amar_jkp

It is a pity that the Sikhs have to agitate, struggle and sacrifice lives for their constitutional demands, the kind of which are usually granted automatically to other states and communities. While most linguistic states in India were carved out in l950's, Punjabi state was agreed upon in 1966, only after a decade of great peaceful satyagrhas and sacrifices by the Sikhs. While no other state was deprived of its capital, today 25 years later, Sikhs still continue to struggle and sacrifice lives for their Chandigarh. It is a great pity that entire Sikh community and Punjab should be held responsible and deprived of their rights because of the violence from few extremists. It is tragic that some of our Punjabi Hindus should be betraying their own State's welfare by not supporting the common cause of Chandigarh and River waters etc., and thus alienating themselves from the Sikhs. Their most unfair and mean opposition to the Sikh religious demands, e.g. demonstrating with cigarette packets on Sikh swords in a communal procession through the streets of Amritsar, are the kind of high degree of provocations which cause disharmony and the rift which we witness today between the two communities. Due to the frequent biased press reporting Sikhs have not been able to present the true picture of their grievances across the nation. I will advise the Sikh politician to invite few prominent Hindus from each state of India to Amritsar to discuss their grievances and impress upon them the genuine sincerity of their demands which are within the framework of the constitution.

Since none of the Akali demands are anti-Hindu or are likely to hurt Hindu sentiments in any way and most of the demands are for the welfare of Punjab State, one fails to understand why should this agitation (directed towards the Government) attract Hindu opposition and cause communal conflict? Instead of joining the movement and uniting the Hindus and the Sikhs, Arya-Samaj has unfortunately chosen the path of direct confrontation with the Sikhs by mobilising the Hindu-Suraksha-Samiti and the Sangathan and seeking the undeserving sympathy and support from Hindus outside the Hindi-belt by misleading them with false and exaggerated information e.g. while Hindu population in Punjab is as high as 49% yet it is highly publicised as a small minority. It is remarkable that the 3 communal incidents of Punjab happened in Hindu majority cities of Amritsar, Jullunder and Patiala, with over 60% Hindu population and no similar incidents in the villages, where Sikhs are in majority.

Sant Langowal explained that when Zail Singh, as Punjab Chief Minister, named a secondary road as Guru Gobind Singh Marg, he was strongly criticised by Punjabi Hindus, in spite of their knowledge that Guru Gobind Singh (and so also his four children and his father) was born, lived and died for the protection of the Hindus. Comparing the situation, Iyengar commented that in Maharashtra, no one could dare dream of opposing the naming of Shivaji Marg. (Four days later, I had the privilege of meeting President Zail Singh in Rashtrapati Bhavan who confirmed that there indeed was unfortunate opposition to his naming of Guru Gobind Singh Marg). Citing another example of communal jealousy against the Sikhs, Longowal explained that a few years ago, on the four hundredth anniversary of the city of Amritsar, Sikhs obtained permission from the Railway Board to display a picture of Guru Ramdas at the railway station as a 'Founder of the city of Amritsar'. Upon this, there was an immediate reaction from city Hindus, who brought in a few unauthorised pictures of Hindu Yogis and demonstrated against the Guru Ramdas picture. Sant Langowal added that by rival action of this kind, Hindus in Punjab certainly make it very obvious that in their view Sikh Gurus were not Hindus. We went to witness the pictures at the station, which are there for everyone's verification. He narrated similar other incidents and added that religious jealousy and communal rivalry from the Northern Hindus against the Sikhs has gone a long way towards pushing us into a separate race of the Sikhs within India.

Why was there bitter opposition to granting holy-city status to Amritsar. Equally incredible was the opposition by Amritsar Hindus to the Sikh desire of naming of one train as Golden Temple (Hari Mandir) Express, little realising that the city of Amritsar was built only because of that ancient temple that existed before it. Numerous incidents of these kinds provoked by some extremists of Punjab must be made known to non-Punjabi Hindus all over India, who continue to be victims of one sided anti-Sikh misinformation from various news agencies. Every care has been taken to verify all the reports and the complaints made by various people. For example, to confirm the truth of the alleged Hindu opposition to the naming of a highway as Guru Gobind Singh Marg, the authors went to the extent of confirming the incident with the President of India. The Report provides us with well documented incidents including those where some anti-social elements have used turbans as a camouflage during the act of crime. Accordingly Sikh leaders' claim that the recent killings of innocent Hindus in the bus, near the border were not committed by the Sikhs appears to be credible and thought provoking.

The present Hindu-Sikh conflict is the saddest tragedy of postpartition Indian History. Its genesis lies in a narrow-minded attitude of certain sections of the community, that totally refutes the traditional Hindu virtues of tolerance and understanding. One also wonders, why are the Sikhs always pushed into agitation for their basic constitutional demands, the kind which were never denied to other states and communities. Why was Punjab the last linguistic state to be formed (10 years late)? Why is Punjab the only state of India whose capital Chandigarh is governed by the central Government? There are many such unanswered questions which deserve serious probing and full national exposure. Indian news agencies and papers will do well to investigate the reasons for Hindu-Sikh conflict arising from Hindu opposition to Sikh demands, even though their demands were made to the Government( and not to the Hindus of Punjab and Haryana). While most of the Sikh demands are for the welfare of Punjab State, not one demand is anti-Hindu or hurts Hindu sentiments in any way. It is a great pity that the Punjab linguistic problem as such, should have become known as Hindu-Sikh conflict, since Sikhs in our view are no less Hindus than many other sects within the Hindu religion and society. Since most Hindus in Punjab declared to be Hindi-speaking (the root-cause of today's problem) and all Sikhs rightly claimed to be Punjabi-speaking, one wonders why did we all and the press fail to mention them as a conflict between the Punjabis and non-Punjabis, thus avoiding the sectarian and communal title to the problem. A non-Punjabi speaker may not be called a Punjabi in as much as a Maharashtrian or a Gujrati living in Tamil Nadu is not usually called a Tamilian. The doctrine of fanaticism propagated by certain section of the Punjabi-Hindus has ironically done great damage to the Hindu activities seemed to have hurt patriotic Sikh sentiments; and to win our Sikh brothers back in our Hindu family, we need to expose the activities of certain

I know how much you people love punjabi , checkout all Hindu owned shops outside Darbar sahib all of them have names in Hindi . Before India partition there was saying that Hindus speak Punjabi and write in Urdu and when you asked them about their mother tongue they will say Hindi .

Sher will not talk about what Sikhs faced during Punjabi Suba Movement , above experience is not an isolated case .

Fanatic hindu will not talk about anti Sikh violence but will defend fakes just like he was praising Marathas . Hey Fanatic more is coming be prepared .

Thanks veerji , this book was in my wishlist .

We have one more psycho Hindu here .

Why dont you asked why so many Hindus fought for British ? instead you wrote Indians and then you asked why Sikhs fought for British, i take this that Sikhs were not Indians

You Hindus can do what you want we dont care .

According to Mahaveer Tyagi, “We do not believe in kicking the minority groups out of the country. Instead, our desire is to change their religion and convert them all to Hinduism.” (Sikhs in History, Sangat Singh, Pg. 249) I do not like the word “minority” (Aeengar) When Pakistan was created at the time of partition it became crystal clear that there remained only one community (Hindus) in India. (Vallabh Bhai Patel) When the British left, no promise was kept by the Indian leaders. The Sikhs felt that since they had made more sacrifices for independence than other communities and had suffered a great deal during partition, the Congress would consider their demands sincerely and grant them special rights as promised by the Indian leaders. But, the Congress acted the opposite, ignored all the promises and turned against the Sikhs……Sikhs were insulted by the media and opposed by the Hindu community. Hindus started discriminating against Sikhs and abandoned Punjabi. (Tale of Blue Turban, Giani Laal Singh, 100) The so-called democracy only existed in papers and was never put into practice. The Sikh nation felt agitated, uncomfortable and trapped in the chains of new slavery. This further solidified their doubts when they started to face discrimination at the hands of the government and Hindu public. From 72% to 96% high government jobs were occupied by the Hindu majority in Punjab. The army enlistment became dependent upon population instead of merit. This decreased Sikh enlistment from 40% to 1.2%. The situation of Sikhs in Punjab is very well described by Dr. Harjinder Singh Dilgeer: Hindus had started to make insulting jokes on Sikhs, discriminate against them in every profession and attack innocent Sikhs on numerous occasions. Especially in the cities of Punjab, it had become extremely difficult for Sikhs to live a peaceful life. (Punjabi Suba Morcha, Dr Harjinder Singh Dilgeer, Pg. 6) Violence of Hindus had increased significantly in Punjab so much so that they attacked Sikh procession held in the memory of Guru Gobind Singh Ji. Stones and home made acid bombs were thrown at the procession causing injury to several Sikhs. Seeing all of this, the police took no action and let the perpetrators run free. This further enraged the Sikh community. The Indian government had also reorganized the states on languages basis in the south. Kerala, Tamil and other states had been created on language basis but nothing was done in the north. Sikhs felt betrayed and raised their demand for setting up a Punjabi State in which Punjabi language would serve as the primary language of the state and Sikhs would have an autonomous area. This demand led to the struggle for Punjabi State.

“The Sikhs are a lawless people and a menace to the law abiding Hindus … The [Government] should take strict measures against them.” (Pandit Nehru, Indian Prime Minister) Furthermore, Article 25 was added in the constitution specifically stating that Sikhism was a sect of Hinduism. No Sikh approved the constitution but regardless it was adopted by the Indian government. 2) Second promise was made to setup a state in the north where Sikhs would have the right to self-determination. The main purpose of creating linguistic states is that the culture, language and script of minority of the linguistic area shall be protected. (Resolution passed by Congress in Calcultta, 1937) Redistribution of provincial boundaries is essential and inevitable. I stand for same autonomous unit as well. If Sikh desire to function as such a unit, I should like them to have a same autonomous in the province so that they may have a sense of freedom. (Jawaharlal Nehru, 1945) “…the brave Sikhs of Punjab are entitled to special considerations. I see nothing wrong in an area set up in the North of India wherein, the Sikhs can also experience the glow of freedom.” (Jawahar Lal Nehru, Lahore Bulletin, January 9, 1930) Indian leaders not only backed out on this promise but regarded this demand as a threat to the unity of the country. The congress found itself in a dilemma, to concede to Akali demand would mean abandoning a position to which it was firmly committed and letting down its Hindu supporters in the Punjabi Suba. The merits were no consideration, as the policy of the Congress, as enunciated in 1949 by Jawahar Lal, Vallabh Bhai and Patta Bhai Sitaramayyia had been not to concede reorganization of North India whatever the merit of such a proposal might be. (My Truth, Indira Gandhi, 117) I can afford civil war in the country but not Punjabi State. (Jawaharlal Nehru) We are aware that Sikhs have suffered greatly before and after 1947 but we have come to the conclusion that granting them any special rights such as an autonomous area is not reasonable. (Sikh Politics of 20th Century, Ajmer Singh, Pg. 144) Creating a Punjabi linguistic state meant prospering of the Sikh nation which no Indian leader let alone a Hindu approved of. 3) The third promise was made to provide security and safeguarding minorities. Adequate safeguards would be provided for monitories —- it was a declaration, a pledge and an understanding before the world, a contract with millions of Indians, and therefore, in the nature of an oath, which we must keep. (Framing of Indian Constitution, B. Shiva Rao, Pg 181) In the divided Indian Punjab, special constitutional measures are imperative to meet the aspirations and rights of the Sikhs. (Legislative Assembly, 1947) This promise was forgotten just like the above two. Instead, statements were released to make India a Hindu country where minorities will have to either live as second class citizens or merge themselves in the Hindu majority.

Unfulfilled Promises and Sikhs in New India Prior to independence, Indian leaders had made numerous promises to the Sikhs such as setting up a state in the north part of the country where Sikhs would enjoy freedom. Three major promises were made to the Sikh nation, which were systematically broken. 1) First promise was that Congress will not pass any resolution that did not please the Sikhs. “…in future, the Congress shall accept no constitution which does not meet with the satisfaction of the Sikhs” (The Lahore session of the Congress Party. December 31, 1929 cited in Sikh Politics, K.L. Tuteja, Pg. 168) “I ask you to accept my word and the Resolution of the Congress that it will not betray a single individual much less a community. If it ever thinks of doing so, it would only hasten to its own doom. I pray you to unbosom yourself of all doubts and apprehensions. Let God be the witness of the bond that binds me and the Congress with you (the Sikhs). I venture to suggest that the non-violence creed of the congress is the surest guarantee of good faith, and our Sikh friends have no reason to fear that it would betray them. For the moment it does so, the congress would not only thereby seal its own doom but that of the country too. (M. K. Gandhi, Communal Unity, pg. 165-167) The congress assures Sikhs that no solution in any future constitution will be acceptable to the congress that does not give them full satisfaction. (Indian constitution documents, Vol. 11, By A. C. Banerjee) After 1947, this promise was not kept. On October 10, 1947 Sikhs were branded as “lawless people”, called upon to forget about their distinct appearance and submit themselves under Hindu laws.

Therefore, the demand from establishing a linguistic state was changed to establishing a Sikh state within the Indian Union where Sikhs would be the majority population. In 1947, India was partitioned which caused largest migration of population and the worst riots in the history. More than half of Punjab was given to Pakistan and rest remained in India. Sikhs had no choice but to leave Pakistan and migrate to India. More than 2 million Sikhs were killed, property worth millions was burnt and destroyed and about 175 Gurdwaras were left behind. All of this had a great impact on the Sikh nation majority of which had been left homeless in new India where the new government did little to nothing to help them settle down. Although Sikhs had made a great sacrifice and lost major portion of their religious places and history, they were full of hope and were looking forward to finally live free way of life and exercise the right to self-determination. Unfortunately, this hope did not last long and Sikhs had to get ready for yet another long struggle with the new regime.

Especially in Punjab, Congress and its supporters have always looked upon Sikhs as their enemy. No Indian leader has ever tried to understand the Sikh problems. Sikhs have no choice but to demand a Punjabi State. They wish to safeguard their distinct identity, language and religion. Setting up a Punjabi State is the solution to the Sikh problem. (Times of India, 15 August 1951) It has become crystal clear that the demand for Punjabi State is being looked upon as unconstitutional and conspiracy of Pakistan by the large Hindu population. Many Indian leaders have openly admitted that establishing Punjabi State means empowering Sikhs which will endanger the unity of the country. Nehru further supported this ludicrously by saying that Sikhs may join Pakistan and pose threat to India. From these statements it means only one thing that the majority wants to keep minority as a slave. What do we learn from the Sikh history? That not a single Sikh joined the Mughals against Hindus but at many occasions Hindus joined the Mughals in exterminating the Sikhs. The fact is that we should resolve these matters with peace and harmony otherwise falsely accusing Sikhs would alienate the Sikh community which would lead to another division of the country. (Spokesman, 22 April 1951) In my personal opinion, instead of opposing the Sikh demand, Hindus should be encouraged to adopt the Punjabi language and support the demand for Punjabi State. This would not only be the largest State in the north but also strongest and richest in India. This would solidify India’s borders and protect it from its foreign enemies. Economically, this state would largely benefit the entire country. Hindus shouldn’t oppose the Sikhs but support them otherwise they will be directly responsible for dividing the country and making a way for a separate Sikh State which can be stopped right now very easily. (Professor Om Parkash Kohal, 17 October 1951) Despite all the efforts, Indian leaders and Hindus did not change their mentality and kept opposing the Sikhs. Seeing the opposition of the Hindus, Sikh leaders became aware that Sikh identity would not be safe unless an area consisting of Sikh majority was established. They started to raise their demand for an autonomous area for the Sikhs which was promised by the Indian leaders prior to independence. Gurcharan Singh Tohra stated, “We are separate from Hindus…We demand a State where we can safeguard our heritage and culture.” This was further supported by Master Tara Singh. He said, “Our main motive is to free Sikhs from the slavery of Hindus…We demand a state where Sikhs will have the right to self-determination.” (Sikh Politics in 20th Century, Ajmer Singh, Pg. 120).

According to historian Ajmer Singh: “For Hindu leaders the main factor was not whether the demand of Punjabi State was just or unjust or whether it benefits the Sikhs or not but how to destroy and eradicate the distinct identity of the Sikhs.” (Sikh Politics in 20thCentury, Ajmer Singh, Pg. 119) - See more at: http://centralsikhmu...h.qZJnM7Gv.dpuf The demand for a Punjabi speaking state was constitutional and valid from every aspect. It was based on the same rules that created Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Kerala. But Hindus feared that they will not be a dominant force in the new state since Sikhs would make up 42% and will not be a minority anymore. Thus, making it more difficult for the Hindus to dominate and slowly eradicate the Sikh religion. (Tale of Blue Turban, Giani Laal Singh, 102) Sikhs leaders and some educated Hindus had very well realized that raising misconceptions against Punjabi State was only an excuse of the fascist Hindus and Hindu media when the real fact was that they did not favor any area which would benefit Sikhs, their language (Punjabi) and safeguard their distinct identity. Indian leaders and Nehru started questioning the loyalty of the Sikhs by stating that the sole purpose of creating a Punjabi State was to divide the country and that later Sikhs would join Pakistan and endanger the unity of India. Many educated people and some journalists tried to persuade Hindu leaders to accept the demand of the Sikhs. According to them not accepting the demand would be the real threat to the unity of the country.

After all the polemics of Nehru were answered he closed the case by saying, “How can I entrust power to the enemy?”(Sikhs in History, Sangat Singh, Pg. 308) This truly showed the real face of the Hindu leadership. The threat to the safety of Sikhs living in other Indian states was clearly given by the Indian leaders and Sikhs were called enemy of the country. Why is it that no violence or riots took place when states were reorganized in the south? Sikh demand was solely for a Punjabi speaking state not for the greater autonomy for the Sikhs. Then why only Sikhs were being threatened instead of Punjabis that included Hindus and Muslims? This was all because the government had ill intentions against the Sikhs and anything that remotely benefitted the Sikhs directly or indirectly was opposed by the government to the highest degree. On one hand, Hindus were asking for their safety in Punjab where they were never in danger in the first place but on the other hand the same Hindus were threatening Sikhs to kick them out of other states and providing no safeguards to them. Truth or Misconception Hindu media and opposition parties had spread many misconceptions about the Sikhs. Although their main motive was to destroy Sikhism and its roots but they were hesitant to openly admit it. Also, large Hindu population could not be won over for this reason. So they resorted to making excuses and blaming Sikhs for trying to further divide India. Hindus were given the impression that Sikhs were demanding a separate Sikh State in which Hindus will be oppressed. But this misconception was uneducated, without any concrete evidence and far from the truth. There has never been a single incident of Sikhs oppressing or being hostile to Hindus in 500 years of Sikh history. In fact, Hindus have always been on the opposing side of the Sikhs. The fact that 62% of the people in Punjab were Hindus was greatly ignored by the Hindu leaders. It was highly irrational to believe that a tiny population of less than 2% in the country could ever oppress Hindus who were majority in India as well as in Punjab. Further, they ruled the country, controlled the military, formed majority in rest of the states, government was theirs and Congress was the ruling party in Punjab. The only way Sikhs could gain political power in Punjab was if they won the majority vote which was not possible due to Hindu supporting Congress. Therefore, Sikhs could never have oppressed Hindus even if they wanted to. It is evident that such misconception was spread to cause hatred and division between Hindus and the Sikh nation. The initial demand of the Sikhs was to setup a State in which Punjabi would be the primary language irrespective of the population in it During an interview, Fateh Singh made it clear that “We do not want a Sikh majority State. We do not care about percentage of the Sikh population. We just want a state where Punjabi would be spoken as the primary language. All areas speaking Punjabi should be included. Whether Sikhs are in majority or minority should not serve as a factor in this matter.” (Punjabi Suba – The Story of Struggle, Ajit Singh Sarhaddi, Pg. 346) During one of the speeches, Master Tara Singh openly said, “I do not demand a separate Sikh state nor have I ever been in its favor. I simply want equality and freedom of the Sikh nation in India.” (Ibid, Pg. 319)

Out of all the India leaders, Jawaharlal Nehru, prime minister of India, despised Sikhs the most. Sikh leaders met him on many occasions but every time he refused to listen to Sikhs and consider their demands. During the three primary meetings between the Sikh leaders and Nehru it was alleged that the demand for Punjabi State was neither beneficial to the country nor to the Hindus of Punjab. According to Nehru, “Creating a Punjabi State is against the prosperity of the Hindus and would put Sikhs in other states in a grave danger.” (Sikh Politics of 20th Century, Ajmer Singh, Pg. 177). In the last meeting he stated,“Granting the demand for Punjabi State is out of the question.” (Punjabi Suba – The Story of Struggle, Ajit Singh Sarhaddi, Pg. 389). During the meeting in 1961 with Master Tara Singh Nehru lost his sense and threatened Sikhs by saying “Enough is enough. If you do not stop your protests, I will teach you a hard lesson that you will not forget for many generations to come.” (Sikhs in History, Sangat Singh, Pg. 306)

Hindu residents of Punjab were not any different. They held large processions in the opposition of Sikhs. Sikh properties were targeted, destroyed and burnt in Punjab. Sikhs resident places were attacked. Police was ordered not to intervene or stop the Hindu hoodlums. Seeing the inability of the police, the Hindus attacked many Sikh policemen causing injuries to several of them and death of one Sikh inspector. Toleration of the Hindu violence by the police and the government gave rise to attack on Sikh religious places. Many Gurdwaras were attacked and cigarettes were thrown in the sarowars (holy nectar). Guru Granth Sahib was ripped, burnt and disrespected in highly immoral manner. This was in direct contrast to the Hindu belief that Sikhism was a sect of Hinduism. Had there been any truth to it, Hindus would never have attacked one of their own and disrespected their own holy scriptures. In 1964, the police attacked Gurdwara Paonta Sahib in Himachal and killed many Sikhs.

These Hindus will not talk about their crimes spcially punjabi hindus they are worst lot Violence and Opposition by Hindus Hindu leaders and media greatly opposed the Sikh struggle and started labeling them as “traitors”. Several Hindu organizations and leaders such as RSS, Arya Samaj, Lala Jagat Narayan, Khushal Chand, Lal Chand and many others openly spoke against Sikhs and started threatening the Sikhs to stop their agitation. The entire Hindu media started to spread false information about Sikhs and their motives behind the struggle. They were labeled as “terrorists”, “traitors” and “agents of Pakistan”. Their patriotism was questioned by the media. The government used its puppets in Congress and the police to increase its brutality against the Sikhs. On one hand, Congressman Partap Kairon and the likes were threatening to crush the movement and on the other hand the police were arresting many of the Sikh leaders and throwing them in jails without any charge or trial. This was all being done on the orders of the central government to destabilize the Sikh movement. The police had become so ruthless that peaceful protestors were beaten with sticks and fired upon by the police. Women and children were not spared. The police had greatly been influenced by the media. In Karnal, some Sikhs had gathered peacefully in support of the Sikh cause when they were fired upon by the police. Inderjit Singh, a ten year old Sikh boy, was beaten, thrown in irrigation well and killed. In other states, fate of the Sikhs was not any different. Gurdwara Sees Ganj Sahib in Delhi was surrounded by the police and about 2000 Sikhs were arrested. By 1960, 25 thousand Sikhs had been arrested and jailed. This was done to inform Sikhs that they were second class citizens in India.

Before I ever saw Master Tara Singh in person, I had started subscribing to his magazine Sant Sipahi. I first met Master Tara Singh in the house of a relative in Muktsar where he had come for a public meeting. I considered meeting him quite a privilege. I took photographs of him with my father and younger brother. He sat chatting there for some time and thereafter left. I developed the film myself at the school photographic club and printed it in many ways providing several kinds of margins. A year or so later I went to Amritsar to pay respects at the Darbar and also met Tara Singh in his office which was within the Darbar Sahib premises. He was sitting on a string-cot and writing letters. A small tin box from which he was drawing his writing material was lying next to him. I took a photograph of him. It turned out very well and came to be much used. This was the year 1960 when he was preparing for a big battle ahead. I offered my services for what they were worth. He looked at me very kindly and advised me to first finish my education and then think of such things; ‘otherwise the people will think that you were afraid of facing the tenth class exams and had strayed into politics. Finish your education. Do well in all the examinations and come to me after that.’ I hardly knew anything about the travails of political life but had a desire to be seen in the service of the people. I have thought much about the incident since. A lesser person would have grabbed at the opportunity of gaining an unpaid servant. I remained ever grateful for the sound advice that he had given me on the occasion. It enhanced my respect for him. There was a poetry recitation session in the school hall to which several Hindi poets had been invited. This was during the days when the Master was talking about the Punjabi Suba in all seriousness. I had noticed a lot of hatred for him and for the Sikhs in general in the air. I had to face jeers and hostility on many fronts. At the Ambala railway station the clerk issuing the tickets had treated all the Sikhs in the queue most contemptuously. He made us all step aside so that he could issue tickets to the Hindus first. He ignored my requests to do so in turn because I and my younger brother were in the danger of missing our train to Dehra Dun and had nowhere to go. He turned to everybody in general and said, ‘look at these Sikhs! They want a Punjabi Suba and also cannot do without a railway ticket.’ I did not quite see the logic he was trying to propound but had to comply with his orders. During this period, I found that my best friend of long standing at the school, who was a Dogra from a well-educated Jammu based family, had suddenly turned against me most virulently. This was one of the experiences of my childhood that left me completely confused about human relations. Most of the poets at the recitation evening were very sensible but several were seen to be taking pleasure in ridiculing the Sikhs. One who drew the most applause from the audience of which some school boys were a part, earned it by comparing Master Tara Singh to a donkey. In western culture this animal is assumed to be very wise but on the Indian sub-continent it is presumed to be low on intelligence. I was amongst the few Sikhs in the hall and I felt utterly helpless and thoroughly insulted. The short shrunken man who made the comparison, was perhaps a chain smoker, for he went out quite often and was seen puffing away at cheap, foul-smelling cigarettes. No elevated or decent thought was to be expected of such a person, but we did feel isolated and disgusted. Particularly painful were the merry outbursts of our schoolmates. More than anything else, we were surprised since this aspect of their personality had always remained hidden from view. We at once understood why our leaders were trying to carve out a niche to safeguard the Sikhs from being inundated in the sea of hatred welling up all around. The prevailing situation must have turned many inside and outside that hall, into strong supporters of Master Tara Singh. When on the early morning of August 15, the day the Master was to start his fast-unto-death, I went to the gurdwara to pray for his wellbeing, I was in a way seeking revenge for the behaviour of that despicable poet. A mixture of such emotions in such an atmosphere must have turned many into supporters of the Akali leaders, as the most tangible justification for their cause was being generously served out to the people at large by every aggressive representative of Hindudom. Before I ever saw Master Tara Singh in person, I had started subscribing to his magazine Sant Sipahi. I first met Master Tara Singh in the house of a relative in Muktsar where he had come for a public meeting. I considered meeting him quite a privilege. I took photographs of him with my father and younger brother. He sat chatting there for some time and thereafter left. I developed the film myself at the school photographic club and printed it in many ways providing several kinds of margins. A year or so later I went to Amritsar to pay respects at the Darbar and also met Tara Singh in his office which was within the Darbar Sahib premises. He was sitting on a string-cot and writing letters. A small tin box from which he was drawing his writing material was lying next to him. I took a photograph of him. It turned out very well and came to be much used. This was the year 1960 when he was preparing for a big battle ahead. I offered my services for what they were worth. He looked at me very kindly and advised me to first finish my education and then think of such things; ‘otherwise the people will think that you were afraid of facing the tenth class exams and had strayed into politics. Finish your education. Do well in all the examinations and come to me after that.’ I hardly knew anything about the travails of political life but had a desire to be seen in the service of the people. I have thought much about the incident since. A lesser person would have grabbed at the opportunity of gaining an unpaid servant. I remained ever grateful for the sound advice that he had given me on the occasion. It enhanced my respect for him. There was a poetry recitation session in the school hall to which several Hindi poets had been invited. This was during the days when the Master was talking about the Punjabi Suba in all seriousness. I had noticed a lot of hatred for him and for the Sikhs in general in the air. I had to face jeers and hostility on many fronts. At the Ambala railway station the clerk issuing the tickets had treated all the Sikhs in the queue most contemptuously. He made us all step aside so that he could issue tickets to the Hindus first. He ignored my requests to do so in turn because I and my younger brother were in the danger of missing our train to Dehra Dun and had nowhere to go. He turned to everybody in general and said, ‘look at these Sikhs! They want a Punjabi Suba and also cannot do without a railway ticket.’ I did not quite see the logic he was trying to propound but had to comply with his orders. During this period, I found that my best friend of long standing at the school, who was a Dogra from a well-educated Jammu based family, had suddenly turned against me most virulently. This was one of the experiences of my childhood that left me completely confused about human relations. Most of the poets at the recitation evening were very sensible but several were seen to be taking pleasure in ridiculing the Sikhs. One who drew the most applause from the audience of which some school boys were a part, earned it by comparing Master Tara Singh to a donkey. In western culture this animal is assumed to be very wise but on the Indian sub-continent it is presumed to be low on intelligence. I was amongst the few Sikhs in the hall and I felt utterly helpless and thoroughly insulted. The short shrunken man who made the comparison, was perhaps a chain smoker, for he went out quite often and was seen puffing away at cheap, foul-smelling cigarettes. No elevated or decent thought was to be expected of such a person, but we did feel isolated and disgusted. Particularly painful were the merry outbursts of our schoolmates. More than anything else, we were surprised since this aspect of their personality had always remained hidden from view. We at once understood why our leaders were trying to carve out a niche to safeguard the Sikhs from being inundated in the sea of hatred welling up all around. The prevailing situation must have turned many inside and outside that hall, into strong supporters of Master Tara Singh. When on the early morning of August 15, the day the Master was to start his fast-unto-death, I went to the gurdwara to pray for his wellbeing, I was in a way seeking revenge for the behaviour of that despicable poet. A mixture of such emotions in such an atmosphere must have turned many into supporters of the Akali leaders, as the most tangible justification for their cause was being generously served out to the people at large by every aggressive representative of Hindudom.

KIRPAN (THE SIKH SWORD) Author : Unknown The sword has a special place in the history of various religious, cultures and nations. For a Sikh, "Kirpan" is an article of faith. For an initiated Sikh, wearing of a Kirpan is obligatory. An initiated Sikh, not wearing a Kirpan, would be in breach of his faith. Although its form has undergone several changes, sword has been part of the history of the world since pre-historic periods. References pertaining to sword can be found in the history of the Jews, the Christians, the Muslims, the Sikhs, the Japanese, and other national and religious groups. Jesus Christ has been quoted by Matthew as saying, " I have come not be bring peace but sword." Hazrat Mohammed considered the sword to be sacred to Islam. The Hindu goddess Durga is shown carrying several weapons but a raised sword in her right hand, is the most striking feature of her pictures. The Sikh kirpan, however, is different from the sword of Christianity, Islam or Hinduism. Christ's sword is an alternative for peace; Prophet Mohammed advocated the use of sword for achieving political and religious objectives and Durga's (the Hindu) sword is a weapon to kill the enemy. In all these cases, the sword is used as a weapon, for offensive action. On the other hand, The Sikh Kirpan is essentially "defensive." The Sikh Kirpan is not to be carried raised in the right hand. It is required to be worn in a Gatra (a belt) on the left side of the body, with the humility of a saint. Kirpan was granted the status of "article of faith" on March 29, 1699 by Guru Gobind Singh Sahib at Anandpur Sahib. However, it does not mean that Kirpan was not sacred to the Sikhs before 1699. Right from Guru Nanak Sahib, Kirpan was a part and parcel of a Sikh's being. Commenting on Mogul invasion on the Sikh Homeland, Guru Nanak Sahib had given the message to the Sikhs to be prepared with a defending kirpan. The Sixth Nanak, Guru Hargobind Sahib, wore two Kirpans, one representing the temporal and the other transcendental domain of the Sikh cosmos. While he asked his followers to wear defending kirpan, he issued strict directions forbidding the use of Kirpan for an offensive purpose. Maubad Zulafqar Ardastani (formerly believed as Muhsan Fani), in the seventeenth century acknowledged the Sikh position with regard to Kirpan and confirmed in his book Dabistan-e-Mazahib, that the Sikh Gurus never used their Kirpan in anger. A Hindu teacher, Samrath Ram Das (guide of the Maratha ruler Shivaji) once met Guru Hargobind Sahib and wanted to know the reason why Guru Sahib had chosen to wear Kirpan etc. Guru Sahib told him that the Sikh Kirpan was required for the protection of the weak, the poor, the downtrodden and the oppressed from the tyrant and the cruel aggressor. On March 29, 1699, Guru Gobind Singh Sahib revealed Khalsa, the sovereign people. Khalsa, being the direct subject of the Almighty, owes its spiritual and temporal sovereignty to Waheguru (the Almighty). The Khalsa (of the Almighty) was granted five "articles of faith": - Kes (unshorn hair), Kangha (the Sikh Comb), Kara (the Sikh bracelet), Kachhehra (the Sikh shorts) and Kirpan (the Sikh sword). Although these five articles were already a part and parcel of a Sikh's life, but since March 29, 1699, these five became an integral and inseparable part of an initiated Sikh's being. From the moment of initiation until death Khalsa has an obligation not to part with any one of these five articles of faith, at any time. It is remarkable to note that Guru Gobind Singh Sahib declared a Kirpan and not dagger, sabre, rapier, scimitar, gun or pistol as an article of faith. Kirpan is a combination of two words: Kirpa (mercy/blessing) and "aan" (honour). Thus the term Kirpan means "an article to be used with mercy, for protection of honor/life." The other meaning which one can derive is : "an article which blesses honor." In both cases, the motif is that the Sikh Kirpan can be used only for defense and not for offence. It can not be used in the cases of ordinary fighting for non-sacred purposes. Guru Gobind Singh Sahib did not grant status of "article of faith" to gun. (The Guru, however, did not prohibit the use of these weapons in case of necessity). In the Sikh religion Khanda (double-edged sword) enjoys a great significance. It is used for preparation of Amrit (nectar for the Sikh initiation). Although Khanda is scared in Sikhism, it is not an article of faith to be carried always on person. Sword has also been a part of social and cultural traditions of many different communities. The practice of giving a sword as a mark of respect or in recognition of one's exceptional contribution towards the society is as old as the sword itself. This practice is shared by people living in the United States, England, the Sikh Homeland among others. In the United States, the custom of presentation of sword was very popular until the later part of the nineteenth century. Interestingly, some swords were awarded "by vote" in "lotteries," during the US Civil war. These presentation swords are usually richly crafted and vary in sizes. In the Sikh history and traditions, Kirpan has enjoyed a very special place contribution for the Sikh nation, is honored with the award of a kirpan. Unfortunately, this noble tradition has been corrupted by few opportunist politicians, who, for the sake of political expediency, arranged with their sycophant followers, to be the recipients of such undeserved honors. They might succeed in their nefarious designs to confuse the unknown people in the western countries but the Sikh community is too well aware of their manipulations to be taken in. Attacks on the Sikh ideology, their cherished traditions, and even the articles of their faith, have often required them to fight protracted battles, to enjoy the basic rights, taken for granted by most other people. Sikh Kirpan is one such item. At one time, the ruling British Government in India was called upon to establish the legal status of the Sikh kirpan. The British Governor General of India issued a notification, making a clear ruling on the issue. It said : "No restriction of shape, length and size of a Kirpan is prescribed for the Sikhs." An order of F.C. Taylor, Deputy Inspector General of Police (Letter No. 3879 dated November 1, 1936), finally resolved the question of kirpan. It said: "Government has recently issued orders that prohibition and directions of Section 13 of the Indian Arms Act, shall not operate in the case of the Sikhs carrying kirpan; from this it follows that Kirpans are not arms within the meaning of that section. Sikhs can, therefore, carry any number of any size of Kripans." For a Sikh, kirpan, is an essential article of faith. It is not a symbol. It is strictly obligatory and not optional. A replica of Kirpan can not be used. Kirpan reminds a Sikh of one's duty to be the right action; to defend the poor, the weak, the oppressed and the persecuted; to always remain prepared to the call of the nation, the society and the humanity. The Sikh Kirpan stands for self-esteem; justice, honor, righteousness and readiness for duty and sacrifice.

Reason 15: Collective Consciousness GS Sidhu in his paper, A Brief Introduction to Sikhism, writes that long hair across the panth builds a collective consciousness among Sikhs; it is a mark of dedication and group consciousness. A Sikh collective consciousness is a set of shared beliefs, values, history, ideas and moral attitudes which serves as a unifying force within the panth. It plays a role in uniting Sikhs to achieve communal goals and overcome obstacles. “The totality of beliefs and sentiments common to the average members of a society forms a determinate system with a life of its own. It can be termed the collective or creative consciousness,” (Durkheim, Emile). The contents of an individual Sikh’s consciousness are shared in common with all other Sikhs within the panth, creating solidarity through mutual likeness. Such solidarity facilitates the advancement of Sikh interests, objectives, and standards within the panth and also, beyond it. Furthermore, according to Mary Kelsey’s theory (sociology lecturer at UC Berkeley) collective consciousness brings Sikhs together as a dynamic group to share resources and knowledge. Lastly, collective consciousness in the Sikh context can endow the Sikh panth with unique agency: it contributes to an individual Sikh to think and act in a way that reflects the Panthik values. This often promotes positive behavior and deters negative behavior. For example, many Sikhs are highly visible (with the beard, long hair or turban) and thus may think twice about stealing since it reflects poorly on all other Sikhs and “gives them a bad name.” As Burns and Egdahl state, those in collective consciousness “can be considered to possess agential capabilities: to think, judge, decide, act, reform; to conceptualize self and others as well as self’s actions and interactions; and to reflect. Reason 16: Kinship Long hair forges an association of the Guru’s disciplines as equals, says Gurdev Singh in Respectives on the Sikh Tradition, decided to the services of God and humanity. VI. HISTORICAL CONNECTION Reason 17: Kesh Psychologically Connects Sikhs to their History As Sikhs in history kept long hair, keeping long hair in the modern era can help connect contemporary Sikhs with the Sikh Panth of the past, keeping history alive and giving Sikhs strength, (Singh, Trilocan). VII. WILL OF GOD Reason 18: It’s a Gift from God Some Sikhs believes that hair is provided by God, with its peculiar distribution over the body, and it should be respected, (Manasukhani, Gobind Singh). For some, hair is the symbol of love for God and the respect. Reason 19: God Made Us This Way Another reason some Sikhs keep long hair is to live in harmony with the will of God, (Manasukhani, Gobind Singh). Trimming or shaving only emphasize the futility of human effort, when opposing the natural law, (Manasukhani, Gobind Singh). Kesh indicates a Sikhs acceptance of God’s will, (Sidhu, GS.). Keeping kesh intact honors the creator’s intention. Hair is a birthright inherent in the creator’s design, (Khalsa, Sukhmandir). Others say that kesh is just like any other part of the body and as one would not cut or mutate an arm, for instance, one should not do that to kesh either. VIII. UNIFORM Reason 20: Sikh Identity The Sikh Coalition asserts that kesh is a part of the daily uniform of a Sikh; kesh forms an external identity for a Sikh, (Sikh Coalition). Keeping kesh identifies one as a Sikh. Hair is a visible identifier, which distinguishes the Sikh from all other religions and walks of life. Keeping hair intact encourages and gives support to fellow Sikhs, (Khalsa, Sukhmandir). Reason 21: Fierce Image Gurdev Singh proposes the idea that long hair was to create a fierce and bold, warrior appearance within the Khalsa. The warrior tribesmen of the historic North West Afghan frontier kept long hair, though trimmed, and perhaps the Gurus wished the Sikhs to have a similarly impressive and alarming appearance, thus mandating the keeping of Kesh, (Singh, Gurdev). Reason 22: Inexpensive Kesh contributes to the Sikh’s uniform and it is an inexpensive, impressive, permanent uniform accessible to all, (Singh, Gurdev.) Regardless of how poor you are, because kesh costs no money, anyone can have at least this one article of faith connecting him/her to the Khalsa. Kesh is a natural uniform (Manasukhani, Gobind Singh). IX. RELATION TO OTHER FAITHS Reason 23: Long Hair as the Antithesis of Hindu Renunciation Some Hindu saints, those who practiced asceticism (abstaining from worldly pleasures with the aim of pursuing spiritual goals) would shave their heads to proclaim their detachment from the world. Sikhs, according to Uberoi, keep hair to take a stand against this practice; to renounce renunciation, to indicate that they could be part of this world and still pursue spiritual goals. This Sikh practice fused together the householder/common citizen with the renouncer/spiritual ascetic, (Uberoi, J.P.S.). X. EQUALITY Reason 24: Reduce Sexual Dimorphism When Singhs adopt the stereotypically “feminine” characteristic of long hair, sexual dimorphism between Kaurs and Singhs is reduced. (Sexual dimorphism is the presences of physically obvious differences between the male and female of the species.) It has been scientifically observed that the lower the sexual dimorphism in a species, the more the social equality. My personal belief is that, the sharing of a physical characteristic (long hair) between Kaurs and Singhs can foster greater social equality and cross-gender empathy. XI. PHYSICAL HEALTH Reason 25: Protein According to some Sikhs, hair is the most potent, purest form of protein in the world. The very root of the hair has the oil of the protein. This oil is enough to support your brain through any activity. Hair is the pranic antenna. It is energy, pure protein, (Khalsa, Gurumustuk Singh). Reason 26: Vitamin Provider Hair’s purpose is to work on the brain, as stated by Gurmustukh Singh Khalsa. The brain needs vitamin D, energy, phosphorus, and metals. The number of units of vitamin D that these hairs provide immediately to the brain is unbelievable, (Khalsa, Gurumustuk Singh). Reason 27: Power of the Rishi Knot Some Sikhs believe that it is very positive for a woman to wear her hair tied on top of her head on the solar center in a rishi knot. Furthermore, some believe that men tie a rishi knot where the soft point on the skull is when he was a child. “A woman’s hair is supposed to be tied exactly at the solar centers. Because of the waning and waxing of the moon, she has to protect her solar centers more powerfully than the male,” (Khalsa, Gurumustuk Singh). Khalsa states that, “…when a woman’s hair is loose, her identity to submit becomes a hundred times greater. In old times it was a custom that when a woman went to her husband in intimacy, she let her hair down. Unfortunately, now, during the day, everybody has their hair loose. Understand this action in the light of the downfall of sexual values,” (Khalsa, Gurumustuk Singh). Reason 28: Magnetic Field Most women in America shave their legs and underarms. As per some Sikh writings, this may negatively affect one’s magnetic field. “Perhaps if they realize that by cutting the hairs under the arms they are affecting their magnetic field and the sympathetic nervous system and that by shaving the leg hairs they are altering the electromagnetic field of the lower spine, they might think twice about shaving. Women do not understand what those tiny, tiny hairs on their legs do for them. They only know they are bad things. You know how the legs move, right? On both sides of the legs there are hairs. Those hairs create an electromagnetic field, which balances the movement of the pituitary. You shave it and it is your problem; they say it can make you insane,” (Khalsa , Gurumustuk Singh). Reason 29: Pranic Life Force “Some Sikhs believe that when you allow your hair to grow to its full length and coil it on the crown of the head, the sun energy, pranic life force, is drawn down the spine. To counteract that downward movement, the Kundalini life energy rises to create balance,” Khalsa. In Yogi Bhajan’s words, “Your hair is not there by mistake. It has a definite purpose, which saints will discover and other men will laugh at,” (Khalsa, Gurumustuk Singh 2). XII. CONCLUSION There you have it. 29 reasons people have proposed as to why Sikhs keep kesh. I hope you find one, or many that resonates with you.