amar_jkp

I. FAITH Reason 1: Because the Gurus Said to Keep Long Hair. “When you have faith, you don’t need any absolute reason for doing anything. The Gurus said to keep long hair, so I do. I don’t question it,” someone once told me. II. LINK WITH THE GURU Reason 2: Because the Gurus had Long Hair According to Trilochan Singh in The Turban and Sword of the Sikhs, Sikhs live in the physical image of the Guru, and since the Gurus kept long hair, so do Sikhs. This may be as a tribute to the Gurus’ life or as a way to live in line with the Gurus’ lifestyle. Reason 3: Physical Connection to Gurus Long hair can help a Sikh feel connected to the Guru. It is a physical commonality a Sikh shares with his/her Guru and thus, can serve as a reminder that a Sikh can be Guru-like and must strive to embody qualities the Gurus had. Long hair is regarded as the seal of the Guru, (Manasukhani, Gobind Singh). Typically, a seal authenticates a document or is placed on package holding valuables. In this light, kesh is the Guru’s seal authenticating the Sikh as a disciple, or long hair can be considered the emblem upon the valuable mind/soul contained within the body. One author believes that long hair symbolizes the spiritual link a Sikh has with the Guru’s power, (Manasukhani, Gobind Singh). Reason 4: Orders Another theory is that keeping kesh honors Guru Gobind Singh’s 1699 Vasakhi Hukam (command/order) that amritdhari Sikhs, must wear the 5Ks, one of which is kesh. In June of 1699, after the first Sikh Vasakhi, Guru Gobind Singh Ji issued a hukam nama for the sangat of Kabul specifically according to the Bikrami calendar, Jeth 26, Sammat 1756. In this hukham, Guru Ji refers to kesh several times, ” Keep your hair (Kesh) uncut – this is the seal of the Guru….Look after your hair and comb (Kanga) it twice a day….Never have any connection whatsoever with those who…celebrate the cutting of children’s hair,” (Guru Gobind Singh, 1699). Some point to the rehatnama (code of conduct) written by Bhai Daya Singh Ji, a contemporary of Guru Gobind Singh Ji, that states, “The hair resides on the body, forsake cutting it,” (Singh, Nihang.). The Damdami Taksal Rehat Maryada also indicates the importance of kesh, “Unshorn Hair
 From your head down to your toes all hair is to be kept unshorn and your hair is to be tied
 and complemented with a turban,” (Damdami Taksal). Almost all other rehatnamas lay special emphasis on the maintenance of unshorn hair, (Khalsa, Sukhmandir). III. SPIRITUALITY Reason 5: Saintliness or Holiness In ancient India, it was a general practice with Hindu sages and ascetics to keep long hair tied in a knot on top of their head and keep a long beard. Gurdev Singh hypothesizes in his paper, Respectives on the Sikh Tradition, that Guru Gobind Singh wanted his Sikhs, despite being householders, to also be karma yogis, or practical saints. In India, kesh is a symbol of saintliness or holiness, (Manasukhani, Gobind Singh). Long hair serves as a reminder for Sikhs to behave like the saints and Rishis of the past, (Sidhu, GS). G. A. Gaskell writes, “Hair of the head is a symbol of faith, intuition of truth, or the highest qualities of the mind.” Reason 6: Devotion Another theory is that the head of a devout Sikh is an offering to the Guru and long hair is proof of the Sikh’s devotion and a sign of a Sikh’s commitment and devotion to his/her Guru, (Manasukhani, Gobind Singh. Others say that kesh indicates a life decided to the services of God and humanity, (Singh, Gurdev). Some say that kesh is a mark of dedication to the Guru, (Sidhu, G.S.). Reason 7: Truth Writer Sukhmandir Khalsa says that keeping kesh honors truth. Hair, like truth, continually asserts itself despite whatever measures are taken to deny it. Whether plucked, shaved, or curled, or colored hair, the hereditary disposition and condition of hair cannot be changed or concealed, for hair always returns to its original genetic growth pattern, (Khalsa, Sukhmandir). Khalsa also says that keeping kesh benefits the body and soul. “Hair is prayer and kesh acts as a subtle spiritual antenna. One who keeps kesh intact, practices meditation and achieves humility comes to know the benefit of kesh which can never be realize if hair is severed,” (Khalsa, Sukhmandir). IV. INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPMENT Reason 8: Hair Makes a Person Whole Another reason a Sikh may keep long hair is that long hair establishes a complete and natural person. When the body is whole, it represents a whole spirit, a spirit unlimited by worldly consideration, (Wylam, Pamela Margaret). Reason 9: Sikh Sovereignty Sikhs do not conform to time-bound, secular fashion trends; Sikhs are not attached to the world. Thus, Wylam says, long hair indicates a freedom from socially deemed fashionable haircuts, (Wylam, Pamela Margaret.) The Sikh is sovereign from social standards of beauty and only behaves in accordance with the Gurus’ standards. Reason 10: Discipline Personal discipline is central to Sikhi and some feel that keeping long hair, combing it every day and washing it, develops disciplines, (Singh, Gurdev). Reason 11: Vanity Some writers feel that keeping kesh vanquishes vanity. Keeping hair intact is a constant reminder to make conscious choices when facing the challenges of confronting ego, (Khalsa, Sukhmandir). Reason 12: Self-esteem Keeping kesh builds self-esteem, in another point of view. Keeping hair intact allows one to experience courage, conquer fear, and realize unconditional love, (Khalsa, Sukhmandir), Reason 13: Eliminates Duality The Sikh eliminates the duality in the mind that may come with cutting hair; that Waheguru made the human perfect but somehow the Sikh is not perfect and thus must cut the hair. Bringing thoughts and actions in line with each other can help establish inner peace. V. PANTHIK DEVELOPMENT Reason 14: A Common Denominator Since every practicing Sikh keeps long hair, it is the common denominator between all Sikhs. It helps connect everyone mentally, reminding Sikhs that they are all striving to reach the same religious, spiritual, social objective, together, (Wylam, Pamela Margaret). Long hair across the panth psychologically connects Sikhs to their fellow Sikhs.

Gandhi and Sikhs My first biases of Gandhi arose from the fact that, throughout his lifetime, Gandhi expressed many anti-Sikh views, ranging from attacking the symbols of the Sikh faith to encouraging Sikhs to abandon parts of their culture and religion in favor of re-absorption into Hinduism. From the onset of his arrival in India, Gandhi insisted on referring to Sikhs as "Hindus" even though the vast majority of Sikhs at that time expressed their belief that they were a distinct religion and that referring to them as a part of Hinduism was offensive. His insistent comments that the "Sikh Gurus were Hindus" and that Guru Gobind Singh was "one of the greatest defenders of Hinduism" (Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi Vol. 28 pg. 263) deeply hurt Sikh sentiments, but that never deterred him making such statements throughout his life. Gandhi was so adamant in his view of Sikhism being a part of Hinduism that he went to the extent of condemning the conversion of Untouchables to Sikhism if Sikhs continued to assert their not being a sect of Hinduism. At that time, led by Dr. Ambedkar, over 60 million Untouchables desired to convert to another religion in order to free themselves from their enslavement in the Hindu caste system. Dr. Ambedkar had a very strong interest in the conversion of the Untouchables to Sikhism, to the extent that he even had his own nephew baptized into Sikhism. Gandhi found this possible conversion to be intolerable in the light of Sikhs viewing themselves as not being Hindus. Gandhi wrote: "I don't mind Untouchables if they do desire, being converted to Islam or Christianity" (CW, Vol 48, pg 98), he insisted that conversion to Sikhism by these Untouchables was "dangerous." "Today I will only say that to me Sikhism is a part of Hinduism. But the situation is different from a legal point of view. Dr. Ambedkar wants a change of religion. If becoming a Sikh amounts to conversion, then this kind of conversion on the parts of Harijans is dangerous. If you can persuade the Sikhs to accept that Sikhism is a part of Hinduism and if you can make them give up the separate electorate, then I will have no objections to Harijans calling themselves Sikhs" (CW, Vol 63, pg 267). A particularly offensive comment of Gandhi made it clear that he harbored the belief that Sikhs should disown the institution of the Khalsa Panth established by the tenth Guru, Guru Gobind Singh. He said, "I read your Granth Sahib. But I do not do so to please you. Nor shall I seek your permission to do so. But the Guru has not said anywhere that you must grow your beards, carry kirpans (swords) and so on" (CW Vol. 90, Pg. 80). Gandhi failed to acknowledge that a Guru had established such symbols for the Sikhs. In particular, Gandhi attacked the kirpan on many occasions. He showed a critical misunderstanding in the beliefs and responsibilities surrounding Guru Gobind Singh's commandment that his Sikhs should wear kirpans. This misunderstanding gradually turned into a general intolerance, with Gandhi often mocking those Sikhs who wore them. Gandhi attacked Gurmukhi. In a letter to a friend, Amrit Kaur, he wrote: "I wish you would persuade enlightened Sikhs to take the Devnagri script in the place of the Gurmukhi" (CW Vol. 64. pg 41). It is important to realize that Gurmukhi is not the language of the Punjab, but rather the language of the Sikhs. The Sikh Gurus created Gurmukhi and it is the script used in the Guru Granth Sahib. It wasn't as if Gandhi asked Punjabis (who are Sikhs, Hindus, and Muslims) to give up the Punjabi language, but rather Sikhs in particular to give up the language of their Gurus. While I respect Gandhi's desire to have some sort of united language, he failed to realize that by making such statements he was in essence asking Sikhs to disown their culture, their heritage and the Guru Granth Sahib by abandoning their mother tongue in favor of a composite language. In conclusion, from his various comments, it appears that Gandhi wished for Sikhs to renounce the parts of their religion and culture that he felt prevented them from being reabsorbed into Hinduism. Two of the main obstacles to such an objective were the different language of the Sikhs and the institution of the Khalsa Panth. Gandhi was particularly fond of making broken promises to the Sikhs, promises that to this day have come back to haunt them. He would never hesitate to appease them by saying: "We have not done justice to the Sikhs" (CW Vol. 38 pg. 315). But this would only translate into promises that were never kept. During the 1920's and 1930's, the British had acknowledged three main groups that would receive power after they left India - the Hindus, the Muslims and the Sikhs who ruled the last kingdom that was annexed by the British. There was talk amongst Sikhs about creating such a country, Khalistan, for themselves. In order to help persuade Sikhs to join Hindu India, Gandhi made many comments and promises that, looking back at history, seem to have been aimed at deceiving and coaxing them. The first of such promises was when he said: "No Constitution would be acceptable to the Congress which did not satisfy the Sikhs" (CW Vol. 58. p. 192). This promise was quickly broken right after independence. To this day, not one Sikh has ever signed the Indian Constitution, which goes out of its way to declare that Sikhs are indeed a part of Hinduism (Article 25 of the Constitution). Then came the promise that was used as a justification by some Sikhs in taking up arms against the Government of India after 1984. Gandhi invoked the sacred name of God and said: "I venture to suggest that the non-violence creed of the Congress is the surest guarantee of its good faith and our Sikhs friends have no reason to fear betrayal at its hands. For the moment it did so, the Congress would not only seal its own doom but that of the country too. Moreover, the Sikhs are a brave people; they will know how to safeguard their right by the exercise of arms if it shall ever come to that." He further continued: "Why can you have no faith? If Congress shall play false afterwards you can well settle surely with it, for you have the sword. I ask you to accept my word. Let God be witness of the bond that binds me and the Congress with you" (CW Vol. 45 pg. 231-33). These were just more appeasement tactics. The mention of "Sikhs are a brave people" and the "exercise of arms" were attempts to mislead the Sikh masses considering the fact that Gandhi did not support any such "exercise of arms". How ironic was it that the Congress party that Gandhi had declared as having a special bond with the Sikhs was the first to betray them. This was firstly accomplished by depriving them of a linguistic state and a capital after independence and then by massacring thousands upon thousands of Sikhs in and after 1984. There was no "non-violence creed" displayed by the Congress, only barbarianism that would put the likes of Aurangzeb to shame. The fact remains that more Sikhs have been killed under fifty years of Indian rule than under the one hundred years of British rule. Gandhi's promises were left unfulfilled and it was the Sikh people who were left to pay for such treachery. At this point, I wish to elucidate that these statements alone are not the reasons why I am not enthusiastic about Gandhi. I can accept the fact that perhaps M. K. Gandhi just had a deep misunderstanding of Sikhism and that I am just being overly critical of a few comments he made. Perhaps I am just exposing my own inadequacies by blaming him for the actions of those who came after him as well. In either case, the reasons I cited above are not enough to warrant a total dislike for all the accomplishments that Mohandas Gandhi achieved in life. Despite what he achieved though, I disagree with his principles and methods. A LOOK AT NON-VIOLENCE Even before Gandhi came to India in 1915, the Sikhs had been peacefully protesting for the right to run their Gurdwaras (after the Sikh kingdom had been annexed, the Gurdwaras had been turned over by the British to Brahmin Hindus to run). Gandhi was very critical of the 'Sikh way' of civil disobedience. He said: "The Akalis (Sikh Warriors) wear a black turban and a black band on one shoulder and also carry a big staff with a small axe on the top. Fifty or a hundred of such groups go and take possession of a gurdwara; they suffer violence themselves but do not use any. Nevertheless, a crowd of fifty or more men approaching a place in the way described is certainly a show of force and naturally the keeper of the Gurdwara would be intimidated by it." (Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Vol. 19 pg. 401). This is where I do not understand Gandhi's teachings. On the one hand Gandhi did not believe non-violent resistance should be "passive," but rather that it should be, in essence, a "force". On the other hand, he criticized Sikhs for practicing non-violent civil disobedience in seeking control of their Gurdwaras. Their methods were even praised by British leaders. Reverend C. F. Andrews wrote: "The vow (of non-violence) they (the Sikhs) had made to God was kept to the letter. I saw no act, no look, of defiance." As far as the spirit of the suffering they endured, the Reverend said "It was very rarely that I witnessed any Akali Sikh, who went forward to suffer, flinch from a blow when it was struck. The blows were received one by one without resistance and without a sign of fear." Still, Gandhi could not reconcile this manner of civil disobedience, for he decided that the Sikhs participating in it harbored "hatred in their hearts" and thus never gave his blessings to such forms of agitation. Gandhi could not understand why Sikhs would peacefully protest while wearing arms. To him, this constituted cowardice, that one carries arms while walking in peace. I completely disagree. Gandhi failed to realize the differences between non-violence of the weak, and non-violence of the strong. The importance of carrying arms was to show that they were indeed brave enough and capable of using them, but that they were instead consciously choosing not to. It is a discipline that only a few select can conquer. A coward who is weak and scared will never wear arms and walk in peaceful protest because, as soon as the first signs of oppression arise, he will be scared and use his weapons in haste. Similarly, the weak and the scared will never have the capacity to make non-violence their way of life. To them it will only be something useful when they are helplessly bound in shackles. To be able to wear arms and to not retaliate or show the slightest bit of anger or attempt self-defense against someone who is attacking you is the highest form of non-violent protest. It implies a complete resignation to peaceful ways and an absolute belief in the power of non-violent protest despite the ability of the protestor to respond violently. It is one thing to walk in peaceful protest that is born out of a feeling of helplessness and quite another to walk peacefully, inviting oppression and suffering upon himself despite being fully armed, while totally being able to fight back. The first constitutes cowardice, the second a force. I can't help but think that the sort of non-violence practiced by Gandhi's followers in India was that of the weak, that of the helpless. I believe that most did not truly understand the principles of non-violence in the manner in which Gandhi preached it. Rather they just thought they would be unable to win independence through other means. I come to this conclusion because of the history of Indians both before and after Gandhi. An obvious fact is that Indians as a race have been oppressed for the last several hundred years by the Moguls (and later on by the British). Many of them never uttered a word of protest against the atrocities that were committed against their kith and kin, atrocities which were much worse than those perpetrated by the British. Even fewer actually took up actions against the Moguls (the major exception of course being the Marathas in the south). It was quite common for invaders such as Abdali and Nadir Shah to invade India, take Indian jewelry and Indian women and head back to Afghanistan. Yet there were very few strong voices that opposed this. This was because of fear. This fear is what stopped them from participating in any course of action besides submitting to their oppressors. It seems like over time most Indians have developed a "learned helplessness". Following Gandhi's ideas arose from this feeling of helplessness. Indians followed Gandhi's beliefs not because they thought non-violence was a superior weapon in dealing with social problems, as Gandhi had preached, but rather because they felt they had no other alternative. This in itself defeats the whole purpose of non-violence. It was quite common for Indians to one day be peacefully protesting and the next day to form lynch mobs. The only conclusion I can come to in order to reconcile these two thoughts is that they had no idea what the real essence of non-violent agitation was. The simple fact that after Gandhi his philosophy of non-violence has been completely abandoned by the people of India at large seems to point toward this conclusion. To me, Gandhi came across as being an uncompromising extremist. A non-violent extremist, but an extremist nevertheless. His letters to the British people during World War Two encouraging them to "allow yourself, man, woman, and child, to be slaughtered" by "peacefully surrendering" to the Nazis in order to further his fanatic ideas of non-violence is a perfect example (CW Vol. 72 pg 229 231, CW Vol. 72 pg. 177). When pressed even further, he went to the extent of calling Guru Gobind Singh, the Maratha Shivaji and George Washington "misguided patriots" for taking up arms in defense of their people (CW Vol. 26 pg. 486-492). Had Gandhi lived under the likes of Aurangzeb, in almost all likelihood he would have been arrested and hanged for even showing the slightest bit of defiance to the Mogul Empire. His non-violent ways worked because the British were not total tyrants, rather just concerned with exploiting Indians for their own economic gain. The aim of the British was not to annihilate them, as Aurangzeb and Hitler had attempted to do to their subjects. Thus the situation was ideal for the implementation of non-violent agitation. According to Gandhi, only "evil and violence" came about from those who use violence. He seems to totally disregard the idea of a "noble cause", basing his ideas of whether a movement was right or wrong on his narrow view of whether or not non-violence was being used. No doubt history has shown that those who used violence for the sake of unworthy causes ultimately did perpetuate violence and evil upon themselves. But, at the same time, those who used violence because of noble causes (as in defense of their people), the rule did not apply. There is a certain undeniable beauty in watching or reading about others who are fighting for noble and legitimate causes. Perhaps one of the best examples I can bring up is reading about the American Revolution. There is certain magnificence, certain holiness, about those people fighting for their rights. The fact that they used arms to achieve their freedom did not discount the righteousness of what they did. FALLING SHORT OF TRUE GREATNESS There are a few situations where I question Gandhi's approach to dealing with a problem. Take fasts, for example. In his lifetime, Gandhi fasted for many issues ranging from stopping mob violence to preventing Untouchables from having separate electoral ballots. It seems that his fasts unto death were just a method of coercing others into obeying him. There was no "teaching someone the error of their ways", but rather people ceded to Gandhi's demands because they realized they had more to lose if he died as a result. Seeing how this "moral enlightenment" obviously wasn't occurring, I don't see what the difference would have been had the army been sent in to stop the rioting by force. In either situation, the people would not have been any more enlightened to the error of their ways, except in the latter situation less people may have died. One problem I see is that Gandhi had no peers, only followers. In essence, Gandhi's words became the "Rule of Law" in India during that time. That's why I believe his influence on most Indians died with him. Though Gandhi may have lived with the underprivileged, there wasn't anyone that stood as his equal, not even Jawaharlal Nehru or Vallabhai Patel. There wasn't anyone who was in any position to question Gandhi's beliefs or authority. They were basically forced to follow what Gandhi said, whether agreeing with it or not. Thus after he was assassinated, there was a vacuum and India was once again left as a nation of followers. For me, this is what separates Gandhi from rising into the realm of great people in history. Great leaders seek to free their people from the chains of mental slavery. They voluntarily give up their political power and their ultimate authority in order to give their kith and kin a sense of empowerment, something Gandhi did not do. Gandhi may have asked Indians to spin their own thread, but he was always a level above the average Indian. This is what prevented him from ever truly leading Indians down a path of self-empowerment and self-determination. The inferiority complex, which has always been at the root of the problem, was thus never eliminated. Contrast this to the examples laid by the Sikh Gurus, such as that of Guru Gobind Singh in raising the Khalsa. Despite being a Guru and the word of God to his followers, Guru Gobind Singh repeatedly lowered himself to the level of his followers in order to instill in them a sense of power, authority and sovereignty. It was the flame of self-respect and empowerment that he spent his entire life inculcating in his people that sowed the seeds of a nation that would prosper. Upon initially baptizing the first five Sikhs into the Khalsa Panth in 1699, the Guru himself bowed before his own followers and begged them to baptize him into their own way of live, to in essence accept him as one of their own. It was at this point that he became a Guru only in name. He chose to give up his absolute authority as Guru and take on the path of a disciple, something that a being in his position had never done before. Guru Gobind Singh voluntarily gave up his total say in matters related to Sikhi and, instead, entrusted his Sikhs to take up such issues in his place. There are many instances in Sikh history where Guru Gobind Singh was ordered to do something by the Khalsa. There was even such an occasion that he was fined by other Sikhs for what they felt constituted a "waiver of faith". Here was a situation where his own followers were fining a head of a faith, a prophet, for what they thought violated an article of the faith. The Guru happily obliged and paid his dues, happy at the sense of empowerment that had grown amongst his Sikhs. By the end of his life, Sahib Guru Gobind Singh had dispersed all of his power to his people, for his people. By sacrificing everything he had for them, Guru Sahib gave his Sikhs a sense of dignity in his own physical lifetime; something Gandhi never had the privilege of seeing. If we take India to be the microcosm of Gandhi's teachings and influence, I don't see how we can come to any other conclusion except that Gandhi's ways are a complete failure, even after only fifty years of his death. Gandhi preached non-violence. Non-violence was totally abandoned in India. Gandhi preached self-empowerment, yet the average Indian is no more empowered before Gandhi than after Gandhi. Gandhi preached peace, yet India is constantly drifting toward war in one form or another. Gandhi wanted his people to "love the British" who were oppressing them. That was the foundation of his beliefs in the power of non-violence. Yet the fact remains that "love" was the last way to describe the way in which Indians viewed Britain, even despite the fact that India was created without a war. In conclusion, though I may not have a strong admiration of the man himself, there is a profound appreciation of what Gandhi preached. I am a full-fledged believer in non-violent civil disobedience. It has many practical uses today and most definitely in the future as well. At the same time, I do not believe in the extremism that Gandhi did, which makes it impractical and thus lays the seeds for it to be abandoned in the future, as it has been in India today.

I have seen many Hindus like who first talk that they agree what happened to Sikhs was wrong but slowly slowly they show thier true colour like you have done Nirankaris - Read They Massacre Sikhs - A Report by Sikh Parliament SGPC http://www.scribd.com/doc/106626671/They-Massacre-Sikhs-A-Report-by-Sikh-Parliament-SGPC and SHUT UP Lala Jagat Narain - He was Guru Nindak - Lala Jagat Narain the Owner and Chief Editor of Hindu Samachar Newspaper group, was hell-bent on a mission in 1980 to tarnish the reputation of Sikhs and destroy their desire for autonomous freedom. He would consistently slander Sikh leaders and their philosophy of developing a separate identity from Hinduism. Even in the 1978 Amritsar massacre, Lala was present as a witness and gave statements against the peaceful Sikh protesters of which 13 were made shaheed. All barriers were crossed when he published a picture of Guru Gobind Singh Ji Maharaj next to Mahatma Gandhi's and attempted to compare them as men. He went on further to make remarks suggesting Gandhi was superior as he never lifted a sword to seek justice. Sant Ji had warned Jagat Narain openly many times prior to this incident that his writings were a direct attack on Sikhi and that if he did not heed the warning then perhaps one day a Lion would answer his challenge. His latest slur on our Guru Gobind Singh Ji Maharaj had lit a fire of vengeance inside Sant Jarnail Singh Ji Bhindranwale.

I am trying to find this book but its not available , can you help ?

Shut UP you Hindu fascist RSS chela. Admin - Why we allowing this fanatic on Sikh forum . Long Live Sikh Nation !

Lathrop, CA, USA (November 17, 2013): Bhajan Singh Bhinder, Founding Director of Sikh Information Centre, issued the following statement about Punjab: A History from Aurangzeb to Mountbatten (2013), a new book by Rajmohan Gandhi: “Rajmohan Gandhi Perpetuates Propaganda in Grandfather’s Footsteps” Rajmohan Gandhi In his purported history of the Punjab, Mohandas Gandhi’s grandson, Rajmohan Gandhi, has invented history in much the same way as his grandfather used to imaginatively retell facts. In the book, Rajmohan libels an Indian cultural treasure, Guru Gobind Singh Ji, by describing him as a mansabdar (a mercenary, essentially) for Mughal Emperor Bahadur Shah during his occupation of India, a fabricated detail which has never before been included in any biographical sketch of the guru. At a time when an iron-fisted conqueror ruled India from Delhi, Guru Gobind Singh empowered the common man to be a sovereign individual. When he founded the order of “Khalsa,” meaning “Pure” or “Sovereign,” he launched a life philosophy which intends each man as a king who alone rules himself and who rules himself alone. When he founded the Khalsa in 1699, Guru Gobind initiated the first five people who voluntarily offered their lives in service of truth. He christened them each a “Singh” so they would share the same name of nobility to erase social divisions. After this baptism, Guru Gobind bowed before the five and asked them to initiate him also as a Singh. Then Guru Gobind Singh taught a doctrine of universal human equality in the eyes of one true God. Man, he taught, is subservient to God, and to God alone belongs the victory — “Waheguru ji ka Khalsa, Waheguru ji Ki Fateh” (Khalsa belongs to God; victory belongs to God). He condemned rituals as hollow; instead, he taught a life of self-sacrifice and respect for other human creatures as the best way to worship God. He particularly emphasized honorable treatment of women as of equal value to men, remarking: From now on, you have become casteless. No ritual, either Hindu or Muslim, will you perform nor will you believe in superstition of any kind, but only in one God who is the master and protector of all, the only creator and destroyer. In your new order, the lowest will rank with the highest and each will be to the other a brother. No pilgrimages for you any more, nor austerities but the pure life of the household, which you should be ready to sacrifice at the call of Dharma. Women shall be equal of men in every way. No veil for them anymore, nor the burning alive of a widow on the pyre of her spouse. He who kills his daughter, the Khalsa shall not deal with him. After he founded the Khalsa in 1699, he faced down the heaviest of odds to preserve the spark of liberty in South Asia by resisting the oppression of invading Muslim hordes. For years, he defended against the control of Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb before finally making peace with his son, Bahadur Shah, who then betrayed the peace agreement by sending assassins against Guru Gobind Singh. Perverting history by interpreting the Guru’s dissent against oppression as hiring his sword to a tyrant is outlandish and insults a man who gave his life to liberate others. Rajmohan Gandhi’s baseless assertions are best understood in context of the ancient historical conflict between the two dominant ideologies of India — of the Moolnivasi, or indigenous people, and of the Aryans, who invaded India from the northwest. Aryanism crafted the caste system and its foundational texts like Manusmriti (The Laws of Manu) to institutionalize the rule of a few over the many. This self-perpetuating system of social tyranny is kept in place by the ignorant cooperation with their subjugation of the approximately 85% of India’s population who constitute Moolnivasi, many of whom have never been educated about the evils of the caste system or of their right not to cooperate with it. Gandhism’s chief contribution to this system has been to further manipulate people into seeing evil as good. Gandhi hid himself in broad daylight by painting his public image as messianic. Meanwhile, the devilish truth behind the smoke and mirrors was Gandhi’s life, from his early days as an attorney in South Africa to his death in his 70s, involved promoting racial segregation and social division, enthusiastic participating in aggressive colonial warfare, sexually molesting his teenage relatives, and playing political games that resulted in India’s partition and the deaths of millions. As a scholar and even a biographer of his grandfather, Rajmohan has failed to bring these facts to light, which is hardly surprising considering the Gandhi family’s denigration of Guru Gobind Singh, as well as of Sikh traditions, is an old habit. In 1925, Mohandas called the guru a “misguided patriot.” [1] On another occasion, he declared: “So far as the Sikh kitchen is concerned, it is a menace.” [2] It is decades past time the Gandhi family ended its tired tirade against the Moolnivasi people of India and their emancipatory heroes. India remains a land of oppression in need of defenders. For instance, we now see Narendra Modi, CM of Gandhi’s home-state of Gujarat and orchestrator of the 2002 Gujarat Genocide in which thousands of Muslims were massacred, poised to become Prime Minister. While the world still sees Mohandas Gandhi as a virtual deity, he is worshipped in India, his picture is on the wall of every government office in India and even in the U.S. President’s office, and his philosophy is being taught even to primary school children, the sad reality is the fruits of his legacy are visible in an India where architects of genocide presently reign. Although Gandhi boasted about spending his life “experimenting with truth” instead of simply searching for it, at least one statement of his was true: “An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it.” Indeed, no matter how frequently or for how long the Gandhi family propagates errors, their lies will never become the truth. The truth is that the Gandhi family has served as chief apologists for the Indian State since before its founding in 1947. Propagandists like Gandhi, often cloaked as religious icons, are invaluable to tyrannies, as explained by political theorist Murray Rothbard: Throughout history, as we shall see further below, despots and ruling elites of States have had far more need of the services of intellectuals than have peaceful citizens in a free society. For States have always needed opinion-moulding intellectuals to con the public into believing that its rule is wise, good, and inevitable; into believing that the “emperor has clothes. Until the modern world, such intellectuals were inevitably churchmen (or witch doctors), the guardians of religion. It was a cozy alliance, this age-old partnership between Church and State; the Church informed its deluded charges that the king ruled by divine command and therefore must be obeyed; in return, the king funneled numerous tax revenues into the coffers of the Church. [3] Instead of speaking out to demand justice for the innocent and prevent oppressors from terrorizing the land, Rajmohan Gandhi is publishing a book with false facts which injure the sterling reputation of one of India’s greatest defenders, Guru Gobind Singh Ji. Like his grandfather before him, Rajmohan appears to be demonizing a pioneer of liberty to cloak his own support for the social division of caste. Rather than addressing real and pressing social issues which daily result in discrimination and even death, the Gandhi family has spent the past century spreading an ambiguous philosophy which openly enshrines the caste system as a supposed social good. This was obvious in 1933, when Mohandas Gandhi declared: “The caste system, in my opinion, has a scientific basis. Reason does not revolt against it. It has disadvantages. Caste creates a social and moral restraint — I can find no reason for their abolition. To abolish caste is to demolish Hinduism. There is nothing to fight against the Varnasharma. I don’t believe the caste system to be an odious and vicious dogma.” [4] This was preceded in 1920 by Gandhi’s attempt to turn logic on its head in arguing that caste (a system which is by its very definition founded on inequality because it breaks society into four increasingly-degraded categories) does not create inequality. He stated: “I am certainly against any attempt at destroying the fundamental divisions. The caste system is not based on inequality.” [5] Logically, of course, as well as morally, social division is irreconcilable with social equality. As a contrast in philosophies, Guru Gobind Singh Ji declared centuries before Gandhi: “All human beings are the reflection of one and the same Lord. Recognise ye the whole human race as one.” The absence of this attitude in Gandhism, as illustrated both in Gandhi’s philosophizing and his personal relations, is leading to its intense critical analysis. George Orwell said: “He who controls the present, controls the past.” Reclaiming the truth of history and preserving it for perpetuity is the most important task an intellectual may undertake. Theirs is a greater responsibility, though, for they are tasked with telling truth. Anything less than the truth is a lie, and lies are useful only for propaganda. Experimenting with the truth produces the results we see in India today, which is why the Hollywood Gandhi remains so useful to the Indian State as propaganda. The truth is that the Indian State spots the globe with Gandhi statues as a deliberate propaganda strategy. On November 10, 2010, Indian MP Magunta Sreenivasulu Reddy placed a formal question to India’s Ministry of External Affairs: “Does the Indian state assist in placing statues of Gandhi around the world?” Their response: “Yes.” The state bureaucracy in charge of this is the Indian Council for Cultural Relations, which placed 65 state-funded statues and busts of Gandhi around the world between 2001 and 2010. As Rajmohan Gandhi continues to spread the myth of his grandfather while fabricating lies about Guru Gobind Singh Ji, intellectuals like women’s rights activist Nannette Ricaforte are awakening to the truth of Gandhi’s history and recognizing just how many people were harmed by his legacy. In October 2013, Ricaforte wrote: Spiritual leaders like Gandhi procure a mass following whose reverence for him blinded them to the truth. He was a sexual predator while he espoused non-violence in fighting for the independence of India. Yet his ideology was enough for the majority of his supporters to disregard his immoral acts. In my work as an abolitionist, fighting for the rights of sexually exploited victims, I can’t minimize the facts I’ve learned about Gandhi. It’s unsettling, to say the least. I’ve met young victims of human trafficking, child labor, and the sex trade, stripped of their dignity by men in positions of power. Their degradation meant nothing, marginalized because the community revered the perpetrators. There are no words to express the depth of rage and helplessness I’ve felt when confronted with these reactions. [6] South Asian women’s rights activist Rita Banerji, founder of the 50 Million Missing Campaign to expose female foeticide and infanticide, drew similar conclusions in another October 2013 article about Gandhi’s “dark side,” where she wrote: Compared to our reactions and responses today, the people in Gandhi’s time seemed to be far more progressive! They not only recognized that he was abusing his position and power in a way that was unethical and depraved, but they outright condemned it, confronted it, and eventually forced him to stop! On 16th March, 1947, Nirmal Kumar Bose, one of Gandhi’s closest associates wrote a letter to Kishorlal G. Mashruwala, another of Gandhi’s close colleagues, saying, “When I first learnt about Gandhi’s experiment in which a girl took off her clothes and lay under the same cover with him and he tried to find out if any sexual feeling was evoked in him or his companion, I felt genuinely surprised. Personally, I would not tempt myself like that and more than that, my respect for [women] would prevent me from treating her as an instrument in my experiment…” [7] Rajmohan Gandhi, who has made his career on the coattails of his grandfather’s fame, seems blinded to the truth. His 2007 biography, Mohandas: A True Story of a Man, His People and an Empire, is nothing but a stale, melodramatic retread of the typical Gandhi myth — Mohandas as a messianic figure who not only led the country to independence but the people to enlightenment. Objective modern biographers are telling a completely different story, as I mentioned earlier: Gandhi was racist, sexist, and casteist. Unlike what history has shown us in the Sikh tradition, where individuals are liberated and mass emancipation is taught as the key to social progress, Gandhism preaches evil cloaked as good — war as peace, hate as love, segregation as unity, subjugation as equality, and tyranny as liberty. Guru Gobind Singh sacrificed his family, his wealth, and eventually his life to free India, and Rajmohan Gandhi’s decision to build on the false legacy of his grandfather by besmirching one who sacrificed himself for others is truly disgraceful. Real heroes of human unity like Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar, who began studies at Columba University in the United States of America in 1913, worked to erase caste barriers through the simple act of encouraging people from separate castes to eat together, drink together, marry one another, and in spirit to recognize the same universal human equality and casteless society taught by Guru Gobind Singh Ji. It has been said the victors write the history books. Brahmins, the ruling elite of India, never stopped being the victors because the system of social division established by caste has placed them at the top of the ivory tower for eons. Brahmanism has no interest in transmitting true history detailing the heroics of Guru Gobind Singh Ji or those, like Dr. Ambedkar, who worked peacefully for real social uplift. No doubt Dr. Ambedkar receives no hearing from the ruling elite because he took the risk of warning the world that Gandhism was just a cynical political ploy for control: I am sure many have felt that if there was any class which deserved to be given special political rights in order to protect itself against the tyranny of the majority under the Swaraj constitution it was the depressed classes. Here is a class which is undoubtedly not in a position to sustain itself in the struggle for existence. The religion to which they are tied, instead of providing for them an honourable place, brands them as lepers, not fit for ordinary intercourse. Economically, it is a class entirely dependent upon the high-caste Hindus for earning its daily bread with no independent way of living open to it…. There have been many Mahatmas in India whose sole object was to remove Untouchability and to elevate and absorb the depressed classes, but everyone has failed in their mission. Mahatmas have come, Mahatmas have gone but the Untouchables have remained as Untouchables. [8] As for Gandhi’s use of untouchability as a political issue, Dr. Ambedkar stated in 1955: All this talk about Untouchability was just for the purpose of making the Untouchables drawn into the Congress. That was one thing. Secondly, he wanted to make sure that Untouchables would not oppose his movement of Swaraj. I don’t think beyond that he had any real motive of uplift. He wasn’t like Garrison in the United States, who fought for the Negroes. [9] We must be cautious. Whatever history we have is being systematically chipped away, stripped away, and twisted into lies accepted as truth. Rajmohan Gandhi is but the latest member of his family to play a part in this assault on truth. India’s history, therefore, proves the tragic tale of the sufferings of many minorities at the hands of powerful proponents of falsehood. Rajmohan’s work continues to spread lies. If he is to find redemption, we insist he begin by penning a letter of apology to the world regarding his grandfather’s behavior towards women, blacks, Sikhs, Dalits, and the many others he victimized and subjugated. Rajmohan ought to surrender himself in servitude to the downtrodden of India to atone for the damages caused by his family to the people of South Asia. Finally, we appeal to universities and booksellers to ignore Rajmohan Gandhi’s book, Punjab, especially as long as he refuses to speak the truth about his family deliberately hidden dark secrets. The world no longer has any excuse to remain gullible about Gandhi’s past in the face of so much information exposing his exploitation of the vulnerable. The myth is Gandhi as savior but the truth is Gandhi as predator and so, it seems, Gandhism must be rejected completely.

What an answer sooooooooooo . And what all Hindu soldiers who were serving in killing so called 1857 revolutionaries ?

Marathas were looters rapists and thats what they did in bengal and north India.

We all knew true characters of Marathas still Hindu fanatic wants to say they were great how many proof we have given still these Hindu Rashtravadis will not accept it . Lying is they best at .

The Sikhs formed the All India Sikh League as a representative body of the Panth for political action. The League held its first session in December 1919 at Amritsar simultaneously with the Congress annual convention. The honouring of Brigadier-General Dyer by the priests of Sri Darbar Sahib, Amritsar, led to the intensification of the demand for reforming management of Sikh shrines already being voiced by societies such as the Khalsa Diwan Majha and Central Majha Khalsa Diwan. This resulted in the launching of what came to be known as the Gurdwara Reform movement, 1920-25. Some Sikh servicemen, resenting the policy of non-violence adopted by the leaders of the Akali movement, resigned from the army and constituted thc nucleus of an anti-British terrorist group known as Babar Akalis.

This my reply to Hindu fanatic who questioned the Sikh shaheed of Jallianwala Bagh and called it a shameful chapter of Sikh History . In fact its other way around - Which regiment was involved in Jallianwala massacre : The Jallianwalla Bagh during 1919, months after the massacre. "The Martyrs' Well" at Jallianwala Bagh. Cartoon in Punch 14 July 1920, on the occasion of Montagu labelling as "frightful" General Dyer for his role in the Amritsar massacreAn hour after the meeting began as scheduled at 4:30 pm, Brigadier-General Reginald Dyer marched a group of sixty-five Gurkha and twenty-five Baluchi soldiers into the Bagh, fifty of whom were armed with rifles. Dyer had also brought two armoured cars armed with machine guns, however the vehicles were stationed outside the main gate as they were unable to enter the Bagh through the narrow entrance. Which community dominate Gurkha Regiment ? We all knew dont we . Who killed General Dyer - Udham Singh and we Sikhs are proud of him How many sikhs killed : According to Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya, who personally collected information with a view to raising the issue in the Central Legislative Council, over 1,000 were killed. The total crowd was estimated at between 15,000 and 20,000, Sikhs comprising a large proportion of them. -

While returning from India, Ahmed Shah Durrani had conferred the title of ‘King’ on Baba Ala Singh of Patiala who -had accepted all this to mark time. But the Singhs did not approve of this action of Ala Singh. In a way, it amounted to surrender to a foreign invader. The Singhs bore a grouse against Baba Ala Singh for bowing before Durrani…….. When S. Jassa Singh came to know of the whole development, he at once remonstrated with the Khalsa that what was destined to happen had happened. There was no reason for the Singhs to fritter away their energies in mutual conflicts. The Dal Sardars accepted the peace proposal of S. Jassa Singh and they made Baba Ala Singh take Pahul once again, and after charging fine from him pardoned him. (Sardar Jassa Singh Ahluwalia, p. 95, pdf file) Discussing the role of Ala Singh, Principal Satbir Singh in his book Sada Itihaas Vol 2 states that he was a diplomat but not a traitor. He did not help Abdali at all. He relied on the help of the Sikhs and was on good terms with Abdali to keep his area protected. For this reason, the Sikhs punished him and then he was forgiven. He also gave assistance to Marathas in third battle of Panipat. Hence, he was not a traitor but a clever politician. (pp. 248-49) It must be noted that Ala Singh was not the leader of the Sikh nation. He was a politician and managed to appease Abdali by seeking welfare of his subjects. Also, when Abdali tried to negotiate with Sikh leaders, they flatly rejected all the proposals. Dr. Ganda Singh in his book Ahmad Shah Durrani states: “Even the Sikhs could be forgiven by the Shah if they undertook to be obedient to him.'' But they were made of a different mettle. Seasoned into unbending warriors during the last six decades of continuous struggle and sacrifices and having tasted of independence won by the prowess of their arms, they could not be persuaded to submit to a foreigner, much less to one who had slaughtered so many of 'their brethren in the Ghalu-ghara and had demolished and desecrated the holiest of their temples. Moreover, they were then practically masters of the country, which the Shah visited only temporarily. They preferred, therefore, to continue the struggle for a more complete freedom rather than submit for a meaningless honour. (p. 303) The quote above clearly describes the high spirit, mentality and attitude of the Sikhs towards Abdali. Marathas on the other hand, traveled to Punjab to seek negotiations with Abdali. The fact is echoed by Indian historians that Bapuji Mahadev Hingne and Purshotam Hingne were negotiating peace with Abdali while Sikhs suffered a holocaust. (Sardesai, New History of the Marathas, ii, p. 448) Dr. Ganda Singh states that Maharaja Ala Singh did not betray the Sikhs and did not help Abdali which irritated the latter so much that he ordered Zain Khan of Sirhind, his Diwan Lachhmi Narayan and Bhikhan Khan of Malerkotla (Ala Singh's worst enemies) to storm and sack the fort and the town of Barnala and its neighborhood. (Ahmad Shah Durrani, p. 280) One Sikh having some degree of variance with the rest of the nation does not prove that the Sikhs did not unite together against a common enemy. Ala Singh was helped by not only Sardar Jassa Singh but also Baba Deep Singh. According to Panth Parkash of Rattan Singh Bhangu, Ala Singh considered the Sikh Panth as the backbone and support of his kingdom. On the other hand, the Hindus conspired against each other and aligned themselves with foreigners against their own brethren. Marathas felt no uneasiness while attacking territories of other Hindu chiefs and plundering their areas. For example, Raghunath Rao in 1754-55, collected tribute from areas of Jaipur, Kota, Bundi and other Hindu areas. The Hindus essentially helped the foreigners and made it easy for them to slowly take over India. This is a shameful and unforgivable act of the Hindus. Comparably, out of the entire Sikh nation, there stood Malwa states with not significantly large armies, but yet could change the course of history. The facts remain undisputed that the Sikhs were not only better soldiers than Marathas but also had much stronger unity and cohesiveness and were tied together by the same religious ideals. Hindus, in contrast, lacked this terribly. Sarkar writes: In this last respect, as well as in the excellent size breed and fleetness of their horses and their universal use of fire arms, the Sikh far surpassed the Marathas as fighters. (p. 238)

Jats dragged out the bones of Akbar, threw them angrily into fire and burnt them to avenge the death of Gokula. Muhammad Baqa (the Naib of Khan-i-Jahan) who was then at Agra, did nothing to frustrate the rebels This does not show bravery but cowardice on the part of Jatts by disrespecting and disgracing a dead body. Need we remind eunuch the fate of Suraj Mal’s dead body? Sayyad Muhammad Khan Baloch a leading Mughal commander cut off the head and hand from the body of the Jat, and brought and kept with himself for two days. After that these were taken to the presence of Najib-ud-Daula.

Suraj Mal never challenged Abdali because he had no strength of his own to oppose such a formidable Afghan opponent. Jadunath Sarkar writes about helplessness of Suraj Mal during Abdali’s invasion of 1757. As soon as Abdali arrived in Delhi, Suraj Mal sent his envoy professing his submission. The author further states: When on the 4th February the vanquished Antaji reached Mathura, Suraj Mal visited him but positively refused to unite with him in a war against the Afghans, saying, “The Iran Padishah at the head of 50,000 troops has captured the Padishah of Hind, and no one has fired a shot against him, no one has died in resisting him. What then can I do?” (Fall of the Mughal Empire, vol. 2, p. 82) According to Sarkar, Suraj Mal abandoned the Marathas prior to the battle of Panipat and left them to suffer alone. (ibid p. 182) Suraj Mal also accepted Abdali’s terms to remain neutral and not help the Marathas. As stated before, he paid a fine of 100,000 rupees for helping the survivors of Panipat. These facts show that the so-called brave jatt was nothing but a tributary of foreign invaders.

Nadir Shah invaded India in 1739 and himself installed Mohammad Shah as the emperor. Ahmad Shah Abdali also personally selected the emperors of Delhi. Sikhs had controlled Delhi under the leadership of Sardar Baghel Singh and Sardar Jassa Singh Ahluwalia for a time period. Therefore, the Marathas did not continuously control Delhi. Furthermore, According to Stewart Gordon in his The Marathas 1600-1818, Volume 2, the Maratha invasions of different areas was not to establish the Maratha rule, but merely to extort money and jewels from Hindus and Muslims alike. It did not benefit the local population or regular Hindus for that matter. The only Hindu group that directly benefitted from these raids was the Brahmins who have a long history of human exploitation. It would not be out of place to briefly describe the differences between the Sikhs and the Marathas. The Marathas had a large kingdom, a paid army, resources and forts for their protection and survival. But on the other hand, the Sikhs did not have any of these conveniences yet they courageously carved out a kingdom of their own. As stated earlier, the Maratha power was at its zenith in 1758 but they failed to resist the Afghans successfully. Although the events and proofs exist in abundance, a few pertinent examples are provided as follows: On 16th January, 1757, Afghan Jahan Khan attacked the Marathas. The Marathas, having put up some resistance under Antaji Makeshvar to the Afghan vanguard, left the city for Kotputli. (Tarikh-i-Alamgir Sani, 89a) Describing Abdali’s 5th invasion in September 1759, Surjit Singh Gandhi in his Sikhs in 18th Century states: On the approach of Ahmad Shah Abdali towards Multan, the Maratha governor with all his troops fled to Lahore….On the northern side, Sabaji vacated Peshawar without offering any resistance. He joined Tukoji at Attock. Here a short engagement took place between Sabaji and the Afghan advance-guard and the Marathas fled towards Lahore. Jahan Khan pursued them to Rohtas. They joined Bapurao. At this place, they made a show of some opposition and then fled away. At Lahore Naroshankar and Narsoji Pandit took to their heels. Narayanrao at Sirhind followed suit. The Marathas from Lahore went to Delhi via Amritsar, Batala, Jullundur and Sirhind, thus avoiding any direct road between Lahore and Sirhind. (p. 140) He further states: Abdali reached Taraori on 24th December 1759. It was here that the Marathas tried to arrest his march, but here they were utterly routed and leaving 400 killed they fled from the battlefield. Abdali reached near Delhi where some Rohella chiefs joined him. He continued his march against the Marathas. Dattaji Sindhia met him at Barari Ghat on the Jamuna, but was slain and his soldiers fled. (p. 141) During the same invasion, Malhar Rao Holkar joined by Jankoji Shinde at Kot Putli quietly absconded without even facing Abdali. At last his forces were defeated at Secundrabad on 4th March, 1760. Malhar Rao, fearing for his life, also fled for Agra and an important Maratha chief Gangadhar Tatya retired to Mathura. Prior to the battle of Panipat in 1761, Abdali wanted to negotiate peace with the Marathas and the latter wished the same but due to other circumstances the battle had to be fought that in turn shattered the Maratha power. The Sikhs on the other hand faced 7 holocausts in the 18th century and the biggest loss came in 1762 which is known as The Great Holocaust. It must be kept in mind that Abdali attacked the Sikhs with a view of completely exterminating them. Yet they were able to give a stalwart battle to Abdali a year later and took over Lahore in 1765. This means that the Sikhs despite incurring great losses, never lost any spirit and courage. Their power and strength continued to increase. Although Marathas contributed to the weakening of the Mughal Empire, they had no intention of establishing a kingdom that would benefit all. They kept their attention focused to looting and plundering. Surjit Singh Gandhi states: The Marathas regarded plunder as their exclusive privilege and were naturally jealous of them (Sikhs) who had the lion’s share in the loot of Sirhind. (p. 124) A closer look at the Maratha history reveals that the Marathas did not even fight for the Hindu cause and looted Hindus and Muslims alike. This became one of the main reasons as to why many of the Hindu kings did not aid the Marathas against Abdali. Agents of Peshwa visited the court of every Hindu prince of Rajputana, but received a cold reception and evasive replies. (Qanungo, History of the Jats, p. 72) Describing reasons for Maratha defeat, Hari Ram Gupta states: His (Balaji Rao) sole ambition was the acquisition of gold from north and south from Hindus and Muslims alike for which purpose even a non-Maratha army could be equally good. Surjit Singh Gandhi further elaborates: Balajirao had alienated the sympathies of almost all the powerful elements in northern India. He dispatched armies to the north not to advance a Maratha or a Hindu cause but to extort money from all and sundry. This was the reason that Hindu chiefs of the Gangetic Doab and the Rajputs did not like the Maratha cause. (p. 146) The same author concludes by saying that the army of Balaji Rao was “unmoved by any consideration of national interests”. Explaining why the Sikhs did not support the Marathas, Surjit Singh Gandhi states: The Rajputs and the Sikhs would have fully supported them. Even the trans-Ganga Rohillas could have been won over. But all these people had been antagonized by the Marathas due to their rapacity and inconsistency. (p. 141) Secondly, the Marathas had made their common cause with the Mughals and were fighting with the Afghans on behalf of the Mughal Emperor and his Wazir. As already stated, half of the tribute collected by the Marathas was to go to the Mughal Emperor and his Wazir. The Marathas were recovering the territories from Afghans in order to establish Mughal rule for which the Sikhs had very bitter memories. (p. 148) According to N. K. Sinha in Part of the Sikh Power, the Marathas signed an agreement with the Mughal emperor in 1752 stating they would fight for him against his own rebels and Abdali in return for being paid. He states: According to this agreement, the Marathas were to defend the Emperor against foreign enemies and domestic rebels. The Emperor was to pay them Rs. thirty lakhs for driving Abdali out and twenty lakhs for suppressing the internal rebels. (p. 17) It becomes amply clear from the presented evidence that the Hindus did not have a united front against the Mughals and the foreign invaders. Furthermore, the Marathas had the sole ambition of accruing wealth whilst being oblivious towards the national cause of subduing the oppressive regimes. Sikhs on the other hand were never paid to do their duty. They willingly fought against Nadir Shah, Abdali and the Mughals. Unlike Marathas, Sikhs did not have an easy way. They were hunted down and official orders were released on three separate occasions to exterminate all the Sikhs. After the battle of Panipat, Maratha power in Punjab was completely obliterated. Abdali amassed great wealth. It is reported that as many as 22,000 men, women and children including the sons and other relatives of the chiefs and officials, were made captives. Beautiful Brahmin women were sold by the Afghans to the Ruhilla and other Indian soldiers at the rate of one tuman (about ten rupees) each. The cash and jewelry were beyond calculation, and the camels and horses innumerable.

Darbar Sahib was attacked and desecrated in 1757 and 5000 Sikhs gave a strong resistance to Abdali. Most Sikhs were far away in the forests and mountains, due to the countrywide orders of extermination, while Marathas being in Punjab did nothing. When the Sikhs heard the news of the desecration, they allied with Adina Begh and captured the Afghans and brought then back to clean Darbar Sahib. The Sikhs invited the Marathas who went to Darbar Sahib for the very first time in 1758. Marathas and all other Hindu chiefs paid no heed to the Abdali’s invasion of Mathura in which the Hindu holy city was not only ransacked but thousands of women and children were mercilessly slaughtered. Coward Marathas remained aloof. Sarkar states: Not a single Maratha bled in defense of the holiest of Vaishnav shrines; their pan-Indian suzerainty (Hindupad Padshahi) did not involve the duty to protect. (vol. 2, p. 84) On a side note, the Sikhs never destroyed a temple or a mosque in their areas. This shows their sagacity and tolerance. But Marathas attacked their own brethren and destroyed Hindu temples. According to Dr. Ram Puniyani in his video lecture Facts and Myths, when Marathas attacked Tipu Sultan but were unable to defeat him, on the way back out of spite, destroyed a Hindu temple in Srirang Patnam which was repaired by Tipu Sultan later.

Marathas ? let me show the true face of Marathas to Hindu Rahtravadis and it will going to hurt North Indian specially Punjabi Hindu who have so much praise for Marathas When Marathas invaded Bengal in 1742, they committed all sorts of barbaric and sinful acts. Jadunath Sarkar quotes a contemporary account of Bengali Poet Gangaram describing the atrocities committed by the Maratha soldiers: They dragged away the beautiful women, tying their fingers to their necks with ropes. When one Bargi (a Maratha soldier who was supplied with his mount and arms by government) had done with a woman, another seized her; the women shrieked in the agony and ravishment. The Bargis after thus committing all sinful acts, set these women free. Then, after looting in the open, the Bargis entered the villages. They set fire to the houses, large and small, temples and dwelling places. After burning the villages, they roamed about on all sides plundering. Some victims they tied up with their arms twisted behind them. Some they flung down and kicked with their shoes. They constantly shouted, ‘Give us Rupees, Give us Rupees, Give us Rupees.’ (pp. 49-50) (bold ours) In the footnote of the same page, Sarkar writes: The Maratha soldiers were notorious for their practice of gang-rape in invaded territories from a very early time. In 1683 when they invaded Goa districts under the eyes of their king Shambhuji, they committed this kind of outrage. A contemporary Portuguese account of that war states: “These enemies were so barbarous that when a woman appeared very beautiful (lit., best) to them, five or six of them violated her by lying with that woman alone. (p. 49) (bold ours) For similar outrages in Tanjore see Bertrand’s Mission du Madure, iii, 270. We can cite multitude of sources but the evidence provided leaves no doubt that Marathas were not defenders of the country or its honor. Rather, just like foreign invaders, they fully engaged themselves with plundering, looting, killing and raping. When Marathas invaded Bengal in 1742, they committed all sorts of barbaric and sinful acts. Jadunath Sarkar quotes a contemporary account of Bengali Poet Gangaram describing the atrocities committed by the Maratha soldiers: They dragged away the beautiful women, tying their fingers to their necks with ropes. When one Bargi (a Maratha soldier who was supplied with his mount and arms by government) had done with a woman, another seized her; the women shrieked in the agony and ravishment. The Bargis after thus committing all sinful acts, set these women free. Then, after looting in the open, the Bargis entered the villages. They set fire to the houses, large and small, temples and dwelling places. After burning the villages, they roamed about on all sides plundering. Some victims they tied up with their arms twisted behind them. Some they flung down and kicked with their shoes. They constantly shouted, ‘Give us Rupees, Give us Rupees, Give us Rupees.’ (pp. 49-50) (bold ours) In the footnote of the same page, Sarkar writes: The Maratha soldiers were notorious for their practice of gang-rape in invaded territories from a very early time. In 1683 when they invaded Goa districts under the eyes of their king Shambhuji, they committed this kind of outrage. A contemporary Portuguese account of that war states: “These enemies were so barbarous that when a woman appeared very beautiful (lit., best) to them, five or six of them violated her by lying with that woman alone. (p. 49) (bold ours) For similar outrages in Tanjore see Bertrand’s Mission du Madure, iii, 270. We can cite multitude of sources but the evidence provided leaves no doubt that Marathas were not defenders of the country or its honor. Rather, just like foreign invaders, they fully engaged themselves with plundering, looting, killing and raping.

Sikhs and 1857 Sikhs being a tiny fraction of the Indian population have sacrificed more than any other community and yet they are being called traitors. The facts presented above make it clear that 1857 was neither a beginning of the freedom movement nor was it the first battle of freedom. It was not even any organized movement. It has always been Sikhs who fought for freedom. They are not traitors. Rather Hindus are the real traitors. When Sikhs were fighting the Mughals, Hindus worked as spies for the government and Hindu kings sent their armies to help the Mughal government. It was a Hindu who tortured Guru Arjan Dev Ji, a Hindu who had Guru Gobind Singh Ji’s youngest sons arrested, and a Hindu who convinced the minister of Sarhind to execute them. It was a Hindu who was directly responsible for first Sikh holocaust and a hindu who appointed Massa Ranghar to be in charge of Darbar Sahib whose misdeeds and anti-Sikh activities are well known among the Sikhs. It was Hindus who let the British enter India through sea without any opposition. Only Sikh kingdom was without the rule of British which was later attacked and annexed by the British forced with the help of Indian armies. Sikhs were betrayed by Hindus internally and externally. Soon after the death of Maharaja Ranjeet Singh, all Indian armies joined the British to attack Punjab. During the battles, Hindu Dogras betrayed the Sikh armies by joining the British army and cutting off the food and weapons supply to the Sikh army. Victory of Sikhs was turned into a defeat by the Dogras. Was this not betrayal? The most powerful empire (British) and all Indian armies stood together to fight and kill Sikhs. Even then Sikhs fought so bravely that it will be remembered until eternity. Poet Mohammad Shah wrote: ਜੰਗ ਹਿੰਦ ਪੰਜਾਬ ਦਾ ਹੋਣ ਲੱਗਾ, ਦੋਵੇਂ ਪਾਤਸ਼ਾਹੀ ਫੌਜਾਂ ਭਾਰੀਆਂ ਨੇ । ਨਾਲ ਗੋਲਿਆਂ ਦੇ ਬੰਦੇ ਜਾਣ ਉੱਡਦੇ, ਹਾਥੀ ਉਡਦੇ ਸਣੇ ਅੰਬਾਰੀਆਂ ਨੇ । ਅੱਜ ਹੋਵੇ ਸਰਕਾਰ ਤਾਂ ਮੁੱਲ ਪਾਵੇ, ਜਿਹੜੀਆਂ ਖਾਲਸੇ ਨੇ ਤੇਗਾਂ ਮਾਰੀਆਂ ਨੇ । ਸ਼ਾਹ ਮੁਹੰਮਦਾ ਇਕ ਸਰਕਾਰ ਬਾਝੋਂ ਫੌਜਾਂ ਜਿਤ ਕੇ ਅੰਤ ਨੂੰ ਹਾਰੀਆਂ ਨੇ । (ਜੰਗ ਨਾਮਾ ਸ਼ਾਹ ਮੁਹੰਮਦ) After annexation of Punjab, Indians oppressed and killed Sikhs. No pen or book can completely explain the mistreatment of Sikh civilians by the Indian armies. Men and children were killed, houses and property was burnt, and women were dishonored. This oppression by Hindus was not forgotten by Sikhs in 1857. How could Sikhs forget the way their free country was taken over in 1849 by the British with the help of Hindu kings? After so many sufferings Sikhs were still recovering that the unorganized religious riots broke out in 1857 which is being called a “freedom movement”. One thing must be noted that not a single Hindu leader contacted Sikhs. Sikhs were never asked to join this “freedom movement”. A characterless person Bhadur Shah Jaffar from the family of Muslims was chosen as a king to sit on the throne. It was the same Mughal Empire which oppressed and killed people for many centuries. Sikhs fought Mughals for a long time then how could Sikhs help the same government come forward and take over? Had Hindu armies helped Sikhs in 1849 instead, the outcomes would’ve been very different. India would’ve become independent 8 years before 1857. Sikhs did not fight for personal gains or religious reasons. They fought for freedom and opposed the foreign rule. Hindus who fought for personal gains, helped British take over India and Punjab by betraying Sikhs and killing their children are being called “patriots”. After all the sacrifices Sikhs have made for freedom, gave their lives, and inspired others to fight for freedom they are being called “traitors”. Is this justice? Is this the prize we are being given in India? What a shameless act. It was Sikhs who started the first peaceful movement against the British. It has always been Hindus who have opposed the Sikhs more than any other community. Sikhs were the first one to start a war of independence and the first community to come forward to fight for freedom whether the enemy was Afghans, Iranians or British. Freedom of India is the result of the sacrifices made by Sikhs and the blood spilled by them. The Indian government has always deprived Sikhs of their basic human rights by saying “Where were you when we needed you in 1857”? Although it has been proven beyond the doubt that the mutiny of 1857 was neither a war of independence nor was it a struggle to unite India, however, before we answer their question they should answer ours first: When Guru Hargobind Ji and Guru Gobind Singh Ji fought their wars with the Mughal government, where were the Hindu armies? When Baba Banda Singh Ji established the first Sikh kingdom and fought numerous battles with the Mughals why didn’t the Hindu armies come forward to help Sikhs? While Sikhs were fighting Afghans, Iranis, Turkish and Mughal forces where were Hindus and their armies? When Darbar Sahib was being destroyed where were Hindus? When prices were put on the heads of the Sikhs, where were the Hindu armies? When invaders like Ahmad Shah Abdali were taking thousands of Hindu women back to Afghanistan as slaves it was Sikhs who fought him and freed those women. Why didn’t the Maratha and other Hindu armies join the Sikhs? After all it was their women Sikhs were fighting for. Where were Hindus, the so-called “patriots” when Sikhs were fighting the British during numerous protests such as Gurdwara Nanakana Sahib, Jaito, and Bajbaj Ghaat? The list goes on but the simple fact is that by not helping the Sikh community that had been fighting for freedom for 200 years prior to 1857, Hindus became the real traitors of India. The actual numbers of sacrifices made by the Sikhs can never be counted; however, the following table shows how many Sikhs have spilled their blood compared to the other communities for the freedom of India during British Empire. Sacrifices of Sikhs for India’s Freedom during British Empire: Type Sikhs Non-Sikhs Percentage of Sikhs Prison One Year 1,550 575 73% Hanged 93 28 77% Jalianwala Bagh 799 501 61% Bajj Bajj Ghaat 67 46 59% Kooka Movement 91 0 100% Akali Movement 500 0 100% Deported 2,147 499 81% Death sentence 92 35 72% Indian National Army 12,000 8000 60% It is clear that Sikhs made more sacrifices than all other communities and are the true heroes. It is a known fact that those who rule write the history. Since Sikhs are being labeled as “traitors” it leaves no doubt that today’s leadership is not only ignoring the facts but also misrepresenting and maligning the true identity of the Sikhs by not writing the history in its true form. It is time for us (Sikhs) to realize that no matter how much we sacrifice and spill our blood for the freedom, without their our country the history will always be against and unfair to us. We need to rise up to the tyrant Indian government that labels us as “terrorists” and establish our own country so that we can live as Sikhs, true patriots and freedom fighters. It is time for us to expose the true faces of the traitors. Otherwise, it will be a grave unjust not only to the history but to the Sikh martyrs who for our tomorrow gave their today. Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh

We have discussed this 1857 issue many type but still Hindu fanatics wants to discuss and get slapped by us Mr Hindu sher read this Truth Behind 1857 Bijla Singh Whenever India’s independence is discussed, mutiny of 1857 comes to the mind. There are numerous misconceptions related to 1857. First misconception preached by all newspapers, magazines and history books is that the battle of 1857 was the first war of independence. Second and most important misconception is that this “freedom movement” would not have failed if Sikhs had not betrayed their “country” resulting in British rule over India for 90 more years. Majority of the Indians without considering the proper facts have started to believe in these misconceptions. But their knowledge about this “freedom movement” is far from the actual truth. Only a fraction of the truth is being preached by the government. First War of Independence? First let’s discuss the first point. Was 1857 the year of first war of independence? India had been under foreign rule for over 700 years. The first time anyone ever spoke out for freedom in India was only and only Guru Nanak Dev Ji. King Babur attacked India, arrested Guru Nanak Dev Ji and tortured him in many ways because He spoke for freedom. Therefore that was the beginning of the first freedom battle. Guru Arjan Dev Ji was seen as anti-Islamic by the Mughal government. He was arrested and tortured. He is the first martyr of the freedom movement in India. Guru Hargobind Ji spent many months in prison and fought four battles against Mughals. Guru Tegh Bahadur Ji had no personal fights with the government but He sacrificed for freedom of religion and justice. He saved the Hindu religion. Contribution of Guru Gobind Singh Ji to the freedom movement is a unique example that is found no where else in the history of the world. He instilled self-confidence, honor, dignity, pride and warrior traits in the people of India Every Sikh fought against oppression and injustice. Baba Banda Singh along with other Sikhs established the first Sikh rule in Punjab and fought against the Mughal government and later on sacrificed for freedom. Even after his martyrdom, numerous battles were fought, sword fought sword, bullet fought bullet, and blood of thousands of Sikhs was spilled but this freedom group never stopped. Sikhs were cut into pieces, bricked alive, sawn in half, boiled alive, burnt alive, and crushed on spinning wheels but all this for what? It was for freedom, a fight of free life and death. Nawab Kapoor Singh, Sardar Jassa Singh Ahluwalia, Sardar Jassa Singh Ramgharia, Maharaja Ranjeet Singh, Sardar Hari Singh Nalua, Akali Phoola Singh, Sardar Shaam Singh, Bhai Maharaj Singh…..the list goes on. These true warriors never let foreign rulers sleep peacefully. Foreigners like Ahmad Shah Abdali attacked India nine times but he always faced problem in Punjab. Not a single Hindu or Muslims king could stop him. It was Sikhs who fought him and freed many Hindu slave women and children. Up to Satluj river Punjab had become part of Afghanistan. Sikhs took it back and reattached it to India. Hundreds of years of foreign attacks were put to stop forever by the Sikhs. At that time no Hindu army came forward to help Sikhs in the cause of freedom. Rather they helped Muslims in every battle. It was the Sikhs who ended the long Mughal rule in India and established their own kingdom in northern India but due to betrayal by Dogras, Sikh kingdom was annexed by the British in 1849. Bhai Maharaj Singh was the first Sikh to go to every village and city to preach for freedom and start a freedom movement against the British rule. Before he could organize the army that consisted of mostly Sikhs he was arrested. He was exiled from the country. He died in the jail a couple of years later. In 1850, more than 50 Sikh regiments protested against the British rule and tried to start another war but Charles Campier controlled the situation before hand and another mutiny died before it could start. After that incident, Baba Raam Singh inspired hundreds of people to boycott British goods and material. This was the first peaceful freedom movement against the British. He appealed to the people, "Do not accept service from the government; do not send children to government schools; do not go to court of law but settle disputes by reference to panchayats (village council); do not use foreign goods; and do not use government postal services." No one outside of Punjab took part in this movement. Baba Raam Singh was arrested and his companions were blown up by the canons. Gandhi’s movement was not anything new. Rather it was everything that Baba Raam Singh had started more than 70 years before him. After all these struggles how can one still call 1857 mutiny to be the “first freedom movement?” Clearly, Sikhs were the first community to start the freedom movement in India during Mughal and the British Empire. War of Independence? The main question still remains: was the mutiny of 1857 an actual “freedom fight” or war of independence? The so called “freedom movement” was started by nearly 85 troops of a Bangali regiment on 9th May, 1857 in Merath. The cause of this insurgency was that Enfield rifle ammunition had to be manually loaded before firing which involved biting the end of the cartridge, which was greased in pig fat and beef tallow. This was offensive to Hindus and Muslims alike, who considered tasting beef or pork to be against their respective religious tenets. This enraged both communities. Mangal Panday shot a British officer in Merath out of anger. This news spread all over the place which caused fights between Hindus Muslims and the British. Thus began the “freedom movement”. This was all due to religious reasons. No one had even a single bit of thought about India’s independence. All Rajputs were divided and fighting each other. There was lack of organization, and planning. There was no leader chosen by all communities. India was divided into many pieces of land among Hindus and Muslims. The most important fact Hindu scholars ignore is that the lard was supplied by a Hindu Brahmin. According to Mr. Sain in “Eighteen Fifty Seven”, “The lard was supplied by a Hindu Brahmin from Bengal. The government instructed to use lard of a goat or sheep but to save some money he used cow and pig instead.” Another fact that must be considered is that if the mutiny was in the protest of the cartridges then why did the Hindu and Muslim troops use the same weapons to fight their war? According to many historians, 1857 was nothing but a senseless rebellion against the government. Sir Jadoo Naath says, “The Sepoy Mutiny was not a fight for freedom.” Dr. R. C. Maujumdar, “It was neither first nor national, nor a war of independence.” Dr. Ganda Singh, “Because of the lard cartridges many Hindu and Muslim troops became rebellious and killed many innocent people.” The “freedom fighters” shouted the slogans of “Long Live Bahadur Shah” in Delhi because they had chosen him as their leader. According to Dr. R. C. Maujumdar, “They appointed Bahadur Shah as their leader because he was upset about the fact that British had seized his kingdom. He was against British but not in favor of kicking them out of India. He betrayed the rebellions and gave away all the secret information to lieutenant of Agra. The rebellions insulted him for this action and appointed Prince Abu Bakar as their new leader.” Dr. R. C. Maujumdar further writes, “Bahadur Shah tried to sign a peace treaty with the British on the condition that British would protect him physically and financially. He also promised to help the British if his son was appointed as the king of his seized kingdom.” According to Dr. Ganda Singh, “Army troops of Bahadur Shah refused to fight for him until their salaries were well paid.” Now, what kind of freedom movement was this? On one hand they wanted freedom and on the other hand they wanted to get paid for their fight. Fight for freedom is not fought on monthly salaries. In fact, 1857 incident was nothing more than fight for personal gains. According to Dr. R. C. Maujumdar, “All the circumstances leave no doubt that Bahadur Shah and his family not only betrayed rebellions but the whole nation.” There are many well known figures that played their part in this so-called mutiny. Nana Sahib of Maratha kingdom joined this mutiny for personal gains. He seized the British entrenchment in Kanpur and killed innocent women and children. The last king of Maratha, Bajee Rao, was given annual pension of 8 million. He had no child. After his death British refused to pay anyone else. When the mutiny was at the highest peak, Nana Sahib requested to help British if they agreed to pay the pension but British refused. Nana Sahib had no choice but to join the mutiny. The British was unsuccessful to capture him for 17 years. Truth Behind 1857 Bijla Singh Whenever India’s independence is discussed, mutiny of 1857 comes to the mind. There are numerous misconceptions related to 1857. First misconception preached by all newspapers, magazines and history books is that the battle of 1857 was the first war of independence. Second and most important misconception is that this “freedom movement” would not have failed if Sikhs had not betrayed their “country” resulting in British rule over India for 90 more years. Majority of the Indians without considering the proper facts have started to believe in these misconceptions. But their knowledge about this “freedom movement” is far from the actual truth. Only a fraction of the truth is being preached by the government. First War of Independence? First let’s discuss the first point. Was 1857 the year of first war of independence? India had been under foreign rule for over 700 years. The first time anyone ever spoke out for freedom in India was only and only Guru Nanak Dev Ji. King Babur attacked India, arrested Guru Nanak Dev Ji and tortured him in many ways because He spoke for freedom. Therefore that was the beginning of the first freedom battle. Guru Arjan Dev Ji was seen as anti-Islamic by the Mughal government. He was arrested and tortured. He is the first martyr of the freedom movement in India. Guru Hargobind Ji spent many months in prison and fought four battles against Mughals. Guru Tegh Bahadur Ji had no personal fights with the government but He sacrificed for freedom of religion and justice. He saved the Hindu religion. Contribution of Guru Gobind Singh Ji to the freedom movement is a unique example that is found no where else in the history of the world. He instilled self-confidence, honor, dignity, pride and warrior traits in the people of India Every Sikh fought against oppression and injustice. Baba Banda Singh along with other Sikhs established the first Sikh rule in Punjab and fought against the Mughal government and later on sacrificed for freedom. Even after his martyrdom, numerous battles were fought, sword fought sword, bullet fought bullet, and blood of thousands of Sikhs was spilled but this freedom group never stopped. Sikhs were cut into pieces, bricked alive, sawn in half, boiled alive, burnt alive, and crushed on spinning wheels but all this for what? It was for freedom, a fight of free life and death. Nawab Kapoor Singh, Sardar Jassa Singh Ahluwalia, Sardar Jassa Singh Ramgharia, Maharaja Ranjeet Singh, Sardar Hari Singh Nalua, Akali Phoola Singh, Sardar Shaam Singh, Bhai Maharaj Singh…..the list goes on. These true warriors never let foreign rulers sleep peacefully. Foreigners like Ahmad Shah Abdali attacked India nine times but he always faced problem in Punjab. Not a single Hindu or Muslims king could stop him. It was Sikhs who fought him and freed many Hindu slave women and children. Up to Satluj river Punjab had become part of Afghanistan. Sikhs took it back and reattached it to India. Hundreds of years of foreign attacks were put to stop forever by the Sikhs. At that time no Hindu army came forward to help Sikhs in the cause of freedom. Rather they helped Muslims in every battle. It was the Sikhs who ended the long Mughal rule in India and established their own kingdom in northern India but due to betrayal by Dogras, Sikh kingdom was annexed by the British in 1849. Bhai Maharaj Singh was the first Sikh to go to every village and city to preach for freedom and start a freedom movement against the British rule. Before he could organize the army that consisted of mostly Sikhs he was arrested. He was exiled from the country. He died in the jail a couple of years later. In 1850, more than 50 Sikh regiments protested against the British rule and tried to start another war but Charles Campier controlled the situation before hand and another mutiny died before it could start. After that incident, Baba Raam Singh inspired hundreds of people to boycott British goods and material. This was the first peaceful freedom movement against the British. He appealed to the people, "Do not accept service from the government; do not send children to government schools; do not go to court of law but settle disputes by reference to panchayats (village council); do not use foreign goods; and do not use government postal services." No one outside of Punjab took part in this movement. Baba Raam Singh was arrested and his companions were blown up by the canons. Gandhi’s movement was not anything new. Rather it was everything that Baba Raam Singh had started more than 70 years before him. After all these struggles how can one still call 1857 mutiny to be the “first freedom movement?” Clearly, Sikhs were the first community to start the freedom movement in India during Mughal and the British Empire. War of Independence? The main question still remains: was the mutiny of 1857 an actual “freedom fight” or war of independence? The so called “freedom movement” was started by nearly 85 troops of a Bangali regiment on 9th May, 1857 in Merath. The cause of this insurgency was that Enfield rifle ammunition had to be manually loaded before firing which involved biting the end of the cartridge, which was greased in pig fat and beef tallow. This was offensive to Hindus and Muslims alike, who considered tasting beef or pork to be against their respective religious tenets. This enraged both communities. Mangal Panday shot a British officer in Merath out of anger. This news spread all over the place which caused fights between Hindus Muslims and the British. Thus began the “freedom movement”. This was all due to religious reasons. No one had even a single bit of thought about India’s independence. All Rajputs were divided and fighting each other. There was lack of organization, and planning. There was no leader chosen by all communities. India was divided into many pieces of land among Hindus and Muslims. The most important fact Hindu scholars ignore is that the lard was supplied by a Hindu Brahmin. According to Mr. Sain in “Eighteen Fifty Seven”, “The lard was supplied by a Hindu Brahmin from Bengal. The government instructed to use lard of a goat or sheep but to save some money he used cow and pig instead.” Another fact that must be considered is that if the mutiny was in the protest of the cartridges then why did the Hindu and Muslim troops use the same weapons to fight their war? According to many historians, 1857 was nothing but a senseless rebellion against the government. Sir Jadoo Naath says, “The Sepoy Mutiny was not a fight for freedom.” Dr. R. C. Maujumdar, “It was neither first nor national, nor a war of independence.” Dr. Ganda Singh, “Because of the lard cartridges many Hindu and Muslim troops became rebellious and killed many innocent people.” The “freedom fighters” shouted the slogans of “Long Live Bahadur Shah” in Delhi because they had chosen him as their leader. According to Dr. R. C. Maujumdar, “They appointed Bahadur Shah as their leader because he was upset about the fact that British had seized his kingdom. He was against British but not in favor of kicking them out of India. He betrayed the rebellions and gave away all the secret information to lieutenant of Agra. The rebellions insulted him for this action and appointed Prince Abu Bakar as their new leader.” Dr. R. C. Maujumdar further writes, “Bahadur Shah tried to sign a peace treaty with the British on the condition that British would protect him physically and financially. He also promised to help the British if his son was appointed as the king of his seized kingdom.” According to Dr. Ganda Singh, “Army troops of Bahadur Shah refused to fight for him until their salaries were well paid.” Now, what kind of freedom movement was this? On one hand they wanted freedom and on the other hand they wanted to get paid for their fight. Fight for freedom is not fought on monthly salaries. In fact, 1857 incident was nothing more than fight for personal gains. According to Dr. R. C. Maujumdar, “All the circumstances leave no doubt that Bahadur Shah and his family not only betrayed rebellions but the whole nation.” There are many well known figures that played their part in this so-called mutiny. Nana Sahib of Maratha kingdom joined this mutiny for personal gains. He seized the British entrenchment in Kanpur and killed innocent women and children. The last king of Maratha, Bajee Rao, was given annual pension of 8 million. He had no child. After his death British refused to pay anyone else. When the mutiny was at the highest peak, Nana Sahib requested to help British if they agreed to pay the pension but British refused. Nana Sahib had no choice but to join the mutiny. The British was unsuccessful to capture him for 17 years. Truth Behind 1857 Bijla Singh Whenever India’s independence is discussed, mutiny of 1857 comes to the mind. There are numerous misconceptions related to 1857. First misconception preached by all newspapers, magazines and history books is that the battle of 1857 was the first war of independence. Second and most important misconception is that this “freedom movement” would not have failed if Sikhs had not betrayed their “country” resulting in British rule over India for 90 more years. Majority of the Indians without considering the proper facts have started to believe in these misconceptions. But their knowledge about this “freedom movement” is far from the actual truth. Only a fraction of the truth is being preached by the government. First War of Independence? First let’s discuss the first point. Was 1857 the year of first war of independence? India had been under foreign rule for over 700 years. The first time anyone ever spoke out for freedom in India was only and only Guru Nanak Dev Ji. King Babur attacked India, arrested Guru Nanak Dev Ji and tortured him in many ways because He spoke for freedom. Therefore that was the beginning of the first freedom battle. Guru Arjan Dev Ji was seen as anti-Islamic by the Mughal government. He was arrested and tortured. He is the first martyr of the freedom movement in India. Guru Hargobind Ji spent many months in prison and fought four battles against Mughals. Guru Tegh Bahadur Ji had no personal fights with the government but He sacrificed for freedom of religion and justice. He saved the Hindu religion. Contribution of Guru Gobind Singh Ji to the freedom movement is a unique example that is found no where else in the history of the world. He instilled self-confidence, honor, dignity, pride and warrior traits in the people of India Every Sikh fought against oppression and injustice. Baba Banda Singh along with other Sikhs established the first Sikh rule in Punjab and fought against the Mughal government and later on sacrificed for freedom. Even after his martyrdom, numerous battles were fought, sword fought sword, bullet fought bullet, and blood of thousands of Sikhs was spilled but this freedom group never stopped. Sikhs were cut into pieces, bricked alive, sawn in half, boiled alive, burnt alive, and crushed on spinning wheels but all this for what? It was for freedom, a fight of free life and death. Nawab Kapoor Singh, Sardar Jassa Singh Ahluwalia, Sardar Jassa Singh Ramgharia, Maharaja Ranjeet Singh, Sardar Hari Singh Nalua, Akali Phoola Singh, Sardar Shaam Singh, Bhai Maharaj Singh…..the list goes on. These true warriors never let foreign rulers sleep peacefully. Foreigners like Ahmad Shah Abdali attacked India nine times but he always faced problem in Punjab. Not a single Hindu or Muslims king could stop him. It was Sikhs who fought him and freed many Hindu slave women and children. Up to Satluj river Punjab had become part of Afghanistan. Sikhs took it back and reattached it to India. Hundreds of years of foreign attacks were put to stop forever by the Sikhs. At that time no Hindu army came forward to help Sikhs in the cause of freedom. Rather they helped Muslims in every battle. It was the Sikhs who ended the long Mughal rule in India and established their own kingdom in northern India but due to betrayal by Dogras, Sikh kingdom was annexed by the British in 1849. Bhai Maharaj Singh was the first Sikh to go to every village and city to preach for freedom and start a freedom movement against the British rule. Before he could organize the army that consisted of mostly Sikhs he was arrested. He was exiled from the country. He died in the jail a couple of years later. In 1850, more than 50 Sikh regiments protested against the British rule and tried to start another war but Charles Campier controlled the situation before hand and another mutiny died before it could start. After that incident, Baba Raam Singh inspired hundreds of people to boycott British goods and material. This was the first peaceful freedom movement against the British. He appealed to the people, "Do not accept service from the government; do not send children to government schools; do not go to court of law but settle disputes by reference to panchayats (village council); do not use foreign goods; and do not use government postal services." No one outside of Punjab took part in this movement. Baba Raam Singh was arrested and his companions were blown up by the canons. Gandhi’s movement was not anything new. Rather it was everything that Baba Raam Singh had started more than 70 years before him. After all these struggles how can one still call 1857 mutiny to be the “first freedom movement?” Clearly, Sikhs were the first community to start the freedom movement in India during Mughal and the British Empire. War of Independence? The main question still remains: was the mutiny of 1857 an actual “freedom fight” or war of independence? The so called “freedom movement” was started by nearly 85 troops of a Bangali regiment on 9th May, 1857 in Merath. The cause of this insurgency was that Enfield rifle ammunition had to be manually loaded before firing which involved biting the end of the cartridge, which was greased in pig fat and beef tallow. This was offensive to Hindus and Muslims alike, who considered tasting beef or pork to be against their respective religious tenets. This enraged both communities. Mangal Panday shot a British officer in Merath out of anger. This news spread all over the place which caused fights between Hindus Muslims and the British. Thus began the “freedom movement”. This was all due to religious reasons. No one had even a single bit of thought about India’s independence. All Rajputs were divided and fighting each other. There was lack of organization, and planning. There was no leader chosen by all communities. India was divided into many pieces of land among Hindus and Muslims. The most important fact Hindu scholars ignore is that the lard was supplied by a Hindu Brahmin. According to Mr. Sain in “Eighteen Fifty Seven”, “The lard was supplied by a Hindu Brahmin from Bengal. The government instructed to use lard of a goat or sheep but to save some money he used cow and pig instead.” Another fact that must be considered is that if the mutiny was in the protest of the cartridges then why did the Hindu and Muslim troops use the same weapons to fight their war? According to many historians, 1857 was nothing but a senseless rebellion against the government. Sir Jadoo Naath says, “The Sepoy Mutiny was not a fight for freedom.” Dr. R. C. Maujumdar, “It was neither first nor national, nor a war of independence.” Dr. Ganda Singh, “Because of the lard cartridges many Hindu and Muslim troops became rebellious and killed many innocent people.” The “freedom fighters” shouted the slogans of “Long Live Bahadur Shah” in Delhi because they had chosen him as their leader. According to Dr. R. C. Maujumdar, “They appointed Bahadur Shah as their leader because he was upset about the fact that British had seized his kingdom. He was against British but not in favor of kicking them out of India. He betrayed the rebellions and gave away all the secret information to lieutenant of Agra. The rebellions insulted him for this action and appointed Prince Abu Bakar as their new leader.” Dr. R. C. Maujumdar further writes, “Bahadur Shah tried to sign a peace treaty with the British on the condition that British would protect him physically and financially. He also promised to help the British if his son was appointed as the king of his seized kingdom.” According to Dr. Ganda Singh, “Army troops of Bahadur Shah refused to fight for him until their salaries were well paid.” Now, what kind of freedom movement was this? On one hand they wanted freedom and on the other hand they wanted to get paid for their fight. Fight for freedom is not fought on monthly salaries. In fact, 1857 incident was nothing more than fight for personal gains. According to Dr. R. C. Maujumdar, “All the circumstances leave no doubt that Bahadur Shah and his family not only betrayed rebellions but the whole nation.” There are many well known figures that played their part in this so-called mutiny. Nana Sahib of Maratha kingdom joined this mutiny for personal gains. He seized the British entrenchment in Kanpur and killed innocent women and children. The last king of Maratha, Bajee Rao, was given annual pension of 8 million. He had no child. After his death British refused to pay anyone else. When the mutiny was at the highest peak, Nana Sahib requested to help British if they agreed to pay the pension but British refused. Nana Sahib had no choice but to join the mutiny. The British was unsuccessful to capture him for 17 years. Truth Behind 1857 Bijla Singh Whenever India’s independence is discussed, mutiny of 1857 comes to the mind. There are numerous misconceptions related to 1857. First misconception preached by all newspapers, magazines and history books is that the battle of 1857 was the first war of independence. Second and most important misconception is that this “freedom movement” would not have failed if Sikhs had not betrayed their “country” resulting in British rule over India for 90 more years. Majority of the Indians without considering the proper facts have started to believe in these misconceptions. But their knowledge about this “freedom movement” is far from the actual truth. Only a fraction of the truth is being preached by the government. First War of Independence? First let’s discuss the first point. Was 1857 the year of first war of independence? India had been under foreign rule for over 700 years. The first time anyone ever spoke out for freedom in India was only and only Guru Nanak Dev Ji. King Babur attacked India, arrested Guru Nanak Dev Ji and tortured him in many ways because He spoke for freedom. Therefore that was the beginning of the first freedom battle. Guru Arjan Dev Ji was seen as anti-Islamic by the Mughal government. He was arrested and tortured. He is the first martyr of the freedom movement in India. Guru Hargobind Ji spent many months in prison and fought four battles against Mughals. Guru Tegh Bahadur Ji had no personal fights with the government but He sacrificed for freedom of religion and justice. He saved the Hindu religion. Contribution of Guru Gobind Singh Ji to the freedom movement is a unique example that is found no where else in the history of the world. He instilled self-confidence, honor, dignity, pride and warrior traits in the people of India Every Sikh fought against oppression and injustice. Baba Banda Singh along with other Sikhs established the first Sikh rule in Punjab and fought against the Mughal government and later on sacrificed for freedom. Even after his martyrdom, numerous battles were fought, sword fought sword, bullet fought bullet, and blood of thousands of Sikhs was spilled but this freedom group never stopped. Sikhs were cut into pieces, bricked alive, sawn in half, boiled alive, burnt alive, and crushed on spinning wheels but all this for what? It was for freedom, a fight of free life and death. Nawab Kapoor Singh, Sardar Jassa Singh Ahluwalia, Sardar Jassa Singh Ramgharia, Maharaja Ranjeet Singh, Sardar Hari Singh Nalua, Akali Phoola Singh, Sardar Shaam Singh, Bhai Maharaj Singh…..the list goes on. These true warriors never let foreign rulers sleep peacefully. Foreigners like Ahmad Shah Abdali attacked India nine times but he always faced problem in Punjab. Not a single Hindu or Muslims king could stop him. It was Sikhs who fought him and freed many Hindu slave women and children. Up to Satluj river Punjab had become part of Afghanistan. Sikhs took it back and reattached it to India. Hundreds of years of foreign attacks were put to stop forever by the Sikhs. At that time no Hindu army came forward to help Sikhs in the cause of freedom. Rather they helped Muslims in every battle. It was the Sikhs who ended the long Mughal rule in India and established their own kingdom in northern India but due to betrayal by Dogras, Sikh kingdom was annexed by the British in 1849. Bhai Maharaj Singh was the first Sikh to go to every village and city to preach for freedom and start a freedom movement against the British rule. Before he could organize the army that consisted of mostly Sikhs he was arrested. He was exiled from the country. He died in the jail a couple of years later. In 1850, more than 50 Sikh regiments protested against the British rule and tried to start another war but Charles Campier controlled the situation before hand and another mutiny died before it could start. After that incident, Baba Raam Singh inspired hundreds of people to boycott British goods and material. This was the first peaceful freedom movement against the British. He appealed to the people, "Do not accept service from the government; do not send children to government schools; do not go to court of law but settle disputes by reference to panchayats (village council); do not use foreign goods; and do not use government postal services." No one outside of Punjab took part in this movement. Baba Raam Singh was arrested and his companions were blown up by the canons. Gandhi’s movement was not anything new. Rather it was everything that Baba Raam Singh had started more than 70 years before him. After all these struggles how can one still call 1857 mutiny to be the “first freedom movement?” Clearly, Sikhs were the first community to start the freedom movement in India during Mughal and the British Empire. War of Independence? The main question still remains: was the mutiny of 1857 an actual “freedom fight” or war of independence? The so called “freedom movement” was started by nearly 85 troops of a Bangali regiment on 9th May, 1857 in Merath. The cause of this insurgency was that Enfield rifle ammunition had to be manually loaded before firing which involved biting the end of the cartridge, which was greased in pig fat and beef tallow. This was offensive to Hindus and Muslims alike, who considered tasting beef or pork to be against their respective religious tenets. This enraged both communities. Mangal Panday shot a British officer in Merath out of anger. This news spread all over the place which caused fights between Hindus Muslims and the British. Thus began the “freedom movement”. This was all due to religious reasons. No one had even a single bit of thought about India’s independence. All Rajputs were divided and fighting each other. There was lack of organization, and planning. There was no leader chosen by all communities. India was divided into many pieces of land among Hindus and Muslims. The most important fact Hindu scholars ignore is that the lard was supplied by a Hindu Brahmin. According to Mr. Sain in “Eighteen Fifty Seven”, “The lard was supplied by a Hindu Brahmin from Bengal. The government instructed to use lard of a goat or sheep but to save some money he used cow and pig instead.” Another fact that must be considered is that if the mutiny was in the protest of the cartridges then why did the Hindu and Muslim troops use the same weapons to fight their war? According to many historians, 1857 was nothing but a senseless rebellion against the government. Sir Jadoo Naath says, “The Sepoy Mutiny was not a fight for freedom.” Dr. R. C. Maujumdar, “It was neither first nor national, nor a war of independence.” Dr. Ganda Singh, “Because of the lard cartridges many Hindu and Muslim troops became rebellious and killed many innocent people.” The “freedom fighters” shouted the slogans of “Long Live Bahadur Shah” in Delhi because they had chosen him as their leader. According to Dr. R. C. Maujumdar, “They appointed Bahadur Shah as their leader because he was upset about the fact that British had seized his kingdom. He was against British but not in favor of kicking them out of India. He betrayed the rebellions and gave away all the secret information to lieutenant of Agra. The rebellions insulted him for this action and appointed Prince Abu Bakar as their new leader.” Dr. R. C. Maujumdar further writes, “Bahadur Shah tried to sign a peace treaty with the British on the condition that British would protect him physically and financially. He also promised to help the British if his son was appointed as the king of his seized kingdom.” According to Dr. Ganda Singh, “Army troops of Bahadur Shah refused to fight for him until their salaries were well paid.” Now, what kind of freedom movement was this? On one hand they wanted freedom and on the other hand they wanted to get paid for their fight. Fight for freedom is not fought on monthly salaries. In fact, 1857 incident was nothing more than fight for personal gains. According to Dr. R. C. Maujumdar, “All the circumstances leave no doubt that Bahadur Shah and his family not only betrayed rebellions but the whole nation.” There are many well known figures that played their part in this so-called mutiny. Nana Sahib of Maratha kingdom joined this mutiny for personal gains. He seized the British entrenchment in Kanpur and killed innocent women and children. The last king of Maratha, Bajee Rao, was given annual pension of 8 million. He had no child. After his death British refused to pay anyone else. When the mutiny was at the highest peak, Nana Sahib requested to help British if they agreed to pay the pension but British refused. Nana Sahib had no choice but to join the mutiny. The British was unsuccessful to capture him for 17 years.

Calling 1857 goons revolutionaries my foot . 1984 killing was done by Hindus this IS what Hindus wanted . Majority of Brtish Soldiers were Hindu and you sanatan dharmi should not blamed others .Back stabbing is culture of Snatan Dharmis that WHY murders like Shankaracharya is respected figure . Community which voted murderers like Rajiv Gandhi and Modi have no right to talk about others .

Meerut, Uttar Pradesh (March 06, 2014): According to information Swami Vivekanand Subharti University (SVSU) authorities expelled at least 67 Kashmiri students from the University and asked them to vacate the hostel rooms. They have been ‘charged’ with celebrating Pakistan’s victory over India in a recent cricket match. The students were expelled on March 03. “You cannot pass judgments against your own national team,” Manzoor Ahmed, vice chancellor of Swami Vivekanand Subharti University in Meerut (Uttar Pradesh) reportedly said explaining the decision to remove the students. “Their behavior was not conducive to peace on the campus. It creates bad blood with the local boys”, the V-C reportedly added. As per recent reports the police has booked these Kashmiri students with ‘sedition’. “A group of Kashmiri students at a private college in Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, have been booked for sedition after they cheered Pakistan during a cricket match that India lost”, NDTV reported on March 06. Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister (CM) Omar Abdullah has expressed covens over the developments in this matter. “Have just spoken to CM UP who has assured me he will personally look in to the matter of the Kashmiri students in Meerut ,” tweeted CM Omar Abdullah, who described the charges against as “unacceptably harsh punishment that will ruin their futures & will further alienate them.” However, Omar Abdullah described the students as “misguided” and said they should “introspect” because some of them were attending college on the strength of scholarships from the Indian Prime Minister. The college has alleged that the students celebrated loudly in the dorm and raised pro-Pakistan slogans, which led to a fight with other students and escalated into vandalism and stone-throwing. The students were suspended and sent home almost immediately. Some of them have returned to Jammu and Kashmir and others are staying with friends. They say the college first told them they were suspended for three days, but has since not allowed them back. As per reports no action was taken against any ‘local’ students with whom Kashmiri students were said to have come in altercation.

Babbar Akalis abd Gadar Movement was a Sikh movement and it time Sikh should write their own history

You are saying that there was no Hindu soldier in British Army ? 1857 was not a first war of Independence and what about 1940 attack on Punjab by British Army dominated by Hindu Soldiers ? British took the support of Nawab of Jhajar and later he join Bhadur Shah . Truth is Mr Sher that India as a one Nation never existed . It was never a one nation and it will not remain a one nation .