Sherni-E-Punjab Posted March 24, 2004 Report Share Posted March 24, 2004 I am appalled the fact no one posted anything on Shaheed Bhagat Singh, perhaps one of the most noteworthy contributors to modern inspiration. Bhagat Singh should be held in high regard for his possesion of high qualities of courage, honor, leadership, patriotism, scholarship, and service, which are necessary for one to not only be a good citizen in a civilized society but also these high qualities are necessary to the preservation and protection of the fundamental institutions of our government and the advancement of society. Its important to realize even today, those who have fought for it , freedom has a taste the protected will never know and March 23 should be day where each and everyone of us reflects about what this Saheed-E-Azam did for his motherland, and what he gained from doing it. On a more serious note, I am proud of men and women who serve their countries and fight for the freedom of others. Individuals like Shaheed Bhagat Singh continue to provide hope to those who are willing to sacrafice their lives for the betterment of society. Once in awhile, please take the time out of your daily life to thank those who protect you. :cry: :cry: :cry: Being a patriotic American, I'd like to personally thank the vetrans of foreign wars, troops that are currently stationed overseas, and the army personnel that serve us right here at home. -- ----------------------------------- If you are further interested in what Shaheed Bhagat Singh did for his country and its independence, please visit : http://www.boloji.com/people/04002.htm Wow..It seems so unreal that individuals young as 17/18 years in age put their life on stake for OTHERS. .. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khalistani Singh Posted March 24, 2004 Report Share Posted March 24, 2004 Most punjabis love to claim that we were such great freedom fighters etc. I did too, especially after I saw Shaheed Udham Singh. Then watching Shaheed Bhagat Singh. I perferred Shaheed Udham Singh because it was more punjabi desi ya know lol..anyways its funn how we claim Bhagat Singh be "Sikh." Udham Singh, yeah he practiced Sikhi and did paht even though he became sehajdhari since he had to do undercover things and so on. But I really don't get that whole sort, cause he was operating in India, and you can definitely tell whose WHITE and whose INDIAN. And same thing in England, there were Singhs there at that time, and I'm sure that the British guy portrayed in the movie knew he was hiring a Sikh, let alone an Indian. So hmm yeah, anyways yeah Udham Singh was still practicing Sikhi though, so hes off the hook. Shaheed Bhagat Singh's mother was half hindu marathi. It is written that she was and I know this cause all the marathis I know always knew Bhagat Singh cause of this. Still not a good arguement correct? In his writings later on, Bhagat Singh claimed he was an athiest, and since when is a Sikh defined an athiest? (Even though, I sorta believe I'm an athiest Sikh since at times I do not believe in a God that controls us and etc, but I do live on the teachings of the Gurus, and in the SGGS it states the lord is within ourselves, so hence therefore I cannot be defined as an athiest...lol) However, Shaheed Bhagat Singh strictly stated that he was an athiest and didn't acknowledge the love for Sikhi. These men fought for the independence of India, not for the empowerment of Sikhi. Back then we all use to be united, muslims, sikhs, hindus fighting for the same goals. If we want to praise Udham Singh, just cause he's Singh, praise all the others that died for India. There are so many hindus that carry the last name Singh as well. But this isnt like a "Sikh" related celebration. It's a celebration for India, aka HINDIA, aka HINDUSTAN. Note, I'm not hating on these men, I'm just showing how I use to think, like most of you. Till a fellow friend showed me the story of Bhagat Singh. Anyways, whether we want to celebrate the Independence of India or not is our personal choice. I sure as hell know I would not, especially what occured after 1984. Bhul Chuk Maaf Karni, Gurjote Singh READ THE FOLLOWING for more perspectives: http://forums.waheguroo.com/index.php?act=ST&f=2&t=3724 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherni-E-Punjab Posted March 25, 2004 Author Report Share Posted March 25, 2004 Being a sikh or an hiindu is irrelvant to this topic as I did not praise Bhagat Singh for his honarable work for religion. Not everyone choses to put religion as their first priority, but instead some choose to put national pride - that might perhaps be the case for Shaheed Bhagat Singh. Personally, I'd die or give up my life for my country, and not think about religion twice. Anyhow, I did not praise Shaheed Bhagat Singh because he was sikh, but I hold him in respect because along with many others he sets a fine example of an ideal citizen. In most socities, people with such qualities are hard to find and thats usually the cause of the downfall. Shaheed Bhagat Singh did not only give his life for Hindus, but for all mankind and I am sure Sikhs would have been proud to be Indians if all of this '1984' instance had not happened in history. Please do leave religion out of some topics. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 25, 2004 Report Share Posted March 25, 2004 Bhagat Singh was great person who is great example of martyr in modern time. I salute to this great Indian. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherni-E-Punjab Posted March 25, 2004 Author Report Share Posted March 25, 2004 Me tooooooooooooooooooooooooooo with so much respect... Edeh de ghar ghar jamman innit! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspiration Posted March 25, 2004 Report Share Posted March 25, 2004 I am a Fan of this Legend and I give him a status of FATHER OF THE NATION. We need people like him in todays time also. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khalistani Singh Posted March 25, 2004 Report Share Posted March 25, 2004 Well sorry to break it to you, 1984 did occur and I can care less about the freedom fighters of Hindustan, and Rupy if this is the case why don't you praise Raj Guru and Sukhdev, seems like your just praising Bhagat Singh just because he's a "Punjabi" or "Sikh." Times have changed, therefore my opinions on India's indenpendence have changed. Especially since 80% of Sikhs took their lives for India's independence yet we got nothing in return. Remember those 80% who died, would they have expected India to treat us like they did? I don't think so. They died for a cause, for a DEMOCRACY, not for an attack in 1984. And if you are so patriotic of about being American, then why didn't you post anything for 9/11 or the anniversary about Iraq War? I use to be one of those hyped people, all proud about being American, etc etc, ready to die for stupid things. It's funny, cause after wars politicans shake hands, and all those who die are not even honored. I don't see Bush personally going on the battle field, or any of the rich. It's all 18-19 yr olds who need money for college that enlist in the military. It's the same case, the richer gets richer, the poorer gets poorer. And Bush could've prevented this war, war shall be the last option, as Guru Gobind Singh Ji once said, not the first...and if you are gonna be so patriotic about America, and not admit that Bush was so wrong, you are driving your ego. Sikhi, has given me a greater perspective, the whole point of being Khalsa is to look at world from a universal view. Otherwise, I'd still be always justifying how America is always right, etc etc. Kinda off topic, but yeah. Chardi Kala, Gurjote Singh 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyDudesWassup Posted March 25, 2004 Report Share Posted March 25, 2004 Bhagat Singh since indeed began to follow the sikh way of life after his meeting with Bhai Randhir Singh Ji. There is a picture of him in Bhai Randhir singh's autobiogrpahy which shows he had grown his hair out. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khalistani Singh Posted March 25, 2004 Report Share Posted March 25, 2004 http://allaboutsikhs.com/martyrs/martyrbhagat4.htm http://allaboutsikhs.com/martyrs/martyrbhagat7.htm :sikhigrin: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beast Posted March 25, 2004 Report Share Posted March 25, 2004 i didn't hear anything like that in the films. He was portrayed as an athiest in the Ajay Devgun film and the (awful) Bobby Deol version. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherni-E-Punjab Posted March 26, 2004 Author Report Share Posted March 26, 2004 "Well sorry to break it to you, 1984 did occur and I can care less about the freedom fighters of Hindustan, and Rupy if this is the case why don't you praise Raj Guru and Sukhdev, seems like your just praising Bhagat Singh just because he's a "Punjabi" or "Sikh." How can you assume things? Just because I didn't specifically mention them doesn't mean I don't hold them at the same scale. Its just that Bhagat Singh inspires me most , and thats why I directly appreciated his work and never did I say that Raj Guru and Sukhdev were not important. " Infact I specifically mentioned, " On a more serious note, I am proud of men and women who serve their countries and fight for the freedom of others. " "Times have changed, therefore my opinions on India's indenpendence have changed. Especially since 80% of Sikhs took their lives for India's independence yet we got nothing in return. Remember those 80% who died, would they have expected India to treat us like they did? I don't think so. They died for a cause, for a DEMOCRACY, not for an attack in 1984. " Again, you stated earlier "How funny that people consider Bhagat Singh a sikh", well those "80%" were not all sikhs, that I know for a fact- cause never have 80% of Punjab's population followed the 'rehat' . So, how do you justify your fact? And If you have something against "Hindustan", or hindus for that fact, trust me they helped numbers of Sikhs in '84 as well, as portrayed in Hawayein. You can't generalize all in "one." Its game of life, people didn't give their lives in the Vietnam War, so that only Bush could be held responsible for the over 500 deaths decades later. In addition, soldiers of the U.S. in the past have not fought for "limited freedom" (as experienced with the Patriot Act). This is just one of those ways how things work - you lose some, you gain some. And also, many 'Sikhs' (Gursikhs to be exact) believe that even Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindrawale were wrong...and those are the same sikhs that actually lived through the 1984. "And if you are so patriotic of about being American, then why didn't you post anything for 9/11 or the anniversary about Iraq War? I use to be one of those hyped people, all proud about being American, etc etc, ready to die for stupid things. It's funny, cause after wars politicans shake hands, and all those who die are not even honored." How do you know what I have done to repersent my country or what kind of service I have been involved in? I posted something about Shaheed Bhagat Singh as the majority in my town do not even know of him, you appreciate, you remember someone with the "majority" they served. It wouldn't look right, If I publicly remembered those who died on September 11 in Uzbekistan or something, would it now? Its the same, I posted a spiff about him here as most of us know who he is, what he did, and why he should be appreciated and honored. For both September 11 and the day that marked the year since's Iraq's conflict, I did something here in town along with many others who shared the same feeling. Trust me, I ain't one of those pimped up Proud to be Americans, without a reason,...America is my life. Perhaps, you haven't met a true patriotic and what it means to some to even say the pledge of allegiance to the US. If this is the case, I suggest you read here : [ I will post the link as soon as I find it again, I've posted it on this site before in a topic related to the armed forces] "I don't see Bush personally going on the battle field, or any of the rich. It's all 18-19 yr olds who need money for college that enlist in the military. It's the same case, the richer gets richer, the poorer gets poorer. " Please don't talk without the actual facts. No everyone in the army is not 18-19 yrs olds, as only a very few fraction that enlist in the military to receive a free education, Infact, I'd say if not all every soldier currently carries, honor, and pride in being an American and that they do not serve this country for "selfish" purposes. Do you even realize what it takes (courage, willingless, and etc) to be in the Army? Trust me, its not an easy thing. We here in America - take freedom and other things for granted and do not even realize what they actually mean . Its true that you don't realize the value of something until you have actually had to live without it. So, be happy, if not proud, to live in America. No its not true "rich get richer" and "poor get poorer" , please read stories about those who have actually lived/living the "American Dream." If not, I don't mean to sound selfish, but I will tell you the story of my own dad for such purposes....When he came to America via ship, he did not have a single penny (and yes, I actually do mean a single penny) ....and today this is what he has to say , " That one of the biggest challenges I face today is that how will I teach my grandchildren and moreover my own children, the value of a dollar, if they right know it that they will not have to live a single day without it." To emphasize the point that 17-18 year olds aren't the only ones serving in the army, no general of the army, major, 1st Lt. , SMA, captain, Brigadier General, Colonel, Major General, LTG, GEN are 17/18 year olds. Whether you believe in this or not, Bush , too, gave service to America once upon a time. [http://www.motherjones.com/news/outfront/2003/01/ma_217_01.html]...and a president is suppose to be a chief-in-commander and not the guy on the field, it is one of those duties that come along with being a president. "And Bush could've prevented this war, war shall be the last option, as Guru Gobind Singh Ji once said, not the first...and if you are gonna be so patriotic about America, and not admit that Bush was so wrong, you are driving your ego. " Just because George W. Bush is the president right now, this doesn't obligate every citizen, resident of the United States to obey him. Be thankful you live in a democracy and not a dictatorship - or even that fact in a communist country. Personally, there are few points that I agree in regards to the Operation Iraqi Freedom and on the same hand there are points that I totally disagree with. However, being an American, my basic rights are outlined in the Bill of Rights , thus I have the right to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. "Sikhi, has given me a greater perspective, the whole point of being Khalsa is to look at world from a universal view. Otherwise, I'd still be always justifying how America is always right, etc etc. " This is your own personal opinion. But I want you to realize that be glad again you live in the US as you are allowed to have the following right : "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;" "http://allaboutsikhs.com/martyrs/martyrbhagat4.htm http://allaboutsikhs.com/martyrs/martyrbhagat7.htm" Please as I said before, it does not matter if Shaheed Bhagat Singh was an atheist or even for me it doesn't matter if he followed Islam, he still deserves the same respect. National Pride does not come with religion, are you going to generalize that I believe in Christianity as I am proud to be an American, where Christianity is the majority? Respect to Shaheed Bhagat Singh and others who gave their lives for the betterment of others as always. I apologize if I have said anything wrong or have offended you in any way - or anyone else reading this. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khalistani Singh Posted March 26, 2004 Report Share Posted March 26, 2004 Well Panji you have your own view and I have my own view. I'm not trying to CHANGE anyways view, was just telling the truth. Nor am I gonna try to justify myself. 1) "How can you assume things? Just because I didn't specifically mention them doesn't mean I don't hold them at the same scale. Its just that Bhagat Singh inspires me most , and thats why I directly appreciated his work and never did I say that Raj Guru and Sukhdev were not important. " Infact I specifically mentioned, " On a more serious note, I am proud of men and women who serve their countries and fight for the freedom of others." AGREED. 2) "Again, you stated earlier "How funny that people consider Bhagat Singh a sikh", well those "80%" were not all sikhs, that I know for a fact- cause never have 80% of Punjab's population followed the 'rehat' . So, how do you justify your fact? And If you have something against "Hindustan", or hindus for that fact, trust me they helped numbers of Sikhs in '84 as well, as portrayed in Hawayein. You can't generalize all in "one." Its game of life, people didn't give their lives in the Vietnam War, so that only Bush could be held responsible for the over 500 deaths decades later. In addition, soldiers of the U.S. in the past have not fought for "limited freedom" (as experienced with the Patriot Act). This is just one of those ways how things work - you lose some, you gain some. And also, many 'Sikhs' (Gursikhs to be exact) believe that even Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindrawale were wrong...and those are the same sikhs that actually lived through the 1984." Bhagat Singh wasn't a SIKH cause he didn't even LOVE SIKHI, and didn't even believe in GOD, one of the basic principles, he didn't even try to learn. Who said one has to follow the rehat 100% to be a SIKH? I know that many of those believed in the SGGS, most people who CONSIDER THEMSELVES DO, and there last words fighting in battle would have been along the lines BOLAY SO NI HAL...Do I have something against Hinudstan? YES I DO, there was no justification in the 1984 attack? If you wanted to kill Bhindrawale go ahead, but don't attack gurudwaras all over India, and rape our women, and torture our fathers. And what did Hindustan do? Just sit and watched, police didn't do a thing. Is there a justification to that? Have you read the quotes of the Indian politicans at that time? I think any true Sikh would not appreciate what Hinudstan did in 1984. DO I HATE HINDUS? No I dont, I have friends who are hindus and muslims. Do I hate the INDIAN GOVERNMENT? Nope, but do I think what they did was right? NOPE, what our gurus like it, if we just sat here and didn't do anything for those that were tortured, raped, beaten, and still lay in jail cells? I oppose war only when its needed, this Iraq war was not needed at all. We went after Saddam since he had "nuclear weapons and so called relations with Al-Qaeda." Have we found any of those things to be true? NO. Then what did the Bush Adminstration justify as for going to war? "OH SADDAM WAS A BAD GUY." Do you know whats going to be the consequences, we are only going to spring up more terrorists in Iraq, they don't like our occupation there, young kids are full of hate when American Soldiers run into villages and search with a force for any "bad" people. If you have watched the New York Times/Discovery Channel or History Channel, and the documentaries on the Iraq War, you will see the fear on this children faces. Yes, we could have collectively gone to war with the support of other countries and the United Nations. Why haven't we gone after South Korea, the have openly admitted to having WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, why don't we go after them? QUITE PUZZLES ME. BUSH wanted revenge, Saddam never gave a threat to the United States, he wanted to finish what his father started and get the OIL. There are so many other "CRUEL" Dictators, and other countries like South Korea that have WMDs, yet we don't even mention them. And about Sant Bhindranwale, did I mention him once? I know he may too have been a puppet of the Indian Government, its all politics and corrupt, I never said once I was a believer in Bhindranwale. NO MATTER WHAT, everything that occured, for all those innocent people that were killed and tortured in the pinds, city, and etc, for those who I am fighting for, not for Bhindranwale. I'm sure if you saw your Dad being killed, or mother being raped, you wouln't be justifying 84 and would have more disgust towards the Indian Gov. HINDUS, MUSLIMS, are all good. THERE IS BAD AND GOOD IN EVERY RELIGION, I have disgust towards the Indian Gov. Do you know in 1998, when President Clinton visted India, in the village of Chittisinghpoora near Kashmir, the Indian Gov assassinated 35 Sikhs, trying to steer Sikh anger towards Muslims? This is the chaal and corruption of the Indian Gov. Have I spoke against Bhagat Singh? No. Have I informed many what his beliefs were? YES. Do I hate Bhagat Singh? No. Do I think he was a great freedom fighter? Of course. 3) "Perhaps, you haven't met a true patriotic and what it means to some to even say the pledge of allegiance to the US. If this is the case, I suggest you read here : [ I will post the link as soon as I find it again, I've posted it on this site before in a topic related to the armed forces]" I have pride for being an American, just cause I dont like the Bush Adminstration's theory, doesn't mean I don't appreciate what America has given to me and my family. Met a true patriotic American? Have you seen the reactions of veterans? They don't want war, have you watched CNN or MSNBC? reacations of parents whose sons have died? Do I support our TROOPS? HELL YES, cause thats what there job is. They have to follow orders, I also love the American troops and don't think that they had to fight this war. 4) "Infact, I'd say if not all every soldier currently carries, honor, and pride in being an American and that they do not serve this country for "selfish" purposes. Do you even realize what it takes (courage, willingless, and etc) to be in the Army? Trust me, its not an easy thing. We here in America - take freedom and other things for granted and do not even realize what they actually mean." I know that every soldier carries honor and pride and to serve this country? I have not spoken against the troops one bit. Do we take freedom for granted? No we don't. Right now America needs to stop their international support in every part of the world, unless where its unified. We should stop supporting Israel, and mind our own business. We always enforce our policies everywhere. After wars, we are going to expand our businesses into these countries, I'm sure Iraq and Afghanistan will be filled with American Coporations, money will come back to us. But if we really want to secure our freedom, stop butting into other peoples problems. Why did 9/11 happen? Intelligence failure, does this mean to secure our freedom we shall go to war everytime, and cause more terrorist to rise and spring back at us? No. Do you know that in Pakistan, the radical MMA party, and in Palestine are teaching radical islam to their young generations, in order to achieve world peace, we need to stop the root of these problems. If you kill Osama Bin Laden, I guarentee you, that won't be the end of this problem, but the start of an uprising. Example: Canada, minds its own business, peaceful country. 5) "Its true that you don't realize the value of something until you have actually had to live without it. So, be happy, if not proud, to live in America. No its not true "rich get richer" and "poor get poorer" , please read stories about those who have actually lived/living the "American Dream." If not, I don't mean to sound selfish, but I will tell you the story of my own dad for such purposes....When he came to America via ship, he did not have a single penny (and yes, I actually do mean a single penny) ....and today this is what he has to say , " That one of the biggest challenges I face today is that how will I teach my grandchildren and moreover my own children, the value of a dollar, if they right know it that they will not have to live a single day without it." To emphasize the point that 17-18 year olds aren't the only ones serving in the army, no general of the army, major, 1st Lt. , SMA, captain, Brigadier General, Colonel, Major General, LTG, GEN are 17/18 year olds. Whether you believe in this or not, Bush , too, gave service to America once upon a time. [http://www.motherjones.com/news/outfront/2003/01/ma_217_01.html]...and a president is suppose to be a chief-in-commander and not the guy on the field, it is one of those duties that come along with being a president." When the hell did I say I did not appreciate America? I'm father too came to America from England, and America has given everything to us. America's a great country, you work hard, you get great returns. I have no idea where your creating my hatred for America, and don't reckon how humbe I am to be an American. I was born in America, you think I hate this country? No, do I hate some of its policies, sure, and is that a bad thing to do? Nope, cause with more diversity and perspectivies you only make the country better. The beauty of America, is that we can speak out against anyone, and yet still love this country. Do you think all those that protest the war in American cities hate America? lol, they are trying to secure our troops and the well being of the American people. Just cause one does not agree with President's policies doesnt mean they dont appreciate the damn country. Repbulicans hated Clinton, should I say now that REPUBLICANS DONT LOVE AMERICA? THATS TOTALLY OUTRAGEOUS. 6). ""Sikhi, has given me a greater perspective, the whole point of being Khalsa is to look at world from a universal view. Otherwise, I'd still be always justifying how America is always right, etc etc. " This is your own personal opinion. But I want you to realize that be glad again you live in the US as you are allowed to have the following right : "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;" " That's not my personal opinon. When you take Amrit, I heard your suppose to drop your country, and everything, so you have love for the world. What the hell are you going about being glad to live in America? Can someone please show me where once I have spoke against the country? Maybe the government, but not the country. 7) "Please as I said before, it does not matter if Shaheed Bhagat Singh was an atheist or even for me it doesn't matter if he followed Islam, he still deserves the same respect. National Pride does not come with religion, are you going to generalize that I believe in Christianity as I am proud to be an American, where Christianity is the majority? Respect to Shaheed Bhagat Singh and others who gave their lives for the betterment of others as always. I apologize if I have said anything wrong or have offended you in any way - or anyone else reading this." I was just showing, what others may thought of him to be. When did I say natinal pride comes with religion? When did I say I wasn't proud to be an American citizen? I'm just trying to help out this nation for the well being, if you honestly care, you will respect others perspecitves and not just say there not proud to be an American. I love America, cause it gives everyone an equal opportunity, I was speaking out against the policies of the Bush Adminstartion. Thats why America has elections every 4 yrs, so if the people doesn't like the current government they can VOTE for another leadership to step in. I'm sure i'm not the only American who thinks this way, plenty of others do to, but rest assure that doesn't mean they don't LOVE AMERICA. I love it when I go to my pind in punjab, and I get the comment "Aay Munda American tou hayga"...lol CHARDI KALA, GURJOTE SINGH DHALIWAL 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lil_princess Posted March 27, 2004 Report Share Posted March 27, 2004 this is very offtopic... but have u ever played the game BHAGAT SINGH?! its awsome! they speak in hindi (and swear in hindi) and stuff! itz crazy!!!!!!!! yes the point of the game is shooting people.... kind of violent with teh blood and guns and punches..etc... but its a game! one 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drawrof Posted March 27, 2004 Report Share Posted March 27, 2004 gurfateh to everyone, a comment was made about shaheed bhagat singh's mother being half marati. That is false! His mother was a rai from mohrawallee and I can find out the native village and "got" for you. I can say my mother would know this better than most anyone else because shaheed bhagat singh's mother was her real nani. In terms of god, his mother told my nani (who was the sister of shaheed bhagat singh) that he used to go to gurdwara at sangrad, and give a ramalla...that was common. The arya samaaji link goes back to the freedom movement of that time. Arjun singh, the grandfather of bhagat singh did "promote" arya-samaji views...the way he lived his life though is questionable. Kishan singh though pushed the mainstream sikh views in that time. (ie. weddings according to the sikh anand karaj). I guess I agree with those who say that he was an indian freedom fighter as opposed to a sikh freedom fighter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherni-E-Punjab Posted March 28, 2004 Author Report Share Posted March 28, 2004 Hello all, I guess we'll start the commenting on the most recent posts. gurfateh to everyone, a comment was made about shaheed bhagat singh's mother being half marati. That is false! His mother was a rai from mohrawallee and I can find out the native village and "got" for you. I can say my mother would know this better than most anyone else because shaheed bhagat singh's mother was her real nani. Wow...it is nice to know, however, again I don't know where this religious “part†of it came from, but I was only justifying Bhagat Shaheed Singh's bravery/courage/leadership etc. as if he was an individual of the human race – just like anyone of us here. In terms of god, his mother told my nani (who was the sister of shaheed bhagat singh) that he used to go to gurdwara at sangrad, and give a ramalla...that was common. The arya samaaji link goes back to the freedom movement of that time. Arjun singh, the grandfather of bhagat singh did "promote" arya-samaji views...the way he lived his life though is questionable. Kishan singh though pushed the mainstream sikh views in that time. (ie. weddings according to the sikh anand karaj). Again, religion does not matter to me(and I guess most others who look upon Shaheed Bhagat Singh) as its totally irrelevant to his accomplishments and what he did for his nation and what he gained from doing it. I guess I agree with those who say that he was an indian freedom fighter as opposed to a sikh freedom Whether for Indian, Sikh, Islamic, Jewish freedom, he was and will be always the same great individual he was. Freedom fighting for national pride as got nothing to do with religion as in national pride people of all races, cultures, religions, backgrounds create “national pride networks.†Its important to realize he may have not taken Sikhi to a next stage, but he didn't badmouth or badname Sikhi, like most of those who 'claim' to be Sikhs today and yet give it such a bad image. To Gurjote, 1)"How can you assume things? Just because I didn't specifically mention them doesn't mean I don't hold them at the same scale. Its just that Bhagat Singh inspires me most , and thats why I directly appreciated his work and never did I say that Raj Guru and Sukhdev were not important. " Infact I specifically mentioned, " On a more serious note, I am proud of men and women who serve their countries and fight for the freedom of others." AGREED. Glad to hear, we are on the same page of the book here. Bhagat Singh wasn't a SIKH cause he didn't even LOVE SIKHI, and didn't even believe in GOD, one of the basic principles, he didn't even try to learn. Ok – I understand where you come from- but I don't know how you relate his accomplishments and what he did for his nation to his “birth religion.†Sure, he cut his hair, perhaps as I've mentioned before for some national pride is first – and he did it for all – not just one specific group. Back then, who knew 1984 was to occur? One does not have to love sikhi, or believe in god, or even show interest in religion, to do something great for mankind and leave an imprint in history forever. If Bhagat Singh is anyless of a great person to you cause of his faith beliefs, then it is up to you. Who said one has to follow the rehat 100% to be a SIKH? I know that many of those believed in the SGGS, most people who CONSIDER THEMSELVES DO, and there last words fighting in battle would have been along the lines BOLAY SO NI HAL.. Thats like me saying, who says a Sikh cannot smoke pot? The Rehat Maryada, is the key to a Sikh's conduct. If you do not “obey†the conduct, then how can you be considered a Sikh? You may be on your path towards Sikhi, however you are not a Sikh until you have fully mastered the guidelines set forth by Guru Gobind Singh Ji. Commitment comes along with being a Sikh, you got to give some to gain some. Do you even realize every drunk bastard, every pendu, every Shottu Mottu in Punjab who is born into Sikhi considers themselves Sikhs, even if they not even touched the SGGS once in their lives. They might declare that SGGSJ is the holy book which they live by, but it doesn't necessarily mean they know what concepts are covered in. All Jatts consider them self Sikhs, attend Gurudwara on Saturday, consider themselves Sikhs yet they haven't even abolished the foolish “caste system,†which is directly talked about in SGGSJ. I am not saying everyone is like this, but majority do not even have basic awareness about Sikhi and what it takes to be a Sikh. Every Tom Dick n' Harry can say “Boley So Nihal†, but does that make them a Sikh? o I have something against Hinudstan? YES I DO, there was no justification in the 1984 attack? If you wanted to kill Bhindrawale go ahead, but don't attack gurudwaras all over India, and rape our women, and torture our fathers. And what did Hindustan do? Just sit and watched, police didn't do a thing. Is there a justification to that? Have you read the quotes of the Indian politicans at that time? I think any true Sikh would not appreciate what Hinudstan did in 1984. The holocaust that took place in 1984 was not the result of the Indian Government but as well as the mentality of Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindrawale, who served as the main voice for the “Khalistan/Sikhi supporters.â€At the time of 1984, Indira Gandhi was much like in the same position as George W. Bush is right now, she was not favored by the majority and all wanted a change of rule. However, Indira Gandhi being who she was first supported Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindrawale and then turned her back. Bhindrawale should have been smart enough to not fall in her trap in the first place, and then he tried to overcome the Indian Government, there is no justification for Bhindrawale to have set armor/weapons in Darbar Sahib. It is not a weapon/battle ground, its a place of worship – no need of that stuff there. I understand the Indian Government may have not done or now even doing anything for the betterment of Punjab , but if Bhindrawale spent the money he spent on providing AK47s to teenagers investing in Education, perhaps the Sikhs would have had a voice in the Congress today, which today is deeply dominated by “hindus.†Some justify Bhindrawale's acts as being totally OK as his Gurus would have ordered him not to “sit back,†but did he ever think what would happen to “his sikhs†in the long run? What was Bhindrawale's, considered a Sikh by many, justfication for keeping armor in the Akal Takhat, when Guru Ji clearly stated that any fight or havoc should not originate in the boundaries of Amritsar? Bhindrawale's own mentality lead him to being used by the Indian Government as a scapegoat. The following passage justifies and explains what really happened and its something I agree with: “The point I am trying to make is that the whole crisis, of course, engulfed the entire Sikh community as it did, but was the result of either sheer political naivity, or a false sense of being all powerful while he was in fact being manipulated like a puppet just to destroy Sikh polity in Panjab. Three days before the Blue Star some highly educated friends of mine went to see Sant Bhindranwale in connection with the interference that was going on in Sikh academic institutions in Panjab at the later's behest. After the meeting they discussed the tense situation there. To the question as to what would happen if the army moved into the complex the answer was that instructions have gone out to every sikh that they should march on to Amritsar as soon as they hear about the attack (as if the army could not know this wonderful plan to oppose it), and my friends were told 'in confidence' that he was in contact with Pakistan and that Pakistan would recognise Khalistan as soon as attack takes place. Such naive thinking and the whole sikh community being held at stake cannot be pardoned. Whether he laid down his life or not his actions cannot be justified especially the way he hid inside the complex. He let himself to be used as a pawn in the internal congress tussle between Darbara Singh and Giani Zail Singh in which Darbara Singh had to go due solely to the role of Sant Bhindranwale. However, the gain of Giani Zail Singh meant the psychological and physical loss for the Sikhs worldwide. When people hail Bhindranwale they mainly do so to express their Jatlike tribal instinct where shedding blood means propitiating some hidden force which would automatically bring about the desired result. It does not always work. In this day and age, intelligence and objective analysis of the situation is far more important. Sadly, we not only lost Sant Bhindranwale who had that chrismatic personality which could have been much more useful to the Sikhs but we also lost a whole generation of youth and in the bargain receive this feeling of hurt which will stay with us for years to come. [source: Sikhnet] DO I HATE HINDUS? No I dont, I have friends who are hindus and muslims. Do I hate the INDIAN GOVERNMENT? Nope, but do I think what they did was right? NOPE, what our gurus like it, if we just sat here and didn't do anything for those that were tortured, raped, beaten, and still lay in jail cells? And about Sant Bhindranwale, did I mention him once? I know he may too have been a puppet of the Indian Government, its all politics and corrupt, I never said once I was a believer in Bhindranwale. NO MATTER WHAT, everything that occured, for all those innocent people that were killed and tortured in the pinds, city, and etc, for those who I am fighting for, not for Bhindranwale. I'm sure if you saw your Dad being killed, or mother being raped, you wouln't be justifying 84 and would have more disgust towards the Indian Gov Would are gurus like it, if they knew that his own jampal Sikhs were planting bombs in airplanes and taking innocent lives? Bhindrawale didn't realize that Indian Government was using him as a scapegoat? Just because of one man's fault, individuals were tortured,raped, beaten, and lay in jail cells- this is NOT the Indian Government ,but the mentality of our own Sikhs back then. Indian Government were so clever that they eluded Sikhs and made them fall in their traps. You have consequences for your wrong decisions, and the suffering back then and now is what Sikhs face. You may have not brought Sant Bhindrawale Ji in here, but for your information 1984 occurred because of him. I oppose war only when its needed, this Iraq war was not needed at all. We went after Saddam since he had "nuclear weapons and so called relations with Al-Qaeda." Have we found any of those things to be true? NO. Then what did the Bush Adminstration justify as for going to war? "OH SADDAM WAS A BAD GUY." Do you know whats going to be the consequences, we are only going to spring up more terrorists in Iraq, they don't like our occupation there, young kids are full of hate when American Soldiers run into villages and search with a force for any "bad" people. If you have watched the New York Times/Discovery Channel or History Channel, and the documentaries on the Iraq War, you will see the fear on this children faces. Yes, we could have collectively gone to war with the support of other countries and the United Nations. Why haven't we gone after South Korea, the have openly admitted to having WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, why don't we go after them? QUITE PUZZLES ME. BUSH wanted revenge, Saddam never gave a threat to the United States, he wanted to finish what his father started and get the OIL. There are so many other "CRUEL" Dictators, and other countries like South Korea that have WMDs, yet we don't even mention them. Please lets not start about who is right and who is wrong in regards to Operation Iraqi Freedom, if you wish to discuss this please do open a new thread and we can take it from there. However, for now, its important to understand that the world is a lot better off than Saddam Hussein...remember the media does not serve the opinion of each and every Iraqi. Moreover, one nation cannot be carrying out or liberating five nations at a time – first came Afghanistan, Next Iraq, and who knows who is on the next agenda? Do you know in 1998, when President Clinton visted India, in the village of Chittisinghpoora near Kashmir, the Indian Gov assassinated 35 Sikhs, trying to steer Sikh anger towards Muslims? This is the chaal and corruption of the Indian Gov. According to the Indian army and media reports, the Hezbul Mujahedeen was involved in the January 1998 killing of 23 Hindus in Wandhama and the March 2000 massacre of 35 Sikhs in Chattisinghpora as part of a plan to ethnically cleanse Kashmir of non-Muslims. The group has claimed responsibility for dozens of attacks against Indian security forces. [source: NYJournalNews] Have I spoke against Bhagat Singh? No. Have I informed many what his beliefs were? YES. Do I hate Bhagat Singh? No. Do I think he was a great freedom fighter? Of course. His beliefs are totally irrelevant to what he did - ..damn! If you can let me know how anything he did involved a bad-mouthing Sikhi or how any of his work should have regarded Sikhi, please let me know – then I will consider his beliefs in. In regards to the other tid-bit you mentioned: Why I assumed you didn't have American Pride? “? I use to be one of those hyped people, all proud about being American, etc etc, ready to die for stupid things†As far as I know 'use to be' is of past tense. Why I assumed you didn't appreciate what America gave you? “It's the same case, the richer gets richer, the poorer gets poorer. “ I am sure if you had appreciated what America gave you – you would have certainly appreciated (how your dad's life changed from instance to the next) and not made this comment once..because it is not TRUE! Have you seen the reactions of veterans? They don't want war, have you watched CNN or MSNBC? reacations of parents whose sons have died? A lot of my close friends are stationed overseas, some in Iraq and some in Afghanistan. Do I know of parents whose sons/daughters have died? Yes, and when someone enlists in the Armed Forces, they go right knowing in that survival isn't their first priority- surviving is not in their hands. I am sure if you ever talk to someone enlisted in the Armed Forces, they'd tell you - but here is spiff I had with a SSGT. Once... We were saying “good-bye†I go : Keep it safe – don't get shot This is what he said to me with full confidence : He goes when on the battlefield he thinks about his life last and plus he has no control of his life, anyhow. If that ain't bravery, tell me what it is? Sure, relatives suffer afterwards but they knew it right that it might perhaps come one day. Do I support our TROOPS? HELL YES, cause thats what there job is. They have to follow orders, I also love the American troops and don't think that they had to fight this war. The following comment isn't really supporting the troops, instead you make it sound like they are desperate and just want to get a free education: “It's all 18-19 yr olds who need money for college that enlist in the military. “ Do we take freedom for granted? No we don't. LOL, All I can do is laugh - , how can you say we don't take freedom for granted? Over half of the children/young adults or even me and you in America – have we thought about how it would be to live without Freedom? Its like every child that is born in America is given freedom at the time of birth- they don't need to worry about not having it. Its totally freedom for granted...when in schools when they say the pledge of allegiance – do you realize what small fraction of students actually get up/ put their hands on the heart/ and recite it? Do they even really care? No..Totally freedom for granted. Right now America needs to stop their international support in every part of the world, unless where its unified. We should stop supporting Israel, and mind our own business. I am not even going to say anything because the world is like “family†(Meaning we are dependent on each other and etc.) ...You possibly outright cannot ignore what is happening in another “nation.†You say Canada is a peaceful country, I'd hate to tell you this – Its thanks to America as we perform out all of their “worldly†related business. We always enforce our policies everywhere. Tell me in this world why are we “ruling†the world right now? Its to our policies ..and them working actually. Wouldn't you think if our policies have helped us in order to become a great nation we are, they couldn't help anyone else who is living under dictatorship or communism, or anything else non-democracy? After wars, we are going to expand our businesses into these countries, I'm sure Iraq and Afghanistan will be filled with American Coporations, money will come back to us. But if we really want to secure our freedom, stop butting into other peoples problems. No one is limiting American Corporations to be the only one in Afghanistan and Iraq. I think I've mentioned every point you raised - I might have missed one – as this is just a long response but do let me know or re-raise it If I have not commented. Again, I apologize if I have offended you or anyone else here. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khalistani Singh Posted March 28, 2004 Report Share Posted March 28, 2004 Well well buddy, here we go again, I thought we ended this discussion, but if you wanna keep going sure, I'll keep showing my opinions as well. Cause I sure as hell don't give up. But I'm wasting my time. Cuz I know you'll THINK the way you want, and I'll think the way I want. 1. "Thats like me saying, who says a Sikh cannot smoke pot? The Rehat Maryada, is the key to a Sikh's conduct. If you do not “obey†the conduct, then how can you be considered a Sikh? You may be on your path towards Sikhi, however you are not a Sikh until you have fully mastered the guidelines set forth by Guru Gobind Singh Ji. Commitment comes along with being a Sikh, you got to give some to gain some. Do you even realize every drunk bastard, every pendu, every Shottu Mottu in Punjab who is born into Sikhi considers themselves Sikhs, even if they not even touched the SGGS once in their lives. They might declare that SGGSJ is the holy book which they live by, but it doesn't necessarily mean they know what concepts are covered in. All Jatts consider them self Sikhs, attend Gurudwara on Saturday, consider themselves Sikhs yet they haven't even abolished the foolish “caste system,†which is directly talked about in SGGSJ. I am not saying everyone is like this, but majority do not even have basic awareness about Sikhi and what it takes to be a Sikh. Every Tom Dick n' Harry can say “Boley So Nihal†, but does that make them a Sikh?" THE REHAT MARAYDA IS MADE FOR THE KHALSA. SIKH IS A PERSON WHO IS A DISCIPLE, LEARNER, SEEKER OF THE TRUTH, STUDENT, one who learns throughout his life. SIKH meaning in punjab "SIKHNA"- TO LEARN. If you believe in the basic principles of the religion, respect the 11 gurus, and don't speak against Sikhi, i'd consider anyone a SIKH. You stated, "You may be on your path towards Sikhi, however you are not a Sikh until you have fully mastered the guidelines set forth by Guru Gobind Singh Ji."...GURU GOBIND SINGH JI NAY KHALSA PANTH NU ESTABLISH KITHAY PANJI, he molded the GREATEST LEVEL A SIKH CAN ACHIEVE, this is the sikh's goal in life, to follow or be like the khalsa. 2. "Do you even realize every drunk bastard, every pendu, every Shottu Mottu in Punjab who is born into Sikhi considers themselves Sikhs, even if they not even touched the SGGS once in their lives. " So what? WHO AM I TO SAY THERE NOT SIKH...GURUS taught us to love everyone. Am I not a better sikh than they are than me and vise versa. Translation of Gurbani, "IM NOT GOOD, NO ONES BAD." Are you saying pindu people are bad? are we not allowed to have pindus being part of our religion? Who says one has to touch the SGGS, you respect the guru's teachings, YOU BOW TO THE SGGS. 3. "All Jatts consider them self Sikhs, attend Gurudwara on Saturday, consider themselves Sikhs yet they haven't even abolished the foolish “caste system,†which is directly talked about in SGGSJ. I am not saying everyone is like this, but majority do not even have basic awareness about Sikhi and what it takes to be a Sikh. Every Tom Dick n' Harry can say “Boley So Nihal†, but does that make them a Sikh?"" Yes, but these jatts are still learning, should we simply get pissed at them. Everyone needs faith in life buddy. Mind you not only jatts keep the caste system going, plenty of other fools do. From our knowledge our parents enforce it, it'll be slowly detoriating...So what? These sikhs go to gurudwara to attain knowledge, we shouldn't CLOSE GURUDWARA DOORS on these sikhs, EVERYONE, ANYONE, is allowed to attend Guru's house. Your definition of Sikhi, is criticizing and trying to make a Sikh sound like some sort of thing you have to gain. WETHER BORN, CONVERTED, or whatever, if YOU LOVE THE DAMN RELIGION, and ARE PROUD TO CONSIDER YOURSELF A SIKH, AND PROUD TO SAY YOUR SIKH, then why in the hell's world would you not consider this person a SIKH? 4. "The holocaust that took place in 1984 was not the result of the Indian Government but as well as the mentality of Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindrawale, who served as the main voice for the “Khalistan/Sikhi supporters.â€At the time of 1984, Indira Gandhi was much like in the same position as George W. Bush is right now, she was not favored by the majority and all wanted a change of rule. However, Indira Gandhi being who she was first supported Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindrawale and then turned her back. Bhindrawale should have been smart enough to not fall in her trap in the first place, and then he tried to overcome the Indian Government, there is no justification for Bhindrawale to have set armor/weapons in Darbar Sahib. It is not a weapon/battle ground, its a place of worship – no need of that stuff there. I understand the Indian Government may have not done or now even doing anything for the betterment of Punjab , but if Bhindrawale spent the money he spent on providing AK47s to teenagers investing in Education, perhaps the Sikhs would have had a voice in the Congress today, which today is deeply dominated by “hindus.†Some justify Bhindrawale's acts as being totally OK as his Gurus would have ordered him not to “sit back,†but did he ever think what would happen to “his sikhs†in the long run? What was Bhindrawale's, considered a Sikh by many, justfication for keeping armor in the Akal Takhat, when Guru Ji clearly stated that any fight or havoc should not originate in the boundaries of Amritsar? Bhindrawale's own mentality lead him to being used by the Indian Government as a scapegoat. The following passage justifies and explains what really happened and its something I agree with: “The point I am trying to make is that the whole crisis, of course, engulfed the entire Sikh community as it did, but was the result of either sheer political naivity, or a false sense of being all powerful while he was in fact being manipulated like a puppet just to destroy Sikh polity in Panjab. Three days before the Blue Star some highly educated friends of mine went to see Sant Bhindranwale in connection with the interference that was going on in Sikh academic institutions in Panjab at the later's behest. After the meeting they discussed the tense situation there. To the question as to what would happen if the army moved into the complex the answer was that instructions have gone out to every sikh that they should march on to Amritsar as soon as they hear about the attack (as if the army could not know this wonderful plan to oppose it), and my friends were told 'in confidence' that he was in contact with Pakistan and that Pakistan would recognise Khalistan as soon as attack takes place. Such naive thinking and the whole sikh community being held at stake cannot be pardoned. Whether he laid down his life or not his actions cannot be justified especially the way he hid inside the complex. He let himself to be used as a pawn in the internal congress tussle between Darbara Singh and Giani Zail Singh in which Darbara Singh had to go due solely to the role of Sant Bhindranwale. However, the gain of Giani Zail Singh meant the psychological and physical loss for the Sikhs worldwide. When people hail Bhindranwale they mainly do so to express their Jatlike tribal instinct where shedding blood means propitiating some hidden force which would automatically bring about the desired result. It does not always work. In this day and age, intelligence and objective analysis of the situation is far more important. Sadly, we not only lost Sant Bhindranwale who had that chrismatic personality which could have been much more useful to the Sikhs but we also lost a whole generation of youth and in the bargain receive this feeling of hurt which will stay with us for years to come. [source: Sikhnet] " LOL WHOA BUDDY, you have no idea what your talking about. 1984 IS NOT ABOUT BHINDRANWALE. IF THEY HAD TO KILL HIM, then why attack 40 other gurudwaras? WHY KEEP KILLING SIKHS 7 yrs after 1984...PUNJABJUSTICE.org...You are being so shrewd here, look at the pics, WHY DID WOMEN NEED TO BE RAPED, why did quotes like "WE WILL TAKE SIKH WOMEN TO OUR ARMY CAMP AND BREED THE HINDU RELIGION." THIS WAS AN ATTACK ON THE HEART OF SIKHISM, not just on BHINDRANWALE. " To preserve the unity of India, if we have to eradicate 2-kror [ 20 millions ] Sikhs, we will do so. (Balram Jhakhar, a colleague of P.V. Narsimharao, the former Indian Prime Minister) " The Sikhs are a lawless people and a menace to the law abiding Hindus ... The [Government] should take strict measures against them." (Pandit Nehru, Indian Prime Minister, on Sikhs) "Kya main taqat dushman (the enemy -the Sikhs) ke haath main de dun (How can I entrust power into the hands of the enemies)." (Jawahar Lal Nehru, 1961) " I hate the very physique of a Sikh because of the turban and beard. " (Vallabh Bhai Patel, late Indian top politician) "I don't give a damn if the Golden Temple and whole of Amritsar are destroyed, I want Bhindranwale dead." (Indira Gandhi, Indian Prime Minister, communicating with Gen. Vaidya during "Operation Blue Star") "We have broken the back of the Sikhs and we will get them elsewhere." (M. M. K. Wali, Indian Foreign Secretary, June 7, 1984, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Radio 740, As It Happens) "Let us teach these bastards (the Sikhs) a lesson." (Rajiv Gandhi, October 31, 1984) "... a threat to the villagers that all males would be killed and their women taken to army camps to breed a new race if there was any militant activity in their village." (Brig. R. P. Sinha, Indian Army, March 8, 1991) "You do not know the might of our armed forces. We will eliminate 10,000 Sikh youths and the world will know nothing about it." (Chander Shekhar, former Prime Minister of India, CK, 21st October, 1991) Do these quotes seem to illustrate how INDIA only wanted to capture Bhindranwale? In regard to Bush, I don't seem him going around killing, raping, torturing innocent CIVILIANS. AGAIN I STATED, BHINDRANWALE OR NOT, IM NOT A WORSHIPPER OF THE SANT, nor HAVE I READ SCRIPTURES ON HIM, some say he was bad, some say he was evil. THIS IS IRRELEVANT, whats relevant is what happened to SIKHS COLLECTIVLY. 5. "Would are gurus like it, if they knew that his own jampal Sikhs were planting bombs in airplanes and taking innocent lives? Bhindrawale didn't realize that Indian Government was using him as a scapegoat? Just because of one man's fault, individuals were tortured,raped, beaten, and lay in jail cells- this is NOT the Indian Government ,but the mentality of our own Sikhs back then. Indian Government were so clever that they eluded Sikhs and made them fall in their traps. You have consequences for your wrong decisions, and the suffering back then and now is what Sikhs face. You may have not brought Sant Bhindrawale Ji in here, but for your information 1984 occurred because of him." OKAY, INDIAN GOV STATED THEY HAD TO KILL BHINDRANWALE, but WHY thousands of other sikhs? WHY 35 SIKHS IN THE VILLAGE OF CHITTISINGHPOORA In KASHMIR? HAVE YOU READ THE BOOK SOFT TARGET, written by a christian and a muslim. THEY SHOW HOW THE AIR INDIAN BOMBING WAS CREATED BY THE INDIAN GOVERNMENT. HAVE YOU WENT TO PUNJABJUSTICE.org or seen any pictures of this atrocities? TESTICLE ELECTRCUETIONS, HANGING MEN UPSIDE DOWN, PLEASE PLEASE, I HAVE A PICTURE WHERE THEY DRESSED A SIKH UP AS A WOMEN, and THEN KILLED HIM, is this justifyable? YOU TALK ABOUT BHINDRANWALE DUMB, CANT YOU SEE HOW THE INDIAN GOVERMENT IS MANIPULATING YOU. 6. "According to the Indian army and media reports, the Hezbul Mujahedeen was involved in the January 1998 killing of 23 Hindus in Wandhama and the March 2000 massacre of 35 Sikhs in Chattisinghpora as part of a plan to ethnically cleanse Kashmir of non-Muslims. The group has claimed responsibility for dozens of attacks against Indian security forces. [source: NYJournalNews]" SOURCE WHATEVER THE HELL YOU WANT, THE INDIAN GOVERNMENT IS SO CORRUPT IT HAS THE WORLD THINKING ITS THE LARGEST DEMOCRACY, when it kills dalits, tamils, chrisitans, and jews in India. 2 INDEPENDENT RESEARCHES SHOW THAT the massacre of sikhs in 1998 was cause OF INDIA. AND BESIDES INDIA HAS FOOLED THE WORLD SO MANY TIMES, think with LOGIC. AMERICAN MEDIA is diff from ARABIC MEDIA, and ENGLISH MEDIA, each media publishes whatever the bullshit they wanna feed to you. HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO TELL YOU. I HAVE NO BEEF WITH SHAHEED BHAGAT SINGH. I WAS JUST SHOWING HIS VIEWS on SIKHISM. JUST DISPLAYING THE TRUTH, since WHEN HAS TRUTH BECOME CRIME? ONE THING, DONT ASSUME, its people like you, that assume that a turban wearing person is part of AL QAEDA, never assume, research, get your facts straight, then argue. YOUR WHOLE ARGUEMENT AGAINST ME IS NONSENSE. 1. I NEVER ATTACKED BHAGAT SINGH's martyrdom for INDIA. 2. I NEVER SAID I WAS A FOLLOWER OF THE SANT. 3. I NEVER SAID I HATED AMERICA. WHAT HAVE YOU DONE? CREATED ARGUMENTS BASED ON SIMPLY ASSUMPTION. AND LISTEN, IM NOT GONNA ARGUE ABOUT THE WAR, cause I CERTAINTLY KNOW, 50% of AMERICA WAS AGAINST THE WAR AFTER THE TRUTH WAS REVEALED. IN YOUR RESPONSE, u never show the true points i made. FOR INSTANCE, AMERICA WENT TO WAR TO KILL SADDAM SINCE HE HAD TIES WITH "AL-QAEDA" and HAD WMDs. SIMPLY SADDAM WAS NEVER A THREAT TO THE US. THINK THINGS OVER FROM A BROADER PERSPECTIVE, be OPEN MINDED. WE WANT OIL! HELL THEN WHY DONT WE ATTACK SOUTH KOREA, WHO SAID HEY AMERICA WE HAVE WMDs and were gonna do whatever we want. RAJ KAREGA KHALSA, BOLAY SO NI HAL...SAT SRI AKAL! I HAVE JUST SPOKEN THE TRUTH, nothing else but the TRUTH. -GURJOTE SINGH :nihung: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LegendarySiKH Posted March 28, 2004 Report Share Posted March 28, 2004 Hey Rupy, why is that bhagat singh inspired you the most? Does it have anything to do with the fact he fought for the independence of India or he had sikh-roots? Because seriously, if you praise Bhagat Singhs efforts for causing a revolution....there were many that did it in a much better way, perhaps you should read more about them and what they did. Just by observing, I sense you have a feel for Bhagat Singh over others because either of his Sikh-roots or his fight for India. Yet, if you praise Bhagat Singh for India...many similar people fought for India are were by far better warriors and incited more revolutionaries to rise then Bhagat Singh ever did. You either feel for Bhagat Singh the most because you can relate to him, or you just happened to research him the most because of his religious-roots or cultural roots. Mind you, if you praise Bhagat Singh, you may as well praise every warrior that fought for the indepedence of Hindustan. I wont get into that matter, your choice Bhagat Singh didnt do much, besides write alot of B/S that was later falsified by himself when he met Randhir Singh and realized the fear of death. Who wastes their time wriiting out new philosphy only to not follow it? Just proves Bhagat Singh was much more weak-minded then he protrayed his egoistic self. He was a good man, just laid his life for a foolish cause. Not saying he took part in any of those conspiracies :wink: Praise him, might as well praise the other "indian" warriors that died for the same "goal" Selecting him as the most inpsiring over so many other people which fought for a better cause, and had better reason...makes me wonder. -S|kH 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherni-E-Punjab Posted March 28, 2004 Author Report Share Posted March 28, 2004 LegendarySikh, First of all - I'd like to make it aware to you that I said in my very first post in regards to this topic I was proud of ALL those who serve their countries - regardless of race, culture, beliefs, nationality, and etc. Then , Khalistani Singh questioned me and asked "Why not - Raj Guru and Sukhdev?" Again, I emphasized enough I think in my first post : I am proud of men and women who serve their countries and fight for the freedom of others. In my initial post, I said : Bhagat Singh should be held in high regard for his possesion of high qualities of courage, honor, leadership, patriotism, scholarship, and service, which are necessary for one to not only be a good citizen in a civilized society but also these high qualities are necessary to the preservation and protection of the fundamental institutions of our government and the advancement of society. If I have made it so clear, then no need for the following assumptions : You either feel for Bhagat Singh the most because you can relate to him, or you just happened to research him the most because of his religious-roots or cultural roots. Mind you, if you praise Bhagat Singh, you may as well praise every warrior that fought for the indepedence of Hindustan. I wont get into that matter, your choice Shaheed Bhagat Singh Ji inspires me most because the sacrifice he made is the biggest sacrifice an individual can make. Being an ex-armed force member, I know what it takes for one to serve their country.. I praised Shaheed Bhagat Singh for his seva to his country, dekheya jaweh ehe koi nawi ja wadhi gal nahi, sewa chaye insanyat di hove, chahye kaum di, or Desh di per He gave away his life for his country, and it's independence. He wasn't just one of those revolutionary freedom fighters who was fighting without any plans and political standards. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dude, what's the need for all the extra words ?( ie: bullshit, beef, hell, and etc.) - and absolutely no need to type in capital letters. I just quickly glanced over the reply and would like to point out one point now: SOURCE WHATEVER THE HELL YOU WANT, THE INDIAN GOVERNMENT IS SO CORRUPT IT HAS THE WORLD THINKING ITS THE LARGEST DEMOCRACY, when it kills dalits, tamils, chrisitans, and jews in India. 2 INDEPENDENT RESEARCHES SHOW THAT the massacre of sikhs in 1998 was cause OF INDIA. AND BESIDES INDIA HAS FOOLED THE WORLD SO MANY TIMES, think with LOGIC. AMERICAN MEDIA is diff from ARABIC MEDIA, and ENGLISH MEDIA, each media publishes whatever the bullshit they wanna feed to you. Earlier, you mentioned that the thirty-five sikhs were killed in Kashmir when President Clinton was there. Please check your facts, as I have no rememberance of President Clinton visiting South Asia in 1998. "never assume, research, get your facts straight, then argue. " Well, tell me how else are you finding out your facts? Were you there in Kashmir when the Sikhs were killed. NO! ..Both you and I are trusting outside media resources (whether they be arabic media, english media, or russian media.)...and there is not much more than that you can do unless you were there at the instance. Please provide a reference to where you found that it was the Indian Government responsible for the thirty-five sikhs. Following here the sources where you can read much similar information as you read below: According to the Indian army and media reports, the Hezbul Mujahedeen was involved in the January 1998 killing of 23 Hindus in Wandhama and the March 2000 massacre of 35 Sikhs in Chattisinghpora as part of a plan to ethnically cleanse Kashmir of non-Muslims. The group has claimed responsibility for dozens of attacks against Indian security forces. [source: NYJournalNews http://www.jammu-kashmir.com/archives/arch...r20000321a.html http://www.tribuneindia.com/2000/20000325/main2.htm If you can please show me where the Indian Government is responsible for this, I'd be more than willing to change my thinking in regards to this aspect. And do it with a reference please and not just like "You are dumb, you should know this, how funny Indian Government has brainwashed you." ----------------------------------------------- THE REHAT MARAYDA IS MADE FOR THE KHALSA. SIKH IS A PERSON WHO IS A DISCIPLE, LEARNER, SEEKER OF THE TRUTH, STUDENT, one who learns throughout his life. SIKH meaning in punjab "SIKHNA"- TO LEARN. If you believe in the basic principles of the religion, respect the 11 gurus, and don't speak against Sikhi, i'd consider anyone a SIKH. You stated, "You may be on your path towards Sikhi, however you are not a Sikh until you have fully mastered the guidelines set forth by Guru Gobind Singh Ji."...GURU GOBIND SINGH JI NAY KHALSA PANTH NU ESTABLISH KITHAY PANJI, he molded the GREATEST LEVEL A SIKH CAN ACHIEVE, this is the sikh's goal in life, to follow or be like the khalsa. What? The Maryada by SGPC is addressed as "The Sikh Rehat Maryada" http://www.sgpc.net/rehat_maryada/section_one.html In the Maryada, a Sikh is defined at a much complex level than what you have mentioned. You say "Raj Karega Khalsa" ....Well, aren't the Khalsa the Sikhs? I will address the other points later. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sukdev Singh Jhamka Posted March 28, 2004 Report Share Posted March 28, 2004 Vaheguru ji ka khalsa Vaheguru ji ki fateh Its so sad that Sikhs are so ready to blame Sant Jarnail Singh ji for his lack of military awareness and being naive and the pain and suffering of the Sikhs in 84 etc, that’s all BS , Gursikhs who have lived and done any sort off research on the jeeven of Sant ji and his up bringing ie living a life of a SAINT/SOLDIER will now what a true inspiration he is and will be for time to come. Let’s do our research We can make all the excuses we want about the singhs & singhina off 84, but when the time came to give their HEAD to Guruji they gave it with out a thought for themselves or their loved ones. Can we blame all those purtan Gursikhs (who fought battles) for the suffering off the Sikhs in the old days?, we can God forbid blame Guruji saying they took the wrong road and fought against evil instead Guruji should have comprised and not lead Sikhs into battle and endless suffering??? The list is endless. I don’t come on much here but the internet is so dangerous new Sikhs coming on and reading the type of views about 1984 and Santji could be fooled into thinking that its all the Sikhs fault, just because their seems to be a anti 84 bias on the net now a days, guess the antis have got more time to write long winded explanations, as the ones pro are busy trying to help the Shaheeds families and the Sant/Saphis. Heres a link into the government massacre of Sikhs in Kashmir, there is loads off evidence that the intelligent agencies do all sorts to win the propaganda war. Just look what happened in Madrid where the government knowing full well it was al qaeda who did the bombing but was ready to blame ETA. Any way ppl do ur research on the topic off 84 before taking anyone’s views off the net even mine. Rupy Heres some links u might wana look up on the massacre of the Sikhs in Kashmir There loads out there read the british press and amnesty international rather then the Indian press. Ive got more links but not got the time hopefully if u do a search u will find what the kashmiri Sikhs are saying to plus there was a report by a human rights body from Punjab that too pointed the finger at the Indian gov. I dnt want to get in to who right or wrong, just my thoughts and sharing with my fellow gursikhs. Its up to u which way u go, may Guruji bless us with a vision and may we walk the path of Sikhi without fright or anger Take care This is a Amnesty Internation report on Kashmir shaheeds http://www.amnesty.org.uk/deliver/document/13308.html heres a general one on Punjab http://www.amnesty.org.uk/deliver/document/14298.html BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2131602.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1862414.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/sou...000/1862414.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/717043.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/704436.stm 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khalistani Singh Posted March 28, 2004 Report Share Posted March 28, 2004 Okay I'm quite sick of justifying myself. So will someone please lock this post. 1. "Dude, what's the need for all the extra words ?( ie: bullshit, beef, hell, and etc.) - and absolutely no need to type in capital letters." Oh I'm greatly sorry if my words offended you. It's a figure of speech. Curses are just made up words. Its not like im going to go to "hell" now since I use figurtive speech like beef, hell, and bullshit. But okay since I know there are more mature people on this post, I'll use adjust my language to more appropriate terms. 2. Please STRICTLY show me your reference not just state it. Provide link panji. http://www.rediff.com/election/2002/sep/17jk2.htm http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/20...article50.shtml http://www.tribuneindia.com/2003/20031002/j&k.htm#8 http://www.khalistan-affairs.org/Main/K_Ca.../kc04182000.htm http://indianterrorism.bravepages.com/the%...n%20murders.htm http://www.infopak.gov.pk/public/kashmir/H...ons-Kashmir.htm http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby...Encounters.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1001479.stm It is easy. Play reverse physcology. Any normal person would gather up the facts, and say oh "Militants dressed up in Army uniforms and spoke urdu," it has to be milititants trying to portray the Indian Army. But Militants arent so dumb. They know that the Indian regiment there speaks punjabi, so wouldn't they have spoken punjabi instead. This allows the Indian Gov, to portray the militants at fault. However, the Indian Gov sent out their troops and to speak urdu to purposely display themselves as militants. Think and the answers will appear. Terrorists there have been fine with that village. India did it, esp when Clinton was there, to show America how "HARSH" these militants are. If Indian can hide thousands of deaths committed by the government, what will stop them from altering DNA samples? PLEASE SHOW ME YOU REFERENCE ON THE "NYPOST." EVERYONE KNOWS THE BASIC LINE, YOU ARE A SIKH IF YOU SAY SO. IF YOU WANT BE KHALSA, A MORE DEFIANT SIKH, then the REHAT MARAYDA APPLIES TO YOU. READ THIS, PUNJABI NATIONALIST SUMS IT UP PERFECTLY: http://sikhawareness.com/sikhawareness/viewtopic.php?t=3923 http://allaboutsikhs.com/rehat/rehat_01.htm#Art1 http://www.sikhpoint.com/religion/ind_RehatMaryada.asp#1 http://www.searchsikhism.com/sikhi/Section1.htm http://www.sikh.net/sikhism/rehat_maryada.htm http://www.sikhs.org/reht1.htm#art1 http://www.sgpc.net/rehat_maryada/section_one.html AND FROM THE SIKH REHAT MARYDA- CHAPTER 1 The Definition of Sikh : Article I Any human being who faithfully believes in i. One Immortal Being, ii. Ten Gurus, from Guru Nanak Sahib to Guru Gobind Singh Sahib, iii. The Guru Granth Sahib, iv. The utterances and teachings of the ten Gurus and v. the baptism bequeathed by the tenth Guru, and who does not owe allegiance to any other religion, is a Sikh Bequeath, DEFINTION: be·queath ( P ) Pronunciation Key (b-kwth, -kwth) tr.v. be·queathed, be·queath·ing, be·queaths Law. To leave or give (personal property) by will. To pass (something) on to another; hand down: bequeathed to their children a respect for hard work. (dictionary.com) Necessarily doesn't mean take amrit, but pass down the teachings of Amrit by the 10th guru and encourge it. MIND YOU, the rehat maryda has been changed throughout history numerous times. SIMPLE AND IN PLAIN TERMS, if one loves sikhi, and is humble to be a Sikh, they are considered a Sikh. THE REHAT, is applied for the KHALSA. GURUJI implented this by creating the KHALSA, the 5 K's. Every Sikh is a disciple, they will learn eventually. AND WHO SAID THAT THE KHALSAY AREN'T SIKHS. CHARDI KALA, GURJOTE SINGH 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LegendarySiKH Posted March 28, 2004 Report Share Posted March 28, 2004 Hey Rupy, you stated : "Shaheed Bhagat Singh Ji inspires me most because the sacrifice he made is the biggest sacrifice an individual can make. Being an ex-armed force member, I know what it takes for one to serve their country.. I praised Shaheed Bhagat Singh for his seva to his country, dekheya jaweh ehe koi nawi ja wadhi gal nahi, sewa chaye insanyat di hove, chahye kaum di, or Desh di per He gave away his life for his country, and it's independence. He wasn't just one of those revolutionary freedom fighters who was fighting without any plans and political standards." Being an ex-armed force member you should also be able to understand if your fighting for the right reason or not. Bhagat Singh, if he was as knowledgeable as you state, then he would have long before known that the people of India were simply not ready for independence, and the country called India would have failed miserably as a democracy if it were created immediately. The legend himself, Mahatma Gandhi knew this, if India was created at that certain time, the people werent ready for it, It would have been corrupted and their would have been no equal rights at all. Yet you claim Bhagat Singh is courageous, and brave. He writes about atheism, and then at the last moment in fear of death, returns back to his sikh religion? If you have ever read his writings, you would be aware of how much he stated himself he would never be scared of Death, he doesnt need the support of "God" to get him thru life. and then you stated : Bhagat Singh should be held in high regard for his possesion of high qualities of courage, honor, leadership, patriotism, scholarship, and service, which are necessary for one to not only be a good citizen in a civilized society but also these high qualities are necessary to the preservation and protection of the fundamental institutions of our government and the advancement of society. He had real high qualities of courage, didnt he? Sitting down and writing a philosphy and then being scared off by it. And those qualities are necessary for advancement of society? If thats true, then why hasnt India shed its image of a Corrupt Democracy?...why is it that other nations still claim India is no democracy at all. Bhagat Singh died 70 years ago, and India has went to hell since. He should have known the people were ready. and seriously, if you think Bhagat Singh was inspiring, he did relatively NOTHING at all compared to what Gandhi did for the same movement. or do you just have some sort of hatred for Gandhi because he screwed the sikhs over? Gandhi was right, and he will always be right. Indians werent ready for independence. All you have after is a corrupt power-struggle. And dont give me that trash about how India has only been around for 50 years or so. Because it was 1947 when they gained independence, you cant compare that to America's date, and how/what Americans did to gain independence. And before you call other people who fought for the movement and claim they didnt have the same political standards as Bhagat Singh, i say you research more about the movement of India. Many people did alot more then Bhagat Singh. His story (as of recent) is more exploited by the Indian Government as an attempt to unite Sikhs with Hindus again. Bhagat Singhs story of revolution is an exploit to unite Sikhs with India during times of turmoil between the respective communities. He was a great philospher, but one who could not even follow his own writings. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherni-E-Punjab Posted March 28, 2004 Author Report Share Posted March 28, 2004 Yet you claim Bhagat Singh is courageous, and brave. He writes about atheism, and then at the last moment in fear of death, returns back to his sikh religion? If you have ever read his writings, you would be aware of how much he stated himself he would never be scared of Death, he doesnt need the support of "God" to get him thru life Oh - Don't tell me you haven't used hypocrisy in your life....Why don't you understand - that his faith beliefs are irrelvant to what he did !! Tell me how did Sikhi help him when he was tried and hanged at Central Lahore Jail?? LOL, perhaps you don't know because you've never been tried and hanged..and the amount of courage that comes along with giving your ife up. And those qualities are necessary for advancement of society? If thats true, then why hasnt India shed its image of a Corrupt Democracy?...why is it that other nations still claim India is no democracy at all. Bhagat Singh died 70 years ago, and India has went to hell since. He should have known the people were ready LOL, one man's achievements/work might be something but aren't enough in society to change everything! Fine example of that is in millions Americans were protesting the war against Iraq, did that stop Bush from giving orders to the armed forces?? ..What have you done for India - that makes you think Bhagat's achievements lead India to go to hell? --------------- When Shaheed Bhagat Singh was arrested for the bomb blast in the assembly, he used the trial as his forum for his fight against the British imperialism, and to bring his message out to the people. Because all meeting and "propaganda" activities were banned by the British, this was the best way to spread his message, and at the same time to recruit new freedom fighters. This trial was covered by the media all over the nation. People could read about Shaheed Bhagat Singh and his comrades all over India, and in all kind of languages. And he was just growing more and more popular for every day the trial went on. Their "Inquilab Zindbad" cry was on every Indians’ lips. At that point, Shaheed Bhagat Singh was more popular than M. K. Gandhi in India. Instead of saving Shaheed Bhagat Singh, the Congress, and Gandhi, were worried about their own positions in the indenependent India. They knew that if Shaheed Bhagat Singh surrvived the freedom fight, their positions would be threatened. For me, Shaheed Bhagat Singh will always be one of those persons who inspires me most. He'll always be one of my biggest idols of all time. His fight for freedom, unlikely "Gandhism", united India as an unity. He didn't care if people were Sikhs, Muslims, Hindus, Jains, Buddhist, Christians or Dalits. He looked at all Indians as "Indians", and didn't distinguish between the religions. While "Gandhism" was meant to be an ideology for Hindus, and Hindus only, Shaheed Bhagat Singh gathered people from all religions and geographical areas in India, under his ideology. Now, 73 years after Shaheed Bhagat Singh gave away his life for his country, he's being forgotten by the politicians and media. I watched the news on Zee TV today, and they showed a short clip at the end. This is really sad. I mean all the politicans never seem to forget the days when M.K. Gandhi, Indira Gandhi or Rajiv Gandhi died. And what did they do compared to what Shaheed Bhagat Singh did? [bikram] ---------------------- Khalistani Singh, Your history seems to begin at 1984. All I want to say to you is here is the source for the NYJournal : http://www.nyjournalnews.com/newsroom/0406...warsuspect.html -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the best of all of us, I am not going to post anymore on this topic as its getting pretty useless...you guys just point fingers, when you as individuals have done nothing as compared to these Shaheeds.... Bhagat Singh will always be the same for me .... And on an ending note, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Zindabad! Shaheed Rajguru Zindabad! Shaheed Sukhdev Zindabad! Inquilab Zindabad! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khalistani Singh Posted March 28, 2004 Report Share Posted March 28, 2004 Lol, my history seems to begin at 1984? MY HISTORY BEGAN in the 1500's since Guru Nanak started the religion. Do my views change as times change, yes. The Mohguls did harsh things to the Sikhs, bak in time, but I understand cause back then there wasn't much of a universal humanitarian law. I therefore have no grudge against muslims. 1984, was a big event. If your gonna laugh and mock me by saying, "YOUR HISTORY STARTS 1984," then please do so. All I'm glad to say is, I'm glad I won't be easily influenced by anyone or be under anyone's order, and as a Sikh I wouldn't have the audacity to drive a tank to any Gurudwara, specifically the Golden Temple. I'm just following on what our gurus taught us. FIGHT FOR JUSTICE, as once said by a great AMERICAN leader, ""Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." -Martin Luther King Jr. Guru Kirpa, Gurjote Singh 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LegendarySiKH Posted March 28, 2004 Report Share Posted March 28, 2004 "Why don't you understand - that his faith beliefs are irrelvant to what he did !! Tell me how did Sikhi help him when he was tried and hanged at Central Lahore Jail??" Wait, am i wrong or didnt sikhi help him take the decision to be hung with courage and pride? If you ever read upon his history, he wrote about being an atheist, and not beleiving in god...yet he ran to Randhir Singh and openly admitted being of scared of death. Its from that point he began to believe in sikhi again, and was not afraid to die. LOL, and your talking about the amount of courage that is used to give up your life? Do you know how many other Indians that did the same? Seriously, open your mind, you'll see that the so-called Revolution caused by Bhagat Singh is nothing more than an exploit used by the Indian Govt. to keep Sikhs united with them. Bhagat Singh fought for India. Anyways this topic is beat. Go on believing everything India writes in their history books. "Now, 73 years after Shaheed Bhagat Singh gave away his life for his country, he's being forgotten by the politicians and media. I watched the news on Zee TV today, and they showed a short clip at the end. This is really sad. I mean all the politicans never seem to forget the days when M.K. Gandhi, Indira Gandhi or Rajiv Gandhi died. And what did they do compared to what Shaheed Bhagat Singh did? [bikram] " ^ This only furthers my point. India knows exactly what Bhagat Singh did for them...not much. When they need to fool Sikhs into thinking what Bhagat Singh did was revolutionary...they shoot out a bunch of movies based on him, release more books on him. Bhagat Singh is a tool/always was a tool for India. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drawrof Posted March 28, 2004 Report Share Posted March 28, 2004 legendary sikh, I am not going to say that bhagat singh was a sikh. Yet, you should get your facts straight. Possibly try contacting kultar singh, or the sons of kulbir singh, or possibly his sister (prakaash kaur/samitra devi) and find out what really happened instead of reading what someone wrote about bhai randhir singh. Jail chittian is not an accurate description of the conversation that was had. lets get a few facts straight a) he said he cut "one ang"....nothing more was said he didn't run to meet bhai randhir singh for his so called spiritual state but because they both were opposing the british c) he didn't want to become amritdhari. Nor did he become amritdhari d) he wasn't all "that" inspired by bhai randhir singh. my question to all those people who seem to read jail chittian religiously and treat it like the absolute truth is this... why would bhai randhir singh have to dedicate (or the writer of the book, dedicate) a whole chapter to bhagat singh. In the corporate world this is called name dropping... I saw the diary that bhagat singh wrote and read it...there is no mention of bhai randhir singh, there is no mention of religion, but rather a focus on liberation for a country. If that is "shallow" or "Weak minded" how would you rate name dropping? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.