Singh132

Sikhs are to bathe their bodies every day. Are kesh a part of our body? They are. In fact they are called the "shiromani ang", ie the supreme part, because Guru Sahib has called kesh his "mohar" or stamp. So, in my understanding, an ishnan is incomplete if you do not wash your kesh. That doesn't necessarily mean putting shampoo every day, since that may dry them out, but it does mean washing them with water.

Milk: It was used by the Sikh Gurus. If in modern times the cows are treated badly then it is wrong. I and many other Singhs drink organic which is certified. The cows are treated humanely and have to have access to open pasture, etc. Milk is a food product. Herbivores drink milk. Eggs: This is not a food product. It is not meant to be eaten. No herbivore eats eggs. Only meat-eating creatures steal eggs and eat them. kurtas said "Unfertilsed eggs - a chicken also produces eggs every month or so. this is a natural process of the chickens body and is not the result of breeding. these eggs do not hatch as they do not contain the male sperm." Human women do the same thing. It's like wanting or chosing to eat the equivalent. Sound good to you?

Namastang, There is only one Gurmat Naam. That is what Guru Nanak revealed to the world. Otherwise why would there have been a need for Guru Nanak if all the other faiths were fine as they were? There is only one truth. Just like Darbar Sahib: doors are open to all 4 directions, but the path is only one. If you are claiming a brahmgyani and Guru Nanak are the same thing, I dont know what to tell you. Have you ever heard of a student in a class every claiming to be the equal of the teacher? The rights and position of the teacher are restricted. Guru Nanak will always be the only Guru. Only Guru Nanak has the right to give naam (not any sant or anyone else). The student can never claim to be the equal of the teacher.

To jap "har ko naam", one has to have naam, and that is only available from Guru Nanak. What would an agnostic without a Guru do? Guru Sahib has said clearly that no one has found God without Guru. It's not possible. "Bin satgur kinai na paayo bin satgur kinai na paaiya". Without Satguru, no one has found God in the past and no one will do it now.

Sahib Singh, I suggest you BETTER care about the excommunication of Kala Afghana if you want to support the "Sikh" Bulletin. I don't like sexual predators and I don't like their friends either. If I am associating with those people who support a sexual predator, I am to blame as well. Shergill (the editor) is the biggest Kala Afghana fan out there. His magazine is informed by that ideology. The links section is linked to Kala's website and the Bulleting website also lets people order his books. Here's a picture of the editor Shergill holding up the pervert's arm like he is a big hero. Are you supporting a magazine that tries to make a dirty pervert a hero? (You haven't told us whether you still believe what I said earlier is a "lie" or not?)

..

Sahib Singh, I suggest you BETTER care about the excommunication of Kala Afghana if you want to support the "Sikh" Bulletin. I don't like sexual predators and I don't like their friends either. If I am associating with those people who support a sexual predator, I am to blame as well. Shergill (the editor) is the biggest Kala Afghana fan out there. His magazine is informed by that ideology. The links section is linked to Kala's website and the Bulleting website also lets people order his books. Here's a picture of the editor Shergill holding up the pervert's arm like he is a big hero. Are you supporting a magazine that tries to make a dirty pervert a hero?

Calling Kala Afghana a sexual assault perpetrator is indeed a big thing. Sahib Singh, it is not a lie. Below is the case. Tell me if you stil think its a lie after reading it. And it is a fact that Kala Afghana worked for Punjab Police to infiltrate Baba Jarnail Singh's jatha but was discovered by the Singhs. He fled after that. Kala Afghana has one aim only and that is to subvert Sikh teachings. His followers are NOT rehitvan Gursikhs. They are psuedo-intellectuals who have only a book knowledge of some parts of Sikhi. They refuse to believe in Amrit, kakaars, naam, any dasam bani. They support practices like eating meat. Sikh Bulletin is that group's mouth piece and has attacked Gursikhs like Bhai Sahib Randhir Singh, Baba Gurbachan Singh Bhindranwale and others. Now ask yourselves. This lousy excuse of a human being, who has been found by a court to have sexually assaulted a poor woman, is pointing fingers at Bhai Sahib Randhir Singh and Baba Gurbachan Singh jee Khalsa Bhindranwale. Who should we be believing here? Kala tried to spit at the sun and we know where the spit end up. I say everyone should boycott that magazine. Sahib Singh, I won't stop telling the truth about that dirty old pervert. If you support him or support the magazine that is his main forum, you too are siding with the pervert. Which side do you want to be on? Below is the Kala Afghana Case: Indexed as: Khalsa v. Bhullar Between Gurbaksh Singh Khalsa, Plaintiff, and Taranjit Kaur Bhullar, Hariner Singh Bhullar, Gurnham Singh Bajwa and Kahar Singh Pannu, Defendants [1992] B.C.J. No. 378 Victoria Registry No. 89/1983 British Columbia Supreme Court Victoria, British Columbia Macdonell J. Heard: September 3 - 6, 9 - 12 and November 7, 1991 Judgment: February 24, 1992 (15 pp.) Torts - Defamation 2- Defences - Truth. Sexual assault - Damages - General damages - Punitive damages - Punitive damage award appropriate where a /1 priest of the Sikh religion breached his position of trust by sexually assaulting a parishioner. The plaintiff sued for damages for defamation of character. The defendants counterclaimed for damages for sexual assault. The plaintiff was a priest of a Sikh religious temple. The summer following the incident which was the subject of this lawsuit, the plaintiff was discharged. The plaintiff was 68-years-old, and resided in the living quarters with his wife and a daughter. His argument was that a faction in the temple wanted to get rid of him, so they attempted to put him in a compromising position with Mrs. B. He claimed that she wrongfully exposed herself before him and was sexually aggressive towards him, and that he took no part in it. He further argued that such a false accusation against a priest is particularly devastating; in fact it resulted in his being wrongfully dismissed and being unable to obtain further employment as a priest. The case for the defence was that the plaintiff was not defamed and that, in fact, the allegation of sexual assault was true. HELD: The plaintiffs action was dismissed. The defendant Mrs. B succeeded on her counterclaim, having proved that the plaintiff in fact sexually assaulted her. The court awarded her $5,000.00 in general damages, and $5,000.00 in special damages. The plaintiff had failed to prove his allegation of a wrongful accusation of sexual assault. The defendants had proved their counterclaim AND THE COURT FOUND THAT IN FACT THE SEXUAL ASSAULT HAD TAKEN PLACE. With respect to general damages for the sexual assault, the court had to bear in mind the gravity of the assault, the circumstances of it, and its effect on Mrs. B. The assault was of a relatively minor nature in the sense that there was only one incident. The assault here was committed by a priest in the living quarters of a Sikh temple upon a parishioner who was requested to attend by the priest. The emotional impact of the forceful touching of the plaintiffs chest and the attempt to remove her stockings was not only offensive but appalling, particularly as the priest in the Sikh religion is held in high esteem and the utmost in decorum is expected of him. He was in a position of trust and abused the trust. On the other hand, there did not appear to be any serious after-effects on Mrs. B other than distaste for the whole matter. The impact on Mrs. B would be lessened by her vindication in this lawsuit, allowing her to save face. MACDONELL J.:- The plaintiffs action against the defendants is for defamation of character arising out of an accusation by the defendant Taranjit Bhullar that she was sexually assaulted by the plaintiff, which accusation was published by the defendants. The defendant Mrs. Bhullar alleges that the plaintiff sexually assaulted her, and she and her husband counterclaim for damages against the plaintiff. The background, briefly, is that the plaintiff at all material times was the priest at the Topaz Street Temple of the Khalsa Diwan Society, which is a Sikh religious society. The plaintiff came to Canada in 1984 and resided for a year in Grand Prairie with his daughter. Prior to coming to Canada, he had been a policeman in the Punjab and retired with the rank of Inspector in 1981. He had no training in the priesthood but was a devout Sikh. There does not seem to be much dispute that he was knowledgeable in the religion and was qualified to act as a priest, as there does not appear to be any need for prior formal religious training to act as a priest in a temple. While in Grand Prairie, he saw an advertisement in an ethnic ne"",spaper advertising for a priest at Golden. He applied and was successful and presided as a priest there for some nine months. With this experience he was accepted as a priest at 1 00 Mile House where he presided for a year. He then heard of an opening at the Topaz Street Temple in Victoria and on October 1st, 1986, he was employed there as the priest on a contract basis which provided for two months' notice by either party. He continued as priest until the summer following the incident which is the subject of this law suit, when he was discharged. The plaintiff was sixty-eight years of age at all material times, was married and had children. He and his wife and a daughter resided in the living quarters of the temple. Following his appointment, things went along reasonably well, although there was friction with the executive of the Society - no doubt partly due to the plaintiffs rigidity in some areas. Toward the end of December, 1987 the friction between him and the Committee increased and the plaintiff became convinced that a group in the temple, including the defendants, wished to be rid of him. It is his position that there was a conspiracy to effect his removal, starting with their sending a white woman to the temple to compromise him sexually. That plot failed as she was drunk. He alleges that thereafter there was a meeting between the various defendants and others who plotted to have the female defendant compromise him, again with the purpose of getting rid of him. However, as part of his case, the plaintiff alleges only the slander and not a conspiracy to remove him as priest, which seems to be the subject matter of another lawsuit. The plaintiff testified that he met the Bhullars in 1986 and that they were regular attenders at the temple. They were helpful with his daughter's marriage and by 1987 he and the Bhullars became good friends. He testified that from time to time he saw Mrs. Bhullar alone and that at times they discussed problems she had with her husband. He described their relationship as that of a family membership. The female defendant is thirty-five years of age and her husband is a comparable age. The plaintiff said that in 1988, when Mrs. Bhullar left one night after visiting, she embraced him and kissed him on the cheek. He said that he was very upset by this. He said that following this she telephoned him and explained that such conduct was not unusual in Canada. He said that in January and February 1989 nothing of a sexual nature took place between them and that they did not meet privately during that time. He said that on March 25th, which was just prior to his and his wife's visit to Seattle, Mrs. Bhullar came to the temple at lunchtime in response to a call from him. He said they took food after her arrival and then he went to take a rest in his bedroom. He said that the defendant came into the room. At that time he was sitting on a chair removing his jacket. He said that she removed her blouse, exposing her naked breasts, sat on his lap, and put her hands around his neck. He testified that she said, "I know you need me". He said he was stunned and pushed her away, telling her that this was not the way for a daughter to act. The defendant left and the plaintiff then went to the temple and prostrated himself before the Holy Book. He said that he and his wife left for Seattle the next day, returning April 5th of 1989. He telephoned Mrs. Bhullar at her office but as she was busy she telephoned him the following day. He said he recorded the call on his answering machine. He said he told her he would tell her husband that she was not acting like a daughter. He said he did, in fact, telephone her husband on the 6th and told him that his wife was not faithful. He met her husband in the afternoon and spoke to him further. He said that on April 30th there was a meeting of the Committee and his employment and raise were discussed. He denied that there was any condition of immediate dismissal in the case of lack of moral turpitude. He said he did not speak to the defendants from April through to June. On July 22nd, there was a meeting of the Temple Committee and the plaintiff was advised by Mr. Bajwa and Mr. Pannu that Mr. and Mrs. Bhullar had lodged a complaint against him and that there was a tape of a conversation between the plaintiff and Mrs. Bhullar. The tape was apparently played, which resulted in the plaintiffs employment being terminated. After listening to the tape and hearing the accusation of Mrs. Bhullar, the Committee accepted as a fact that the plaintiff had sexually assaulted the female defendant. The plaintiffs position is that this allegation is false and that the true state of affairs is that it was the defendant who wrongfully exposed herself before him and was sexually aggressive toward him, and that he took no part in it. The plaintiffs position is that such a false accusation against a priest is particularly devastating; in fact it resulted in his being wrongfully dismissed and being unable to obtain further employment as a priest. A considerable amount of evidence was called with respect to various taped telephone conversations, produced by both the plaintiff and the defendants Bhullar, and other evidence of conflicts in the temple which do not relate much to the law suit. The plaintiff alleges that there was a conspiracy to remove him and that the conduct of the female defendant which he described was orchestrated by a group in the Committee, which included Mr. Pannu and Mr. Bajwa, to compromise the plaintiff. The plaintiff called Mr. Gurbakash Sihota, who testified that he met the defendants Bajwa and Pannu in February 1989 and that Mr. Johal, Mr. Ajwall and Mr. Sanhera were there. The meeting was at approximately 9:00 p.m. and was arranged to congratulate Bajwa and Pannu for their election to office on the Temple Committee. The last three mentioned come from Vancouver. He said they then discussed getting rid of the plaintiff, as there was a complaint by Mr. Bajwa about the priest interfering in a wedding ceremony when Mr. Bajwa sang a poem. Mr. Pannu's complaint was that the priest contradicted his mother-in-law. The consensus was that they should get rid of the priest and that they had a girl ready to entice him into making sexual advances. The name mentioned was the female defendant, Bhullar. Mr. Sihota said that Pannu had mentioned that they had tried a white lady but it did not work because she got drunk when she was sent to the temple and the plaintiff" got away". In cross-examination the witness tied himself to the meeting taking place on February 11 tho The case for the defence is that the plaintiff was not defamed and that, in fact, the allegation of a sexual assault is true. The Bhullars in their counterclaim ask for damages against the plaintiff for the sexual assault. The female defendant is thirty-five years of age, was born in India and came to Canada in 1962, where she took her education through Grade 12 at Oak Bay High School and Camosun College. She has been with the Workers Compensation Board for some seventeen years and is presently a Claims Adjudicator, a position she has held for some four years. She was married in 1985 and has one daughter of five years of age. Her husband works for the Municipality of Saanich. They met the plaintiff when he became a priest. They attended the Topaz Street Temple regularly from 1986 through 1988 and they became close to the plaintiff. Initially, Mrs. Bhullar and her husband responded to his need for help in the community as he was a stranger. In 1987 the plaintiff needed a drive to a religious ceremony. Mrs. Bhullar drove him there and said he put his hand on her hand and she asked him to take it off. He later asked, "How about a kiss?" and she said, "You've got to be kidding". She told her husband about this incident and they cut down their visits with the plaintiff and their attendance at the temple significantly. She said that at the end of 1988 the plaintiff called her to meet him in private to talk over his problems. She said they met at the temple and nothing untoward happened. In December of 1988 the plaintiff was persistently telephoning her and at times asked her to bring food. On one occasion she did take along Chinese food and it was consumed in his quarters. On leaving she said he asked for a hug and a kiss and that she pushed him away. Following this she received telephone calls at work and by January and February 1989 he was calling her as much as four times a day, two or three times a week. In addition, when she was not available, she received messages from time to time that "Father had called". She said that in early January the plaintiff had telephoned and was very angry and upset with her as somebody in his family had died and the Bhullars had not been available to help him. She said that in mid-February the plaintiff wanted to meet her at the library in the temple for lunch as he wanted to talk to her. She went and was met at the top of the stairs by the plaintiff, who said the lunch was laid on in the library. She asked where his wife and daughter were and he told her they had had their lunch and were sleeping. She said "We went to another room, which was the guest room, where lunch was laid out". There were two beds and a dresser. They ate the food sitting on the beds. He sat on one and she sat on the other. She said that the plaintiff came to the bed and put his arm around her and pushed her back onto the bed. She said he put his hand underneath her blouse and with his other hand tugged at her skirt. She said she tried to pull away. He told her he couldn't take her nylons off, although he was trying. She said she pulled herself together and pushed him away. She said she "got loud", meaning that she raised her voice. He said "Don't get loud, the bitches are sleeping in the next room". Mrs. Bhullar then left through the library and went back to work, very upset. At that time she did not discuss what had happened with Ms. Mettis, her case assistant, although Ms. Mettis asked her what was the matter. She said in April she received a call from the plaintiff threatening to blackmail her. He said that he had a taped conversation which incriminated her. She said she was devastated. She reported to work as usual, but while going over a file with Ms. Mettis she broke down in tears and then told her what had happened at the temple. She was advised to tell her husband, which she did. They did not attend at the temple after that. Following her disclosure of the assault to her husband they went to the police, who suggested that the matter be sorted out in the Sikh community. She said to protect themselves against a case of slander they purchased a recording device and that during conversations with the plaintiff she led him to believe that she had not told her husband. Various conversations were recorded. At the same time, the plaintiff was busy recording conversations on his machine. Mrs. Bhullar denies that she was a party to any conspiracy to compromise the plaintiff with the purpose of having him removed. The defendant husband was called and his evidence paralleled that of his wife. He also testified that he was not a party to any agreement to effect the removal of the plaintiff. The other defendants were called and they all gave evidence to the same effect. After hearing Mrs. Bhullar's accusation of sexual assault by the plaintiff, which they believed, and the taped telephone conversations, they concluded that he had in fact committed a sexual assault and this was the foundation for his being removed as a priest. The defendants deny that there was any meeting as alleged by Mr. Sihota. The defence called Ms. Mettis, who confirmed the evidence of the female defendant and, in particular, the numerous calls made by the plaintiff to Mrs. Bhullar, her emotional state following the visit to the temple, and what was disclosed to her later when Mrs. Bhullar broke down at the office. The defence called Mr. Rajinder Sihota, who is a senior accountant with the Ministry of Finance. He testified that on February 13th, 1989 he was in a police station in the Punjab with respect to a complaint concerning Gurbakash Sihota, the witness called for the plaintiff who alleged the conspiracy meeting. Mr. Rajinder Sihota testified that the plaintiffs witness was not only in the Punjab on the 13th February, but had been there for some time. Logistically it would not have been possible for him to be in Victoria on February lIth due to time changes and travelling time. Mr. Rajinder Sihota also testified that the plaintiffs witness Sihota was a cousin of his and had a bad reputation. In addition, he had information that his cousin had been in the Punjab for a few months at that time. The defence's position can be summarized as a complete denial of the allegation of defamation or of a conspiracy. With respect to the counterclai:t;n, the defence claims that the evidence of the defendants should be accepted and that the Court should find that the plaintiff sexually assaulted the female defendant. I have to assess the credibility of the various witnesses called and also consider the tape recordings which have been led in evidence and the allegation by the defence that the plaintiffs tape recordings have been tampered with and are, in fact, extracts from other conversations taken out of context. The defence also takes the position that the tape recordings that have been produced by the defence make it quite clear that the plaintiff admitted to the sexual assault. Both the plaintiff and the defence called evidence of experts dealing with the authenticity of the tapes. The defendants' expert listened to the tapes and conducted sound tests. In my view, his evidence should be preferred to that of the plaintiffs expert, who did not carry out this testing. The conclusion of the defendants' expert is that the tape of the plaintiff was not prepared, as he testified, by using a tape recorder or answering machine and speaking to an answering machine and telephone, but that in fact all the conversations were taken from a telephone line. I find this evidence credible. I accept it and conclude that the tape prepared by the plaintiff has been concocted by him and not recorded as he testified. Listening to the defendants' tapes with the assistance of the witnesses and the interpreter persuades me that the inference to be taken from them is that the plaintiff admitted to sexually assaulting the female defendant and that the Committee was well justified in accepting the evidence of Mrs. Bhullar and the tapes in concluding that the plaintiff had sexually assaulted her. With respect to the alleged meeting between the executives at Mr. Sihota's house, I conclude that this evidence was fabricated and quite untrue and I accept the evidence of Mr. Rajinder Sihota called for the defence that the plaintiffs witness Sihota was in fact in the Punjab at the time when the supposed conversation and conspiracy took place. I conclude therefore that the plaintiff has failed to prove his allegation of a wrongful accusation of sexual assault and find that in fact the sexual assault did take place. The plaintiffs action is accordingly dismissed with costs. With respect to the counterclaim, I find that the defendants have proved their counterclaim and that the plaintiff in fact sexually assaulted the female defendant. The plaintiff - who, as a priest in a position of authority and influence, sexually assaulted a female parishioner in the tight-knit society of the Sikh community in Victoria - is guilty of an extremely serious offence. DAMAGES The counterclaim is advanced by both Bhullars against the plaintiff for the sexual assault. It is my view that the only one who can succeed in the counterclaim is Mrs. Bhullar. The defendant argues as if there is a counterclaim for defamation of character as well as sexual assault, but in fact that is not what the pleadings disclose. In any event, a case has not been made out to entitle Mr. Bhullar to damages. With respect to general damages for the sexual assault, I have to bear in mind the gravity of the assault, the circumstances of it, and its effect on Mrs. Bhullar. In this case, unlike a number of others where damages have been sought for sexual assault, the assault is of a comparatively minor nature in the sense that there was only the one incident, as opposed to cases where the assault was a rape or a similar crime of violence, or assaults on younger people, that have often continued over a number of years. Little is to be gained by trying to compare damages in cases that are not similar to the case at bar, so I do not propose to review the current authorities which are not bountiful. What I have to deal with here is an assault by a priest in the living quarters of a Sikh temple upon a parishioner who was requested to attend by the priest, who is the plaintiff. The emotional impact of the forceful touching of the plaintiffs chest and the attempt to take off her stockings is not only offensive but appalling, particularly as the priest in the Sikh religion is held in high esteem and the utmost in decorum is expected of him. He was in a position of trust and abused that trust. The assault was made possible because of the respect of Mrs. Bhullar for the plaintiff as priest and her being at the temple at all was at his request. With respect to the consequences or the effect on Mrs. Bhullar, there is very little evidence before me other than her feelings of humiliation, shock and degradation. There do not appear to be any serious after-effects other than distaste for the whole matter. Consequently, it is my view that the damages should reflect the seriousness of the assault but damages in other more serious cases should be borne in mind to keep a balanced perspective of damages under this head. To some extent the impact on Mrs Bhullard is lessened, as her success in this lawsuit vindicates her and face is saved in a society where it is very important. By the same token, the plaintiff is discredited and has lost all respect and credibility in his community. I award general damages to Mrs. Bhullar in the amount of $5,000.00 for the sexual assault. A claim has been advanced for punitive damages. In this case it is my view that it is appropriate that punitive damages be awarded. They are not awarded on the basis of compensation but on the principle of punishment. In this case no criminal proceedings were launched, although the Bhullars did report the matter to the police, who left it to the Sikh community to sort out the matter and did not proceed with charges. Consequently, the element of punishment of the plaintiff for his conduct has not been addressed. In this case punitive damages need be awarded to express society's disapproval of the conduct of the plaintiff as a priest in authority and trust breaching that trust and sexually assaulting a parishioner. His attempting, after that, to manufacture evidence and shift the blame away from himself and his harassment of Mrs. Bhullar is despicable. I award the sum of $5,000.00 as punitive damages. Mrs. Bhullar will have her costs of the counterclaim and pre-judgment interest at the rate set by the Registrar from time to time. MACDONELL J. (JUDGE)

This is a site that is one of the biggest supporters of rapist Gurbaksh Kala Afghana (found to have sexually assaulted a woman in BC by the court and also the one who tried ot infiltrate into the Singhs at time of Baba Jarnail Singh). The Sikh Bulletin is a magazine run by essentially atheistic people who have no faith in kakaars, naam or anything else.

I agree with jss that solidarity is going to be essential in fighting for our rights. If some of us compromise or others decide that they're going to speak against other Sikhs for being "too extremist" we're in trouble. We might have differences between each other but we need to put up a common front. The minute we get some "gyani" saying that Sikhs can wear blunt 2" kirpans sewed into a pouch, we're going to have the public saying , "your own priests don't support your views, you guys are just causing problems". My point about a 'home' is that Sikhs as a collective people have no homeland. We have no voice in the world. I am a Canadian, but I am a Sikh first. I dream of a place where my identity and my nationality are not two separate things.

What has Khalistan got to do with anything here? Do you think people responded negatively to the kirpan in the newspapers and made blatantly racist remarks because they figured, "these guys want Khalistan"? It is our right to talk about Sikh liberation and Khalsa Raj. The Jews can be anywhere in the world and still have strong links with Israel. Why is that not a problem but the Sikh demand for Khalsa Raj an exception? Sikhs are a people without a home. We can get kicked around and have our rights tramppled but there's not a thing we can do about it. Khalsa Raj is a dream that has survived over the generations of a place where we can live freely and practice the teachings of our Gurus without any interference. Khalistan is no concern of the Canadians. Giving up this dream is to accept a fate as slaves and I for one am never going to be willing to accept that.

Baba Darshan Singh Dhakki Vale was quite prominent around 1999. He had a massive following. Singhs used to go with him in a jeep with guns and shastar. He used to ride horses and elephants and shoot arrows. I believe people used to go and retrieve the arrows as well. Baba Darshan Singh's dera was on some common village land and there were some villagers that hated him and wanted him off and there was a lot of tension. Baba Darshan Singh is quite young. He recommended his sangat read Bhai Sahib Randhir Singh's jail chitheeaan and I think used to encourage bibis to wear dastaars. I think he also toured Punjabi in a helicopter doing amrit sinchars. His divaans were held in dharna style. In 1999 he attended the Sant Samaj 300 celebration and thus insulted Badal. Badal had Baba Darshan Singh arrested and put in jail for something. When he was in jail, the villagers attacked the dera and burnt it down. I believe they burnt a lot of pothis and things like this. He was released at some point and has gone back to doing parchar. I'm not sure how that's going.

"What freaking hypocrites" I was thinking the same thing. On first class, when dinner is served, people get knives and forks. That knife is ok but a kirpan isn't. The rules are completely aribitrary. VIA doesn't have metal detectors and doesn't check baggage. So a Sikh who wears his kirpan openly is not allowed on, but conversely, someone who decides to hide a weapon under his/her clothes or luggage is fine. Does that make any sense?

Let's not throw the term "brahm gyani" around so easily. I'm not sure we are in a position to judge who is and isn't a brahmgyani unless we are ones ourselves. Let's leave it at "Gyani" or "Mahan Kathakaar" but Brahmgyani is a bit over the top.

It's mostly about experience. The more you do it, the less daunting it will be. But when you're talking, just know that you know more about the issue than they do. You can even afford to screw up a bit and no one will notice. Besides, the people you are talking to are just people. They're probably not that important in the sense that you need to impress them.

Hansra had a Radio Show. He gave time in his slot to Dixie Gurdwara to have their own radio show. Pandori the host of the Dixie show made comments about Balwant Ramuwalia a Punjab politician. Ramuwalia sued Hansra for defamation since it was Hansra's slot officially. Hansra was ordered to pay Ramuwalia $70 000. Hansra said that since the comment was made by the Dixie Show, they should pay (and he's not a multi-millionaire so I doubt it would be easy to pay that amount for him). Dixie refused and he had sued and the courts awarded him the money. The 70 000 were taken from Dixie and paid to Ramuwalia. Hansra, as far as I understand, didn't make even a cent. I find it funny that one of main writers about this issue is Iqbal Ramuwalia who is Balwant's brother, and he neglects to mention that the $70 000 is now with his brother.

He was the head of a faction of radha swamis. Not a Sikh.

Bhain jee, A good link is http://www.sikhcoalition.org/InfoKirpan.asp. I don't know how things are in UK but in Canada, whenever I've had a problem with my kirpan, I first express that it is a religious article of faith and it had been legally recognised as a right for Sikhs to wear it. If they ask 'can we see it' the line I use is "Just like a police officer will not remove his gun from his holster, I also am obligated to not remove my kirpan". In Canada, if the problem persists and the person seems unsure, I come out and say, "the best thing to do here is to call the police. They'll tell you what I'm telling you and it'll be more reassuring for you." But I say that based on the knoweldge that the local police forces here know about the kirpan and our right to wear it. If you have a meeting with the dean again, or others involved it would be useful to show them an excerpt from the San Jose Police video about Sikhs when it mentions the kirpan (it's on www.khalsa.tv). You can also refer them to the link I gave above which has cases about the kirpan on the left hand panel. Overall I think you won't have any big problems. I wear my kirpan over my clothes and with bana to school so most people can understand it's just part of the uniform. Also it clears away any allegation of "concealed weapon". To close on a personal note though, lately I have had some troubles with my kirpan and was a bit nervous about wearing it like I normally do (I wear one that's a little over 1ft), but then I thought to myself, is my cleverness going to save me from trouble? If I hide my kirpan, will that protect me? In the end it's Guru Sahib who's going to be looking after me and it's up to him to take care of things like this. After all, even people with tiny 4" kirpans under their clothes have been hassled. So with this, I'm feeling a lot more confident.

This dohara isn't bani and the "standard" version used in most places is actually just till "Khvaar hoi sabh milangay, bachay sharan jo hoi". Damdami Taksali Gutkas go further and add one extra line of "vahiguru naam jahaaz hai..." Some others go and add another line after than one and that is the "khanda jaa(n) kay haath meh..." If you go other places there are even additions to this. At Gurdwara ThaRa Sahib in the parkarma of Sree Darbar Sahib, they say "Tegh Bahadur Kay Chalat..." I know there is another version too but all I remember of the wording is something about "chamak" . Not sure. I personally think the 'basic' version that everyone does and is standard is enough.

The Punj Pyaaray can NEVER give permission to violate any rehit. Never. Confidence is gained through naam and bani not through ripping out your nose hair and then burying it .

I feel that to wash our crowns with our underpants just doesn't seem like a good idea. Our kesh deserve a lot of respect. One rehitnama says "Gur-samd adab kes ko daano" meaning give your kesh the same amount of respect you would give the Guru (because these are Guru Sahib's mohar). I wouldn't wash Guru Sahib's rumalla with my kacherras, so the dastaars seem like a bad idea as well. I know that most Singhs I have asked have said to not even let the keskis and kacherra be beside eachother when they are dried. I also know it is a rehit to use separate towels for kesh and the rest of the body.

I seriously doubt that they told anyone to avoid sugar. What are patasay that were in the amrit made of? Was the degh salty? At any rate, the punj pyaaray cannot give a hukam that is against Gurmat. If they do that, they arent' really the punj pyaaray but imposters in that garb. Not all people dressed as pyaaray are really punj pyaaray unfortunately.

You're right there is no point in arguing. If you're convinced you are doing something that is right, then how can I convince you otherwise? The difference between Baba Sri Chand (not a Khalsa) and a Bhai Nand Lal and Bhai Daya Singh and Bhai Desa Singh is huge. They were Khalsa Sikhs who were close with Guru Gobind Singh jee. If they all concurr that taking off kakaars is not right, I think they must have a point. This is only supplemented by the fact that this practice is followed by most amritdharis even today. If you take off kakaars, I guess that's your choice. But it's not really an ok choice in terms of rehit. It's wrong in that light. Most Sikhs have found a way to wear their kirpans when swimming and playing sports. I think maybe a better and more productive approach would be to ask HOW they can be worn during these activities not if. Sorry if I came off as too harsh. I personally at one point was an amritdhari who took off his kakaars and realised later that it was wrong. I feel very strongly about this issue.

No harm in throwing them in the machine. Only thing I would suggest (as has been said before) don't put in any keskis or dastaars with a load that has kacherras or pyjamas. Also, make sure you fully open the kacherra up and don't leave it bunched up when you throw it in. It can be cleaned better when it's open.

Prabhu, I'm sure you could write "Bhai Prabhu ji's rehit" but who would care? Do you even know who Bhai Nand Lal was? How about Bhai Daya Singh? Were these Sikhs on par with you? Where has Guru Gobind Singh written any rehit? You said if he wanted he could have said this but didn't. Where did Guru Gobind Singh write any rehit at all? The rehit by Bhai Nand Lal (the acclaimed poet of Guru Sahib's darbar who's writings along with Bhai Gurdas's are the only ones accepted to be sung in Darbars according the Sikh rehit maryada) and Bhai Daya Singh (first of the Punj Pyaras) are the closest we have to what Guru Gobind Singh wanted rehit to be. But because of your sheer IGNORANCE you don't recognise who these Sikhs were nor do you really care. Rehit is something that is passed down through the Khalsa. Every jathebandi believes that kakaars are not separable from our bodies. Do you think all of them had it wrong but you've now got it right? I've felt this a number of times reading your blog but was reluctant to say anything until now. Your words reek of ego. "I know what Sikhi is" ; "I'm never going to change my practices". How far are you going to get in Sikhi while proclaiming "I'm right everyone else is wrong" and "I know it all!". Not far at all brother. As a Sikh you learn from other Sikhs. If a Sikh learns of a new rehit he jumps to take it on. He does't say "I'll never change". For your information (not that you care I guess) a kacherra is changed every time a bath is taken be it once a day or 5 times a day. It can never get "filthy" unlike taking it off and then putting it on over and over again day in and day out. This actually forces you to change it every time you bathe. How is it filthy? If you ask me, that person is filthy who takes his/her filthy kacherra off and after a bath puts it right back on. One leg is taken out and then put in the new kacherra and then the other so that the Sikh is never apart from it. If teh kirpan HAPPENS to get wet, it is immediately dried and never allowed to rust. It's one thing to say "yeah, that's rehit but I can't follow it at this time" and another to say "I don't do it so it CAN'T be rehit". Open your mind. But if you continue to feel you're smarter and know better than Bhai Nand Lal and Bhai Daya Singh jee, what can I say. Keep living in your delusion I guess...