tonyhp32

The problem is not the support, it is the fact that the militant struggle was always infiltrated with government agents. The GOI played it's cards well from the start. In 1984 it used traitors like Santa Singh to undermine the struggle and by repairing the Akal Takht remove any physical reminder of the attack. They success of the GOI can even be gauged today by the fact that some kids in the west think Santa Singh was some great mahanpurkh when the facts are the exact opposite. The GOI later used another traitor Tohra to remove the bullet marks from the rest of the complex. Longowal was promoted to firstly act as an opposition to Sant Bhindranwale and after the attack to split the fragile unity that Sikhs had achieved due to the attack. The first mistake made by the movement directly after 1984 was to not put up candidates for the 1985 Punjab elections. By doing so they virtually handed the political arena over to the traitors Barnala, Badal and Tohra. If they had put up candidates they would very likely have won a majority of the seats. In 1989 when the militants won a majority of the Lok Sabha seats in Punjab, the GOI even though it was under the Janata Dal and VP Singh was the Prime Minister, ensured that the state remained under presidents rule even though in the 1989 elections there was virtually no election violence in Punjab. The GOI then used it's traitors in militant organisations such as Sohan Singh to call for a boycott of the 1991 elections and start a killing spree of candidates. The GOI then used the violence as a pretext to postphone the elections solely in Punjab. Sohan Singh again called for a boycott of the 1992 elections and although the boycott was probably one of the most successful in history, it allowed Beant Singh to become Cheif Minister with only 20% of the people having voted. The rest as they say is history. The militants by following the advice of traitors lost the chance to gain an electoral victory.

The West went into Afghanistan and Iraq without any understanding of what the culture and religion is all about in these countries. Trying to 'stabilise' the country by holding elections and supporting the govt will never work in these countries. Islam and democracy are incompatible. Only a dictatorship can work in an Islamic society. Along with the troops fighting with one hand tried behind their backs with regard to not being able to engage until they are attacked. Also the liberal media does not help when it's aim is to work towards a withdrawal of western troops in order to prove that they were correct in their anti-war position. The West is in an impossible position in Afghanistan. They are training upwards to 230,000 troops who have not been vetted properly and who could at any time turn on them. When the troops use their superior firepower, the taliban will claim that 'civilians' have been killed and the coalition loses more support in the west. With regard to the so-called unconquerable status of Afghanistan, that is essentially a myth used by opponents of the war. Afghanistan has been conquered like other countries. It has been conquered by Alexander the Great, The Persians, The Arabs, the Turks and the Mughals. Our ancestors were able to put astop to the constant invasions that the Afghans undertook into India. The British could have stayed on in Afghanistan during the 19th century but it suited their interests to have a buffer state between them and the Russian empire. The Russian could have stayed but the combination of western supplied stinger missiles and their own economy forced them to leave. Had the CIA not supported the Mujahadin and supplied them with modern weapons as well as training support the Mujahadin would have not been able to carry out their campaign until the Russians left.

I wouldn't think a tradition which as many would have us believe had deep roots in Sikhi could easily be thrown out of the Panth. Although some would have us believe that the Singh Sabha had strong support from the British whereas the Sanatanists were on their own. The opposite is true in many ways. The Sanatanists had the Bedis descended from Guru Nanak on their side. They also had the support of most of the Maharajas and the landed class. Yet they lost the battle. The survive the battle and emerge victorious, all the Sanatanists had to do was to show that their lifestyle was in accord with the Guru Granth Sahib. Udasis could not do so because they had idols installed with the Guru Granth Sahib. Since most Sikhs believed in the Sehajdhari to Amritdhari route then it would be difficult to accept Sadhs with shaven heads as a part of the Panth. Especially when the stories of Sikh Shaheeds accepting martyrdom rather than losing their Kesh were current in the Punjab. To accept the Niddar/Shastarvidya.com version of history we have to accept that between 1870 to 1920 a vast majority of Sikhs actively accepted a false version of Sikhism and rejected the true version of Sikhism. That's the reason for my constant reference to sanatanist 'history' as fairy stories. You have to be a believer in such stories to accept the sanatanist line. In fact if you look at it logically it would have been easier for the traditional sampardhas to throw the Singh Sabha out the Panth given that they could claim an ancient origin whereas (as dodgy websites also now claim) the Singh Sabha could be shown to be a novelty and British inspired. But what the Singh Sabha did was to test the lifestyle and beliefs of these sampardas against Gurbani and hence showed them to be Hindu in belief and not ideal Sikhs according to the rehat. It's a moot point whether they themselves took the active step to leave the Panth or whether the Singh Sabha threw them out. As the Singh Sabha was a parchar organisation then their aim would have been to 'Sikhify' them. There were a few Nirmalas who actively supported the Singh Sabha so they didn't all become Hindus or hide in their Deras. As for SGPC and Akali Dal, I believe the rot is temporary caused by Badal. Pre-Badal the SGPC was a great organisation and very forward thinking. In the 1940's they even passed a resolution in support of a Sikh state. No doubt either in the forthcoming or any future elections an anti-Badal front will take control of the SGPC. Whereas the Singh Sabha successor organisation can be reformed, the so-called traditional samaprdhas are unfortunately beyond hope.

There isn't really much they can do to be fair. The Nirmalas missed their chance to be an active missionary wing of Sikhism and using their Sanskrit and Braj skills to bring Sikhi to the Hindus outside of Punjab. If not being missionaries they could still have acted as a force inculating a respect for Sikhism anongst the Hindus. But they failed miserably. The fact that they are called 'Nirmala' which is Sanskrit for 'pure' same as Khalsa is Persian for 'pure' should not be lost on us. Their tradition claims that they were given Amrit by Guru Gobind Singh yet not many keep the Rehat or have the 5 Ks. Rather than do parchar of Sikhism they have virtually become Hindus having knowledge of Guru Granth Sahib. Compare this with the Sewapanthis who were originally Sehajdhari and yet are nowadays practically all Keshdhari. The Nirmalas went the opposite direction. I am sure the Nirmalas must be surprised that after being defeated by the Singh Sabha some kids in the UK seem to think that they were the best thing since sliced bread! The same is the case of the Nihangs. They have also failed in their duties assigned to them according to their tradition. Whilst they call themselves Guru Ki ladli fauj, or Dal Panth and such 96 Crore etc they have failed miserably since 1984. Udasis have always been outside the Panth. It's a recent thing that some dodgy websites have tried to hoodwink Sikhs that Udasis were accepted by the Gurus. In Ludhiana district the Udasis had quite a few large deras and most of them degenerated when the Mahant in charge would get married and seperate some of the Dera into his family quarters and then his sons would then fight over the inheritance as if it was their family Dera.

It's not Singh Sabha statistics, it census statistics taken by the British in India. You really need to open you eyes and get rid of your blinkered views. So your traditional history has it that Nirmalas and Udasis were converting millions of Hindus? You make bold statements but never back them up with facts. Where are these millions? The impact of the Singh Sabha can be seen in the way that most Gurdwaras around the world belong to this tradition. How many Nirmala or Udasis dera remain and what is their influence. The only Nirmalas I saw when I was last in India were three guys going from house to house in the village claiming to be collecting donations for a langar organised for all the Sadhus in hardwar! Most villagers treated them as conmen but apparently there is a langar set up for sadhus by the Nirmalas. Your fairy stories really are getting quite boring. So Punjab was a utopia before the Singh Sabha turned up and infected with blah blah victorian protestant values, lack of musical taste, not knowing any of the traditional languages trampled down this uptopia! Look at the state of Sikhi even at the height of Maharaja Ranjit Singh, he acted more as a Punjabi ruler than a Sikh ruler. This was also the case of the Malwa Maharajas. Why didn't Maharaja Ranjit Singh change the language of the state from Persian to Punjabi? The Gurus used to send their Hukumnamas in Gurmukhi script, why did he not switchover to Gurmukhi? The Traditional orders all used Braj in Gurmukhi script so why didn't prevail of the Maharaja to support Braj or Punjabi? Many of the travellers who traversed Punjab during that time openly state that Sikhs were addicted to Opium as well as being hard drinking. Is this in line with the Rehatnamas or Gurbani? If it wasn't then you have to accept that the traditional orders had failed in a big way. As I stated in a previous post, they had a Punjab where there was no opposition to the Sikh way of life and they failed miserably. The Singh Sabha had to deal with not just opposition from Muslims and Hindus but also these traditional orders and their confused Sikh followers and the Singh Sabha was very successful. I assume that you consider Sikhism to be a religion seperate from Hinduism, then why is it that 578,000 Sikhs listed themselves as Hindu-Sikhs and not just Sikhs? After the Singh Sabha movement only a few thousand still considered themselves as Hindu-Sikhs. Where these traditional orders are successful was to confuse the distinction between Sikh and Hindu. The only legacy these orders left behind was that one could matha tek at a Sufi grave in the morning, worship the devi in the afternoon, practise castism or even wear a janeo and go to the Gurdwara for Kirtan Sohila and still claim to be a Sikh! The reversion back to building Mosques and hugging those who consider us kafirs nowadays becoming the norm in Punjab is not due to the Singh Sabha parchar but because that parchar is non existent hence the traditonal bukwas masked as traditional orders making a comeback.

Shaheediyan So that's another Sanatan myth..Udasis and Nirmala used to do better parchar than the Singh Sabha..blah blah blah..disproved. Any other myths you've come across you want to test on the forum?

Maybe you could do with taking your own advice sometimes. No offence but you really need to expand your reading material away from sanatan fairytale websites and read some real history books. Firstly you badmouth the Singh Sabha and accuse them of having fallen flat in bringing Hindus to Sikhism and then you post that sactimonious advice! FYI as Chatanga Bro posted, Singh Sabha was probably the best vehicle of Sikhi parchar since the times of the Gurus. When the Nirmalas and Udasis were in charge they faced a docile and pro-Sikh influenced Punjab population (1765-1870)and parchar for them would have been easy. They also had a powerful Sikh kingdom at Lahore and minor Sikh states beyond the Satluj. Where are the statistics and facts of how many Hindus they converted to Sikhism? Or were they as seems likely just presenting Sikhism as another mat of the Hinduism? When the Singh Sabha came about all communities were attempting to create boundaries between themselves and the others. Arya Samaj were attempting to convert low caste Sikhs into Arya Samaj, Qadianis and Muslims as well as Christians were doing their best to convert Sikhs. Yet it was Singh Sabha which not only put an end to Sikh conversion to other religions but also brought non-Sikhs into Sikhism. Singh Sabha also created the nucleus of a Sikh political leadership something otherwise the Sikhs rather than being considered one of three parties in deciding the political future of India, the Sikhs would have been like the Sindhis under a 'traditional' Nirmala or Udasis leadership who would not have had a clue about politics! You might want to rethink your defination of Singh Sabha parchar as a Punjabi centric. Singh Sabha through Chief Khalsa Diwan sent parchar Jathas to Sindh, NWFP and even Afghanistan. They fact that there are so many Sindhis who follow Guru Granth Sahib is due to these parchar activities. The successor to Singh Sabha, the SGPC even sent parchar Jathas to UP, Bombay and Kerala. Obviously the parchar nowadays is not the same as it was before but SGPC and DSGMC parchar jathas still convert hundreds of Hindus every year outside Punjab. Singh Sabha type parchar is the one which is also bringing many Vanjaras, Satnamis and Lobanas into Sikhism in southern India. Compare this with your heroes, the Nirmalas and Udasis, rather than bring any Hindus to Sikhism, I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't confuse some Sikhs into thinking that Sikhism is just a sect of Hinduism! The difference between the type of parchars is that the Nirmalas/Udasis approached the Hindus using the idiom current in Hinduism. They may have laid a lot less stress of Sikhism as offering a casteless society, they would have laid stress on Sikhism as being a part of the Indic culture etc. This is why although the political success of the Khalsa brought many Hindus into the Sikh ranks, once the Lahore kingdom was annexed, these people quickly reverted back to Hinduism. When the Muslim lost power, there was no case of Muslim en masse reverting back to Hinduism and this can only have been that they knew what the boundaries of their faith were. This show how important boundaries are and how the Singh Sabha parchar alway laid stress on the boudary between Sikhism and Hinduism. I will give you an example of how Singh Sabha influence contributed to bringing Hindus to Sikhism. In the area where I am from, Ludhiana district the Sikh Jats were in the ratio of 2:1 (130,000 to 75,000)to Hindu Jat about the time the Singh Sabha started it's parchar. The Singh Sabha had parchar jathas which would tour the villages exhorting Sikhs to take Amrit and to stop worshipping at the Udasi Deras and Sufi Khankahs. In our area, the Udasis Babas were Jats and hence there was not much of the pull from the Jat society towards Singh Sabha Sikhism. But the effect of the parchar jathas was such that Sikh Jats stopped giving their daughters in marriage to the Hindu Jats. In fact the Sikh Jats only took daughters from Hindu Jats. They would only give their daughters in marriage if the Hindu Jat family would become Sikhs. The Singh Sabha also worked with the British army, as the Granthis of the regiments were avid readers of the Singh Sabha newspapers and were hence influnced by them. When the soldiers retired to their villages they would become a focus of Singh Sabha parchar in their villages. So the outcome of this parchar was that before partition there was no such thing as a Hindu Jat in our villages.

Sending a daughter abroad on a vague promise of a job paying Rs 35000 a month. The mother should be paraded around the village with chappals around her neck. You can't blame the Punjab government, they and Badal are useless in everything but the people sending their daughters abroad should accept some responsibility for their own actions. Where the male relatives of the girl? They allow a travel agent to stay alive when he has done that to their daughter/sister?

The Kashmir issue could have been easily resolved if Nehru and the other leaders had followed the example of Kapurthala State in Punjab. Kapurthala has a Muslim majority (56%) but the ruler was a non-Muslim (Sikh). The ruler opted for India and the Muslims were driven out to make way for the Hindu and Sikh refugees from West Punjab. Similarly had Nehru handled the Dogra ruler correctly then the same situation could have came to pass and the Hindu and Sikh refugees from NWFP and Rawalpindi area could have been settled there. No doubt the Muslim Kashmiris would have been peeved off at losing Kashmir but we don't hear Kapurthala Muslims from Pakistan going on about having lost their lands. Due to Kapurthala being a Muslim majority state, the Muslim league in their submissions to the boundary commission were asking for the boundary line to be drawn up to the Satluj river. The boundary commission rejected this submission as only the ruler of Kapurthala had the right to decide which state his kingdom would join.

It's all crocodile tears. He also called on Canada to rein in Sikh 'extremists'. He has remained in a political party that massacred Sikhs and yet he expects us to believe that he is a man of intregrity. The man is a gaddar pure and simple but there's no doubt many simple minded Sikhs will be taken in by his fake concern for what the Sikhs have been through.

You are right, our community contains more than it's fair share of lullo fullos. But the lulloness seems to a very recent thing, maybe there was more pyar between Sikhs abroad when we were few in number and when the numbers increase then the relationships become more formal and guarded. Lulloness in India could have many causes, Bollywood and it's 'unity in diversity' BS, the secular idiots who get voted to power every five years etc. Not many Sikhs were lullos in 1947 and the lulloness of the father in the news report was one of a few exceptions inluding the lullo Buta Singh who cut his hair for a Musli and died under a train in Lahore. That uberlullo Gurdas Mann made a film about it a few years ago.

I think that Hapjap Singh should approach the committees and advise them that given that they do not comply with UK employment law they need to change their ways immediately otherwise the committee members could face charges and the Gurdwara could lose it's charity status.

The so-called Indian economic miracle is making the rich more richer and pushing the poor into greater poverty. It's no wonder that Naxalism is gaining ground. India is probably in greater danger of a violent revolution now than at any time in it's history.

I could probably understand the act if the stupid father had been responsible for the deaths of the Muslim's two sons. The Muslim father appears to have taken advantage of the stupidity of the Sikh. There is a somewhat similar story told about Master Tara Singh. He came across a Muslim orphan girl and raised her as a Muslim and when she was older located her family and married her off to a Muslim boy. But in this case the Muslim didn't even raise the boy as a Sikh but cut his hair and made him into a Muslim. Quite apart from the way the father disregarding the best interests of his son. It appears that the father was a landowner and the son being the only son would have had a somewhat comfortable life had he stayed with his parents. But his life seems to have been one of living hand to mouth, he would not study due to the Muslim being poor and now he makes ends meet by running a small shop. Quite apart from the fact that this is a disturbing act but the views of some Sikhs shows how the stupidity that made the Sikh father hand over his son also infects Sikhs today. The Spokesman newspaper decsribed this as a 'act of humanity at a time of madness'! On one of the discussion threads Kashmir Singh of British Sikh Federation wrote this-; And these people are fighting for Sikh 'rights'!

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chandigarh/Sikh-family-gave-son-away-to-grieving-Muslim-couple/articleshow/6088740.cms I suppose my title says more than the secular Indian 'unity in diversity' media bukwas title.

The so-called Intelligence agent seems pretty coy answering these questions. Mind you if that is the kind of intelligence agents Canada has then no wonder the plane blew up. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62VwXL-sEVE The above video is mainly about the investigation into the wreckage but it does show in one of the videos that a check clerk broke the rules and checked in luggage when the person checking the luggage for india in didn't have a ticket for the connection to india. Also the xray machine at air india security was broken down! imagine that, GOI had given warnings of a specific threat to AI and yet the xray machine doesn't work. Also the hand held explosives detector had buzzed when held up to the suspect luggage but the sound that was made was different to the one that should have sounded as demonstrated just that morning to the security staff! so they just let the luggage on. very fishy indeed. It does beg the question as to why the families aren't going after air india for compensation.

Neo Like Amardeep you also didn't read my post properly. What have vegetables from India to do with this? Air India is an organ of the Indian state, it is virtually a govt department and part of it's publicity machine. What I said is that the passengers made a choice to fly Air India at a time when there was a perceived threat to the airline and the perception of that airline as part of the Indian government. Maybe they thought the Indian intelligence and Air India were so good that there would be no attack. Maybe they also relied on the Canadian intelligence to keep them safe. They might even have held the naive view that their government would not bomb the plane themselves. As it is there was a bombing and they lost their lives. All I'm saying is that they have some responsibility for the choice they made on that day. In the example I gave, if the US attacked Mecca, I would avoid taking US airlines, wouldn't you? Is that common sense? Considering the fact that they both believe that Bhagat Singh was a freedom fighter even though he killed the wrong gora police inspector as well as a Sikh policeman, I think they wouldn't be able to take the moral high ground in this case.

You didn't read my post. The answer is already given.

I know that most if not all of you found my statement cold and heartless but then I assume that none of you guys were either around in 1984-85 or were of an age where you could understand the events of 1984 and the impact it had on Sikhs in India as well as abroad. Statements had been made by Sikh leaders for the boycott of all Indian government enterprises and Air India was the one that was targetted for boycott. Whether any threats had been made against Air India I don't recall but everyone would have been aware that by travelling on Air India they are showing support for the Indian establishment. I have been to India over 15 times and have never travelled on Air India. Now it's easy to look at the events of 1985 through post-9/11 mindset. Consider the following scenario. US attacks Mecca killing thousands of Muslim pilgrims. Let's say it was because they thought Bin Laden was there. I am not for one monent equating Bin Laden with Sant Bhindranwale but let's just for the sake of argument make that the reason for the attack. Muslims then around the world make threats against US airlines such as United. Now if Neo after his trek through the Canadian Rockies choose to take a United Airlines flight and that flight gets bombed then nothing personal to Neo but he made a choice to take that flight when others not under threat would have been available and whether or not he supported the US attack on Mecca my sympathy would be tampered by the fact that he made an unwise choice. The 1984 situation can in no way be equated with Arab-Israeli problem, or the Sri Lanka situation. I would in no way use the same logic if say the Arabs bombed an El Al plane because of that flotilla thing, or if LTTE bombed a Sri Lankan Airlines plane because of the massacres of Tamils by the Sri Lankan army. 1984 situation was unique, only the scenario given above or something similar could be equated with 1984.

Let me take a counterview. There is no evidence that a conspiracy by Sikhs brought down that plane. Yes, one Sikh was convicted of assembling an explosive device which was used in the bombing but where is the evidence of a conspiracy? If there were Sikhs involved in the conspiracy then why did the multi-million dollar prosecution fail? We all know that it's well nigh impossible to keep a small secret among our people but keeping mum over the worst case of airline terrorism prior to 9/11 takes some believing. Also the families seem to want revenge rather than justice, not one organisation of these has asked for the enquiry to be widened to include Indian government activities (if not involvement) in this case. According to the recent Inquiry the GOI gave a very accurate warning of the type of attack, one which then actually took place. If you think that the GOI is that good that it can give such an accurate warning and yet could not forsee the attacks on Mumbai then that also takes some believing. I'm not into conspiracy theories but the GOI is capable of killing 329 passengers in an aircraft to malign the Sikh movement. Rathar than pine over the loss of 329 people who made the decision to use the national carrier of India after the GOi had just murdered thousands of Sikhs and destroyed the Akal Takht, then arranged for the pogrom of more thousands of Sikh in Delhi then sorry but you made the decision and whether it was Sikh terrorists or the GOI that brought down your plane, live with the consequences of your decision.

Kdsingh80, There's a lot of difference between West Punjab and East Punjab. In west Punjab areas the laagis are still kept under conditions of serfdom. The landholdings and held by very few and a majority are landless and hence have no option but to work as farm labour.

The actual quote is-; "The wretched Nanak-worshipper has his camp in the town of Kalainpur upto the 19th instant. During the period he has promised and proclaimed: 1 do not oppress the Muslims'. Accordingly, for any Muslim who approached him, he fixes a daily allowance and wages and looks after him. He has permitted them to read khutba and namaz. As such, five thousand Muslims have gathered around him. Having entered into his friendship, they are free to shout their call and say prayers in the army of the wretched Sikhs." Saturday April 28th 1711 Akhbar-iDurbar-i-Mualla translated in Punjab past and present 1984 I doubt Banda Singh actually sanctioned the cold blooded murder of common Muslims. This is actually a accusation against him from Muslims to whom the irony is lost as well as Nihangs and neo-Nihang types of the UK variety. The rural common people who lived under the oppressive rule of the Mughals and their Subedars and the minor functionaries 'Rajay Seenh mukadam kutay' gave vent to their feeling and massacred a large of Muslims who lived in the towns. During Banda Singh's invasion of the Doab in UP, a large number of Gujjars joined him in razing the Mughal towns. The people also seemed to have a particular hatred of the Sayyeds (the descendents of Fatima) and a large number were killed.

I recall the quote is from a news report to the Mughal court stating that, I paraphrase here, Muslims have joined Banda Singh and he allowed them to call the azaan in the camp and that he set up a daily allowance for their maintenence. There are no reports on what happened to these Muslims, whether they fought up to the end or were fair weather friends only supporting Banda whilst he was on top after defeating Wazir Khan of Sirhind. This is the one and only report about Muslims supporting Banda Singh in the whole set of news reports. This does fly in the face of Khushwant Singh's accusation of Banda Singh's struggle as hurting the formation of a Punjabi nationality. Whilst some Muslims may have made common cause the fact is that the vast majority as well as some of the rich Hindus of Lahore supported the Jihad against Banda Singh.

Doesn't look like any of you actually have any experience of or knowledge of what farming entails in Punjab. It's not the lack of family members of farmers beinh workshy which is contributing to the need for Bhaiyas. It's impossible for a few family members to manage the labour intensive tasks such as sowing rice, planting wheat and harvesting which have to done during a specific short timeframe. A few decades ago the field labour work was done by 'laagis' who would be paid mainly in kind. Since the 70s this has changed as the sons of the village laagis have got access to education and job reservation and naturally look down on field labour work. Hence the need for Bhaiyas during these times. The shortage of Bhaiya labour now is because of guaranteed work schemes running in Bihar which provides the Bhaiyas good wages. What the Punjab government needs is to mechanise farming by providing combine harvesters, rice sowing machines etc

He doubted that DG was Guru's rachna in that book but a few years ago he was part of the DG seminar organised by the dodgy baba of Mehrauli in which he changed his views. Apparently his wife was up for some academic post at some university and the dodgy baba had influence to give her that post.