LegendarySiKH

Aman Singh - If he, himself did not claim to be sikh, and claimed to be an athiest (check link above and previous posts)... than why are you proud of him as a sikh? Seems like its in the blood-line. Similar to this caste junk, Your jatt only by your last name and blood line. same as any other caste, all it is, is false-pride. Blood doesnt mean anything.

Please share the picture of Sukha and Jinda. legendarysikh@hotmail.com - MSN natsilahk - AIM.

Thought you guys might find this article interesting... http://www.parwhaz.com/shaheed-bhagatsingh/atheist.htm#top and let me re-clarify the arguement - I respect bhagat singh alot. He was a very good man and a good freedom fighter. But i respect him just as much as i respect gandhi and many other hindu leaders and freedom fighters at that time. I dont respect Bhagat Singh as some sort of Sikh, or I dont think he has some allegiance with Sikhs. I see alot of Sikhs that think they have some sort of special allegiance with Bhagat Singh, just because of his blood line, but yet they never speak of the hindu freedom fighters, they infact look down on them. That is my debate, Bhagat Singh didnt fight for the sikh cause, he fought for India. (which is good to some, I suppose) -Hareet

Hey, Please provide proof or any reference where it states that bhagat singh grew out his hair again and started to follow sikhi. I have multiple articles stating no such thing. And Gabroo, please state your article where it says that Sukha and Jinda cut their hair. To my knowledge they never did, they are real shaheeds that promoted the Sikh cause. Bhagat and Udham Singh promoted an "Indian" cause. -Hareet

Aman Singh - Yes, there aim was FREEDOM, we've clarified that. That point is not the issue of this topic. Rochak - Very true. I did not mean it as if im judging them to state if there sikh, but merely asking if WE (todays sikhs) should regard them with high standars? Yeah sure, go ahead and celebrate their sacrficies for INDIA, not for sikhi. I just see alot of sikhs who hold some allegiance with those "Shaheeds" I do not live in India nor do I want anything to do with it. (Yes, its proper to assume i support Khalistan). I'm just wondering why people think of them as "Sikhs" as if there martyrs were for the future of sikhism. Alot of other indian people also come up to and ask me the stories of Bhagat Singh, as if any of it matters to me. All im trying to say is why so many sikhs have some sort of allegiance with Bhagat Singh and not other Hindu leaders at that time? Being born sikh does not make you sikh. And Bhagat Singh killed of his mind with guruji when he said There is NO God who would do this to my people. Speaking on behalf what he said, that would make him an atheist, one who does not beleive in religion. If you celebrate Bhagat Singhs lifetime for INDIA, you might as well celebrate all the other hindu leaders which i know most of you have never even researched before.

Figures, Ranjit Singh was the one i was doubting my information on. Rochak Malang - Where do you get your information on Bhagat Singh from? I've never heard anything of this sort yet, in fact I am pretty certian Bhagat Singh did not have the Sikh identity upon his death. And Udham Singh was not a keshdari sikh, he was originally, but he gave up the identity to "gain revenge." Bazooka Singh - Nice input about Ranjit Singh, but "he put sikhi first and foremost in his rule" - then why did he commit adultery...why was the "culture" at that time as you put it, to be able to commit adultery easily? I also never said he was a SANT, I simply question how much of a Sikh he was. Theres the basics of sikhism which one must keep as he hopes to become a member of the Khalsa Panth (the true sikh thru some eyes), and if these are broken, and never re-collected, are you REALLY a sikh? According to you and your culture theory, sikhs shouldnt even have to keep the kara, kesh, in the Westernized world as it against the "culture" here. The question was not how good of a ruler he was, but how much of a sikh was he. I also believe Ranjit Singh never took amrit in his life to "forgive" his own sins. Also the quotes you follow up with are quotes coming from a positive-side of Ranjit Singhs kingdom. He was a great ruler indeed, who did mind ones religion or caste. Lets keep it to the question here, he committed adultery, and never took amrit, yet we take pride in him because he's "sikh". Being born sikh, teaching others sikhi, does not make one sikh. You must follow it, and before the end, you must become part of the Khalsa Panth. Of course, people are at different stages with sikhi, and we all make mistakes, but our goal at the end is to become Khalsa. Does the fact that he had coins with guruji on them, mean anything? I go to plenty of houses for akhand paht and I see pictures of Guru Gobind Singh Ji and Guru Nanak Ji, yet the family holding this akhand paht, has given up the identity Guruji gave us, and are very corrupt in nature. And please, leave your culture comments out. One can still remain a "Sikh" and be from various cultures. -Hareet

Hm, Khalistan means many things to different people. To me, its not an independent country. Khalistan is the name of the movement for rights for Sikhs in India. Lets be honest, if Sikhs had their own country, it would be called Afghanistan^2. Who demands Khalistan? The people living outside of India who see sikhi dying in Punjab, because of government organized tactics. They see there brothers in India die harshly and fall victim to Hinduism. I also see the Khalistan movement as some-what of the Singh Sabha Movement of 1873. Khalistanis attempt to re-establish the sikh identity and the sikh faith in India. Khalistan, is a segment of sikhi in all our hearts. Never forget 84.

I'm sure we've all heard the stories of Maharaja Ranjit Singh, Bhagat Singh, and Udham Singh. Let me disect these stories into more detail, as I question you why we call them "Shaheeds" or celebrate their lifetime. Maharaja Ranjit Singh - The Great "Sikh" Ruler? Although he carried the identity of a Sikh, and ruled the vast lands of punjab at his time, didn't he commit adultery and marry more than one woman? Is this not against one of the BASIC aspects of sikhi? Its pretty apparent that he did not consider himself equal with woman, as he felt he could marry more than one. (Let me know if my information is wrong). Bhagat Singh - Shaheed? Bhagat Singh gave up his identity in order to fight for "India's independence" and during his struggle, he even said, "There is NO God, which would do this to my people." So am i missing something? Since when can you be a Sikh if you dont believe in GOD? Since when are you on your path to Khalsa (every sikhs goal) if you give up your identity? Udham Singh - Shaheed? Oh this guy, I blame him for creating most of the moderin sikh problems outside of India. Like how sikhs leave Punjab for other places in the world, and the first thing they do is give up their identity. He chased around the british guy, and went into "hiding" so he shaved his dari and cut his hair? And i recall our Gurus DYING because they would not do either, and since when did Sikhs HIDE to get revenge? Yes, these people were martyrs for "INDIA" but are they really Sikh? Why do we take pride in them? Besides, maybe Maharaja Ranjit Singh, as im not sure if my information on him is true. Bhindranwale - Although he made many questionable moves during his lifetime, such as taking arms into the Golden Temple, he never gave up his identity, nor went into extreme hiding. He gave his life up for the Khalsa Panth. The events of 84 were horrific, but 84 also enlightened many Sikhs. I think he is one of the true shaheeds. -Hareet