Khalistan?

[Mr Sardar]

Well okay that is a strong word to say maharaja ranjit singh was corrupt. According to many sikhs threw oral history he was a great gursikh but according to pretty much every written historian english, muslim etc. He had more then one wife as well as mistresses in his palace as well as drinking and having asked before he died his son to bring him an english women but this is said to be more towards the later of his life and one of the key things that effected his raj his status become questionable amongst sikhs and his son maharaja kharak singh also took liking to such things which led dogra rajputs to kill kharak singh hence the betrayal that took place people believe the british helped the betrayal just like they are doing now in arab countries they make people fight each other supply weapons and steal and declare false peace just to conquer it is an age old tactic of the british divide, conquer and rule. The key to Maharaja ranjit singh's rule was his wife and his unity with the sardars via intermarriages they did infight but they stopped and understood the bigger fish to fry such as the afghans who continually looted, raped women and tried to conquer lands. Maharaja ranjit singh grew up fighting an age old war which was from his ancestors against afghans his alliances and victories were great.

Maharaja ranjit singh was lashed, called for pesh made takhian for several actions by akali phoola singh some say it was for marrying one of his muslim mistress or for having mistresses in the first place- he became promiscous near his later days and his wife had the most influence (mahrani jind kaur) in the sikh empire she tried to even get maharaja dalip singh to reatke the empire but the british stopped it. Today sikh state is a dream held by many sikhs but a bigger issue we face today is identity in the modern centuries and running of gurdwara all around the world and commitees who have fell prey to the same thing as maharaja ranjit singh this corruption came to him due to money and copying what hindu kings and muslims kings did (which was against there religions as well- but there have been good kings in the past).

The british also stirred up islamic extremism which sikh raja controlled by stopping azans and controlling the muslim preachers to be those who were sikh friendly such as bulleh shah type (sufi) in addition the sikh lords misls were slightly unstable with jealously there were differences in maryada- the nihangs would throw tomatos according to a british source at maharaja ranjit singh for becomming british friendly buying there weapons, using there tactics in battle moving away from purthan battle techniques - the bhangi sardars had bhang. But sikhi was maintained by akali phoola singh- some of the sardars were like 1-4 generation away from guru gobind singh ji amrit and had started to differ from rehat (it may be partially due to interpretations and loose of manuscripts from mir mannu and ahmed shah abadli time).

Master Tara singh throwing the dasam granth out of akal takht is generally by oral history it may be a rumour but master tara singh did quite a few things against sikhs he took bribes from pakistani regime to infight with india he was illiterate, he was called for pesh in akal takht made takhian, he was born a hindu and abit too friendly with nehru. He had some actions that maybe accountable to be for sikhs but there just like badals crap leader- sikhs have had a history of crap leaders after maharaja ranjit singh who probably was the best.

We start with the sikhs first and build upon that at the moment punjab is in need of strong parchar, the creation of proper institions and building a sikh state from the bottom up. Perhaps it maybe a good idea to launch the sikh channels internationally and broadcasting them into punjab.

Edited March 6, 2011 by sarbatdapala

[Mr Sardar]

http://www.info-sikh.com/PageRSS1.html

http://worldsikhnews.com/6%20January%202010/The%20RSS%20The%20Force%20Behind%20Nanakshahi%20Change.htm

We need to separate the akali dal from sgpc the akali dal or congress or anyother party should have no authority on the sgpc.

Edited March 6, 2011 by sarbatdapala

[Mr Sardar]

[Mr Sardar]

Jews made Israel in 1948 we can make Khalistan the chance we lost in 1947

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wd03K-_7EFs&feature=related

Edited March 6, 2011 by sarbatdapala

[Mr Sardar]

Hence it can be taken to the United nations to draw the borders of khalistan, which we can consider as a secular nation for the preservation and homeland of the sikhs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalistan_movement

Edited March 6, 2011 by sarbatdapala

[Mithar]

Master Tara singh throwing the dasam granth out of akal takht is generally by oral history it may be a rumour but master tara singh did quite a few things against sikhs he took bribes from pakistani regime to infight with india he was illiterate, he was called for pesh in akal takht made takhian, he was born a hindu and abit too friendly with nehru. He had some actions that maybe accountable to be for sikhs but there just like badals crap leader- sikhs have had a history of crap leaders after maharaja ranjit singh who probably was the best.

We start with the sikhs first and build upon that at the moment punjab is in need of strong parchar, the creation of proper institions and building a sikh state from the bottom up. Perhaps it maybe a good idea to launch the sikh channels internationally and broadcasting them into punjab.

Master Tara Singh "threw" Sri Dasam Granth out of Akal Takht??? That is a BIG LIE! Firstly, it was Sardar Kartar Singh Jhabbar who liberated the Akal Takht. Master Tara Singh did not play a major role in the early Gurdwara reform movement. His role was mainly in the Shiromani Akali Dal, plus his being a former Hindu should not be used against him. The early Akalis were Gursikhs who believed in Sri Dasam Bani and gave respect to Sri Dasam Granth. But like many supporters of Sri Dasam Granth (like me) they just did not believe in doing Prakash of Sri Dasam Granth alongside the Prakash of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Jee. You can be a supporter of Dasam Granth and not believe in doing Prakash of Sri Dasam Granth alongside Sri Guru Granth Sahib Jee.

I would also like to point out, that Master Tara Singh can be accused of being uninformed, misguided about political realities of the world and times he was living in, but to hint that he was some kind of a traitor is simply not true. When he refused the Sikh state the British were offering he did it because he was not politically farsighted and cunning like his counterparts Nehru, Gandhi, Patel or Jinnah. After 1947 when he realized his mistake he greatly regretted not forming a Sikh state when he had a chance to form one. He was jailed numerous times after 1947 by the center for his struggle for greater autonomy for Punjab and Punjabi Suba.

Edited March 6, 2011 by Mithar

[kdsingh80]

When he refused the Sikh state the British were offering he did it because he was not politically farsighted and cunning like his counterparts Nehru, Gandhi, Patel or Jinnah.

I never came any from non sikh source Like British,Hindu or Muslim which state that Sikhs were offered a state by Britishers

[HSD1]

I never came any from non sikh source Like British,Hindu or Muslim which state that Sikhs were offered a state by Britishers

Churchill talks about it in his memoirs where he says he tried to convince the sikh leader to speak to him alone in order to give the sikhs a nation 'so that they could learn to stand on their own two feet'. But, being the babies we are, didnt go for it and our leaders jumped into bed with the hindus.

Edited March 6, 2011 by HSD 2

[Mr Sardar]

There were more deserving people around at that time to be the leader of sikh representation such as maharaja patialla any of the previous sikh misl or kings many lords, barons, generals, doctors, engineers there were qualified people. According to many tara singh was bribed to fakely fast in india after 1947 - "Punishment to Master Tara Singh 



Master Tara Singh was the most powerful and well recognized leader of the Sikhs in mid-twentieth century. He was president of SGPC when Akal Takhat Jathedar Achhar Singh punished him for breaking his fast without achieving anything after taking a solemn pledge in 1961. Such was the position of the Jathedar in Sikh world.

"

http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/history-of-sikhism/28626-akal-takhat-jethedar-history-j-s.html

However the sgpc and akali dal are the same body when they should be separate. Can we get the akali dal and sgpc onto twitter and or facebook or set up a forum website for the panth. Now we have badal.

http://www.shiromaniakalidal.org.in/

http://www.sgpc.net/index-nm.html

The akali dal office is at

Shiromani Akali Dal Office,

Block 6,

Sector 28, Madhya Marg,

Chandigarh

Past presidents

http://www.shiromaniakalidal.org.in/2010/past-presidents-akali-dal/

Edited March 6, 2011 by sarbatdapala

[kdsingh80]

Churchill talks about it in his memoirs where he says he tried to convince the sikh leader to speak to him alone in order to give the sikhs a nation 'so that they could learn to stand on their own two feet'. But, being the babies we are, didnt go for it and our leaders jumped into bed with the hindus.

What I read about Churchill is that he opposed Indian independence and was a racist person .He was defeated in 45 elections and he had hardly any role to play When Britishers were leaving India.Upto 46 it was not even clear that whether there will be division of India or not.

[HSD1]

What I read about Churchill is that he opposed Indian independence and was a racist person .He was defeated in 45 elections and he had hardly any role to play When Britishers were leaving India.Upto 46 it was not even clear that whether there will be division of India or not.

Yes, dear old Winston hated hindus and muslims with a passion. He often talked about gassing arabs and bombing indians. But when he first became a journalist/soldier, he went alongside a sikh regiment whilst it fought in afghanistan and the nwfp, and had nothing but good words to say. He met indian independence leaders during the war, at which point the writing was on the wall for the british empire, even if they couldnt publically admit to it (war morale and effort etc). It was at this meeting he says he tried to speak to the sikh leaders. At the end of the war he lost power in an election so he had no role to play in what happened post 1945.

[dalsingh101]

Yes, dear old Winston hated hindus and muslims with a passion. He often talked about gassing arabs and bombing indians. But when he first became a journalist/soldier, he went alongside a sikh regiment whilst it fought in afghanistan and the nwfp, and had nothing but good words to say. He met indian independence leaders during the war, at which point the writing was on the wall for the british empire, even if they couldnt publically admit to it (war morale and effort etc). It was at this meeting he says he tried to speak to the sikh leaders. At the end of the war he lost power in an election so he had no role to play in what happened post 1945.

Was his 'affection' for Sikhs based on anything other than their usefulness in a British imperial context and a perception that they could be easily controlled to buttress the Brit agenda/interests?

[Mr Sardar]

There are still sikh sympthasisers today in politicians who do actually love sikhs and if we made the effort they could probably help us.

[dalsingh101]

There are still sikh sympthasisers today in politicians who do actually love sikhs and if we made the effort they could probably help us.

What, like the BNP? lol

In any case that's arguably just the path of becoming some other nation's kuti again.

Edited March 6, 2011 by dalsingh101

[HSD1]

Was his 'affection' for Sikhs based on anything other than their usefulness in a British imperial context and a perception that they could be easily controlled to buttress the Brit agenda/interests?

Who knows? He didnt think too highly of ozzies or kiwis and they were white. His speeches about the Jallianwala Bagh massacre and his views on Dyer show he wasnt just out to shout and sing about Britannia. When you look at the fact that Dyer got a sword from the Golden Temple for his crimes, its surprising Churchill spoke against him considering how many english people thought the massacre was justified. Churchill also spoke out against the helmets for sikhs on motorcycles issue. Not all white people are crazy nutters who hate sikhs. Sometimes they can be great friends too. Churchill's experiences in his early life obviously affected his views on sikhs.

[dalsingh101]

Who knows? He didnt think too highly of ozzies or kiwis and they were white. His speeches about the Jallianwala Bagh massacre and his views on Dyer show he wasnt just out to shout and sing about Britannia. When you look at the fact that Dyer got a sword from the Golden Temple for his crimes, its surprising Churchill spoke against him considering how many english people thought the massacre was justified. Churchill also spoke out against the helmets for sikhs on motorcycles issue. Not all white people are crazy nutters who hate sikhs. Sometimes they can be great friends too. Churchill's experiences in his early life obviously affected his views on sikhs.

Nothing you say indicates anything to contradict that he may have just seen them as loyal, useful tools to be kept placated and on board. Let's be frank, you've got a lot of admiration for the bulldog.

You might believe having close ties with these types is possibly a good thing, I simply don't share this opinion.

Edited March 6, 2011 by dalsingh101

[kdsingh80]

I don't think Britishers really offered anything to Sikhs.There were several demands from various parts of undivided India to give them their countries like South Indians wanted Dravid nadu, Dalits wanted their country and Badshah Khan wanted Pakhtoonistan but britishers were only dealing with congress and muslim league ,no other state was offered to anyone

Also the main criteria the Britishers choose was population ,other areas like property were not at all considered and in that case the Sikhs did not have any majority part of Punjab

[HSD1]

Nothing you say indicates anything to contradict that he may have just seen them as loyal, useful tools to be kept placated and on board. Let's be frank, you've got a lot of admiration for the bulldog.

Lol, what did you want him to do? Build a sikh country, grow a beard, wear a turban and say sikhi is the best thing ever? Why dont you learn something about him and read around the subject to come to conclusions rather than being bigotted? Churchill was a lot more sympathetic to us than Attlee or any other British PM before or after the 1940s.

You might believe having close ties with these types is possibly a good thing, I simply don't share this opinion.

There are 20 millions sikhs in the world. Unless you are some great supermind then you cant really tell people what they can or cant do. Just because you believe you got your fingers burned doesnt mean the rest of us should just sit around hating on them too. Guess what, some of them are nice people, just like some hindus and muslims can be.

I don't think Britishers really offered anything to Sikhs.There were several demands from various parts of undivided India to give them their countries like South Indians wanted Dravid nadu, Dalits wanted their country and Badshah Khan wanted Pakhtoonistan but britishers were only dealing with congress and muslim league ,no other state was offered to anyone

Also the main criteria the Britishers choose was population ,other areas like property were not at all considered and in that case the Sikhs did not have any majority part of Punjab

Look, I just told you that Churchill wanted to have talks. The sikh leader said no. What did you want Churchill to do? Give us a state anyway? The real world doesnt work like that. There is no such thing as something for nothing. When someone offers you something and you turn it down, only to later want it, its your fault. The labour govt wanted to get out of india quickly, they chose one little guy to draw up the new borders, there wasnt a lot of thought into who got what.

[dalsingh101]

Churchill was a lot more sympathetic to us than Attlee or any other British PM before or after the 1940s.

Is that all it takes to swing you? A perception of some sympathetic favouring?

There are 20 millions sikhs in the world. Unless you are some great supermind then you cant really tell people what they can or cant do. Just because you believe you got your fingers burned doesnt mean the rest of us should just sit around hating on them too. Guess what, some of them are nice people, just like some hindus and muslims can be.

Not about hating them. Just about knowing them in terms of the corporate relationship their community has had with ours which can be very different to individual ground level relationships. Positive relationships at ground level doesn't mean the ruling classes won't blink to shaft us if we were an obstacle to their 'interests'.

It's simply about protecting ourselves from this not losing perspective because you get on well with work mates, neighbors.

Anyway, screw Churchill, that lard arsed bulldog. lol

If I had loyal guard dogs I'd probably speak favorably of them too.

Edited March 6, 2011 by dalsingh101

[Mr Sardar]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNL_S-dZkC4&feature=fvsr

[Mr Sardar]

[HSD1]

Is that all it takes to swing you? A perception of some sympathetic favouring?

Read up on Churchill's speech about the Jallianwalla Massacre. Another conservative speaker had tried to speak up against the massacre and he was shouted down from the stage because he used sarcasm to ridicule the pompous toffs. Churchill spoke against it in the manner that if the english want to be civilized they need to act like adults and treat people fairly. Contrast this to how he felt about other colonial subject, white or non-white, says it all. I'll ask you again, what do you want from him?

Not about hating them. Just about knowing them in terms of the corporate relationship their community has had with ours which can be very different to individual ground level relationships. Positive relationships at ground level doesn't mean the ruling classes won't blink to shaft us if we were an obstacle to their 'interests'.

It's simply about protecting ourselves from this not losing perspective because you get on well with work mates, neighbors.

Well, duh. A few family stories about what happened in partition are more than enough to make most sikhs see the difference between individuals and groups.

Anyway, screw Churchill, that lard arsed bulldog. lol

If I had loyal guard dogs I'd probably speak favorably of them too.

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/9404/9404-h/9404-h.htm

Well thats Churchill's own words of his time with a sikh regiment. I havent read it, but you can make your own mind up on what Churchill thought. The whole 'loyal guard dog' is more your perspective rather than how the english saw it.

[Mr Sardar]

[Mr Sardar]

This "Punjab Bachao" Khalistan rally by Shromani Akali Dal,Amritsar on September 28,2010 attended by an estimated 2 lakh people was "totally" blacked out by the indian electronic media.it was not even mentioned by any indian channel in their bulletins.

This shows how much these channels care about Punjab and it's people.

The only channel which covered this rally is Chardikla Time TV for which whole of Punjab should be thankful to them.

Edited March 7, 2011 by sarbatdapala

[Mr Sardar]