SAN

Challenging Political Violence against Sikhs

AnonSingh December 10, 2010 199 Comments

In a show of national unity, Sikhs on the west coast gathered to discuss the political violence of Canadian MPs against the Sikh community.  The meeting  which was attended by many Sikh organizations, highlighted a growing disillusionment with the Liberal Party of Canada.

Specifically, the response by the Party with regards to the 1984 Genocide Petition and the comments made by both Ujjal Dosanjh and Michael Ignatieff  - accusing Sikhs of extremism and much more were discussed.  Since these comments, the community has been left feeling victimized by the abuse of power from a party they have traditionally voted for.

Through the unfounded accusations leveled against the Sikh community by both the Party Leader, Michael Ignatieff and Ujjal Dosanjh, for which they have refused to take accountability, show proof of,  or apologize for,  Sikhs have been left with no choice but to begin questioning why their own elected MPs are attacking their rights as Canadians citizens. Further, townhall meetings have been organized nationally to discuss how to reconcile the abuse of power by Liberal MPs who have viciously attacked and attempted to defame the peaceful and democratic processes used by the Sikh community to address the Human Rights violations of 1984 by the Indian Government.

Below is some footage from the second of two meetings held nationally.  The first meeting was held in Toronto during which the Sikh community met with 2 Liberal MPs  and the second, from which the footage below is taken, was recently held in BC.

Indira Prahst – Professor of Sociology

—————————————————————————————————————————————————-

Jagmeet Singh Dhaliwal – Criminal Attorney

—————————————————————————————————————————————————-

Jatinder Grewal – Sikhs For Justice

Like this Article? Share it!

199 Comments

  1. Anonymous December 14, 2010 at 12:45 am

    VPP got owned throughout this debate. In particular after asking to see proof from the Gurus lives, which i provided. He still hasnt responded to a single point from that entire post. All his later posts were completely trashed by Rebel and others. He’s just grasping at straws and i encourage everyone to follow my advice and not argue with this maha moorakh. Above we have another poster agreeing that he has been knocked out in the first round………..

    According to Sant Mahapurkh Jarnail Singh Ji Khalsa Bhindranwale a person truly dies when their conscience dies. Vpps conscience is dead. He is a walking corpse.

    May Guru Sahib bless him and give him some ankh.

  2. VPP December 14, 2010 at 1:14 am

    I pointed to the flaws in your examples. The so called Badlas were in war like situation. Not in peace. And your examples are in direct conflict with the assertion in Jap ji Sahib “Hukame andar sabh ko bahar hukam na koye” and other fundamental Guru’s assertion: “Rab di raza vich khush rehna”.

    Enough I am grasping I am grasping for straws why are you all finding it so troublesome to answer all my questions. The ones I have raised in the last two post. May be you are living in the air to be inconsiderate of the issues on the ground. You really need to answer all those issues. Finally I know what is the ideology of those who are saying “VPP got owned”. May be you need to answer some questions before you jump guns. By running like a dog with its tail b/w its feet nobody really wins!

  3. VPP December 14, 2010 at 1:16 am

    At this present time Sikhs are not in conflict with Government (Even you admitted we are not allowed to kill someone who is unarmed)… Are we fighting against the govt which is headed by a Sikh? Poor baby, election results dekheya chi? Please answer the questions I raised yesterday!. Too hard for you to answer is that so?

  4. VPP December 14, 2010 at 1:20 am

    You guys have continuous to engage yourself in rhetoric and whimpering. But are continuously shirking to answer questions in an academic manner.

  5. VPP December 14, 2010 at 1:37 am
  6. VPP December 14, 2010 at 1:48 am

    As there has been an amazing precedence of nonacademic discussion on this discussion blog, I know some of you will continue to act like small children without any evidence of critical engagement. I must admit “I have question” shows the greatest level of maturity amongst you!

    So here is what book says:
    “Harbouring revenge or taking resort to revengeful act was in sharp contrast to the personality and mission of the Guru because revenge is an evil impulse and engenders hatred and secondly it has never solved any problem-much less the problem of improving human material. From the perusal of Zafar Nama and other sayings of the Guru, it is almost certain that the Guru did not want anything more from Bahadur Shah than was normally required-that the unjust and the oppressors of the people be removed from office or transferred to distant places to create peaceful conditions in the country. It was fundamental to Sikh religion that PUNISHMENT WAS NO SOLUTION TO REFORM THE SINNER. The Guru had brought about the change in Emperor Aurangzeb through his conduct and sacred words sent in the form of Zafar Nama, and now he had all hopes to change the attitude of Bahadur Shah who was happily made of nobler and sublimer stuff as compared to his father. ”

    Written by Surjit Singh Gandhi. Book Title : History of Sikh Gurus Retold: 1606-1708 C.E. It is very easy to misinterpret Gurmukhi in SGGS, but this is plain English. The author definitely more learned that you are.

  7. VPP December 14, 2010 at 2:00 am

    Following excerpts from an article on Belief.net By Dr. I. J. Singh who is a Professor and Coordinator of Anatomical Sciences at New York University.

    “Sikhs have no connection to the belief or practice of Osama bin Laden. More importantly, to target any ethnic group or religion (Muslim or Sikh, Indian or Middle Eastern) for REVENGE is MORALLY INDEFENSIBLE and REDUCES us to the LEVEL of the TERRORIST. Our common enemy is not a specific religion but intolerance, hatred and fanaticism.”

    “From 1469, when its founder Guru Nanak was born, to 1708, ten gurus guided its development. Sikhism’s core tenets include the belief that there is one God common to all creation, a God who can be discovered by service to humanity. Sikhism as a belief system seeks to be free of discrimination based on ethnicity, caste, race, or gender.”

  8. *KAUR* December 14, 2010 at 2:06 am

    Agreed. OWNED…. and hes still blabbering to himself, selectively quoting Sant Ji. how sad. lol

    He doesnt even realize that man he adores, would label him an extremist for demanding justice with regards to 84. Dosanjhs comments generalize not Khalistanis, but ALL 2nd and 3rd generation youth, whether they are Khalistani or not.

  9. Anonymous December 14, 2010 at 2:29 am

    Here is my original post—————————————————-

    VPP you ask for examples from the lives of the Gurus but have no understanding of your Gurus or Sikh history

    Guru Arjun Dev Ji gives peacefull shaheedi………….Guru Hargobind Sahib Ji Gets badla kills chandu, puts bull ring in his nose and has him dragged around Lahore

    Guru Tegh Bahadur Sahib Ji gives peacefull shaheedi………..Guru Gobind Singh gets badla

    Masands rob the sangat…….after many peacefull attempts to correct their wrongs, Guru Gobind Singh has them burned in boiling oil.

    Chota Sahibzadas give peacefull shaheedi…………..Guru Gobind Singh gets badla……….sends Banda Singh Bahadur to kill jaspat and lakhpat (burns them alive) and kills wazir khan (making horse stand on his chest)

    Banda Singh Bahadar was also sent to establish the first Khalsa Raj. Which he did (but im sure u knew that lol) He is known as the first Sikh king, and Guru Sahib is the one that sent him to establish that Sovereignty. According to Wiki: Banda ruled over the region bounded on the north by the Shiwalik hills, on the west by the river Tangri, on the east by the river Jamuna, and in the south by a line passing through Samana, Thanesar, Kaithal and Karnal

    What did all the Sikh misls fight for in the 17th and 18th century and accomplish under Maharaja Ranjit Singh? It was sovereignty

    What did Guru Gobind Singh Ji say in Bhai Nand Lals Tankhanama? Raaj Karega Khalsa, Aki Reha Na Koe

    More Quotes from Guru Gobind Singh Ji:

    Koi Kise Ko Raaj Na Dehai, Jo Lehai Nij Bal Se Lehai
    and
    Raaj Bina Nahin Dharam Chale Hain, Dharam Bina Sab Dhalle Malle Hain

    When all other peaceful means have failed it is pious and just to raise the sword (Guru Gobind Singh, Zafarnama)

    Are all peaceful means exhausted? Check

    We are peaceful people but we dont let tyrants walk freely either.

    khhaalasaa soe dhushatt ko gaalai ||
    He is the Khalsa who destroys the tyrant enemy.

    Thankhaanama Bhai Nand Laal Jee

    As per Guru Gobind Singh in Bachitar Natak, stating why he came to this earth…he states…………

    ham eaeh kaaj jagath mo aaeae ||
    I have come into this world for this purpose.

    dhharam haeth guradhaev pat(h)aaeae ||
    There supreme Guru has sent me for the protection of righteousness.

    jehaa(n) thehaa(n) thum dhharam bithhaaro ||
    Propogate righteousness everywhere;

    dhusatt dhokheeyan pakar pashhaaro || 42 ||
    seize and destroy the sinful and the wicked.

    yaahee kaaj dhharaa ham janama(n) ||
    I have taken birth for this purpose.

    samajh laehu saadhhoo sabh manama(n) ||
    Let the holy men understand this in their minds.

    dhharam chalaavan sa(n)th oubaaran ||
    I have come for spreading divine religion and for protecting the saints.

    dhusatt sabhan ko mool oupaaran || 43 ||
    And for annihilating and uprooting all the tyrants

    After Indiras Assassination, and when Sikhs did Ardas at Harimander Sahib look at the hukamnama that came. Look here:

    sorat(h) mehalaa 3 ghar 1 thithukee
    Sorat’h, Third Mehla, First House, Ti-Tukee:

    ik oa(n)kaar sathigur prasaadh ||
    One Universal Creator God. By The Grace Of The True Guru:

    bhagathaa dhee sadhaa thoo rakhadhaa har jeeo dhhur thoo rakhadhaa aaeiaa ||
    You always preserve the honor of Your devotees, O Dear Lord; You have protected them from the very beginning of time.

    prehilaadh jan thudhh raakh leae har jeeo haranaakhas maar pachaaeiaa ||
    You protected Your servant Prahlaad, O Dear Lord, and annihilated Harnaakhash.

    guramukhaa no paratheeth hai har jeeo manamukh bharam bhulaaeiaa ||1||
    The Gurmukhs place their faith in the Dear Lord, but the self-willed manmukhs are deluded by doubt. ||1||

    har jee eaeh thaeree vaddiaaee ||
    O Dear Lord, this is Your Glory.

    bhagathaa kee paij rakh thoo suaamee bhagath thaeree saranaaee || rehaao ||
    You preserve the honor of Your devotees, O Lord Master; Your devotees seek Your Sanctuary. ||Pause||

    Go to Sikhi to the Max for the rest of the Shabad its pretty long.
    It is amazing how Guru Sahib talks about the destruction of Harnaaksh in this hukamnama right after the modern day Harnaaksh had been dispatched by Singhs lol. And about how he has saved “Prahlaad” in our situation Bhai Satwant Singh Bhai Beant Singh

    So please stop with this nonsense about “giving examples from our Gurus lives:” LOL Guru Sahib would have done the same thing in regards to tyrants AND Sovereignty. I feel sorry for people who refer to our Gurus lives but dont know a thing about their Gurus

    After peaceful means have failed and/or when a Sikh has given a peaceful shaheedi never has a 2 generation gap passed without a Shaheed Singh or Singhni getting badla. Look it up.

    —————————————————————————–

    Now answer this question. Beant Singh and Satwant Singh killed Indira Gandhi who was a tyrant but unarmed. The hukamnama we got for Guru Sahib is written above. So Answer this one question for all who visit this website. Are u smarter then Guru Granth Sahib Ji. All i want is a Yes or No answer

    Then proceed to answer these questions:
    Was Chandi armed when killed by 6th Guru?
    Is Udham Singh a terrorist for killing unarmed Dyer?
    Are Sukha SIngh/Mehtan Singh Terrorists for killing unarmed Massa Rangar?
    Are Beant Singh and Satwant Singh terrorists even though we have the Hukamnama Guru Sahib gave after they killed Indira Gandhu

    ———-I pointed to the flaws in your examples. The so called Badlas were in war like situation. Not in peace. And your examples are in direct conflict with the assertion in Jap ji Sahib “Hukame andar sabh ko bahar hukam na koye” and other fundamental Guru’s assertion: “Rab di raza vich khush rehna”.

    We are in a war like situation. You point fails. Sorry moorakh :)
    That line from Japji Sahib doesnt tell us to get slapped around and not do anything. If that was the case Guru Sahib wouldnt have done anything in his time and would not have given a Kirpan to Sikhs either. 26 years of being denied Justice have indicted that peacefull means have failed and it is righteous to raise the sword.

    ———At this present time Sikhs are not in conflict with Government (Even you admitted we are not allowed to kill someone who is unarmed)… Are we fighting against the govt which is headed by a Sikh? Poor baby, election results dekheya chi? Please answer the questions I raised yesterday!. Too hard for you to answer is that so?

    You queries about the elections have been answered numerous times. You just cant read. Your inability to read has been witnessed numerous times. No need for me to re post anything. People reading can already determine that from the 180 previous posts. Thus again u have been proven wrong boot licker. According to whom are u saying we are not in conflict with the government? You still have not answered a thing in my entire post about our Gurus lives. Plz i dare u to call Udham Singh and Sukha Singh/ Mehtab Singh terrorits. We are not allowed to kill those who are innocent. I dont no where u get this bullshit from regarding not killing tyrants who are unarmed. So if someone rapes every women in your family, or orders those rapes, but walks around with no weopens u wont do anything right? Your failure to grasp Sikhism is becoming more and more clear.

    The Khalsa also doesnt need a “retold” history from someone when ew have been told and have heard that history from Panth Rattans Sant Singh Maskeen, Baba Nihal Singh, countless other Mahapurkhs,etc. Another house Sikh writing a House Sikh book doesnt mean anything. You choosing to follow your own manmat is up to u

    So who is it thats wimpering. Who is it that acts as if his questions havent been answered. Who here is saying there smarter then Guru Sahib? You are a living paradox

  10. Anonymous December 14, 2010 at 2:32 am

    I have also failed to heed my own advice and have succumbed to the temptation to once again punk a moorakh. For that i apologize to the other posters and will not repost. I will instead laugh at his futile attempts to address my above questions.

  11. VPP December 14, 2010 at 2:41 am
  12. Rebel December 14, 2010 at 2:42 am

    He won’t answer, he’ll respond to your question with a question and deflect anything that has exposed his irrationality. What makes it even funnier is when you point out this flaw, he’ll cry wolf and accuse you of attacking him.

    The reality however is that he is the one who has openly claimed he HATES us. By his own admission his judgment and drive is motivated or at least clouded by hate – that is perhaps why he is irrational.

    Ps – its interesting VPP Quotes Dr. I.J Singh who also says

    “To my mind the Sikhs have clearly rejected the model of the present Indian governing system. Khalistan though undesirable has become increasingly necessary, primarily because of the shortsighted policies of the Indian government.”

    and also…

    “The issue of Khalistan can and should be debated but it will eventually be decided not in New York, London or New Delhi but in the streets and villages of Punjab.”

    Hmm.. did VPP just quote someone who believes Khalistan should be discussed… wati a minute doesn’t that mean VPP just quoted someone he and Ujjal would deem an extremist/fanatic?

    LOL

  13. Bir December 14, 2010 at 4:52 pm

    @ Rebel: You have also selected quoted him: He clearly says in the beginning of that article he is acting as a devil’s advocate, which according to Wikipedia means “In common parlance, a devil’s advocate is someone who, given a certain argument, takes a position he or she does not necessarily agree with, just for the sake of argument”.
    Further you have played into VPP’s hands in your second quote. VPP has continued to stress the diversity that exist on those streets and has repeatedly asked you guys to answer what gives you the prerogative to fight. He has referred to election results as an evidence.
    Finally, as a neutral observer, I find it very interesting that he has mentioned about education and loss of historical places. Even I.J. Singh mentioned about the same. But he took recourse to Europe to explain. I don’t find that explanation as sufficient, the level of peace we see there is not present in the Indian subcontinent. Germany and France who have fought bigger battles, but still are more friendly than India and Pakistan or India and Bangladesh. So these questions really need to be answered.

  14. Rebel December 14, 2010 at 6:50 pm

    @Bir, I have selectively quoted him to highlight an inconsistency in what VPP has stated. VPP believes that all those that speak about a right to Khalistan are by definition Fanatical and Extremists. I have merely illustrated that I.J Singh who clearly articulates – that although he is not in favour of Khalistan, that it must be discussed as a necessity – by this standard is also Fanatical.

    VPP has a major greivance with the videos in this post, the debate originates and comes back to the debate on whether Sikhs have a right to be engaging in discourse about Khalistan without being coerced into silence with accusations of extremism and fanaticism. In my opinion, this is especially problematic, in the face of a lack of proof and evidence showing that this is in fact true. To make a sweeping generalization of all those that in engage in this discourse is repressive and amounts to defamation. For example, I self-identify as a pacificist-khalistani, meaning I reject all forms of violence, yet believe in the pursuit of self-determination yet by according to VPP I am an extremist and fanatical, not because I am violent, but because of the political ideological differences we have.

    Indira Prahst and the other speakers have discussed how such accusations come from those who hold a greater degree of power than others is repressive and alarming.

    Sikhs have a right to engage in this discourse, and to label them extremist fanatical’s is not only repressive but inconsistent with international and domestic law.

    This brings me to the finality of my posts. Time and time again I have pointed out that such labels are inaccurate and that homogenizing an entire group is irrational and illogical – this is my grievance with VPP, who has responded by claiming that he HATES all Khalistanis. Thus bringing me to conclude, that this HATE is precisely what has been, and will continue to cloud his judgment. Until he is able to address the questions and inconsistencies noted amongst the previous 190 posts, there is really no indication the VPP is willing to engage in solid, respectful discourse.

    If you would like to refer to me as an extremist, please kindly attach the suffic/prefix of Pacifist – Pacfist Khalistani Extremist/Extreme Pacificst Khalistan at least this will be more accurate (and probably more accurate of Canadian youth in general)

  15. Bir December 14, 2010 at 8:46 pm

    Thank you for your response Rebel ji.
    Please look are the article he referenced and the article you are referencing. There is a fundamental difference between those two pieces. IJ Singh never means to be a devil’s advocate in the other one.
    But Singh ji, even though you understand the point behind your beliefs, why is it so repugnant to the Caucasian Canadian politicians? Why Singh ji would Stephen Harper pay such close attention to Manmohan Singh’s arguments about rise in extremism? Singhji let’s not talk about Ujjal Dosanjh. But I will like to know Singh ji, why Terry Milewski and Kim Bolan get death threats and other form of bad mouthing whenever they question Sikh extremism? Is this not an exaggerated response? Even Dosanjh is actively pounded. How fair is such response? There are reports which claim his facebook page was littered with hateful messages. How good is such a thing? Khalistan is getting a bad reputation in this manner. This reputation is pretty much resonated in the Canadian media Singh ji. Singh ji please refer to Symbols and Suits articles by Terry Milewski.
    VPP Singh ji also pointed out that Canadian government seems to have stop issuing asylums to those who come from Punjab. Singh ji please comment on this issue.
    Singh ji your arguments about being pacifist are agreed. I can see that you value peaceful methods. I admire you for that :) . Waheguru bless you.
    Singh ji, please respond to the questions I raise in the other two paragraphs of my earlier post.

  16. VPP December 15, 2010 at 3:44 am

    -Talking about Udham Singh is redundant. He was not a Sikh, but an athiest. Please refer to my explanation.

    -Historical events are open to different interpretation. I have hear different interpretation of the instances. Please refer to this shabad: re man aiso kar sanyasa lyrics. Youtube link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izKxwXv9mfM. Rangila Sahib gave a very different interpretation. According to his explanation, Guru Gobind Singh asked Banda Singh Bahadur to fight against cruelty not to go and take “revenge” for the killings of Shahibzades. If he did then I think he will have contradicted this basic principle: Hukame andar sab ko bahar hukam na koye: it is under God’s Hukam that some things happen. So taking revenge is really out of question me thinks.

    -You have quoted Sants. I will let you know a Pankti from Sukhmani Sahib that infers that is not Sikh-like to have feelings of revenge:
    Astpadi 4 Shabad 7
    sang sahaa-ee so aavai na cheet ||
    “The Lord, our Help and Support, is always with us, but the mortal does not “remember Him.
    jo bairaa-ee taa si-o pareet ||
    “He shows love to his enemies. <<>
    baloo-aa kay garih bheetar basai ||
    “He lives in a castle of sand.
    anad kayl maa-i-aa rang rasai ||
    “He enjoys the games of pleasure and the tastes of Maya.
    darirh kar maanai maneh parteet ||
    “He believes them to be permanent – this is the belief of his mind.
    kaal na aavai moorhay cheet ||
    “Death does not even come to mind for the fool.
    bair biroDh kaam kroDh moh ||
    “Hate, conflict, sexual desire, anger, emotional attachment, (Revenge “encompasses the feelings of Hate, conflict, anger and emotional attachment, “ you can’t deny this
    jhooth bikaar mahaa lobh Dharoh ||
    “falsehood, corruption, immense greed and deceit:
    i-aahoo jugat bihaanay ka-ee janam ||
    “So many lifetimes are wasted in these ways.
    naanak raakh layho aapan kar karam. ||7||
    “Nanak: uplift them, and redeem them, O Lord – show Your Mercy! ||7||

    Guru ji says so many individuals waste their lifetimes through feelings of hate, conflict, sexual desire, anger, emotional attachment, falsehood, corruption, immense greed and deceit. So uplift them and redeem them, O Nanak. So our SGGS is technically against revenge!

    Another example: Baba Farid’s bani
    Farīḏā bure ḏā bẖalā kar gusā man na hadẖā▫e
    “Fareed, answer evil with goodness; do not fill your mind with anger.
    Ḏehī rog na lag▫ī palai sabẖ kicẖẖ pā▫e. ||78||
    “Your body shall not suffer from any disease, and you shall obtain everything. ||78||
    This again comes SGGS: so revenge is not allowed by Guru ji. Yes action against injustice is allowed. Technically you think there is a war in India. I am saying there isn’t. My 16 years of life in India have convinced me of this. Yes, riot victims still await justice. But given the current direction and current instances that high and mighty politicians and policemen are being punished I really do feel justice will come one day. By the way killing Indira, and others like her must have formed a part of that revenge. Finally now the ball is in your field to answer how will you take revenge now (if you still think it is allowed)? By killing each and every one who killed someone in 1984? or by fighting in courts? or by getting a homeland and basically preventing any recourse to court thereafter (as I pointed out there will be absolutely no way you can ever get those culprit extradited).
    Indian elections are not reported by UN like those in Zimbabwe for mismanagement. In any case I did provide a video in the last page. Some Sikhs tend not to like your suggestions. Lo and Behold they are in India, may be that’s why… they are also benefitting from the current successes of India so they want to succeed not fail in their endeavours (Khalistan has been associated with downward spiral of Punjab economy, a fact even you can’t deny Rebel). Sikhs stand to lose much by this moment. Investment, Industries etc. Who will really invest in a turmoiled state? No one is the answer.

    -Interestingly I found this:
    kahu kabeer jan bheae khaalasae praem bhagath jih jaanee ||4||3||
    This from Kabeer jis bani as per online suggestions and it means: Says Kabeer, those humble people become pure – they become Khalsa – who know the Lord’s loving devotional worship. ||4||3|| Very interesting! Does that mean Anonymous they don’t have to be amritdhari? Peaceful answer please this has nothing to do with Khalistan.

    Also, Guru Nanak Dev ji in Japji Sahib mentions: Mann jitey Jag Jeet. So may be rather than a piece of ground, you need to win over your own hearts as Guru Nanak equates this to winning the entire world.

    – I must restate the negative effect of this moment on Sikh’s image is the reason why I hate this moment. I know I must not hate :( But alas I am a human being.

    -Finally take some moment to answer my questions. It is unfair I keep on addressing 4-5 people’s post, and no body cares to answer my questions. Please answer now!

  17. VPP December 15, 2010 at 3:49 am

    I applauded your efforts regarding Kamal Nath, and I have repeatedly asserted that I am no spokesman of Ujjal Dosanjh (guys you really need to read my posts, before you start concluding that he is my favourite).

    Whatever you did with Kamal Nath was nice! But by raising the question of Khalistan you go two steps back.

    -So SGGS says “Love thine enemies”

  18. I have questions December 15, 2010 at 8:13 pm

    VPP

    sorry for the late reply, as i just came back from an exam

    firstly this thread isn’t really about khalistan, but rather the hate speech dosanjh is propagating to the masses. Hence, in order to decrease the negative stigma attached to sikhs, we are trying to correct the situation through peaceful means. You do not agree with this, that is fine, you are entitled to your own opinion. However, to state that Dosanjh’s claims are justified simply because many sikhs support khalistani ideology is not a fair arguement.

    if you want assume that the khalistani ideology is extreme, that is fine. But then you have to be aware of the double standard that props up.

    you stated earlier

    “I think you need to do some serious digging regarding what motivated him into his extremist set of views.”

    you have acknowledged that bhagat singh was indeed an extremist. now, how is it fair that Ujjal dosanjh can release a poster of an extremist, yet sikhs can’t put up an “extremist” pictures on a float. furthermore, what gives dosanjh the right to slander us, when he himself is no different?

    now your going to bring up the same arguement, “bhagat singh wasn’t sikh, he was atheist, therefore we can’t use his example”. You clearly contradict yourself here. Similarly, i can argue “Pakistan and other so-called ‘failed’ states aren’t based on sikh ideals, therefore you can’t use these conutries’ examples.” bhagat singh could’ve been a martian from mars, it doesn’t change the fact that he was an extremist.

    you also stated:
    “But then again I really doubt this word “wayward”. Can you please support this some other book.”

    why do choose to ignore this? can you provide me a book or article that contradicts the claim “hindus view sikhs as ‘wayward hindus’”. the guy who made this statement is a world renowned academic for comparative religous studies, who has done over 30 years of research on various religions, and continues to do so. just because the truth hurts doesn’t mean you can devour it by personal opinions. instead, to challenge someone in an acdemic manner, you need to provide a study/case/source that refutes the claim made by huston smith.

    you stated:
    “So you idea that India was only an ideology of Hindus is flawed at the highest level. You need to have a solid proof to prove this point.”

    then why does pakistan and bangladesh exist? wasn’t india meant for everyone, regardless of religion?

    you further stated:
    “I acknowledge it is sad that we are not recognize as a separate religious group. I acknowledge that this is gravely wrong. But rather than taking such an extreme step as yourself, I will rather take the more proper way which is through cases in courts. The Sikh Marriage law is about to be passed. Slowly changes will come through civil litigation.”

    Again you answered my last question through your own statement. if india is the people’s state, why did it not recognize other minorities, which are native to the subcontinent? this can’t be accidental, because it is equivalent to saying “i don’t know where i live”, if you get what i mean.

    25 years since november 1984, and the women at the widows colony are still in a dire state. you are asking justice from a wrong gov’t, the gov;t simply doesn’t care/ History is witness to this. Give a case in which the gov’t actually has done something in the favor of sikhs, recently? you honestly believe that the high class lawyers of india aren’t bought? its not only the sikhs, muslims, christians all experience duiscrimination at the hands of the indian gov’t. 2002 gujrat incident are recent, 2007 burning of church is recent, the 2010 kashmir incident, check the previous blog post on SAN, is recent. whenever hindu mobs attacked, whether it was sikhs of 84, a mosque in 91, the police simply stood by and watched. how is this a people’s gove’t?

    You were quick in provinding stats about voting and briefly discussing HDI, education enrolment, etc. In addition to these, i suggest you take a look at the CPI, which measures corruption, of India … numbers don’t lie…

    you can’t be too naive to believe that the indian state does not use any propaganda to further its ambitions. Again propaganda is always subtle, otherwise, such types of politics wouldn’t work.

  19. Jsingh December 17, 2010 at 6:59 am

    @ VPP do you even read lol? Udham Singh wasnt atheist….bhagat singh was considered atheist because he was a communist so ur redundant argument point is invalid..Udham Singh did an ardaas at darbar sahib (Golden Temple) that he would avenge the jallianwala massacre

Leave A Response