tonyhp32

Leave him be. If he wants to join the BNP then so be it, he has a free choice and for him his actions are just his way of fighting against this country becoming another Islamic shythole in a few years time. He's experienced living in a country just about to become free and where the Muslims are about to flex their muscles and deal with the Kafirs. I am talking about Lahore in 1947 and not the UK but perhaps this statement might be correct in a few decades time.

Neo, You'll be kicking yourself if it turns out that Chatka can be done by a shot to the head because it's mentioned in some secret text that no one by the Nihangs know about! If there's one thing good that Niddar and Parmjit Singh are doing, it's that by bringing out all the obscure beliefs, acts and rituals of the Nihangs is that just how far removed they are from the ideal image of the Khalsa as envisonaged by the majority of Sikhs.

Congratulations to the youth slate for an impressive victory! I hope that this serves as an example to the Sikh youth in other countries that provided the vision is there then the majority of Sikh voters will vote for the slate that offers that vision. I think so-called moderates also faced a backlash as they tried to retain power by challenging the previous vote due to an irregularity over the way some of the youth slate had been nominated for the election. Probably another story of a newspaper editor getting attacked by 'fundamentalists'! That always makes for a good story!

The odd Nihang here and there does not mean that the Nihangs made a great contribution to the struggle. It's a bit like saying that the Punjab police made a contribution to the struggle because a few Punjab policemen had joined the struggle as well. What I am referring to is the general body of Nihangs who stood by and did nothing.

Shaheediyan, You must be reading the wrong posting if you think that I make 1984 sound so trivial! FYI the non-Nihang Sikhs did a good job protecting the Gurdwaras and the way in the Kharkoos fought both during Bluestar and after bring back the memories of Sikh heroes like Garja Singh, Bota Singh, Mehtab Singh and others. While the Kharkoos were fighting the government Santa Singh was sitting around under guard with a detachment of cigarette smoking and pan chewing Bhaiyas of the CRPF! What more can be said about him at that time? So pray tell me how was 1984 so complicated that the Nihangs did nothing for the Panth? I have heard a number of excuses given by Nihangs about 1984, one was that the whole episode was a government plan to wipe out the Sikhs and had the Nihangs joined in the fray then it would have given the GOI an excuse to kill all Sikhs! This was told to me by an old Nihang during a bus journey from Jagraon to Ludhiana in 1988. Other excuses that I have come across include such things as the Panth did not have a plan and Baba Jarnail Singh should have taken all the Jathebandis into his confidence before launching the movement! What bigger disgrace is there that those who claimed to be the so-called Laadliyan Faujan who had for the last 200 years been living of the achievements of Dal Khalsa, when push came to shove they meekly stood by while thousands of common Sikhs were killed. As I wrote before the Nihangs can spin the events of 1984 and after all they like but their actions or particularly lack of actions will take a great deal of time for Sikhs to forget if they ever forget at all. Singh2, Your posts are a waste of time to respond to as they have no relevance to the topic at hand, you seem to want to write any old bukwas which comes to mind. Therefore this will be my last response to you.

Laadli Fauj, I disagree as your point fails in that the Nihang Dals had the perfect opportunity in 1984 to protect the common Sikhs and failed miserably. One can spin the events of 1984 and find an odd Nihang here and there joining the movement but any objective observer would have to admit that the Nihang role in 1984 and after was a fiasco. If the Nihangs had lived up to their claim to being the defenders of the Sikhs then there would have been no need for any other Jathebandis like Dal Khalsa, Babbar Khalsa or Khalistan Liberation Force and others. The fact that those who wanted to fight the oppressive government after Bluestar joined Kharkoo Jathebandis and not any of the Nihang Dals prove that the Nihang Dals had lost their right to be called protectors of the Sikhs. I don't want to keep on bringing up 1984 each time the Nihangs are discussed but 1984 was a watershed year for Sikhs and apart from a few kids in the West who go all ga ga whenever something about Nihangs is mentioned and who have romantic notions about the Nihang lifestyle there isn't much credibility amongst common Sikhs when it comes to Nihangs. Dalsingh101 If I was totally blunt here then rather than a a standing army of the Panth the Nihangs are more like one of those military re-enactment societies one gets in the west and probably asking Nihangs to defend the common people today is a bit like the USA drafting a Civil War re-enactment society straight into Iraq or Afghanistan! Singh2 Once again unsubstantiated statements. No one is saying that Nihangs did not fight with the Sikh army so there is no need to bolster your unsubstantiated statement about Dal Khalsa being Nihangs by bringing up another fact that no one has disputed.

My issue is about people who post unsubstantiated statements as if they are fact. Your explanation just worsens the earlier subjective statement. If Nihangs are Sikhs who are 'true' to in your words in representing puratan traditions satkaar and paat of Dasam Bani, Chalda Vaheer, immense seva, tyar bar tyar then that implies that non-Nihangs Sikhs ie 99.99999% of Sikhs are not true to these traditions. There is no evidence that the Nihang lifestyle represents the ideal Khalsa lifestyle as envisoned by Guru Gobind Singh and not just a lifestyle that was forced upon the Khalsa during the 60 odd years of Mughal and Afghan persecution. If I am wrong here then all the Amritdharis on the board as well as all the others outside of India should either leave and join the Nihang Dals or start Nihang Dals in their respective countries. You can't call yourself Chalda Vaheer just because you drive down to the local Tesco for your shopping. You will need to trade your car in for a horse and I don't think the car scrappage scheme covers that one at the moment! I recall you created a class of 'normal' Sikhs ie those who were Amritdhari but were not Nihangs but there is no evidence for such a division, either the Nihangs are the original Khalsa and their outdated lifestyle is the true Khalsa lifestyle or it isnt. You can't have it both ways. I would remind you that the vast majority of Sikhs left the Nihang lifestyle when the Khalsa defeated the Mughal and Afghans and these Sikhs still had a living memory of Guru Gobind Singh.

Sayyid Ahmed of Bareilly was a Wahabi who after doing Hajj to Mecca came to India with an intention of declaring Jihad and reviving Muslim rule in India. The British encouraged him as long as his Jihad was against the Lahore state and allowed him and his followers to transit from UP which was under British control to the Afghan border areas of the Lahore state. The British intention was to divert the Sikh resources away from the Satluj frontier. They wanted the Sikhs to get bogged down in the frontier area. Ironically the British are now fighting the Wahabis in the same area and sustaining losses just like the Sikhs had 170 years previously. The British could learn a thing or two about how the Sikhs handled the Jihad of Sayyid Ahmed in that they brought off the tribes that were loyal to him and allowed the distain of the Wahabis for the non-Islamic traditions of the tribes to create a wedge and the tribes in the end betrayed him and his followers. On a side note about Cat Steven aka Yusuf Islam, it is surprising how he suddenly discovered that Islam allows Music when his cash was running out and yet for 30 odds years believed that Music is haram!

So who are the 'fake' Sikhs of the Guru? All the Non-Nihang Sikhs? Please restrain your over zealousness and get some perspective.

That's old news. That was the programme where Nick Griffin was filmed referring to Islam as a vicious and wicked faith and charged with incitement to racial hatred. He was cleared of these charges by a jury a year later. This was also the time that the BBC postphoned a documentary on Muslim men grooming unage white girls in some northern towns because it would give political mileage to the BNP. The problem with the BNP is that it claims to be only against the Islamisation of Britian but it is still a racist party using Islam as a way to bypass the anti-racism legislation. What Britain needs is someone like Geert Wilders rather that an repackaged skinhead like Griffin. Here is an interview of Lord Pearson who was the one who invited Geert Wilders to the UK in February. He makes some interesting observations-; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQisZM1X8lU

Harjas 'kaur' I think you need to use reliable sources rather that wikipedia as that reference to the 1901 census of Sikh Rajputs is clearly way off the mark. Sikh Rajputs have always been small in number and the 1931 census only found approx. 50,000 Rajput Sikhs in Punjab. Regarding the 18th century Sikh struggle, you cannot refer to those Hindus who joined the Khalsa as still being Hindus as by joining the Khalsa these Hindus had made a conscious choice to cast off the Hindu religion. What is surprising is that given the ratio of Sikhs to Hindus being at best 1:10 why was there no parallel Hindu movement against the Mughals and Afghans in Punjab. Leave aside the Hill Rajputs who were collaborators of the Mughals, there was not Hindu Rajput resistance in Punjab. The Hindu Jats were also in greater number than the Sikhs Jats in Punjab at that time yet there was no Hindu Jat movement. What you are regurgitating is the same old RSS bukwas in which the Hindus of Punjab not having anyone or anything to be proud off in the last 1000 years are trying to claim the Sikh struggle as well as Sikh personages as Hindu. The Sikhs have Ithehaas (history) and the Hindus have Mithehass (mythology)

I don't think that there was an official Jihad declared against Sikhs during the time of Aurangzeb. The Mughal state had enough men and resources and did not need to declare a Jihad and invite Jihad mobs against the Sikhs. However, Wazir Khan did declare a Jihad upon learning the Banda Singh Bahadur was on his way to Sirhind. As a consequence he was able to suplement his paid army with an army of Muslim rabble eager to kill and die for Allah as well as enjoy the spoils of war. After the battle of Chappar Chiri there was also a Jihad declared against the Sikhs in Lahore in which a large number of Hindu Julahas took part. The Jihadi army roamed around Lahore, ejected a Sikh jatha from a fort. A large number of excesses were committed against the local villagers so much so that the leaders of that army had to execute a number of the offenders. This Jihadi army was attacked by Sikhs during the night and was chased all the way back to Lahore with a large number of Jihadis killed. The above is mentioned in the book Banda Singh bahadur by Ganda Singh.

Both Jihadwatch and Faithfreedom use the original sources which by their very nature are the Muslims' side of the story. As Kalyug said, there is no other side of the story. This is because the Christian and Jewish population of Arabia were either massacred, forced to flee or forcibly converted. Robert Spencer has written a number of books on Islam and I would suggest you read them before criticising the site as biased. The same goes for Faithfreedom, you might wish to read some of the debates between Muslims and non-Muslims there on various aspects of Islam and in the vast majority of debates the Muslims end up being mauled. These Muslims then do the normal Islamic tactic of running off to Islamic sites claiming to have beaten Ali Sina or some other figure from the site.

One of the worst hit areas of the Tsunami on 2004 was Aceh province and the ignorant mullahs in that areas said that the people were not Islamic enough so the tsumani was allah's punishment. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad! The people get killed in tens of thousands and to make up for it they will now face stoning and possibly amputations as a result. Life's a b*tch!

The only similarity betweeen Geert Wilders and Chaudhry is that both tell it like it is without the PC whitewash which infects most public debate on this subject. Geert Wilders clearly says that he has no problem with Muslims as people but he has a problem with Islam. Any decent person would have a problem with Islam. This is the direct opposite of what most PC people would say, for them Islam as a religion is 'peaceful' but it is some Muslims who have hijacked it that are the problem. I have a question for you, do you think that the Gurus were supportive of Sharia law and the Dhimmi status accorded to non-Muslims in an Islamic state? Sharia law, Dhimmi status and Jizya tax are not hypocritical or fanatical practices, they are a part of mainstream Islam agreed by all the schools of Islam. The rehatnamas and the actions of Guru Gobind Singh in 1699 go against the Dhimmi status that the Mughals had accorded to non-Muslims in their empire. Dhimmis are not allowed to keep a sword, ride a horse or basically even oppose by violence any action by the Muslim state. You state that the Gurus only reacted when injustices were done. This is where the preception of a Muslim and a normal person is at odds. For a Muslim, the fact that someone would refuse to be governed by Sharia law, or refuse to accept dhimmi status, then that person has committed an injustice and that person is the one at fault! Islam imposes a certain mindset which is at odds with normal notions of justice and fair play. If you agree with me that the Gurus were opposed to Sharia law with it's discrimination against non-Muslims such as the difference in blood money compensation etc. Then you have to have a problem with Islam. You can sing all the praises you want of your devout Muslim mates but what you have seen in Britain is the weak Islam prior to before it starts to assume a greater role through a growth in population. Your devout Muslim mates might be all nice and respectful now but should Islam take over the UK, you as a non-Muslim would have fewer rights than a Muslim, renovation of Gurdwaras and building of Gurdwaras would stop. The same would be the case with Churches, Mandirs and Synagogues. Back to Geert Wilders, he is a homosexual who is proud of the liberal culture of his native country and Europe as a whole. He sees that increasingly there have been attacks on homonsexuals by Muslim youths in Holland and also sees that with the increasing Muslim population these are likely to lead to greater dangers to homosexuals and society as a whole. The Dutch are world renowned for being laid back and tolerant and yet because of the threat they see from Islam they are increasing supporting parties such as Wilders'. To you someone who wants to protect his society from the dangers that Islam represents might is an idiot and a neanderthal but to an increasing number of people waking up to what Islam is like he is a hero.

Singh2, So you know more that Jhubal's grandson about whether he joined Congress party in 1919. Thst just shows that what you lack in intelligence you make up for in ego.

The Nihangs had the control over Akal Takht during the Misl days not because they were viewed as having had some great commission from Guru Gobind Singh but as they belonged to a Misl that did not seize lands as the other Misls did, they could be seen as being neutral in the disputes between the different Sardars and Misls. Maharaja Ranjit Singh had no need for a neutral force as he had taken over the other Misls and hence sometime during the later years of reign (possibly after the death of Akali Phula Singh) he did away with the Nihang custodianship of Akal Takht appointing his own Sardars as Managers of the complex, the one at the time of the British annexation being Lehna Singh Majithia. Your theory of the seperation of administrative and religious duties falls down flat when we consider that the person who was the manager of the complex during the days of Maharaja Ranjit Singh was a member of a committee of Sardars that wrote the administrative document of 1859 and he makes no mention of Nihangs or Akalis as it does of Pujaris, Ragis and Rababis. The administration document covers Harmandir Sahib and Akal Bunga as well as some other Bungas in the complex.

What goes around comes around. The Pakistanis used the Khalistan movement against India and were never serious about working for the achievement of Khalistan. So whenever a bomb goes off in Pakistan then it is just karma payback. I hope there is a general conflagration in Pakistan and the country dies the death of a thousand cuts. A country that was formed on the death of lakhs of Sikhs does not deserve to survive. It is only the billions in aid that the US is giving to Pakistan that is keeping the country afloat otherwise it would have been destroyed some years ago.

One thing you have to hand to Anjem Chaudhry, although he is scum but at least he tells the truth unlike all those liars who go on TV and say how 'peaceful' Islam is. Here is is telling the truth about Islam while the interviewer instead of listening to what he is saying keeps interrupting him.

Is this the same Kirpal Singh who went on Indian TV after Bluestar and LIED that the Akal Takht had not been damaged? What I was seeking was a contemporary account from someone who visited the complex around the time of the Akali takeover and who confirms that there was Nihang Jathedar at Akal Takht. It shouldn't be difficult given the number of newspapers that were published at that time. What I provided was evidence from 1859 when the document relating to the administration was created and there is no mention of Nihangs at all as having any role in the administration of the complex! I also provided evidence from a contemporary accounts of the takeover which state that the Nihangs tried to take over the Akal Takht on behalf the ousted Pujaris. You may argue that these accounts are biased because they are from Akali leaders who took part but even where writers wanting the defame Kartar Singh Jhabbar such as the grandson of Amar Singh Jhubal they have not given the story about the beating of the Nihang Jathedar when such a story would greatly assist the writer's case. Singh2, For the last time will you stop regurgitating the same old quotes prior to 1849. Do you not know the difference between 1849 and 1920? Proving you to be ignorant is getting boring now. The article by the grandson of Jhubal, he should know more about his father than you would. http://share.zoho.com/preview/writer/66266000000006005/Sardar%20Amar%20Singh%20Jhubal-%20A%20Stalwart%20of%20Akali%20and%20Independent%20Movements

Singh 2 wrote-; Below is from a paper written by Amar Singh Jhubal's grandson. For someone who keeps trying to talk up Jhubal you don't know much about him. Singh 2 wrote-; You gave a reference from a mickey mouse website. There was no Jathedar at Akal takht from the time of the British annexation until Teja Singh Bhuchar was made jathedar by the Akalis in 1920. You were asked to give a reference and you have failed miserably. I am surprised that MDS and Shaheediyan haven't been able to pull out any references. So it looks like Sahib Singh and his Nihangs attempted to seize the Akal Takht from the Akalis who had only a few days before taken it over from the Pujabris who were under the control of the Sarbrah. The Nihangs came from Burj Akali Phoola Singh which is over a mile away from Akal Takht. Under the Sarbrah the Nihangs like other Sikhs could visit Akal Takht but they had no special status or custodianship over it. This is history. I would expect Neo to apologise for speading the bukwas story told to him by a Nihang that the Akali removed Sahib Singh from Akal takht of which he was the Jathedar and used women to beat him as they knew that he would not fight back against the women. That story has been shown here to be false. Over to you Neo.

Singh2, Please stop spreading your ignorance. Amar Singh Jhubal joined the Congress party in 1919 and was instrumental in organising the grass roots of the party in rural areas of Punjab but mostly in Amritsar district. While the Akali movement was at it's height, he was the president of the District Congress Committee for Amritsar district. How else could the party of Banias and Brahmins get so strong amongst Sikhs in Punjab. It was due to the organising abilities of people like Jhubal that by 1946 elections in Punjab the Congress won 10 seats reserved for Sikhs whilst the Akali Dal won only 23 reserved Sikh seats. You obviously have some sort of agenda and a poor sense of history. You want to push back the Jhubal involvement with the Congress to the 1940s as that was when it became common for many Sikhs to associate with the Congress but Jhubal was one of the main reasons that Congress got such strong support from Sikhs. While the Muslim vote was being consolidated in the Muslim league, the Sikh vote was being divided and thus ensured that Nehru could treat the Akali Dal as a minor party as he could count on his puppets like Jhubal the original 'Congressi Sikh' Why do you persist like a broken record to bring up writings from the 1830s when they are not relevant to the question at hand. You jump from the 1830s to 1984 as if that will prove the point. For each Nihang in 1984 who did something positive for the Panth there were ten others who went with the government. Sahib Singh in 1920 and Santa Singh in 1984, both sought to subvert the Sikh movements of their day, both sought to bring back the Nihang Jathedari over Akal Takht. The Sikhs in 1920 were able to get their hands on Sahib Singh and beat his ambition out of him. No doubt given the anger of Sikhs at Santa Singh's antics, had they been able to get pasr the cigarette smoking CRPF security of Santa Singh whilst he was at Akal Takht they too would have beaten him senseless. But lets not divert the thread. Either provide proof of a Nihang Jathedar being in charge at Akal Takht in 1920 or shut up. It's that simple.

For those interested in reading the one sided account of how bad and evil Kartar Singh Jhabbar was you can read the whole paper here-; http://export.writer.zoho.com/public/adhillon/Akal---Independence-Movement---Liberation-of-Gurdwara-Tarn-Taran1/fullpage Just remember that the writer is the grandson of Amar Singh Jhubal. Read how he places the whole blame for the clash at Tarn Taran on Kartar Singh Jhabbar and exonerates the Pujaris who had assaulted a woman at the complex a few days before and who had filled the complex with their hired goons many of whom were drunk.

Singh2, The fact that Nihangs were custodians at Akal Takht during the time of Akali Phula Singh is NOT in dispute. Your posting of reports from the early eighteenth century serves no purpose. What is in dispute is that in 1920 there was a Nihang who was the Akal Takht jathedar and who was manhandled out of his hereditary role by Akalis when they took over the Akal Takht. As of yet, no concrete evidence has been presented. As for your quote about the activities of Kartar Singh Jhabbar, there were two factions in Akali Dal who although they agreed on the need to liberate the Gurdwaras, disagreed on the methods and time frame. On faction wanted to involve M K Gandhi and adhere to his sanctimonious advice that the liberation of the Gurdwaras should be postphoned until India got it's independence. Kartar Singh Jhabbar was amongst the faction that thought that it would be harder to liberate the Gurdwaras with a Hindu government in place rather than under the British. FYI Amar Singh Jhubal was on the congress side and he was instrumental in creating congress committees in Punjab. With the recent attempts to rewrite history and portray the Akali movement as illegitimate, so some family members of Jhubal are attempting to rewrite history to reduce the role of leaders like Kartar Singh Jhabbar. Whereas as most of the Akali leaders suffered all or a majority of their imprisonment for the Akali movement, Amar Singh Jhubal, out of nearly 5 years imprisonment only went to prison for three months for the Akali movement and the rest of the time for activities linked with the Congress party of Gandhi and Nehru. Interesting enough in the quote you gave from "Real Story of Liberation of Gurdwara Tarn Taran" where the author spares no attempt to malign Kartar Singh Jhabbar, even he does not use the sanatan myth of the Nihang jathedar being kicked out of Akal Takht.

Shaheediyan, Have a read of Amritpal Singh's site and you will know why I made that statement. Propogating fairy stories about a Nihang jathedar sitting in Akal Takht in 1920 and being thrown out by the Akalis are some of the myths that are being told by Nihangs and starry eyed kids in the west. You, MDS and Maha Singh attempted to show that the aggression was on the part of the Akalis and that they were ending the Nihang jathedari from the times of Guru Hargobind. No evidence apart from some grainy images proving nothing were provided. The likelihood is that Nihang custodianship of Akal Takht ended after Akali Phula Singh while Maharaja Ranjit Singh was still ruling over Punjab. The British just continued the trend of government appointed Sarbrahs until the Akalis took over in 1920.