Firstly, in this case the age of the article is of no relevance whatsoever when assessing its credence. To say it has been proved 'wrong' is hardly a satisfactory response, you must deal with specifics, how has it been proved "wrong"? The article is logical, well defined and well executed I fear your problem is not with its accuracy but the clear conclusion it makes. Besides IF you read my post introducing the article I did assume a unfavourable response from you and I also said that I would leave it up to the reader to draw their own conclusions, perhaps in the absence of any legitimate counter you should do the same. Its no surprise to me that your getting fed up, the article means you have to ask some very searching questions and for one to whom humility is an issue that must be quite uncomfortable. Your fed up because the article exposes many of the flaws that are inherent in your argument. If there is available, evidence or research that is well researched, well founded and well respected than why should it not be cited? Are you trying to tell me that any academic study is the result of original thought? The author of the article has done far more research than is within my or your confines and the article is well written just because it fly's in the face of your own position you would rather it was not used. I have made my own conclusions very clear to you time and again so to avoid duplication here I refer you to my earlier post's. As for you having a rule about citing authoritative work's you may not 'cut and paste' but you have often referred to various book's or as above scholars, further whatever 'rules' you impose upon yourself are of little relevance to me. Its your prerogative to not 'cut and paste' but it is well within the parameters of this or any forum so what's your point? Strange aren't you the same Lalleshavri that wrote... Or perhaps that was someone else, having said that contradiction is hardly something your averse to, would you like further examples? Anyway since you apparently see yourself as something of a intellectual perhaps you can explain the deeply profound utterances you made below? Or the equally high minded The only reason you attempted to 'tease' me is because you are arrogant 'my friend', im sorry but I am being honest the contents of your post are very telling and reveal a unjustly inflated ego and as far as the comments regarding your maturity are concerned, again apologies but they were not intended to be in good humour. Gur Fateh Sukhbir Singh

Waheguru Ji Ka Khlasa Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh, Yes J. but Dasam Granth is not all Guru Ki bani no Guru claimed it was and neither was it endorsed by any of the Gurus, unlike Sri Guru Granth Sahib Jee. Gur Fateh

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh, That's as concise as it need's to be, what further argument can there be? There is a lot more in the Dasam Granth than the bani you refer to N30 and even it's strongest advocate's admit that it cannot be attributed to Guruji, so really what your asking is for people to accept as their Guru a granth whose full authorship is not known and further a granth that Guruji himself did not declare Guru. This is the bottom line. Absolutely, the mool mantar in itself if fully comprehended is enough on its own to change any life. Gur Fateh Sukhbir Singh

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh, Since you seem to have decided to progress with some maturity and abandon your accusations we can move forward. You have asked a number of questions although you have answered none of mine. You ask me why I consider my Guru to be my Guru, simple because guruship was bestowed to the Guru by the Guru unless of course you now wish to ask me why I consider Guru Gobind Singh Jee to be Guru, the answer is exactly the same for it was bestowed to him by the Guru and so on and so forth from Guru Nanak Dev Ji forward. There is almost uniformely agreement that Dasam granth in its entirety cannot be attributable To Guru Gobind Singh Jee. Of course there is bani within Dasam granth but this does not mean A) it is entirely bani it is accorded Guru status. Equally if there were a composition or work's by one of the Bhakats that contained within it verses which are also found in Guru Granth Sahib Jee It would not be accorded Guru Status. Amrit Bani as an example contains Shabads from Guru Granth Sahib but it is not Guru Amrit Bani is it? I thought I would give you food for thought with the article below it is comprehensive and requires you to be thoghtful and contemplative, I do not yet know whether you have the capacity or inclination. I still beleive your intentions to be suspect and some of your earlier post regarding ritual slaughter and re-incarnation beggars belief it would be entirely at home coming from the mouth of a soothsayer. Bear in mind the article below will make very large holes in your specious arguement so i do not excpect it to be well received by you but you know what they say if you build your home on sand its going to come tumbling down one day and besides your opinion is just that..YOURS, ill let the readers make up their own mind. Gur Fateh Sukhbir Singh GURU GRANTH/ GURU PANTH

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh, It seem's to me that I am in exactly the same situation that I was when I replied to your assertion that the Guru Granth Sahib is made up of three separate Granths. That situation being that your wrong and what you have stated is in fact a lie. It is of little importance as to when it became important and surprise,surprise it is yet again the British raj that is to blame, how original !! Whether descriptive or prescriptive is of even less importance because it has no bearing on the main issue that being that Sanskrit and knowledge of it was restricted on a caste basis, something which you accept in your next statement. Humiliating other's is for the weak for those who feel thay are in some way elevated by the degradation of another, that is not Guruji's way the problem is you apply your manmukh instincts and measures to those who are beyond such things. That is why you amongst others think you are better positioned that Guruji himself to assert that his declaration that Guru Granth Sahib jee alone is our Guru was wrong and it is you who are correct to appoint a trinity of granths as Guru. 3. Quote: Maybe you should acquire some humility before embarrassing yourself and other's with your ignorance, it is not much of a debate when you accuse me of making statements that don't exist. My word how that retort must have strained the old grey matter, how very disappointing, surely you could do better? Your high opinion of yourself is misplaced by a great degree, conceit is indeed a blight to the soul, it should not be for the individual to praise oneself it should come from others but I suppose in your case the absence of such means you have to blow your own trumpet. I never accused you of being a Hindu or anything else for that matter, yet again we find yourself answering questions that only you have posed besides why should I accuse you of being a Muslim I have a lot of Muslim friends and I would not wish to offend them. You are very presumptuous I feel no anger at this time I had a point to make and I made it. You felt it necessary to divert the topic by inventing accusations and that's fine I have gauged the level of your debate and am thus reacting accordingly, anger? No your simply a mild distraction from the office, I never thought you would realistically defend your assertion that Guru Granth Sahib is anything other than what it is our complete Guru, the reason why you didn't? Simple..... you couldn't, for how can one question that which is beyond question? To accept what you say I would have to accept your opinion above that of Guru Gobind Singh Jee and to be frank, based on your post's I would be loathe to accept your opinion above that of my niece....and she's 8 next week. Even the Jackal can pretend to be the lion, until of course the lion turns up. Gur Fateh Sukhbir Singh

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh, I do not know what you find so amusing but your inability to comprehend posts is slightly amusing to me. Anyway yes there was a period when in order to learn Sanskrit you would need to be a Brahmin, do you dispute this? I never said the language was anti-Sikh did I? The point clearly, or should I say clearly to most people with a modicum of sense, was that Sanskrit was not a very inclusive language given that for many centuries knowledge of it was restricted. Maybe you should acquire some humility before embarrassing yourself and other's with your ignorance, it is not much of a debate when you accuse me of making statements that don't exist. Gur Fateh Sukhbir Singh

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh, Firstly I never made the accusation, you refer to so kindly deal with the facts, secondly an orthodox Sikh is one who is a practising Amritdhari preserves the five K's and believes the Guru Granth Sahib to be his only Guru and means of realising the one eternal formless God. Very simple concept I know and that's what frustrates those who would attempt to employ lies and myths to subvert it. You would not even be a SIkh if it wasn't for the selfless dedication of all those generations of scholars and knights. Stop assimilating the Puratan sampradavan with jathas, sects, cults or Hindu political organisations. I am a Sikh by the grace of the lord, I never assimilated any of the aforementioned with the groups you talk of, again it seems it is more convenient to pose your own questions before answering them. My question was have you been there? As for them being fully endorsed, which body's endorsement are you referring to..your own? Whether complete or not Dr Jodh Singh does not claim authorship of the Granth to Guru Gobind Singh Jee in its entirety and the translation was published with the express approval of Sri Hazur Sahib, would they put there name to and finance a publication if they did not endorse it's contents? NO. In 1699 Guru Gobind Singh created the Khalsa a brotherhood equal in every respect where a man would be a scholar, warrior, householder etc.. a saint soldier. What you talk of is no different to the division of man under hinduism where one man is a warrior and another a priest. What Guruji did was break those divisions to allow man to open his mind to his full potential he did not need to restrict himself to one label, role, vocation through this empowerment he would break the centuries old brahmin shackles of Khatri, Brahmin, Shudra etc. What a ridiculous statement again as before you are either ignorant of the history of the organisation and how and why it came into being or as is more likely you have your own motivations for making such a statement. Ask yourself this If any organisation sprouted up today and declared itself as the panth do you think it would receive widespread support? Then why do you think the SGPC did ? Simple because it espoused the almost unanimous beliefs and aspirations of the Sikh nation. The SGPC did not create the panth rather the opposite, the panth as created by Guru Gobind Singh Jee created the SGPC as a collective voice for the panth. The truth is all around us it never dissapeared in order to reappear! But there are those who do not wish us to see, they revise history in order to give their lies credence, they bring disunity where there should be solidarity, they question that which is unquestionable and all of this under the guise of faith. Our Gurus have given us the tools and the knowledge and in your hearts you know what is right did Guru Gobind Singh Jee create a brotherhood that encapsulated the ideal man, a saint soldier, a man for all seasons unrestricted in his abilities or did he create various groups where one would be a warrior another a scholar another a priest, bound to their role for life? Gur Fateh Sukhbir Singh

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh, No I didn't think you would try my 'friend' It would be far easier to tell me im wrong because..... you say I am?... No, just Sikhism, not Sanatan not SGPC, not neo nor any other for that matter, Sikhism needs no further title it is incredibly simple to qualify, GURU GRANTH/ GURU PANTH as stipulated by Dasam Patsha Guru Gobind Singh Jee. . You know this idea of 'sacred' or elusive knowledge that is within the auspices of a select few is exactly the type of wrong that Sikhi set out to right and it did. It is no different than the Brahmin claiming intellectual inferiority as the reasoning for denying the Vedas to the Shudra. Stop talking you say, well if you continue to make illegitimate claims I will continue exposing them. If your enlightenment leads you to make sweeping judgements about others and their relationship with Akaal then its not the sort of enlightenment that I want as Guru Nanak Dev ji wrote "Je Ko akhai bol vigar Ta likhai sir gavara gavar" (If some prater claims that he can describe god then declare him to be the greatest fool of all fools) Remember Sikhi criticised those who unnecessarily complicated the peoples path to akaal in pursuance of their own agenda and it will always continue to do so. If you had read my post you would have seen that I have read and do own a English translation of Sri Dasam Granth a translation produced by and with the authority of the Gurudwara board of Sri Hazur Sahib the very authority that you yourself cite in your post as having "the oldest and purest maryada" as much as you may wish to mystify the contents of the Granth or claim it is beyond comprehension, it is not. The translation is available to all right now so you see there's no need to wait four years. Manu was able to monopolise the language and keep the 'sacred' knowledge within his own caste so should ever anyone question the wisdom or content of the text they would be told that not being Brahmin " its out of reach for you both emotionally and intellectually" or perhaps " be re-born a Brahmin and learn Sanskrit and maybe we could start the conversation again" Sound familiar? Guru Angad Dev ji when talking of language and its use by some to restrict knowledge of the divine said of Sanskrit that it is like water in a remote well, you must know where it is and have the means of extracting it by contrast Gurmukhi is like the rain it falls on all. Gur Fateh Sukhbir Singh

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh, No it is not, the Guru Granth Sahib is not manifest in three forms it is the same Guru Granth Sahib that was decreed as our Guru by the only person with the authority and qualification to do so namely Guru Gobind Singh. Quite simply they do not "complete each other perfectly" as you put it. The Guru Granth Sahib is in itself complete, as one example how do you equate the principal of gender equality as professed by Guru Nanak Dev Ji in Gurbani as contained within Guru Granth Sahib and carried forward in practice by the Gurus in practice with the so called ' wiles of women' or Istri Charitar which forms a large part of the Dasam Granth and contains verses that speak of women in terms that cannot be imagined to be attributable to Guruji. This is of course only one example and given that Guruji himself did NOT accord Guru status to either the Dasam or Sarbloh Granth it is mainly academic. It must also be remembered that the Dasam Granth was only discovered more than twenty years after Guruji's passing from this world. Guruji had many court poets in his court and it is generally agreed that many of the compositions regarding Avatars and the Goddess Durga along with the Istri Charitar are attributable to them. The point being that whether or not you agree, the authenticity and authorship of the Dasam Granth is very much in question and although it may be held in reverence neither you nor I have the 'right' to afford it Guru status the one that could decided in his superior knowledge and wisdom not to. Again another title 'Neo-Sikhs' how ridiculous it is to give such a title to people who do not fit into the scope of your own reasoning there is nothing new about Sikhs who follow the instructions of their Guru. The Bible as an example or as a comparative is wholly incompatible with the Guru Granth Sahib they do not share a common conception or purpose. What a strange notion that the Guru Granth Sahib is reductive in any way to the contemplation of the divine! The simplest way to put this assertion that the Guru Granth Sahib is in some way one dimensional in its rightful place i.e.. the dustbin is to look at the fact's. Guru Granth Sahib Jee is composed of 1430 pages, the presentation is in 31 Ragas viz Sri Rag, Majh, gauri, Asa, Gujri, Devgandhari, Bihagra, Vadhans, Sorath, Dhansari, Jaitsari, Todi, Bairagi, Tilang, Suhi, Bilawal, Gaund, Ramkali, Ntanarain, Mail Gaura, Maru,Tukhari,Kedara,Bhairo,Basant,Sarang,Malhar,Kanra,Kalyan,Tukhari,Kedara, Bhairo,Basant,Sarang,Malhar,Kanra,Kalyan, Parbhati and jaijwanti. Bani of six Gurus - Guru Nanak Dev Ji, Guru Angad Dev Ji, Guru Amar Das ji, Guru Ram Dass ji, Guru Arjun Dev ji and Guru Tegh Bahadur Ji, Along with fifteen Bhakats (saints) namely Jai Dev, Farid, Trilochan, Namdev, Sadhna, Beni, Ramanand, Kabir, Ravidas, Peepa, Soor das,Sain, Dhanna, Bhikan and Parmanand, Four disciples of the Gurus namely Bhai Mardana, Baba Sunder ji, Rai Balwand and Satta. Further inclusions by eleven Bhatts (bards) Kal Sahar, Jalap, Keerat, Bhikha, Salh, Bhalh, Nalh, Balh, Gyand, Mathura and Haribans. Therefore it is hardly blinkered or one dimensional in its contemplation of the divine!! It is in fact multi-facetted and more than allows for the personal experience between the Sikh and Akaal. It is a unique work and gives a universal message of spirituality that has everlasting value. "The picture of the Guru is the Gurbani" (Bhai Gurdas Var 24, pauri 11) Guru Amar Das Jee said "The Gurbani is God himself and it is through it that man has obtained oneness with the Almighty " (SGGS 19) I would like to ask the writer whether he has visited Sri Hazur Sahib? If he has he will know that the presentation of the two Sri Granths that he has mentioned along with Sri Guru Granth Sahib is not the only 'custom' that is followed there that is 'unusual' some practices like the Jot Pooja would look more in place at a Mandir than a Gurudwara. This is not a criticism in itself but it is rather an example, the writer talks of old maryada and how because of the remoteness of the Deccan this contributed to its preservation. Well there was a time when hindu idols were erected within many Gurudwara I do not beleive the demise of this practice to be a bad thing. Sri Hazur Sahib is outside of the control of the SGPC who with all its many faults in today's estimation has done a great deal of good for the Sikh panth. It is not in the too distant past that some gurudwara were out of bounds to lone females for fear of molestation or rape the SGPC was instrumental in bringing these Gurudwara out of the control of unscrupulous men whose only motivation was greed. The writer's criticism extends to include the Singh Sabha and Akali movement's either the reader has not looked into the history of these movements or his criticism is motivated by other factors. The Singh Sabha movements sacrifices and duties to the Sikh panth are immense this post is not intended to discuss these in detail but the information is freely available to those who wish to know more. In closing any denigration of Sri Guru Granth Sahib either in questioning its Guruship or incorrectly claiming it's shortcomings either by claiming it is incomplete or needs supplementation is apostasy plain and simple whether the designs of the writer are based in naivety, ignorance or malice. Understandably if this were applied to a work of literature than the accusation of censure would not be misplaced but we are not talking of a literary work to the Sikhs Sri Guru Granth Sahib Jee is literally the word of God as revealed through those humans that had a greater connection with Akaal than the likes of you and me. Both the Dasam Granth and Sarbloh Granth deserve our reverence but CANNOT be afforded Guruship as a example to the writer I have a English translation of Sri Dasam Granth as published by and with approval of the Gurudwara Board of Sri Hazur Abchalnagar Sahib in the introuduction the writers themselves do not claim authorship of the Dasam Granth in its entirety to Guru Gobind Singh Jee, bear in mind that this Gurudwara by your own admission is one of the Dasam Granths highest advocates. There seems to be much more talk of various granths recently whether it be in the guise of (IMO) pseudo Nihangs talking of there adherence to 'Sanatan' Sikhi or Radha Soamis who beleive that Sri Guru Granth Sahib jee cannot be understand fully without the mediation of a 'human guru'. This is not a new phenomenon Nanak Pathis as a example would by common defintion, regard themselves as the most Sanatan of Sikhs for there affiliation ended with Guru Nanak Dev Jee and there were at a time 'Dhir Malleeay' who were followers of Dhir Mal who contested the Guruship Of Guru Teg Bahadur Jee and further were once 'Ram Raeeay' followers of Ram Rai a collateral of Guru Gobind Singh that again contested Guruship and of course many more who have been forgotten within the mists of time. It is a common trait within the evolution of all the worlds major faiths but there is something uncommon about the Sikh experience at this time various 'groups' (you know who you are) seem intent on misleading sections of Sikhs by agonising over the current state of Sikhism, whether it has been subverted by the SGPC or the Singh Sabha movement or the most popular red herring used by right wing indian groups (amongst others) the British Raj. These are no more or less devisive than the various 'dera-wale' in that they serve the same purpose, to loosen the cohesiveness of Sikh society and thus remove its common belief structure i.e.. Guru Granth, Guru Panth. Sikhism is the most clearly defined of the major worlds religions, its relative 'youth' means we can rely largely on empirical evidence both in terms of scripture and history it is the only religion of these that can claim its ( to use a western description) ' Holy Book' is written first hand by it's 'prophets' but yet we still find those who choose to question it at every turn. As long as there are those whose vested interests are at conflict with the notion of a cohesive, aware and empowered Sikh identity we will continue to hear people who claim our belief's to be lies. Gur Fateh

Home > News > Columnists > Dilip D'Souza How to lose the war on terror July 09, 2003 Nothing more accurately sums up the state of justice in India than the recent acquittal of 21 accused in the Best Bakery case. This one had it all: a horrible crime; political lenses through which the crime is viewed from the moment it happens; an administration uninterested in punishing the guilty, or anyone; police investigation characterised by its indifferent shoddiness; witnesses intimidated or tempted to become that quaint court term, 'hostile'; a court left with no choice but to acquit. Result for the families of 14 murdered Indians: utter injustice. Complete coverage of the Gujarat riots Sure, we have editorial writers and columnists wringing their hands over this travesty. We have the National Human Rights Commission and ordinary citizens condemning it. But if it's ordinary natural justice you're searching for in this case -- the kind that says you cannot take the life of another human being, and if you do, you will be punished -- you need search no more. Because justice like that is dead. I cannot imagine how any Indian can look at this and not be alarmed, outraged, ashamed and nauseated. Yet what is truly astonishing -- though by now, with years of practice, it should not be -- is the number of people who will rise up to explain away this enormous Indian bloodstain, this enormous crime against us all. You know I refer to the collapse of the case: much the greater crime than the slaughter at the bakery in March 2002. Indeed, I can already hear long fingernails clicking at keyboards as some among my readers race to tell me that those murdered were only 'taught a lesson.' Or that this was only 'retaliation' against Muslims for the equally gruesome murders of Hindus at Godhra. Or that I -- or Muslims, or pseudo-secularists, or liberals, or really, anyone who finds this acquittal shameful -- haven't condemned Godhra 'enough.' Or we haven't condemned the tragic situation of Kashmiri Pandits 'enough.' Or what about conversions in the Northeast? Or 'please put all your efforts and investiage [sic] from where did you get this D'Souza name?' (verbatim, I swear). Or what about all that cross-border terrorism by Islamic jihadis? All this to sweep away the disquieting fact that 14 horrible murders have not been and never will be punished. Not that the rationalisations work, not even in the minds that dream them up. Because even those minds know this simple truth: when innocent Indians are murdered, the murderers must face the law. Or we have no law. On the evening of March 1, 2002, a few hundred people, enraged by Godhra, surrounded Best Bakery on the outskirts of Baroda. Zaheera Sheikh, the 19-year-old daughter of the late owner of the bakery -- he had died of natural causes in the third week of February -- described to various inquiries and to the police what happened. The mob, she said, had 'swords, bottles, stones, tins of petrol and kerosene.' To start, they looted the bakery. Then they torched a room on the first floor where Zaheera's sister and an uncle were trapped. Through the night, others -- members of her family, bakery employees -- were burned as well; four-year-old cousins who lived next door were first hacked to pieces and then burned. In all, Zaheera lost nine family members that night. Why did Zaheera Sheikh have to lie? Reopen Best Bakery case, says witness A terrorised Zaheera and some relatives took refuge on the terrace of the bakery. The mob spent the night abusing them and trying to get at them. Ironically, they couldn't use a ladder to get to the terrace because 'the walls were too hot.' In the morning, they killed three of the bakery's workers. More irony, because all three were Hindus. All this, in 'retaliation' for the crime at Godhra two days earlier: a crime nobody at Best Bakery had any connection with. A crime which, speaking of the death of justice, is itself yet to see satisfactory punishment of its perpetrators. (Though note this significant difference between the two: the people who torched 60 in Godhra have been charged under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. The people who torched 14 at Best Bakery did not have that Act applied to them. Why, I leave to your guesswork, which I'm sure is as good as mine). Zaheera's statement to the police was taken as a FIR in the case. One Lal Mohammed, owner of a timber shop in front of the bakery that the mob also burned down, identified 21 people who were accused and brought to trial. Zaheera's initial statements named some of the same 21 too. The police had 73 witnesses, including Zaheera, who had made statements to the police and were to give evidence in the trial. Between then and today, 39 of those witnesses, including Zaheera, 'turned hostile.' That is, they recanted their statements. Some said they had not seen the accused. Others said the police had made them sign on blank sheets of paper, which were later filled with some police concoction. Lal Mohammed's hostility was spectacular. He said the 21 he had named were falsely arrested, that they were not part of the mob of March 1st. He even said that some of the 21 actually protected him and his family that night and helped him flee the area. Zaheera turned hostile in May. The Asian Age (June 29) reports that when it happened, she was accompanied to the court by the local BJP MLA, Madhu Srivastava. Srivastava had earlier 'promised that witnesses would turn hostile in court.' He was prescient: they did. Why, I leave to your guesswork, which I'm still sure is as good as mine. None of this should be even slightly unfamiliar. Witnesses in cases like this one are notoriously vulnerable to pressures, whether intimidatory or monetary. In cases like this one, charged as they are with fierce political passions, turning hostile is nearly an Indian tradition. Yes, tradition. Zaheera's turnabout should remind you of Satnami Bai and Darshan Kaur, who filed a case against H K L Bhagat for leading the murder of their husbands during the 1984 massacre of Sikhs in Delhi. Even though Satnami Bai explicitly identified Bhagat as the man at the head of the mob that attacked her house and burned her husband alive, she later turned hostile. Suddenly, she could not identify Bhagat any more. Darshan Kaur had the possible explanation for Satnami Bai's behaviour: 'I and my children are still getting threats,' she told the court. So it was with Best Bakery. The judge was left with no option but to acquit. Faced with witness hostility, with what he called 'weak' investigation by the police, with delays by the police that 'gave reason to believe that the FIR had been concocted,' Justice H U Mahida decided that 'as sufficient evidence could not be found, it is not safe to convict the accused' (The Times of India, June twenty eigth). If Zaheera reminds you of Satnami Bai, Justice Mahida's comments might remind you of Justice G P Thareja, who acquitted Santosh Kumar Singh in December 1999. Santosh, son of an inspector general of police, was accused of the 1996 rape and murder of Priyadarshini Mattoo in New Delhi. During his trial, Justice Thareja observed that the prosecution had made a series of seemingly deliberate attempts to weaken its own case: hiding some evidence, fabricating other evidence, not 'following official procedure' and so on. In the face of this subversion, Justice Thareja was left with no option: 'Though I know [santosh] is the man who committed the crime,' he wrote, 'I acquit him, giving him the benefit of the doubt.' Justice Mahida, I feel sure, knows today what Justice Thareja meant. At the end of April 2002, the Indian ministry of external affairs web site carried an 'Update on the Situation in Gujarat.' Under the heading 'The recent events in Gujarat: some factual points' were these lines: 'It is for the police and state machinery to proceed against those who have indulged in the heinous acts at Godhra. In no way does the Government condone mobs on the street taking recourse to revenge as a form of justice.' Nowhere in these lines, or indeed in the whole site, was there a mention of Best Bakery, or indeed of any killing in Gujarat apart from Godhra and in police firing. Not a mention. But let that pass. Note at least the determination to 'proceed against' the Godhra criminals, even if that 'proceeding' still ambles along over a year later. Note at least the distaste for 'revenge as a form of justice,' the pretext for the Best Bakery crime. Stand that determination and distaste up against what happened to the Best Bakery trial. Delhi 1984, the Mattoo murder, Godhra, and now Best Bakery. Throw in the 1992-93 riots and blasts in Bombay, among others. All monuments to a striking reluctance to apply our own Indian laws to the terrorists who torch them as they torch their victims. All this from a country that seeks the sympathy of the world in its 'war' against terror. We choose not to punish the terrorists in our midst. Fine, so let's be clear: we will never win this 'war' against terror.

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh, It's not a novel idea, but maybe we should first spend the time to comprehend OUR Guru, the only body of text that was personally declared to be our Guru for time eternal by the only human-being (Sikh or otherwise) that had the authority to do so, Dasam Patsha Guru Gobind Singh Jee. Sarbloh Granth and Dasam Granth contain Guru Di Bani who could possibly doubt that? However there can be no greater authority for the Sikhs in this world than Guruji Sikh Panth Da Wali Guru Gobind Singh Jee and if he has declared that Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji is our Guru from here to time eternal than who are we to question it? You can talk of predictions as much as makes you feel secure, after all it is our doubts, aspirations, fears and guilt that allow us to find predictions so tantalising. But Akaal Purakh alone determines our and all his creations future, present and past so why then should we look to any mortal man to script or tell us of our future, when he can not even know his own? Gur Fateh Sukhbir Singh

JSB, Didn't go through the whole post so apologies if you mention your location but If your based in London I may be able to help. Gur Fateh Sukhbir Singh