Khalistan In A Day And Three Steps Here's How (Please Read)

[chatanga1]

in 1980, when Indira came to power she made Giani Zail Singh India's Home Minister (later elevated him as the President of India). After outbreak of terror related violence in Punjab she dismissed her own (Congress) government in the state. She agreed to release JSB twice without court trial to keep the Sikhs in good humour. JSB travelled to as far as Mumbai with his heavily armed followers without beings stopped even once. even after the chando kalan incident Haryana CM Bhajan Lal give his own car to transport JSB back to Mehta Chowk safely.

so you do beleive the writings of the mahasha press then?

[mrsingh]

i wish sikh leadership focus on these sentiments instead of divisive policies which have done nothing except making Sikhi an exclusive cult.

The fact that Sikhi is not an exclusive cult is proved by our very first five "founding" Khalsa's ... they came from Dravidian South India, from Orissa in the East, from Gujarat in the West and so on. I do agree that labelling Punjabi's like yourself who also bow before Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji Maharaj as Hindu's is idiocy by those purporting to be setting a framework for Panth. However, regardless of what leadership do it's up to us reclaim the truth that the vast majority of Indians are natural born Sikhs if we only see them as such and allow them to progress in Sikhi at their own pace.

Please elaborate on "linguistic successor states". Are you saying pakistan would disintegrate on the basis of different linguistic/ethnic groups?

I think America will try it's best to ensure Pakistan remains united, so i'm not saying Pakistan will disintegrate

... merely, that if Pakistan ever did split into lingustic states such as Baluchistan, Sindh, Pakhtunia and so on ...

at this stage, balochistan is thretening to breakaway because of W Punjabi hegemony.

Yes

Are you suggesting that, if Pakistan breaks up, Indian punjab should join western counterpart and form sep nation?

No. I don't think the three crores of "kaffirs" in east Punjab would like to be "democratically" ruled by 10 crores consequent majority of Punjabi Muslims via the ballot box.

...which was merely a federalist proposal. No Sir, ASR was much worse. It was/is out and out a sectarian manifesto.

It was absolutely a federalist proposal in essence and that's why Narendra Modi and Mamta Bannerji are in support of similar principles pertaining to their own states (and I'm only mentioning two states at random here ... all states in India would be up for greater federalism).

The ASR was presented by the old Akali Dal of the 70's ... the party that claimed to look after the interest of Sikhs ... so why would it be hostile to the interests of Sikhs ... of course it rightfully looked for equitable treatment of the Sikhs and old political promises to be honoured.

i doubt if you have ever read ASR which was resuscitated by frustrated Sikh (Akali) politicians after losing 1980 Assembly elections.

Indira was a dictator in the 70's and she progressed into a terrorist in the 80's which she did not win fairly

... and for which ironically enough even Mehta Taksal (the supposed terrorists) fully supported her path to electoral victory.

even the original draft was prepared after Akalis were routed by Indira led Congress in 1972 elections.

Indira's victory then had more to do with the defeat of Pakistan in Bangladesh.

Akalis, who divided Punjab in 1966 to capture power, could win just one out of 13 Lok Sabha seats and just 24/117 Vidhan sabha seats.

Whenever there is a war, Sikhs have always been at the forefront for India and their patriotism spilled over into rewarding Congress in 1972 electorally.

ASR reeks of not only sectarianism but also sexism.

So seeking equality and justice (in the main) for Sikhs is sectarianism to you? I do agree that the ASR arguing for greater numbers of Sikhs to be permitted to fight for the Indian Army was a bit sectarian - however, which nation's interests was that particular bit of sectarianism or patriotism whatever you wish to call it actually in?

Agreed on the minor point in a draft (re sexism bit) re landholdings ... but given that Indian culture is the one that gave the world Sati ... it can be seen why the draft was influenced that way by a few. Politicians are not perfect. However, the old Akali Dal (nor indeed Badal Dal) were never terrorists in the way Congress+Indira was.

Once we as a Qaum are fully strong ourselves then we can focus more towards seva for non-Sikhs too as Sikhi's main aim is merely for Sarbat Da Bhala.

why do you think Sikhs (i assume you mean that when you used the word "Qaum") need to be "fully strong" to serve the humanity?

Sikhs can and do serve humanity whilst not being fully strong as the Langar offered daily is the biggest charitable program of its kind in India.

However, if we have population of 100 people and 25 are doing seva while 75 are on drugs, it stands to reason that we can achieve four times as much for others once we successfully tackle our own issues.

why Sikhs have given up their humanist principles and are so golak focussed?

The essence of Sikhi was and is and always will remain humanist principles.

Seeking to reduce our Qaum's own internal issues to consequently serve wider humanity to a greater has nothing to do with golak!

why do you think small sects like Nirankari and Sacha Sauda are thriving?

In the case of Nirankari's it is because of the humility of Hardev Singh and the way he constantly references Hindu avtars for the wider public.

I think his father was a crook on Indira's payroll but Hardev Singh is someone with whom the mainstream should look to build bridges with Nirankari's in 2014.

As for the rapist Sidhu Jatt and his Dera Sirsa ... they are thriving due to political support ... initially Congress ... latterly anyone who can keep the murderer and rapist (that you act as an apologist for) out of jail ... whilst avoiding a probe on the vast assets the rapist has built up.

they make everyday followers feel important and loved without considering his/her caste, social status, gender, etc.

Funny because that's exactly what Sikhi does and was the first to do to any meaningful degree.

I have no problem with Hardev Singh (and i consider him a better Sikh than myself) nor today's benign Nirankari's but I do have issues with Congress crooks masquerading as God in human form like Gurbachana and Sidhu and then pretending to copy Sikhi's humanist goals when the only agenda behind so-called love for followers is how much money they can extract out of them to increase their personal assets and landholdings.

As i said before, ASR is a sectarian document which speaks ONLY about the interests of Sikhs.

ASR is a federalist document which does address injustices the Sikhs have suffered from since 1947. The concept of devolving power closer to the people is universal and is likely to be implemented in states other than Punjab in this century. That's how far ahead of it's time (Indira Gandhi's dictatorial and terrorist era) it was.

so why you think other communities would have fought for its implementation.

One would hope that people would stand up against inequality and injustice regardless of their own community. Or should the Sikhs have ignored the Gujarat earthquake victims simply for being from another community. Sikhi teaches us to value all who are suffering ... if others are more communal then so be it.

I see absolutely no difference between say RSS and Akalis/SGPC/taksalis.

Many argue that they may all often be in cahoots - since they all agree on limiting the definition of Sikh to one deliberately that restricts the Panth's population to as small a number as possible, thereby increasing the so-called Hindu political base whilst marginalising Sikhs as an ever smaller minority.

If RSS comes out with a similar resolution (let's call this hypothetical proposal as Kashi Resolution) asking for the pre-eminence of Hindu forces, would you support it?

Whether i would support it or not is not the main point ... would i label the RSS and thereafter by extension all Hindu's as Pakistan-supporting traitors and terrorists ... and would i then proceed to attack all holy Hindu temples ... whilst killing off the around 10 million Hindu's (1% of the community) in the next 10 years of Genocide ... and then spend the next 20 years complaining that a lot of these RSS wale suddenly want to be free from my rule? That is the real question!

as far as your accusation of Indira deliberately derailing a "federalist' resolution is concerned, you are wrong.

I disagree. To me it's absolutely clear that Indira did just that. Not only was ASR federalist in nature, it was a patriotic resolution if anything!

But no to Indira, it was a convenient ruse to capture the Hindutva vote (the real "saffron vote" in the equation).

as i mentioned before, frustrated Sikh politicians resuscitated a moth-balled resolution to get their 'saffron' vote-bank back.

If there was no genuine support for the ASR amongst Sikhs then why did Indira try her best to derail by painting it as traitorous (whilst re-introducing her Khalistan claim to invent the image of seditious Sikhs ... who wanted to fight for India in greater numbers as per the ASR) and further by financially funding Mehta Taksal to oppose Akali Dal on the very point!

Diff story JSB later hijacked the ASR.

He later realised that Mehta Taksal had been duped in 1980 to oppose Akali Dal and realised that what Longowal sought was actually equality and justice for Sikhs.

... was deliberately derailed by Indira Gandhi re-introducing the word Khalistan to whip up Hindutva votebank for herself and paint Sikhs as traitors and extremists in the process.

excuse my french but this is BS (Indira reintroduced the word khalistan). I am not an Indira fan but would like to set the record straight. in early 1980s, she was NOT required to whip up any vote bank as Congress has just won back the power in both the Centre and Punjab!

She did do it. History shows us this if we interpret it objectively. Bangladesh was her prop for winning 1972. She already her eyes on the next election given that she remembered all too readily the political wipeout she faced in 1977 (after her victory in 1972).

Paint Sikhs as ...again a narrative better suited to loser Khalibans. in 1980, when Indira came to power she made Giani Zail Singh India's Home Minister (later elevated him as the President of India). After outbreak of terror related violence in Punjab she dismissed her own (Congress) government in the state. She agreed to release JSB twice without court trial to keep the Sikhs in good humour. JSB travelled to as far as Mumbai with his heavily armed followers without beings stopped even once. even after the chando kalan incident Haryana CM Bhajan Lal give his own car to transport JSB back to Mehta Chowk safely.

Given that Mehta Taksal had vigorously campaigned for Congress in the 1980 elections to ensure Indira Gandhi's electoral victory as PM surely all of the above was inevitable. Zail was critical to her pushing the Khalistan word out there via his so-called Dal Khalsa and Taksal friends as an imagined threat for Hindutva forces to rally around her politically, given that she clearly foresaw the success Ayodhya achieved for the BJP.

Sikhs were a sovereign nation in 1849 ...

puhleeeeeez!! get over this dumb rhetoric.

So the truth and historic reality is mere rhetoric in your eyes?

If Ranjit Singh ruled western PARTS of Punjab for 3-4 decades, Hindus ruled this state for 1000s of years and then Muslims for at least 700. Brits ruled Punjab for much longer than Sikhs. so?

So if the Sikhs governed themselves prior to the British, what is wrong with the democratic right of those in 1940 who sought to avoid terrorist rule by the likes of Jinnah and Indira Gandhi after 1947? In other words your point is that only Muslims and Hindus merit the human birthright to govern themselves. Presumanly, according to you, lesser species like Sikhs do not merit such freedom?

so given the events of 1947 and the Pakistani Genocide of Sikhs in which 20% of our Qaum was killed off in Pakistan it is understandable that some Sikhs mooted the re-establishment of an independent Sikh state.

"some Sikhs" i understand. same proportion of sikh population (microscopic minority, mostly living in western countries) wants Sikhs to secede from India even today. so? imagine what would have been the fate of the Sikhs in a country which is butchering its own (Shias, Hazaras, Baloch, Sindhis, Ahemediyas...)

If Sikhs had their own sovereign state between Lahore/Nankana Sahib and Patiala in 1947 what connection exactly would have it had to Pakistan (as you imply)?

True Sikhs cannot be terrorists. Sikhi unequivocally condemns terrorism targetted against innocents.

I would disagree with you. there are videos of some of the best known Sikh leaders openly asking for massacre of Hindus. forget condemnation those leaders are eulogized from Americas to Australia.

Put one up in its entireity. Should you be correct, you will hear nothing but condemnation from Sikhs of the speaker. If however, the context is not as you suggest, would you then agree that you have been fed propaganda by the likes of Doordarshan suggesting Sikhs had poisioned water and killed millions of Hindu's ...

Self-defence during the Genocide of lakhs of Sikhs cannot be termed terrorism.

self-defence like butchering train and bus passangers with automatic weapons?

True Sikhs would never do such a thing as that is contrary to what our faith guides us and teaches us.

Blacks Cats working for the Government of India and Nehru-Gandhi Empire did commit such despicable acts as is well known.

"lakhs of Sikhs"!! how you can allow yourself to be brainwashed by khaliban propaganda? if you believe in these figures, i would urge you very politely to give source of your information. also how about 1000s of (forget Hindus as they probably 'deserved to die')Sikhs were killed by Sikh terrorists (sorry i cannot find any other way to describe those despicable creatures).

Sikhs don't kill innocent people full stop. The Black Cats under Muhammad Izhar Alam did and did so at the orders of Indira, Rajiv and Congress. It's a real shame that you believe the version of events peddled by those who killed innocent pilgrims openly but refuse to give the benefit of the doubt to those that not only condemned the killings of innocents (especially Hindu's) but are morally bound by Gurmat and the ethos of the Khalsa Panth never to hurt the innocent ... but instead Sikhs are duty bound to act as protectors of the innocent (Khalsa).

[chatanga1]

I remember when the news Indra was killed went out. The Jatts danced non-stop, when they found out it was a scheduled caste who did it they stopped.

you saw this ?

[Amandeep Hindustani]

wow, first Baba Banda Singh Bahadur and now Bhagat Singh and Udham Singh as well? I must hand it to you. I have seen a lot of shameless people in my life but you will be one of the most memorable ones. I have seen the interview of Bhagat Singh's sister in which the interviewer asked her whether or not their family ever did paath when growing up. She said, her mother would recite paath for all the children daily, when he grew up he temporarily became an atheist but again became a believer in Sikhi while in jail and even grew his Kesh before dying something that hindus do not like to show in their bollywood movies.. And Udham Singh wanting to represent the entire Indian nation gave the honour to Hindus and Muslims by having that name. You should not confuse this nice gesture as proof of him not being a Sikh. The man took revenge for hundreds of Hindus and Muslims dying and what do Hindus do? they killed many times more of his people in 84 than had in jillianwala bagh massacre by the British.

By the way, new research into Udham Singh suggests, that name was Mohammad Singh Azad. The Ram part was later added by Hindus.

My family were also atheists types who had the typical habits of Punjabis(drinking, cutting hair, partying) before operation blue star. The suffering caused by Operation bluestar moved the Sikhs so much that my entire family became practicing Sikhs. This is the story of many people. Sikh freedom fighters who had fought for India's freedom, had they been young men during the 80s, they would have done what thousands of Sikh youth did by picking up the gun against the oppression being done on their people.

I have seen that interview as well. Bhagat's sister says that he did the paath of the Bhagavat Gita.

[Jonny101]

I have seen that interview as well. Bhagat's sister says that he did the paath of the Bhagavat Gita.

The interview I saw was different from the one you are referring to. In that interview the interviewer asked if their mother ever did paath to which she answered their mother recited paath of Gurbani for them everyday as they grew up. Now I have just seen the interview you are talking about. In that interview she has mentioned that their mother did Paath of Japji Sahib. And like many educated secular freedom fighters of his times, she mentions of Bhagat Singh's secular nature that he did Paath of Gita, Sukhmani Sahib and Quran. Anyway, my response here was in answer to Sher who has a really bad habit of distorting Sikh history by claiming many respectful Sikhs of the past were not even Sikhs. I think he does it to get a reaction from us.

Edited February 27, 2014 by Jonny101

[JungChamkaur]

Mainu taan "Amandeep Hindustani" Sher da duja account lagda...

[mrsingh]

Sher you state that the ASR has communalism, sectarianism, bigotry dripping from it.

Your allegation is ridiculous and just pure hype. A humble resolution by the Akali Dal for the best interests of the Sikh Panth (in their vision) to be progressed ... and yet you as someone who proclaims yourself Hindu is incensed and enraged by it! The mere words enrage you! After all, how dare these wretched Sikhs dare to think on how best they can progress as a Qaum. How do you think Sikhs feel when our Qaum is the one that has undergone an entire Genocide at the hands of their very "own" so-called Government that were in fact terrorists (GOI).

Parts that don't stand up to scrutiny I see something imho that is fundamentally correct and a bit of re-drafting and updating would easily fix. I fully support the main thrust of the ASR in as far as it was a wholly honest attempt to progress the affairs of our Qaum. So much for a so-called Sikh theocracy in 2014 where so-called Hindu migrants prefer it as a destination to other more "racist" Hindu majority states.

Blame such a repugnant, sectarian resolution on Punjabi Hindus. I am waiting.

The ASR is not repugnant nor sectarian. The GOI of 1984 and the years thereafter was repugnant as the terrorist outfit it was. Why would I ascribe blame to Punjabi Hindu's (whom the overwhelmingly majority of whom I consider as brother and sister Sikhs)? Would it be sensible to blame Sikhs for the terrorist actions of Indira Gandhi? But I suppose if you act as an apologist for terrorists like the then GOI then perhaps in a perverse way ... that's why you may have assumed I would blame so-called Punjabi Hindu's (for Sikhs having a vision to progress their own internal affairs).

Why did they vote for Congress and forced sectarian Sikh leadership to resort to such naked communalism?

Voting for Congress or any other party is the democratic right of every human being. If i disagree with that the best way to argue it is at the ballot box.

You state "naked communalism"!? Akali Dal was originally a party meant to safeguard the rights of Sikhs. By representing their consituency, how exactly are they being communal? Have they taken central government funds to run Kumbh Mela or send Hajji's to Mecca. Have they asked for Hindu's to be forcibly included in the Anand Karaj Marriage act? Have they accused all Hindu's of being terrorists and subsequently killed millions of Hindu's? That's what is real sectarian terrorism. Congress were guilty of it. I don't believe Sikhs have harmed others by merely wishing to progress their own affairs. By wishing to end social discrimination and stratification as the ASR states ... that in some way you assume would be unpalatable to what you term "low castes"!? Sikhi is the one faith where we see Bhai Jiwan Singh Ji as the bravest of the brave! Punjabi Muslims and Punjabi Hindu's were always quick to mock that our Khalsa heroes like Bhai Jiwan Singh Ji were often "chure+chamar" according to them!

http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Gurdwara_Sis_Ganj_Sahib

When we would get a similar London Resolution or Toronto Reso?

So in other words, according to you, Sikhs do not merit the human right to have a democratic vision for the own forward progression of their own affairs?

I have seen that interview as well. Bhagat's sister says that he did the paath of the Bhagavat Gita.

Merely studying the Bhagawat Gita or Holy Quran to see what they have to say in relation to the sanctification+justification of the caste system, rape, paedophilia, imperialism etc is no crime. However, the paath Bhagat Singh did was actually JapJi Sahib the paath.

Edited February 27, 2014 by mrsingh

[JungChamkaur]

I am not going to fully immerse myself in the arguments between sher and mr.singh, but I can tell you something 100%, Bhagat Singh was atheist. He wrote "Why I am an atheist" after speaking to Bhai Randhir Singhji... if you knew his family they would tell you the same thing. Also, he came from an Arya Samaji family... Bhagat Singh can never fit the Khalistani narrative. Its impossible. You can fully go talk to his family and they will tell you that he died an atheist. He did paath his whole life as a child.. he went to an Arya Samaji school... When he went to jail he was an atheist before he died... his whole family attests to this. End of discussion on Bhagat Singh's atheism. I bet none of you even know his family.... so I think you should stop trying to make things up.

[GtLoc]

Punjab past beas was considered melaach. Sometimes even sutlej, most of it was jungle. Non hindus brought it under plow, hindu jats admit that.

Punjabi jatt muslim or Sikh is different from hindu jat. Only fee gotra like Sandhu which is one of biggest overlap.

Many hindu jat names sound khatri. Anyway, continue obviously any Sikh who knows their lineage is not Sikh right neo Sikh christian?

Except bachittar natak. ..

Idc about forum, but if you say some shit like Dasmesh Pita Ji was not a Sikh, in person I'll slap you..

That's the only logical path of your argument, or claiming guru ji did not write it.

Despite birs from 1696 that don't have zafarnama for example.

Sher, noone really cares about words. War decides these things, you guys fight like cowards and will die like them.

ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂ ਜੀ ਕਾ ਖਾਲਸਾ ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂ ਜੀ ਕੀ ਫਤਹਿ | |

[Singh123456777]

Punjab past beas was considered melaach. Sometimes even sutlej, most of it was jungle. Non hindus brought it under plow, hindu jats admit that.

Punjabi jatt muslim or Sikh is different from hindu jat. Only fee gotra like Sandhu which is one of biggest overlap.

Many hindu jat names sound khatri. Anyway, continue obviously any Sikh who knows their lineage is not Sikh right neo Sikh christian?

Except bachittar natak. ..

Idc about forum, but if you say some shit like Dasmesh Pita Ji was not a Sikh, in person I'll slap you..

That's the only logical path of your argument, or claiming guru ji did not write it.

Despite birs from 1696 that don't have zafarnama for example.

Sher, noone really cares about words. War decides these things, you guys fight like cowards and will die like them.

ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂ ਜੀ ਕਾ ਖਾਲਸਾ ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂ ਜੀ ਕੀ ਫਤਹਿ | |

This

[chatanga1]

ASR reeks of not only sectarianism but also sexism.

So seeking equality and justice (in the main) for Sikhs is sectarianism to you? I do agree that the ASR arguing for greater numbers of Sikhs to be permitted to fight for the Indian Army was a bit sectarian - however, which nation's interests was that particular bit of sectarianism or patriotism whatever you wish to call it actually in?

This is sickeningly sectarian resolution no non-sikh or low caste sikh would have ever supported. It was detailed roadmap to turn punjab into a Sikh theocracy. looking at current state of Punjab, ASR has been achieved

Try to understand the background of the ASR. This is what the Congress Party had promised to the SIkhs before partition

ie a homeland where they would feel the glow of freedom, a country where their rights would be safeguarded etc.

The ASR is only what the SIkhs had thought would be given after partition. Because the Sikhs were scared, and rightly so, that being such a pitiful minority in a country could have disastrous consequences for us. And remember the same people that drafted the ASR were the same people more or less, or witnessed partition and it's bloodbath, and aftermath.

Another thing about the ASR, and the army quota that the indian government introduced, it's beats me why you would find this objectionable, as the first rule to enter the army should be merit, not province. Can you imagine the UK saying that only 2% of scousers or geordies can join the army? No, but the world's largest hypocrisy seems to think its normal.

If you just take the ASR as it is now, and read it, sure you will find that it is sectarian in nature. But politics (and rule) in india has always been sectarian.

as for your second quoted sentence, it was the Akali Dal that fought for the "lowcaste sikhs" to be given the same rights and help that their low hindu caste brothers were going to get. You seem to feel that the jatt vs non-jatt war is massive and ongoing, which is rubbish. You love that Sikhs are dividing themselves over caste.

Edited February 28, 2014 by chatanga1

[JungChamkaur]

Straight up Chatanga.

[Jonny101]

Thanks for your honest views in this petty point scoring comp. there are 1000s of other 'Sikh' heroes, i can't understand why this obsession with Bhagat-Singh-was-an-Amritdhari line. i would not claim lakhs of martyrs who died for their country were Hindus or not. that is secondary. same with Bhagat singh, his family was Arya Samaji, does not matter at all.

They weren't Arya Samaji's in the strict sense of the term as you are trying to make it to be. They were Sikhs who were into Arya Samaj. At the time many Sikhs were into Arya Samaj. For example, the bollywood film star Dharmindra, his family are also Sikhs who were into Arya Samaj, it doesn't mean they aren't Sikhs. Family of Bhagat Singh when Bhagat Singh was alive were Sikhs. They had Anand Karajs and Akhand Paaths like other Sikhs while also being into Arya Samaj and communism. My Nanke for example are hardcore communists. Yet they also had Anand Karaj and Akhand paaths like regular Sikhs.

[JungChamkaur]

Look man I dont knwo how many times I have to tell you people... my family personally knows Bhagat Singh's family... he was an atheist. Stop trying to change history, it makes us look STUPID.... well not me but the people here who think otherwise are definitely being ignorant. Go talk to his family and they will tell you themselves. Its not a big deal for you to try to change the facts. As Sher said, and I am happy he said something right, there are plenty of other Sikh soormay. We dont have to try to change history and focus on Bhagat Singh alone. He died and atheist. Simple. Truth. Ask his family.....

[Jonny101]

ਹਾਂ ਹਾਂ, ਤੂੰ ਤਾਂ ਭਗਤ ਸਿੰਘ ਨੂੰ ਬਚਪਨ ਤੋਂ ਹੀ ਜਾਣਦਾ ਵਾ ਨਾ.....ਆਇਆ ਵੱਡਾ

[GtLoc]

Sher

http://www.allaboutsikhs.com/sikh-martyrs/sardar-charat-singh

Charhat Singh Sandhu(emphasis) was grandfather of Maharaja Ranjit Singh.

The agrarian and artisan communities (e.g. Jats, Lohars, Tarkhans etc.) of the entire western India are derived from the Scythians, who settled north-western and western South Asia in successive waves between 500 B.C. to 500 AD.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Scythians

Without pulling something out of your a** explain how halogroup, r1b is prevalent in North india, absent in central asia, then pops back up in e. Europe.

This is consistent with a tribal migration.

How do you explain groups of negritos, and aboriginess in the same area as who are lighter skinned and in many cases speak different languages, different religjons, customs, etc.

Did this happen by magic?

As to dal singh, lol.. It a last resort, and get out of scholarly circles. I guarantee 99 out of 100 would support it, the one is just someone old with a heart condition who will morally support it.

You don't think, that tons of massacres later people generally don't like each other?

In many western countries Sikh youth beat up and rob hindu youth. Making sure they stay out of the neighborhood.

I won't say anymore, for many reasons. However, what do you have to say of baba baghel singh toppling mosques in delhi, S. Paulo Avitoble, burning of Pathan Villages by Shaheed Hari Singh Nalwa, or the massacre of muslim babies in Kashmir.

Even, making many muslims carry dead boar back to camp.

Where is the overlording rajput element in Punjab? It's non existent, tells you something.

Your quote, is about the delhi sultan te of timurlane. He admitted, in his autobiography he would never control the areas of the Khap.

They didn't have single leadeeship, so they never United against him. However, it is likely he treated prisoners like that.

If I had not previously read on the delhi Sultana te I would not know that. Good tactic, your handlers have given you.

That is why, many of the maps of India are incorrect. The sultans never controlled anywhere near as much territory as is credited to them.

It is merely a case of the west, viewing them as legitimate. This leads to them being inferred special credit, and privilege.

It is similar to Georgia still putting Abhkhazia under its territory, or Indian maps showing whole kashmir under it.

Shastraan K Adheen Hai Raaj.

[SikhKhoj]

Singo, I am against Khalistan. I lean towards the idea brought by the Bhai Sahib at "Basics of Sikhi". I believe it is Punjabi arrogance and ignorance that wants Khalistan. We need Hazur Sahib and Patna Sahib... this punjab-centric idea of a Sikh state is completely ignorant of non-Punjabi Takht Sahibs. Also, I love the idea of making more Sikhs in India. Why keep Gurbani limited to Punjab? That too, the Punjab in India. What about Shri Nankana Sahib? Khalistan is not the way to go. I am against the creation of Pakistan, so Khalistan is just adding salt to the wound.

As for the farmer's rights, this is not only a Punjab issue. This is an issue with our current form of capitalism as a whole. Farmers of all castes, religions and creeds are at threat in the contemporary economic system. Please look into Dr. Vandana Shiva and Monsanto. The revelations of UK's involvement in 1984 Saka will also become more relevant as you understand Dr. Shiva's work on the Green Revolution. The reason the govt attacked Harimandir Sahib is because the Sikhs would have went against corporatism and the capitalist system. The notion of Khalistan was exalted as the primary objective of Sikhs in the 80s because they do not want Sikhs to start fighting across India against corporations like Coca Cola and Monsanto. If we Sikhs do not fight for the liberation of India, then who will? The govt has already taken away the weapons of Rajputs and domesticated a large number of them. The Sikhs are left and it is imperative we grasp a deep understanding of capitalism and corporatism and fight to free all of India and establish an indigenous-knowledge based education system.

The RSS, the Arya Samaj and the notions of Khalistan are all ideas imported into India to establish a neoliberal capitalist regime.

Satnaam.

The 'Bhai Sahib' of Basics of Sikhi has a too ambitious, unrealistic and a foolish idea. You think converting hundreds of millions of people to Sikhi is easy? You can't even take care of the Punjabi Sikhs, the few million Sikligar Satnami Sikhs or Sindhi Nanakpanthis and your talking about converting complete non Sikhs?

Besides what a flawed logic (which too many Sikhs carry), "become Khalse, Khalsa Raj will follow". Jinnah who got Pakistan made was a pork eating, wine drinking womaniser. He was as much a Muslim as you are, YET he got a country for his people. People who ask every Khalistani to take amrit first etc are just being ignorant and following what some short sighted Sant said. 'You have to do tapasya first, you will get seva yourself'. And what else haven't I heard? If you want to do seva of your nation you can do it, whether your mona or amrithdari. The founding father of Zionism, Theodor Herzl couldn't even speak Hebrew.

Second point, I see where you are coming from but you fail to realise that Punjab is historically important to us. We had Gurdwaras who were as holy as the Takhts in Saudi Arabia (can't share proofs here, the places are kept gupt to avoid problems), so we should first strive to make Saudis follow Sikhi? First have your country, a power behind your people and then you can convert the rest of India or the world easily. We have no one to speak up for us whatever issue it might be, 84 genocide, turban issue or USA shootings, once you have a country you get recognition.

Do you know Guru Gobind Singh asked his Singhs to seize area around Anandpur Sahib? Why not Patna? Why were all towns established by Gurus in Punjab region and not outside? Yes, convert all world to Sikhi but Punjab is our religio-political nucleus. Besides that achieving Khalistan sounds more probably than converting 1 billion people to Sikhi. Islam tried hard for 800 years yet could not even convert half of the Indian sub continent.

Basics of Sikhi is doing a good job but was not wise for him to go against Sarbat Khalsa decision of Khalistan, besides his usual senseless talk about Bhagats being Hindus or Muslims.

[SikhKhoj]

By saying the Gurus established towns in Punjab alone I don't meanto say Sikhi is limited to Punjabis. In fact our Panj Pyare being from diverse backgrounds show how diversified we were. The Raja who came to Guru Gobind Singh with elephants as gifts was a Bengali, Guru Tegh Bahadur was visiting Sangats in east India established by earlier Gurus. There were Manjis in Kashmir. But, today due to our ignorance we have lost all of that, we have lost the Nanakpanthis due to our rigid, narrow minded approach to Sikhi.

Allowing conversion to Sikhi in Sahejdhari form should be a good weapon.

However, I would not want Khalsa Raj to consist of Sikhs going around and beating up people who break Rehit Maryada and Pakhandis. This only makes us look evil and makes us a tyrant instead of a defender. I see videos on youtube of Sikhs going around and beating up people who are sometimes older than them as if being a Sikh gives you the right to hit an elder person, its disgusting. We look like a Sikh version of the Taliban in those videos. And for me, Being a Sikh does not mean I cannot be proud or aware of my ethnic tribal identity. I know people will throw in quotes and say "Once you take Amrit you are no longer a Jatt, Tharkhan, or Rajput etc".

Perfect, my brother.

Edited March 1, 2014 by SikhKhoj

[GtLoc]

We had Gurdwaras who were as holy as the Takhts in Saudi Arabia (can't share proofs here, the places are kept gupt to avoid problems)

ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂ may I be blessed with the darshan some time.

They keep guru jis chola in mecca. And with it, they walk the world.

We keep guru jis shastaar, and we should let the roar of our pirs be heard everywhere. The roar of the aad shakti.

While many translate Singh as lion, it is also translated as tiger. The tiger, that the aad shakti rides upon.

Also, mr. Singh if your neo sikhd are right and the institutions established by dasmesh pita ji wrong; then how are you guys sikhs?

If maharaja ranjit singh revered dasam granth, then how is it you anti dasam pita ji people who put the sikh in sikh empire.

Some food for thought, bro.

Gurbar Akal, ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂ ਜੀ ਕਾ ਖਾਲਸਾ ਵਾਹਿਗੁਰੂ ਜੀ ਕੀ ਫਤਹਿ | |

[mrsingh]

[mrsingh]

Also, mr. Singh if your neo sikh are right

I support puratan Sikhs not neo Sikhs! I see inspiration primarily from 1699 rather than 1978 or elsewhere! I do respect N30Singh Paji as a good brother!

and the institutions established by dasmesh pita ji wrong;

Who said anything about Dhan Dhan Guru Gobind Singh Ji Maharaj being wrong? I believe Dashmesh Pithah (nirvair Maharaj) were 100% right!

Or are you referring to those that emphasise Dusht Daman at the expense of Maharaj?

Or perhaps those that emphasise Sri Hemkhunt Sahib at the expense of Sri Anandpur Sahib?

Or perhaps those like you and Sher both that believe that Guru Sahib was descended from King Ram ...

then how are you guys sikhs?

I'm not a good example of a Sikh for sure ... but are you any better agreeing 100% with Sher regarding Bachittar Nataak and Triya Charitar?

If maharaja ranjit singh revered dasam granth,

All Sikhs revere authentic Dasam Bani. It's Sher and yourself who both revere what the Hindu Mahants thrown out of Gurdwara's in the 1920's also loved.

then how is it you anti dasam pita ji people who put the sikh in sikh empire.

I don't believe in empires and i despise the concept of hereditary royalty (and I believe it to be a central factor to the collapse of Khalsa Raj).

The only Sikhs against Dasam Pita are those who refuse to abide by the Gurmat Maharaj taught the Panth such as kul nash (rejection of tribal identity).

Some food for thought, bro.

Until you retract your statements regarding innocent people ... i don't really consider you a brother ... and that's rarity for me to think of anyone with a Dastar that way.

However, i'm happy to politely discuss with you how we both can become brothers to fight for the advancement of Sikhi in this new age where books can pay greater dividends (for our Qaum and others) towards Sarbat Da Bhala than bullets.

[chatanga1]

Chatanga not dismissing my well-presented argument with a one-liner, wow! that's a first in itself.

What the Congress Party had promised to Sikhs BTW? Who was Congress or Nehru or Gandhi to promise anything on behalf of the nation to any community?

I know but to be honest, it's hard to write more than a one-liner to you, when even the word "bullshit" would suffice in answer.

well-presented? I'm genuinely laughing.

The Congress Party whether they had all the votes of the Hindus or not, were the political voice of the Hindus, same as the Akalis not having the votes of all the Sikhs, but still representing the Sikh voice. You know this.

I wonder why they did not think every Sikh would be given a Merc and a mansion after Partition. what made such lowlifes stop at this discriminatory and communal resolution i wonder. Till date, you have not forgiven Punjabi Hindus for the communal (even though did not ask for anything to promote Hinduism) campaign launched by newspapers owned by Arya Samaji Hindus but you want everyone to believe that the demand to make Sikhi the state religion of Punjab or state funds to be spent on the propagation of Khalsa sect was something every secular Indian would have lapped up? what a load of BS!

no Sikh wanted material goods, we wanted to secure the same rights, that we could have enjoyed in a country of our own. That's not too much to ask for though is it?

Oh! Before partition they were not "pitiful minority", they were not scared of their 'natural enemy' community (Muslims). their muslim neighbours see them off with bunch of flowers as they were going to live not with a sister community but people who had always harmed them. Chatanga, your hypocrisy knows no limits.

Till date you are waiting for those disastrous consequences? Till date Punjab is the most prosperous state in India? Till date Sikhs are OVER-REPRESENTED in almost every sphere of life? Till date Sikhs have not been denied any position because of their faith (President, PM, army chief...)?

Our natural enemy is not one particular religion. It's yours as well. you dont knwo the meaning of the word hypocrisy.

Again, you are thinking that just because a man works hard and has material assets, he can be happy but until he has freedom and rights, its not true. Remember the Sikh gave up his own country to be part of yours. So, if a Sikh by his hard work becomes CM, General etc, its no more than what he could have acheived in his own country.

Yes, and non-Sikh Punjabis came back from long vacations in Swiss Alps. They did not lose anything, they did not watch their houses being burnt, women being raped, children being killed...no Sir, just Sikhs suffered in the Partition and all due to Punjabi Hindus' treachery, bloodlust, communal outlook.

Stop being a drama queen. we all know that the hindus suffered just as much. That was not the point, the point was that the Sikhs had witnessed such a great loss, to be denied what was our right, and sought to put it into concrete words, which was the ASR. no more than what we could have had in our own country.

Which "quota" you are talking about? Give verifiable evidence before making such idiotic claims.

Yes, I have problems with those bigoted Sikhs who on one hand claim discrimination and on the other hand justify 20% army numbers from their community. what other communities (esp Muslims) have done to not get a job in the Army? why they are being discriminated against? why you want them to be deprived of a secure 'pensionable' job? Merit!! what racist non-sense is that? Before 1857 Sikhs did not have "merit"? which community in India do you think does not have the "merit" to be recruited in the armed forces?

the quota that the congress party tried to introduce that the army must represent its provinces proportionately. No-one should get in the army just because they are a Sikh or not. It should be about merit and merit only. Just because more Sikhs joined than their proporttion, you suggest that we are over-stepping our mark as guests in your country. Like we should be grateful or something.

Excuse me!!! Can you point out one single similar resolution by any other community in India? You are mocking the secularism as practiced in india (esp by HIndus) where minorities get preferential treatment. Do me a favour, as a comparison, find just one country in the world (democracy, dictatorship, theocracy...whatever) where someone from a microscopic minority has been elevated to the highest posts (President, PM, Home Minister, Speaker of the Parliament and Army Chief). we should be comparing India with other countries in the region. ask any Indian Sikh if he would like to live in ANY of the south Asian countries (Pakistan, bangladesh Sri lanka, Afghanistan, Burma, Nepal). Think before you write and before making such disgusting comments. I am not saying Indian democracy is perfect or Sikhs have never been discriminated against but then which community has not faced discrimination, bloodbath in India?

No, and i dont need to point any single resolution out, because other communities as far as I know ( i could be wrong), were not promised the glow of freedom, and a state within a state, in India.

What is disgusting, is that you resent us, for wanting to live like you do.

And that is particularly why the ASR was, and still is in need of being implemented.

that's other massive bigoted Sikh leadership's hypocrisy.

On one hand they bleat about ik manas ki jaat... Sikhi being caste free and on the other they declare a large section of their community to be "low-caste"! That's the other privilege Sikhs were given by Nehru which should be withdrawn as Sikhi is an egalitarian faith. If Akali Dal was serious about the rights of the second largest caste group in sikhs, we would have seen some low-castes elevated to the position of Akal Takht Jathedar, Punjab CM, Akali Dal president, SGPC President, etc Let me count on my small fingers how many LCSs have become ATJ, CM, AD or SGPC Prez... the answer is ZERO!!

Jatt vs non Jatt Sikh... Ravidassiya religion is real my friend. the campaign to declare ravidassiya faith in the census was also real. when the backlash comes...

That was necessary, to have the low castes Sikhs recognised as such, because they would have had all the support they needed in Khalistan, if we had got it in 1947, but as we foolishly ended up in India, we had to have the same safeguards for their future as well. That's not hard to understand is it?

As for the Ravidassiyas, I have no issue with them, they are welcome to start their own religion, if they wish. I wish them all the best.

And you clearly dont know the castes of some of the SGPC leaders, or of the Akalis.

[GtLoc]

Bro, you're hopeless. And bhudda dal are hindus now?

Look up panch khalsa diwan, w.e

None of the militant outfits thought like you, so w.e

Kul nash doesn't mean what you think it does..

Have a creeping suspicion you are part of that 15-40%..

So peace.

[GtLoc]

Sher every sarpanch in doaba is a chamar..

[JungChamkaur]

In defence of Doaba.. the Chamars are only Sarpanch in name. Most pinds are still controlled by old Sarpanchs. They just put a Chamar up for show only.