Terrorists or Freedom Fighters?

[shaheediyan]

I would recommend reading "Fighting for Faith and Nation" and "A sea of Orange" by Cythia Mahmood (Anthropologist), to get a another angle on this subject.

[Guest Javanmard]

fatehsingh:

"Maybe if he knew he'd not have allowed his Sikhs to kill her?"

You couldn't have put it in better words. Were they his Sikhs or Guru Gobind Singh's?

Far too many people have allegiances to their organization first rather than to Maharaj Himself. They'd rather obey their jathedar, sant or even panj pyare even if these people order things contrary to the teachings of our Gurus. This derives from a lack of religious culture in which Sikhs have enough mastery of gurbani, its analysis and languages to be able to formulate a valid understanding of gurbani. Instead they rely very often on people who themselves have no clue themselves leading thus to huge problems.

I recall a conversation I recently had with a member of Budha Dal regarding a difference of opinion in terms of maryada. That person told me: "Singh...I have sold my sold my soul to Budha Dal!"

I let you guess to whom I sold my soul and what my reply was...

[Dancing Warrior]

Freed ji,

I would have to agree with you about the Sikhiphobia that the Canadian press has recently been plugging, it could possibly be due to the fact of the out come of the public inquiry linking the bombing of the Air India to Sikh Separatists. However the acquittal of two of the tree charged with the bombing was accepted by certain Sikh groups as a victory and a true reflection of the Canadian judiciary, even though one of the defendants were found guilty for his part in the bombing and sentenced. Now the same Groups claim the government of Canada, US, India constructively and deliberately are out to defame Sikhs and pollute the ideology of Khalistan! Because the public inquiry found against them! Surly if that was the case it made more sense for the dark shadows to imprison all three of the defendants in the criminal trial by hook or crook, would that have not been a better strategy to defame, incriminate Sikhs and khalistan?

With the regards to the other political movements and personalities you have raised, yes very true one persons freedom fighter is another persons terrorist. However in the case of the Air India Bombings, the Canadian flight bombing in Japan and the murder of Baljit Kaur these in my opinion are acts of terrorism and should be condemned even though the ones who are responsible take up the persona of being Sikhs of the highest calibre.

Niranjana, you make a very valid point

“you have made reference to the killing of Indira Gandhi. This is an interesting area of discussion given that we find no historic precedent set by our Gurus or Sikhs for attacking a woman in such a manner...yet those who regard themselves as the best followers of the Guru sing the glories of such acts in their Gurdwaras frequently?”

I cannot for the life of me find any justification for the killing of women regardless of any crime they may have been charged with this is the behaviour of the KKK not Sikhs of Nanak.

In the case of Baljit Kaur, we can never know if Jarnail Singh ever gave the order to commit such a heinous crime without firm evidence. I have often thought how much in the “know” was he about events that took place and also how much of his ideology actually links in with mindsets of certain groups today.

Certain Groups would now explode and say

“so what!?, what about the rape and murder of innocent Sikhs by the Indian Army police etc”.

What a barbaric mentality setting the bar, the fact that “Yes” they did commit wide scale atrocities but so did the terrorists to me they are all alike just in different uniforms.

[Guest]

I don't care if indira gandhi was a woman or third gender, at the end of day, she got what she deserved, at the end of day- divine law doesnt bound to sexes be it male, female, third gender you are still in cycle of karma as sri guru nanak dev ji says- you reap what you sow. He didnt say certain punishments are only for men not for women, women are not bound for certain punishment for her karma because she is a woman.

It may be in maryada of budda dal, not to harm women in jung, good to see structural maryada but once again extreme circumstances call for extreme actions. There are certain qualities of being woman ie- peace loving mother, sister, daughter but when woman see herself as dictator like hitler, she is not woman(devi) anymore, she becomes a dyaan(devil).

Lets stop this rubbish of indira being woman therefore is not bound for punishment despite of cruel dictator therefore being inferior, those who idiolize budda dal maryada of not hurting women at any circumstances, god forbid if some psycho woman comes at your door, kill all your family including childrens will see if you still play with "dont hurt woman because its in budda dal maryada" card?

Last but not least, i am truely against people using unjustified forces like- raping, mutiliating, gang beating or any kind of torture methods even to the enemies/opressors/cruel dictators regardless men or women. I condem them fully. There is no justification in this. People who do that are no better than killers. As wise sikh men says, we are not barbarians nor we are sumaria's but we are khalsa.

[Dancing Warrior]

With great respect, how can you understand any ones karma?

What has Budha Dal got to do with anything?

You’re hypothesising but if Indra turned up at any ones door with a view to killing their family that’s different to her trusted bodyguards shooting her when she was clearly not trying to kill them or their families etc. We can never know what crimes she did commit because she never faced a jury, so we can only make assumptions to suit our case of argument to justify the brutality that some are capable of committing.

[Niranjana]

Neo, with due respect, I believe you are showing a rather emotional knee jerk reaction to the questions posed by your fellow Sikhs, not anyone else.

We are not debating the so-called “Buddha Dal maryada”, the wider discussion is concerning the entire Sikh community, which from many of us can see in the UK and in Canada is heading down the same path as certain Islamic organisations in terms of their social outlook and values.

The Indira Ghandi issue was raised as an example – firstly there is plenty of controversy over whether or not her Sikh Bodyguards actually shot her or not…but we’ll save those for another day, however your comments concerning “divine law” is amazing!

This statement does nothing but insinuate that somehow the Sikhs are not only above the law, because they were ‘freedom fighters’ or ardent followers of some divine law (which is interesting the very argument which many Islamic ‘freedom fighters’ use for their actions, i.e. we are following the divine commands of Allah not the man made rules of society), but even better than that, your statement implies that Sikhs are the law, Sikhs are the bringers of divine justice!???

What next, will we be justifying the mutilation of Baljeet Kaur’s body as part and parcel of ‘freedom fighting’…if so, what justification do we have for the actions of one Babbar Khalsa hot shot Major Singh Juanda?

Neo, I doubt anyone is holding the view that “Indira being woman therefore (she) is not bound for punishment”, the question being posed is not looking to alleviate her of any blame for her damned policies or actions…but one hand we have Sikhs inviting her back into the Harmindar Sahib to seek forgiveness (political stunt or not, this is what she did with the consent of the Sikh people) and then we choose to gun her down and have a street party in Southall (with subsequent headlines “Sikhs ignore no-drink ban” to party at her death).

The reality is that many people air the exact same view about the Sikhs - i.e. "each and every one of those "Mother****ers" deserved what the got" (this quote is no doubt familiar to most intimate with this subject, and will know it came from those in politics as well as the man on the street who only saw one side of Bindranwale and his followers)...

Tit for tat is hardly a Sikh ideal now?

[Guest]

With great respect, how can you understand any ones karma?

What has Budha Dal got to do with anything?

You’re hypothesising but if Indra turned up at any ones door with a view to killing their family that’s different to her trusted bodyguards shooting her when she was clearly not trying to kill them or their families etc. We can never know what crimes she did commit because she never faced a jury, so we can only make assumptions to suit our case of argument to justify the brutality that some are capable of committing.

I bought up karma because your post seems like women are exempt from their actions.

How can we understand anyone karma? fine we cannot fully but does not take rocket sceintist to figure out- what kind of person auranzeb, hitler was?

Fine she didnt physically commited any crime against anyone but she is the one who gave orders to storm the temple, now we can argue until cows get home, if sant jarnail singh bhindranwale was right or wrong to use nanak nivas as his base, thats beside the point, she gave order on a day sri guru arjan dev ji shaheedi purb where there is mass gathering of innocent devootes, how do you explain 38 gurdwaras temples across punjab being stormed? how do you explain burning of reference library- birs, manuscripts in darbar sahib? how do you explain western media such as BBC, CNN being fully banned in punjab?

Attack on golden temple was fully planned by indira and her associates, if indira whole aim was to get sant bhindranwale out, she would have done that long time ago, when sant jarnail singh went to jail or sniper assissination while sant ji was doing speeches up front of thousands of people with no protection...Indira master minding an act of violence against sikhs because sikhs who are 2% percent of indian community refused to live life like slaves, in racism in abuses, sikh refuse to stay silent in "state sponsor terrorism" by indira and her associates...for her any sikh with khola dhara, kirpan, chola was a terrorist..

[Guest]

however your comments concerning “divine law” is amazing!.

I used divine law argument because I got the vibe that just because she was a woman, people feel pity for her and people have overlooked her "deeds"...person should judged by his/her deeds not by emotional state, sex.. Purpose of using divine law argument was not to show sikhs are elite choosen by vahiguroo to give justice as you said same as sharia concept in Islam.

For me ahmad shah abdali got what he deserve when he attacked Golden temple, same goes for Indira. lets take it for example communist country like china tom started destroying churches, hindu temples, buddhist monostries, sikh gurdwara's and innocent people..would in your opnion any outside country will take action against the leader? NO because its not their *&#&, they dont care.....few sanctions from UN doesnt resolve/root out the state sponsor terrorism, only revolutionalist born from within the oppressed country can do something..this has nothing to do being elite, sevadars of vahiguroo, supermacy of upholding divine law. But its natural, where there is oppression, there is an uproar. just do an expirement, put improper chemicals in the glass, it will explode eventually.

What next, will we be justifying the mutilation of Baljeet Kaur’s body as part and parcel of ‘freedom fighting’…if so, what justification do we have for the actions of one Babbar Khalsa hot shot Major Singh Juanda?

I am goint to quote again from previous post

"Last but not least, i am truely against people using unjustified forces like- raping, mutiliating, gang beating or any kind of torture methods even to the enemies/opressors/cruel dictators regardless men or women. I condem them fully. There is no justification in this. People who do that are no better than killers"

[Niranjana]

Neo, you have stated “Fine she didnt physically commited any crime against anyone but she is the one who gave orders to storm the temple, now we can argue until cows get home, if sant jarnail singh bhindranwale was right or wrong to use nanak nivas as his base, thats beside the point, she gave order on a day sri guru arjan dev ji shaheedi purb where there is mass gathering of innocent devootes, how do you explain 38 gurdwaras temples across punjab being stormed? how do you explain burning of reference library- birs, manuscripts in darbar sahib? how do you explain western media such as BBC, CNN being fully banned in punjab?â€

In order to clarify the position, the question asked above is by me and others who are also Sikhs. You have said yourself it is not a black and white issue, accordingly, because are looking inside our community critically, doesn’t mean we are supporting the clear human rights abuses of the Indian State or casting a blind eye to the very questionable policies of Indira Gandhi’s government and the implications of that, however the very question I have posed is hitting at the same thing – 1984 destroyed so much heritage and cultural matter, left scars across so many hearts, however what are events like those described in the first post going to achieve in reversing this impact?

No one is denying the “state sponsored terrorism†or suggesting that those responsible shouldn’t be held to account, but let’s look closer to home – Indira Gandhi was not the one responsible for the following:

1. The torture and murder of Baljit Kaur

2. Hijacking and blowing up Air India's Kanishka (June 23, 1985), which killed all its 329 passengers and crew, including over 30 Sikhs.

3. The murder of Sant Harchand Singh Longowal, whilst he was praying in a gurudwara.

4. The murder of chief minister Beant Singh, who was blown up along with 12 others by a suicide bomber on July 31, 1995, at Chandigarh.

Again to clarify by point, I am not in any way ignoring the evil doings of the political machinations at the Government of India, however the above examples are just as long as the list of grievances we have against the Government, however the victims are Sikhs!!! I ask therefore, is it really any surprise that with this “legacy of ill-will and bloodshed†that a sense of alienation has grown within the Sikh community itself?

[Niranjana]

"For me ahmad shah abdali got what he deserve when he attacked Golden temple, same goes for Indira. lets take it for example communist country like china tom started destroying churches, hindu temples, buddhist monostries, sikh gurdwara's and innocent people..would in your opnion any outside country will take action against the leader? NO because its not their *&#&, they dont care.....few sanctions from UN doesnt resolve/root out the state sponsor terrorism, only revolutionalist born from within the oppressed country can do something..this has nothing to do being elite, sevadars of vahiguroo, supermacy of upholding divine law. But its natural, where there is oppression, there is an uproar. just do an expirement, put improper chemicals in the glass, it will explode eventually".

Again Neo, we are not speaking against the need for people to revolt and stand up for their rights, the question is internal, to put it quite simply, why were Sikhs killing Sikhs?

[chatanga]

im not sure of the circyumstances regarding the tortutre of baljit kaur, whether it was to extract information or done after she had died, but on the whole i would not be in favour it. as i undertsand it she and an acomplice killed Sodhi with whom her accomplice had some kind of rivalry with and they were both killed in return.

also the thing about beant singh? he was a sikh who was respons=ibkle for killings of hundreds of sikhs. but his allegiance wasnt to sikhi but to the ravan congress govt. indira being a woman would not excuse her sins.

i can remmeber a good friend of mine offering his condolences over the death of beant singh papi, but when i asked about what beanta had done he denied it.

[chatanga]

ps maharaj jarnail singh telling his sikhs...

only fateh singh could have thought of that.

[Niranjana]

"indira being a woman would not excuse her sins"

chatanaga - to repeat myself agian for the nth time, no one here is suggesting that is an angel and is excused of her crimes, let alone sins...and certainly not on the basis she is a woman!!!

[Guest]

sorry niranjana for sort of driving away from the orginal theme by my posts, i understand where you coming from now:

Here is the updated link, these sharia panthi sikh extermist didnt care for sikh values they were soo driven by revenge, check this shocking reveleation:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/05/04/...a-mulroney.html

[Guest]

This is how "chardi-kalah" these people were(note the sarcasm):

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/airindia/evidence1.html

[Malwe Da Sher]

From a theoretical analysis of the Sikh Militancy during the 1980s, its is interesting to note that Sikh Militant Groups fit almost perfectly in the middle of the extremes of ‘Old Terrorism’ and ‘New Terrorism’. The actions of the Sikh Militants reflect a wider more international evolution in the nature of terrorism. The Sikh Militant Groups retain some definitive characteristics such as a fairly coherent hierarchy, symbolic targets to attack and obviously the nationalistic/religious aims and objectives. During the late 1970s and early 1980s everyone knew who was calling the shots in relation to the militancy and what exactly the demands were – primarily passing of the Anandpur Resolution and certain amendments to for Sikhs to be greater recognised and treated with equality above all else. Also it may be argued that civilian casualties were avoided in the fear of alienating potential sympathisers – a definitive feature of ‘Old Terrorism’.

However after 1984 and the shaheedi/ disappearance of Sant Jarnail Singh, the structure and hierarchy of the Sikh Militancy almost fell apart. There were splinter groups forming, chain of command became looser as did the organisational structure. There was no clear cut political agenda (other than perhaps a separate Sikh State) and not really any room for compromise for the two opposing parties (Militants and Government) to reach. Also as is common with ‘New Terrorism’ motivations were ‘religious’. Academics within the the study of International Security and Terrorism widely accept that this leads to;

- Self Legitimacy; no need for restraint

- Sense of Superiority; no need for restraint

- Personal risk and risk to other unimportant due to sacred nature of the ‘mission’

Whilst many civilians surely died earlier, it was in the later parts of Sikh Militancy that civilian casualties increased rapidly – this was a common trend amongst all terrorist/militant groups internationally.

I appreciate that many individuals involved in the 70s, 80s and 90s, in what is now popularly known as ‘Da Movement’ amongst our well educate youth, had right intentions and some may be considered as ‘Freedom Fighters’. I personally do respect Sant Jarnail Singh Bhinderanwale immensely; however, as he was a human being he was undoubtedly not perfect and not without fault. However, there have been tremendous elements of outright terrorism involved with the ‘struggle for justice’. It is widely accepted that once civilian casualties increase, freedom struggle loose their legitimacy, for example have a look at the history of the IRA.

I don’t dispute that there was a need to stand up against the Indian Government, I do hold true that throughout the history of the Khalsa and its militancy, at no point in history can I recall Singhs killing or kidnapping innocent civilians or in fact killing members of society that indulge in dancing, singing etc. Also, during the 90s a female member of my close family was taken by so called ‘freedom fighters’ after they ate roti at by Bhoa’s (Dads sisters) house, as they left the village, villagers were lined up along the road and the militants said if the police tried following them they would shoot all the villagers. I refuse to call such people freedom fighters regardless of their cause or objectives. However, to reiterate I do greatly respect and appreciate the effort of some Singhs who righteously fought for righteousness.

What is the point in fighting for Dharam if the war is not going to abide by the laws of dharam. The closest thing that academics in this field of study have the notion of ‘Dharamyudh’ is the ‘Just War Criteria.’ I would call the Indian Government and Punjab Authorities terrorists during the 80s and 90s, perhaps even now. But why would I say to get rid of one group of terrorists just so another group of terrorists would come to power?

Personally I feel Sikh Militancy may have started with great intentions and with a righteous cause. I respect those who are willing to die in the name of freedom, however, I loathe those who are willing to kill innocent people in the name of freedom. The Sikh Militancy reflects the wider evolution of international terrorism leading academics to distinguish between New and Old Terrorist groups. After civilian casualties began increasing 'Da Movement' undoubtedly lost its support from a lot of Punabis.

Of coure it goes without saying; one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. There is little objective definitions that seperae the two, they are based on sujective understanding dependant on various factors - be they personal, social, economic, political..... etc.

[fatehsingh]

Forgiveness is key. Knowing history is one thing, holding grudges is another.

[Malwe Da Sher]

In relation to comments on the Budha Dal maryada on harming woman, the example of Baba Sahib Singh Kaladhari during the Neo-Sikh attack on the Nihang Singhs at the Akal Takht represents an extreme of example of this.

It is interesting that many people have been commenting on the Budha Dal maryada; yet I cant think of any members of Budha Dal I have met that believe Indira Gandhi didn’t deserve to die. She undoubtedly made herself a military target by ordering the attack on Harimandir Sahib. The argument is whether or not this constitutes the traditional presentation of a female on the traditional notion of the battlefield.

Undoubtedly harming woman is against Khalsa maryada, however, it think it is accepted that you can only engage in combat with a woman on the battlefield – not in gang brawl skirmishes, or even attacks (illustrated by Baba Sahib Singh). However, there no longer exists the traditional notion of the battlefield, and no longer do we have traditional notions of war. Although combat has changed, the Khalsa rules of war must still be obeyed. I cant think of a prior example in history where any Sikh had killed a woman for military reasons, yet, I cant think of any example where any female has ordered an attack on the Khalsa and made herself a military target in they way Indira Gandhi did.

I think there are both good arguments for and against, however, both may be completely irrelevant as many believe there is a strong possibility that Rajiv Gandhi had his mother killed and the Sikhs were blamed.

[Malwe Da Sher]

Forgiveness is key. Knowing history is one thing, holding grudges is another.

Fateh Singh I agree with you on the importance of the notion of forgiveness, yet in the name of forgiveness many people become Pacifists . Likewise in the name of justice many people become terrorists. The Khalsa is neither.

[Xylitol]

it's well known that indira had women steralised and declared martial law to keep herself in power. she ordered an attack on 75 sikh shrines to crush the spirit of the sikhs and prevent further nonviolent protests as an election was coming up. it was all about power. her and baljit kaur both deserved to be offed. of course, khalsa should never torture anybody, but they both deserved to be offed. I mean what are they going to do, go to the police and register a case for murder?

No evidence Sant ji was involved in torture of Kaur. and by the way, indira attacked the sikh kaum, so she did attack the family of her bodyguards.

I think it's really important in any analysis to try to be accurate. post '84 groups very often operated independently of each other. and there modus operandi changed over time as devout Sikh militants were killed only to be replaced with the local guy from the pind who has no jeevan but was PO'd at the horrible way his family and people were being treated by the gov - and so decided to use any means possible to get rid of the parasite gov forces.

gov forces also had black cats - you know fake militants to weaken support.

there was a fantastic analysis of the movement written by bhai Kulbir Singh on tapoban.org wherein I remember him pointing to the killing of a european diplomat by a militant group to be the turning point.

[fatehsingh]

It's been over 20 years. Why is pacifist a bad word? The main Guru Granth that all goodseekz claim their Guru speaks far more of forgiveness, peace and pacificity than war and battle that the Dasam Guru Granth talks about. Obviously pacificity isn't all bad and there needs to be balance.. but look at ur calendar... it's 2007... crying and whining now over an event which both sides have blood on their hands.. and that too laughably thousands of km away in UK and Canada.. is pointless to say the least

[Guest Javanmard]

But Fatehsingh don't you realise that it gives meaning to confused 2nd generation kids who refuse to pick up a book to learn how to read gurbani it its different languages...

[fatehsingh]

Sorry I should've thought better than using the word 'crying over' the incident.. its more like 'spreading hatred' and 'seeking revenge' now in 2007.. also notice most of the chardikala tbt goodseekz fuming and getting all worked up were approximately 2-3 years of age back then... maybe 11 at best..

the way I see it: bibi killed maharaj, bibi got killed, innocent sikhs got killed, sikhs blew up planes of innocent civilians. all this plus 20 years = Let's move on and create a better image to avoid being painted with the alqaida brush!

ps since I'm a pacifist I'm able to refer to people with respect.

[Guest]

just wanted to copy and paste an peace of writing i wrote from other thread, nothing new, just like to post it in this thread as well:

~Reevaluting the real meaning of shaheedi~

First of all , let me be clear this topic is "nowhere an personal attack to personal individuals/jatha who have fought during the times of 1980's". However this topic touches a very fine mindset of an true militant who have got complete understanding of "dharam yudh maryada" within sikhism and examples of shaheedi set by our beloved Guru Sahibs- Sri Guru Arjan Dev Ji, Sri Guru Tegh Bahadur Ji.

I think every sikh with bibek buddhi can somewhat agree that not all sikh militants back in the time of 1980-1995 were 100 percent genuine and they were some who were driven by vengeance not "revenge". This two different terms, vengeance is state of mind where a person who is soo driven by it, that will use any "unjustified force" to eliminate the target, even though that unjustified force will kill innocent civilians. Whereas true sikh of sri guru gobind singh ji, will use only "justified force" to eliminate the target that means abort the missions if its turning out that there are innocent civilians on the way of target. In real world, this is painful, talk to any militants around the world, amount of pressure they get and planning they have spent to eliminate the target is over-whelming, hence in their dictionary if target (ruthless opressors/killer) is eliminated even in the cost of one-two innocent civilians is acceptable, but remember we are not just any joe blow sormaie/soldiers , we are given an beautiful concept of saint and sipahi, we are given ideals of khalsa, shaheedi, maryada in the dharam yudh. In the dharam yudh, singh under no circumstances doesnt not target - innocent civilians. Regardless how much pressure, how much planning is done to kill targets, singh should instantly boycatt/cancel the mission to target (ruthless killers/oppressors) after knowning it will cost an live of an innocent.

Classical example of such sikhs who have gravely failed to be sikhs of sri guru nanak dev ji let alone- sant-sipahi, or shaheeds is an clip below, fwd to 3 minute- http://media.cbc.ca:8080/ramgen/cbc.ca/new...wski_030909b.rm

Quote " There will be sikhs around, thats a price of our revolution".

Now its sikhs in the interview shown in the clip, i dont care where they from, which group they belong, they have every terrorist intent around that time in their mind to target anyone , have no regards for life of an innocent individuals, as sikhs in that clip said- after all this is the price of our revolution.

not targetting the jatha/personality but targetting the mindset of such fanatics, question to sangat , do they qualify to call themselves sant sipahi of sri guru gobind singh ji? if they were killed, do they qualify to be in realm of shaheedi which is very very pure concept laid down by examples of our guru's, sahibzadas, great warriors- baba deep singh ji, 40 mukhte, great mothers within khalsa panth. Do they qualify to have their names read next to great warriors like- baba deep singh??

Sikh need to be first sant (dya, dharam, sat, santokh, gyan) and then sipahi, its not other way around, only sipahihood in an person makes them demonic/tamoguni nothing else. You need santhood first and sipahi to anaylise each and every suitation in dharam yudh to questions- how much justified force need to be used? do assessment of dharam yudh, how is it impacting other innocent civilians life? how can one eliminate an target(ruthless killers/oppressors) soo pricesly that no innocent life is lost. And no these attributes of santhood first then sipahihood and questions and assesmment of dharam yudh is not only limited to only jathedar but each one of us who have desire to be shaheeds for the panth and Guru have this responsiblity.

Call this personal opnion since i dont have direct proof but fight for khalistan was failed because some in the movement

a) were just people, joe blow soramaie with terrorist intent use khalsa panth for their personal revenges ie- oh guy killed my family, i m going to kill his, all in the garb of kesh, dhara and all in garb of khalsa panth

gov't infiltration, nobody is ignoring that, however to use this govt inflitration on every stance is foolishness. to even be more foolish that to deny lack of acknowledgement that there is strategic failure.

c) lack of acknowledgement that there is such thing as "sikhs with terrorist intent, fanaticism within sikhs.

d) ignoring dharam yudh maryada the points are listed in sri dasam granth.

e) ignoring the concept of santhood (dya, dharam, sat, santokh, gyan) and then sipahi, its not other way around, only sipahihood in an person makes them demonic/tamoguni nothing else. You need santhood first and sipahi to anaylise each and every suitation in dharam yudh to questions- how much justified force need to be used? do assessment of dharam yudh, how is it impacting other innocent civilians life? how can one eliminate an target(ruthless killers/oppressors) soo pricesly that no innocent life is lost. And no these attributes of santhood first then sipahihood and questions and assesmment of dharam yudh is not only limited to only jathedar but each one of us who have desire to be shaheeds for the panth and Guru have this responsiblity.

Last but not least, yesterday i went to gurdwara, its my personal observation, but in the langar hall, all i can see pictures of "shaheeds" with no description of what they did, how genuine they were etc. This leads to great misconception if forgein reporter, media person walks in, he/she all they will see its guns, violence ruthless killers thats what they see , they need more information to change what they saw. This needs to be changed, description needs to be added, as for calling each and every sikh with gun in the langar hall - shaheed, i wouldnt go that far, i would hold my judgement until i study them, i think shaheed label itself just like- sant, bhramgyani, gyani, das is been over used and over abused.

Its about time we all re-evaulate our stance on concept of shaheedi laid by our beloved guru's via santhood-sipahihood, dharam yudh maryada lets not use pure term very freely,losely. Not saying to be hard core skeptic fanatic either but just have open mind, bring your own opnion after studying them.

[Guest Javanmard]

nice post veer ji