Communist Documentary On Khalistan/India Conflict

[dalsingh101]

Good perspective from ground level KDS.

Sikhs are probably noise in the Northern region only. Recently I met some people (Hindus) from Hyderabad and when they asked where I was from, I said Panjab. They replied, "Which part Pakistan or India?" in a really sarcastic way.

I've come to realise Hindus and Sikhs are closer than some would like to imagine, especially with all of these non Singh Sabha jathas being abound. When I was growing up, discussing Sikhism didn't involve talk of vedantic philosophy or devis/devtay. Now I'm seeing load of arths from more traditional schools doing this. Especially with Chandi.

Edited January 23, 2010 by dalsingh101

[dalsingh101]

A minority of a billion people is an awful lot of people.

Very true. I've met a few anti-Sikh Hindu arseholes over the years. Conversations I've had with some affluent white people I worked with in the past also gives the impression that the conversations about Sikhs they engage in with Hindu friends are not very flattering or positive. Some Hindus seem to think we are some 'armed wing' of their own society or vulgar yokels.

As for the jatts in the pinds cutting their hair, do you think it has something to do with the hypocrisy of some keshdharis/amritdharis who use their physical appearance as a reason to be lofty above the moneh?

Hmmmm.....as a mona, I know there is some feeling that today many current Amritdharis are very hypocritical. The SGPC and Akali Dal politics is central to this impression. I think one thing Amritdharis/keshdharis need to understand is that for the majority of believing monay, the Singhs of the past are like role models that they put on a very high pedestal. When todays Amritdhari/keshdhari Singhs today fail to meet those high ideals they embody, they get confused. I mean, who could meet those awe inspiring levels?

Combine that arrogant attitude with the blind eye turned towards sexism and casteism by these 'holier-than-thou' types it's not hard to see why some of them are indifferent to looking like sikhs, or even think that there are more important things to overcome.

Thats the thing though HSD, many of the people you speak of are just as bad as others in their casteism. So I don't think that is central to the issue myself. But other issues such as the misuse of panthic funds and p1ss poor leadership are something that is spoken of frequently. I think the overwhelming uproar over the recent Mann/Dhadrianwale/Tarseem issue has for the first time exposed the feelings of a big section of the panth, that is usually kept under wraps. Hell, lets be honest, monay form the majority right now, rightly or wrongly. I know they have their own issues of hypocrisy, but panthic people really need to quickly grasp that such people are the bread and butter, everyday Joes of the quom. Whether they like this or not.

Finally! You can have the honour of starting it off then lol.

Lol!! This and the other topic of historical evidence of outward parchaar that Kalyug and I spoke of a while ago! I will start a thread on it sometime soon. I need to get my own thoughts in some coherent order before I do. The emphasis will be something like: strategically and ethically speaking, what can we learn about the movement of the 1980s. What went wrong, was was right? I think this would also be much needed therapy for those of us who grew up in that era.....

Edited January 24, 2010 by dalsingh101

[Akaal_Das]

Only a minority of Hindu's hate sikhs.Yes they do hate muslims but they don't put sikhs in the bracket of muslims.

Also are you joking about sikhs not getting rooms in Delhi.Of course some people do have reservation against sikhs but then some have against Bihari's and others so at last it depend on the landlord and in present environment sikhs hardly face discrimination in gEtting rooms

kaka Ji where are u staying ? I live in Delhi and i am born and bought up in Delhi , dont tell me what Hindus thinks of Sikhs . Just two months back i was trying to find a house on rent for my cousin i was openly said at my face by Hindu Punjabi Arora that we dont give house to Sardars . This happend in West Delhi where 75 % of Sikhs lives.

For Sanatani Sikhs - These people dont know what they are , they want to be Sikh but dont want to leave Hinduism . Thanks to westen Sikhs , these fakes have been exposed.

How many of u have heard katha by Maskeen ji on shahbad " Hindu Anna Turk Kana "

[Dharma]

Only a minority of Hindu's hate sikhs.Yes they do hate muslims but they don't put sikhs in the bracket of muslims.

kdsingh can you say what percentage of Hindus hate Muslims? I understand "missile man" APJ Kalam is widely respected. Most Hindus don't vote BJP either so I thought anti-Muslim feeling was just among a minority.

Anyway, I'm not a Khalistani supporter myself, nor do I have anything against Hindus. I quite like Hinduism for the most part (except lack of social responsibility). I don't mind different strains of Sikhi existing and I don't mind if some Hindus say that Sikhi is part of the wider dharmic Hindu family as long as they don't try to finish it. Narendra Modi just said he wants a Jain university to be set up in Gujarat. A Jain business organisation (JITO) asked him to do it. Evidently they don't feel intimidated by RSS people. Modi is cool, he just doesn't seem to like Islam which is a positive quality. If most Muslims can support Congress after 1984 I don't have a problem supporting Modi. India needs such a pro-dharma man leading the nation.

Edited January 24, 2010 by Dharma

[Mithar]

kdsingh can you say what percentage of Hindus hate Muslims? I understand "missile man" APJ Kalam is widely respected. Most Hindus don't vote BJP either so I thought anti-Muslim feeling was just among a minority.

Anyway, I'm not a Khalistani supporter myself, nor do I have anything against Hindus. I quite like Hinduism for the most part (except lack of social responsibility). I don't mind different strains of Sikhi existing and I don't mind if some Hindus say that Sikhi is part of the wider dharmic Hindu family as long as they don't try to finish it. Narendra Modi just said he wants a Jain university to be set up in Gujarat. A Jain business organisation (JITO) asked him to do it. Evidently they don't feel intimidated by RSS people. Modi is cool, he just doesn't seem to like Islam which is a positive quality. If most Muslims can support Congress after 1984 I don't have a problem supporting Modi. India needs such a pro-dharma man leading the nation.

It is obvious that democracy which has created Indian imperialism has not worked in India. Since Hindus and Hindi speakers are the majority of Indians, democracy cannot do justice to minorities. It is unfortunate that our leaders before 1947 did not go for the offer of a Sikh homeland the British were more than willing to give, at least our leaders could have demanded concrete guarantees from the Congress before accepting to be a part of the Indian union. But our idiotic and selfish leaders blindly believed in the Congress.

Only Guru jee knows how Khalsa Raaj will come about. But one thing is for sure, these wordly empires are never everlasting. Just as the once powerful Soviet Union and Yugo Slavia broke apart into small ethnic states, there is nothing to say that the present Indian Union will also remain which is also a multi-ethnic state.

[dalsingh101]

I quite like Hinduism for the most part (except lack of social responsibility).

That little exception you mentioned above covers a multitude of sins dude.

I don't mind different strains of Sikhi existing and I don't mind if some Hindus say that Sikhi is part of the wider dharmic Hindu family as long as they don't try to finish it.

We have the Buddhist example in India to consider. The way I see it, if Sikhs are to be vibrant and independent spirited in India it is going to lead to clashes with the Hindu establishment. Especially as the establishment seems hell bent on turning India into another culturally western nation.

Maybe this will be good in the long run? I don't know? It seems inevitable though. Have you seen an 'Indian' film these days?

[Xylitol]

A minority of a billion people is an awful lot of people.

As for the jatts in the pinds cutting their hair, do you think it has something to do with the hypocrisy of some keshdharis/amritdharis who use their physical appearance as a reason to be lofty above the moneh? Combine that arrogant attitude with the blind eye turned towards sexism and casteism by these 'holier-than-thou' types it's not hard to see why some of them are indifferent to looking like sikhs, or even think that there are more important things to overcome.

Finally! You can have the honour of starting it off then lol.

i think jatts in the pind are more turned off Sikhi by their lust for maya, by the society around them, and by hours and hours of watching tv and lazing about than any self righteousness.

kdsingh can you say what percentage of Hindus hate Muslims? I understand "missile man" APJ Kalam is widely respected. Most Hindus don't vote BJP either so I thought anti-Muslim feeling was just among a minority.

Anyway, I'm not a Khalistani supporter myself, nor do I have anything against Hindus. I quite like Hinduism for the most part (except lack of social responsibility). I don't mind different strains of Sikhi existing and I don't mind if some Hindus say that Sikhi is part of the wider dharmic Hindu family as long as they don't try to finish it. Narendra Modi just said he wants a Jain university to be set up in Gujarat. A Jain business organisation (JITO) asked him to do it. Evidently they don't feel intimidated by RSS people. Modi is cool, he just doesn't seem to like Islam which is a positive quality. If most Muslims can support Congress after 1984 I don't have a problem supporting Modi. India needs such a pro-dharma man leading the nation.

Mass slaughter of Muslims was carried out under the BJP in Gujarat, which is why most Muslims support Congress.

[kdsingh80]

As for the jatts in the pinds cutting their hair, do you think it has something to do with the hypocrisy of some keshdharis/amritdharis who use their physical appearance as a reason to be lofty above the moneh? Combine that arrogant attitude with the blind eye turned towards sexism and casteism by these 'holier-than-thou' types it's not hard to see why some of them are indifferent to looking like sikhs, or even think that there are more important things to overcome.

HSD

I don't think Hypocisy of Keshdhari or Amritdhari's is a big reason.We humans have sheep mentality and when mass hysteria of anything spread only a few one survive from it.The main factor I think is bollywood,Punjabi movies,Punjabi albums and as the mass hysteria spreaded in villages cutting hair became acceptable for them

Let me show you example .At the time of Maharaja

Ranjit singh the sikh population was believed to be 8-10 million but after the decline of Empire It declined dramatically

-- ----------------------------------------------------

http://www.advancedcentrepunjabi.org/eos/POPULATION.html

No census was taken during those days and no exact or near exact figures can be computed from any sources of information available today, but a general estimate has come down the generations that Sikh population in what then constituted Raṇjīt Siṅgh's Punjab was around ten million. But with the fall of the Sikh Kingdom in 1849, there set in a rapid decline in the numerical strengh of the community. As the Punjab Administration Report for the year 1851-52 issued by the British noted:

The Sikh faith and ecclesiastical polity is rapidly going where the Sikh political ascendancy has already gone. Of the two elements in the old Khalsa, namely, the followers of Nanuck, the first prophet, and the followers of Guru Govind Singh, the second great religious leader, the former will hold their ground, and the latter will lose it. The Sikhs of Nanuck, a comparatively small body of peaceful habits and old family, will perhaps cling to the faith of their fathers; but the Sikhs of Govind who are of more recent origin, who are more specially styled the Singhs or "lions", and who embraced the faith as being the religion of warfare and conquest, no longer regard the Khalsa now that the prestige has departed from it.

These men joined in thousands, and they now desert in equal numbers. They rejoin the ranks of Hinduism whence they originally came, and they bring up their children as Hindus....

---------------------------------------------------

The question is why the Hindu's joined in thousands to become sikhs and why they left.I don't think Maharaja ranjit singh was forcing people to become sikhs.I think that was the case of mass Hysteria of Joining sikhism and then leaving after the fall of empire

[dalsingh101]

They say 'everyone loves a winner' and whilst the Khalsa was in ascendency, that strong social force that pulls people, drew many to the Khalsa. There would have been many dashing, spirited, living role models for people back then.

Plus, being frank here, historically I have no doubt that many Jatts joined Sikhism for reasons of faith but during the 1700s droves may have joined for more political and material considerations. Some may have seen Khalsa success as a clear opportunity to free their lands from Moghuls and joined in. Plus we have records of Jatt tribes warring with the Khalsa in the 1700s and them being worsted. So some may done the old 'can't beat them, join them' type of thing. My point is faith may have been a secondary consideration for some and this would explain why so many did what they did after the Anglo-Sikh wars as mentioned in KDS's quote from the Brits.

Edited January 24, 2010 by dalsingh101

[kdsingh80]

Plus, being frank here, historically I have no doubt that many Jatts joined Sikhism for reasons of faith but during the 1700s droves may have joined for more political and material considerations. Some may have seen Khalsa success as a clear opportunity to free their lands from Moghuls and joined in.

Sikhism spread very rapidly at time of maharaja Ranjit singh But the question is why? I don't think Mharaja Ranjit singh was giving any incentive to people to become sikhs.Infact He was quite a hindufied sikh.No doubt before Mharaja ranjit singh many joined just for political gain but at the time of Maharaja I think was the case of mass hysteria

[dalsingh101]

Sikhism spread very rapidly at time of maharaja Ranjit singh But the question is why? I don't think Mharaja Ranjit singh was giving any incentive to people to become sikhs.Infact He was quite a hindufied sikh.No doubt before Mharaja ranjit singh many joined just for political gain but at the time of Maharaja I think was the case of mass hysteria

Don't know about that. M. Ranjit Singh was the grandson of Charat Singh who was an original Khalsa 'jungle warrior'. Ranjit Singh was born into the Sikh faith after his family had been Khalsa for at a least a few generations. Sikhi spreading during his reign is obviously related to the prestige Singhs had managed to attach to their name through military and political success during his time and the period immediately preceding this by others.

[kdsingh80]

i think jatts in the pind are more turned off Sikhi by their lust for maya, by the society around them, and by hours and hours of watching tv and lazing about than any self righteousness.

I don't think situation is better among youths in urban India particularly big cities irrespective of Religion.Everywhere I see Youths just only want money,money.The image of Turbaned sikh is more of today a rich man rather than brave honest hard working person.

[Dharma]

It is unfortunate that our leaders before 1947 did not go for the offer of a Sikh homeland the British were more than willing to give, at least our leaders could have demanded concrete guarantees from the Congress before accepting to be a part of the Indian union. But our idiotic and selfish leaders blindly believed in the Congress.

I have been looking for proof for this claim but I can't find any. I found the following article in which Baldev Singh says that there is no evidence either for a British offer of an independent Sikh state or Jinnah offering an autonomous state within Pakistan. They both wanted Sikhs to join Pakistan.

http://www.sikhspectrum.com/052005/kapur_singh.htm

Edited January 26, 2010 by Dharma

[kdsingh80]

I have been looking for proof for this claim but I can't find any. I found the following article in which Baldev Singh says that there is no evidence either for a British offer of an independent Sikh state or Jinnah offering an autonomous state within Pakistan. They both wanted Sikhs to join Pakistan.

http://www.sikhspectrum.com/052005/kapur_singh.htm

I agree with the above .The land at the time of partition was distribuited on the basis of majority.

and there was hardly any sikh majority districts in Punjab

There is not even a single proof from non sikh source where it is written that sikhs were offered a country

[chatanga1]

I agree with the above .The land at the time of partition was distribuited on the basis of majority.

and there was hardly any sikh majority districts in PunjabThere is not even a single proof from non sikh source where it is written that sikhs were offered a country

there was NO district in which sikhs were a majority. the british did encourage the sikhs to prepare a case for a sikh country, but the sikhs knew that this was impossible as they had no majority in any district thru panjab

the memeoirs of the last civil servants of the raj, reveal that the sikhs had accepted or at least relied on the congress promise of an aurtonomous state within indias border.

[Mithar]

I have been looking for proof for this claim but I can't find any. I found the following article in which Baldev Singh says that there is no evidence either for a British offer of an independent Sikh state or Jinnah offering an autonomous state within Pakistan. They both wanted Sikhs to join Pakistan.

http://www.sikhspectrum.com/052005/kapur_singh.htm

Please read Sirdar Kapoor Singh's book 'Saachi Saakhi' which goes into detail about this topic and how Sikh leaders lost a golden chance to have a Sikh homeland.

[tonyhp32]

The Sikh princely states could easily have formed the basis of a Sikh state if the Sikh leadership had presented their case in a unifed manner. The Sikh States were about half the size of present Punjab. There was no need for a numerical majority as it was the decision of the State ruler to decide what state he wished to join. With regard to the British, as they were considered the paramount power for the princely states then their departure meant that the states could revert back to their pre-British status. Gandhi, Nehru and Mountbatten bullied the rulers to accept India and Pakistan as successor states to the British and hence remain in a subordinate position again. Had there been an intelligent Sikh leadership they could have lobbied the British to make the states a basis for Khalistan and then have districts with a predominent Sikh population join the states. This demand would not have been undemocratic as the with the other states the ruler of the state had the final say. The non-Muslim majority districts of East Punjab would have had no option but to join the Sikh state apart from Kangra district which could have joined India. The upshot of this would have been that India would have had no access to Kashmir and hence it would have become a part of Pakistan. The Punjabi speaking areas given the Haryana and HP would have never been removed from Punjab and the rivers water would never have been stolen by Haryana.

The Sikhs had much more bargaining power than even their leaders knew.

Edited January 26, 2010 by tonyhp32

[Guest gurmat]

The Sikhs had much more bargaining power than even their leaders knew.

Sikhism has been attacked left, right and centre. From the left were the Mughals who wanted to make all of India Muslim. From the centre is the caste war in Sikhism. And from the right are those Hindu traitors who were supposed to be our brothers.

What is gora? I found definition of GORA in http://www.urbandictionary.com/. Written by 3 different people1. Term used by Indians to refer to white people. Literally means "white". "Gori" is used to refer to a white woman. Not derogatory.Bill Clinton...