SUKHBIR Posted June 15, 2004 Report Share Posted June 15, 2004 Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh, On a slightly different note, while everyone awaits Narsingha's reply, I have a query to ask of everyone involved in this debate:....... I don't know whether anyone is waiting with bated breath, the reply is hardly likely to be a revelation to anyone. We are not talking here about a historical incident on which primary sources are questioned. We are talking about a relatively recent event (only 20 years) where many of the 'main players' are still alive. Why is it that noone has attempted to ask and record Baba Santa Singh's views? :....... ..the Sikh history referred to within this thread is of a recent period and therefore wholly empirical. The fact that it is consistent from multiple sources only reinforces this fact. :....... So that is agreed, if Santa Singh wishes to present his version of events then surely it is his responsibility to do so, if he does not choose to present a view of events contrary to that which is generally accepted, then it must be assumed he has no clarification to make. Ultimately he could not hope to deny that the 'kar seva' was carried out under his auspices at the behest of the GOI, the record is unequivocal. Although futile, the best he could hope for in this regard is to attempt to rationalise his action's. Gur Fateh Sukhbir Singh 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beast Posted June 15, 2004 Report Share Posted June 15, 2004 The fact that it is consistent from multiple sources only reinforces this fact So that is agreed, if Santa Singh wishes to present his version of events then surely it is his responsibility to do so, if he does not choose to present a view of events contrary to that which is generally accepted, then it must be assumed he has no clarification to make. But the point I'm after revolves around whether any of these sources are a direct interview with Baba Santa Singh himself. I don't think the emphasis is on Baba Santa Singh to come out and explain himself. There are people on this forum who are judging his actions without speaking to the man himself. If these people want to validate their claims then they should seek out Baba Santa Singh themselves. Also, by what standards are his actions the 'generally accepted views'? As someone who is interested in both sides of the debate this statement is not an acceptable answer. Maybe Baba Santa Singh has explained himself time and again, or then again maybe he has not. No-one will know unless they ask him directly and record the conversation for proof. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Narsingha Posted June 15, 2004 Report Share Posted June 15, 2004 Sukhbir, it appears that you have a huge number of monthly car club meetings taking place. Hopefully all this effort you put into this 'Panthic' cause should yield a Siropa... I suppose its only best to wait for the article to appear now and let you continue on your soapbox. Enjoy the lovely weather... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guv Posted June 15, 2004 Report Share Posted June 15, 2004 Of course you don't see a problem with the CD; your mindset and rationality have been evident since you first started polluting. beast, everyone has a right to have their own opinion. I just don't understand Narsingha problem with a CD that's been brought out so that the youth can know something about the Shaheed's of 1984. Maybe he doesn't want the next generation of sikhs to know about Santa Singh's betrayal. sikh princess, have u heard the cd? do u agree with the lyrics of the track by malkeet singh? slightly off topic, but can someone tell me why all the photos on www.sikhifm.com have the singh's faces blurred out? same question was brought up on this thread: http://sikhawareness.com/sikhawareness/vie...t=4641&start=30 So that is agreed, if Santa Singh wishes to present his version of events then surely it is his responsibility to do so, if he does not choose to present a view of events contrary to that which is generally accepted, then it must be assumed he has no clarification to make. i disagree. why should santa singh have to clarify his position? if someone wishes to know what he did & why, it is their responsibility to ask him. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUKHBIR Posted June 15, 2004 Report Share Posted June 15, 2004 Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh, So that is agreed, if Santa Singh wishes to present his version of events then surely it is his responsibility to do so, if he does not choose to present a view of events contrary to that which is generally accepted, then it must be assumed he has no clarification to make. i disagree. why should santa singh have to clarify his position? if someone wishes to know what he did & why, it is their responsibility to ask him. Since you have quoted me please read the quote properly, it reads 'IF Santa Singh wishes....' the operative word being 'IF' I do do not say there is any compulsion for him to do so. Also the quote you use is a response to beast, who ask's Why is it that noone has attempted to ask and record Baba Santa Singh's views?:....... My view is 'IF' he wishes to counter his critics it is his perogative to do so, not the responsibility of others to question him. Sukhbir, it appears that you have a huge number of monthly car club meetings taking place. Hopefully all this effort you put into this 'Panthic' cause should yield a Siropa... ............. In the interests of saving you embarrassment in the future, monthly meetings, car or otherwise take place once a month, hence the title. I suppose its only best to wait for the article to appear now and let you continue on your soapbox. Enjoy the lovely weather................ From previous encounters I know your inclined to a display of 'sour grapes', at about this point in the discussion, as ever you don't fail to disappoint. Gur Fateh Sukhbir Singh 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Narsingha Posted June 15, 2004 Report Share Posted June 15, 2004 Sukhbir, alas it seems you have a lot to learn about humour in addition to Sikh history and traditions. Perhaps its the result of listening to Malkeet Singh's lyrics once too often.. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beast Posted June 15, 2004 Report Share Posted June 15, 2004 Sukhbir, if I was to put myself in Baba Santa Singh's place I could easily say that those that have a problem with me should at least have the courage to face me. The emphasis lies on those that debate Baba Santa Singh's action/inactions to actually ask him to clarify his stance on the whole affair. I'm sorry Sukhbir, but your view that those that criticise Baba Santa Singh do not need to face him directly is simply not acceptable. If those guilty of misdeeds in 1984 need to be brought to justice then it is the perogative of the accusers to do so. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUKHBIR Posted August 19, 2004 Report Share Posted August 19, 2004 Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh, Veer N30, Having returned to this forum after some time (owing to work commitments). I noticed you have closed the thread. It struck me that this is not an uncommon occurrence. I understand the unacceptable nature of postings which are of a personal and abusive nature, these contribute nothing to the discussion and inevitably lead the debate into a exchange of repetitive 'tit for tat'. This leads you to close the thread, understandably. However I believe that it is only some individuals who consistently find it easier to reply with a personal or insulting remark. Look through the posting in question as a example and you will see a common correlation between certain posters and their avoidance of issues of relevance by introducing insults or irrelevant remarks designed to critique the poster rather than the argument. This leads to reaction,counter-reaction etc.etc. I did wish to respond to one of the two replies to my previous posting, the other post was pathetically undeserving of a response from anyone. Gur Fateh Sukhbir Singh Sukhbir, if I was to put myself in Baba Santa Singh's place I could easily say that those that have a problem with me should at least have the courage to face me.. Receiving 'Tankhaah' for his action's was the response of his (to use your description) 'accusers', placing the onus for reaction clearly on him, if he has refused to defend his actions despite 'conviction' then this is by any sane measure a acceptance of guilt, think of it in this manner if he were charged and convicted by a court of law the right of appeal would rest with the defendant and not the prosecution. The emphasis lies on those that debate Baba Santa Singh's action/inactions to actually ask him to clarify his stance on the whole affair. I'm sorry Sukhbir, but your view that those that criticise Baba Santa Singh do not need to face him directly is simply not acceptable... The question of 'facing his accusers' is incorrectly assumed by you to be my position. When the 'Akal Takht' issued a hukamnamah barring the Sikhs from participation in the GOI 'kar seva' on July 11th 1984, It was unequivocal in content, barring Sikhs from taking part in what amounted to a 'sarkari seva' absolutely contrary to the 'labour of love' that is 'kar seva', according to Sikh tradition. Despite this on July 17th 1984 Santa Singh arrived with three buses, packed with some 'nihangs'and congress workers under army protection and parked them in front of the hospital gate, after some time these buses were escorted by the army to Burj Akali Phula Singh following 'ardasa' Santa initiated the 'sarkari seva'. He was issued a 'show-cause' notice that evening requesting him to present a written explanation of his actions by 4pm on the 18th July. He did not attend, nor did he send any written explanation either of his actions or why he was unable to submit any explanation. On the 19th July he was issued a further notice to present himself before the Akal Takhat Sahib on July 21st at 8am, he did not attend. The ecclesiastical court of Sri Akal Takhat Sahib decided to allow a further day for Santa to respond, finally the hukamnamah excommunicating Santa Singh from the Sikh panth was issued on the 22nd July 1984, it was published in the press on July 23rd 1984. So you see there was both the will and offered opportunity on the part of the 'accusers' to 'face him' it was in fact he that balked from such a confrontation, the conviction of a defendant that refuses to attend a hearing is consistent under any system of law you may care to mention. A conviction in absence does almost uniformly allow leave to appeal, but this is entirely the responsibility of the defendant, given that this process was carried out under the aegis of what is best described as a ecclesiastical court the responsibility for defence or appeal lies firmly with the defendant again this is consistent with any recognised system of law. This refusal to defend his actions, could be cited as acknowledgement that their indefensible? If those guilty of misdeeds in 1984 need to be brought to justice then it is the perogative of the accusers to do so.... You may wish to read the sentence you have written above back to yourself. '..it is the prerogative of the accusers to do so..'. Well if it's their prerogative and you contend that he has not been questioned, then the 'accusers' are merely exercising the prerogative to which you claim they have a right. It is my contention however that he was 'brought to justice' for his connivance with the GOI in their illegitimate 'kar seva', hence the 'Tankhaah', ultimately it is not the 17 years in 'exile' that will be his punishment. The 'real' punishment for his actions will be his historical legacy, a question I have posed many times and to which I am yet to receive an answer to is, looked at in a historical comparative his actions would have been equal to a Sikh, regardless of grandeur of title and position(if anything all the worse for it) accepting money and assistance from Ahmed Shah Abdali for reconstruction after his destruction of Harminder Sahib whilst allowing his tobacco smoking, shoe wearing and in the case of the Indian army alcohol drinking soldiers to mill around the complex whilst enforcing a curfew with orders to shoot on sight, in the surrounding city. **Hypothetically speaking, if there had been an individual who had carried out such actions from that period, how do you think he would be remembered by the Sikh community? What words do you think may be used to describe him or his action's?** It is the answer to the question above which will provide a eternal punishment. Furthermore unless reality overcomes their provincial nature, neo-nihangs will carry the actions of this man as a constant liability. Gur Fateh Sukhbir Singh 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 19, 2004 Report Share Posted August 19, 2004 This debate has opened one more time. Keep it clean guys ! Ta- Ta..i get lot of packing to do .. 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.