Harbhajan

In Gurmat, "Four Padaraths" are: Gyan Padarath: (Teasure of Spiritual Knowledge) Mukat Padarath: (Treasure of Salvation) Naam Padarath: (Treasure of Divine Wisdom) Janam Padarath: (Treasure of Spiritual Birth) Further information at : http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Char_Padarath

source: http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/07/01/on-the-air-india-bombing/ John Major – On the Air India bombing, Sikh extremism in B.C., and why airport security is still so lax Jul 1, 2010 by macleans.ca Four years ago, retired Supreme Court judge John Major was appointed by Prime Minister Stephen Harper to lead an inquiry into the bungled investigation of the bombing of Air India Flight 182 that killed 329 people. His 4,000-page report was issued last week. In it, he calls for an urgent rethinking of Canada’s security system, and offers a scathing review of the roles of the RCMP and CSIS. He spoke to Maclean’s from his home in Calgary. Q: Last week, you referred to “the error, incompetence and inattention of government agencies.” Should Canadians be angry at the failure of government to protect them? Are you angry? A: Perhaps “disappointed” is a better word. I would be hopeful that the same set of circumstances wouldn’t lead to the same result today, but I’m still not comfortable [as far as] the objective of giving Canadians a sense of security, I just don’t think we have it. Q: What steps are not being taken today? A: There are newer attacks on our security, for instance the homegrown terrorist. Are we doing anything to find the beginning of that? Are we doing anything to look to the public displays of anger by the Sikhs in Surrey, B.C., where politicians—at least up until last year—used to attend celebrations featuring the ringleaders of the Air India explosion? Q: It is said there are as many, if not more, Sikh extremists in Surrey as in India. What should our government be doing? A: Well, the Indian forces have been very tough. There have been a lot of executions, a lot of arrests, and a lot of them have come to Canada both legally and illegally. The Sikhs in Surrey—the radical Sikhs—are still promoting independence in India, and as long as they don’t commit a crime there doesn’t seem to be any easy way of discouraging them from preaching the value of an independent Khalistan [a separate Sikh state]. Q: Do you think some attempt should be made, when potential immigrants are screened, to ensure they won’t bring these grievances and use Canada as a place to fight foreign wars? A: I think that is crucial. When an immigrant decides to come to Canada he should accept Canada as it is and leave his fights at home, otherwise stay at home. The difficulty is, our immigration system is badly broken, and if somebody gets his foot on Canadian soil he is immediately covered by the Charter of Rights. You know, this is a very liberal, free-speaking country, and I don’t think there’s any question that the Charter—which I would still take, warts and all—does make it easier. Q: As you say, for a long time this was not seen as a Canadian catastrophe. Most of the people killed were of Indian origin, it was an Air India airplane, it was an Indian problem. A: Yeah. Q: And this seems to have spilled over into the attitude of the government. Is that fair? A: That is fair. It took a little while for the notion to sink in that we were talking, in the main, of second- and third-generation Canadians. And then the government went into a defensive mode, saying, “Well, why should we be liable? Prove our negligence.” Q: They treated the families as adversaries. A: I think it was close to eight years before they’d even acknowledge it was a bomb. Q: If that plane had been full of WASPs from Rosedale in the city of Toronto, would the treatment of the incident have been the same? A: If it it had been an Air Canada plane with white Canadians . . . I don’t think so. I’m certain it wouldn’t have been. Q: You heard lots of testimony from the families of the victims. Is it over now, or do they want—I won’t say revenge—but justice? A: I think they would like to see more aggressive anti-terrorism activities. The view I got was quite unselfish. They weren’t looking for anything for themselves. It was, “Protect our children, protect your children, be awake as to what’s happening.” If the recommendations are put into force, that will go a long way to satisfying them. Q: They don’t want the people who were guilty of such incompetence and inattention to pay? A: Well, the problem is those people are gone. Most of them were middle-aged mandarins who are now in their 80s, some of them we couldn’t interview—they had Alzheimer’s disease—and a number of others had died. Q: There’s been speculation of an ongoing criminal investigation, and that it still may be possible for some of those involved to be brought to justice. Can you comment on that? A: Well, Parmar is dead. Johal is dead. Malik and Bagri have been acquitted. Reyat, who made the bomb, is serving penitentiary time for perjury, and I think there’s another trial pending. There’s a sense that we know who did it, and there’s been no evidence that there were others—although I’m sure there were sympathizers. But the ringleader has certainly been identified as Parmar, and he’s dead. Q: How do you feel about the acquittal of Malik and Bagri? A: The report says the RCMP heavy-handedly burned two key witnesses. One woman suffered a loss of memory. She would have testified, so we’re told, that Bagri came to her house wanting to borrow her car on the night of the loading of the suitcases, saying he had to make a delivery to the airport, and she didn’t lend him the car, but she couldn’t remember much of that at the trial. The other woman, whose testimony the judge was left in some doubt with, had been interviewed by the RCMP, publicly identified in the Sikh community, and had to go into witness protection. She wasn’t, I gather, very co-operative. Q: Is it true some government institutions and officials who testified tried to mislead you? A: I had the impression they were not trying to help us. It’s like the old fraternity pledges: these were RCMP officers doing their duty, we’re going to stand by them. Q: You talk of the tension between CSIS, which wants to keep stuff secret, and the criminal justice system, which wants everything to be public. A: Sometimes the intelligence is wrapped in a crime, and is the greater good solved by police arresting? CSIS has reason for keeping it, and the RCMP reason for wanting it. A national security adviser could decide what was in the best interests of the country. Q: Are Canadians safer now when they travel by air than they were, apparently, in 1985? A: They are safer. The passenger is more thoroughly searched, the hand baggage is searched more carefully, but the perimeter of the airports are not. It was in evidence that when you got top security at Pearson Airport, that permitted you to go anywhere in the airport, including areas that had a combination on the doorknob. And it seemed some of these people had poor memories, because in many cases the combination was written beside the door! Q: What about air cargo? I believe 80 per cent of air cargo in Canada is carried in passenger aircraft, and security on cargo is still lax. A: Well, except for cargo that’s going to the United States—and this is a U.S. requirement—which has to be X-rayed. The rest doesn’t. They have two checks. One is they will not let you dictate what airplane you want this parcel to go on. And there’s the known shipper. Somebody that does a lot of shipping is supposed to prepare their cargo in such a way that authorities can tell it’s been checked by the known shipper and sealed. That’s our defence on domestic cargo, and it’s not very reassuring. Q: We all know the fate of some previous commissions of inquiry. How do we ensure that your recommendations are dealt with? A: The pressure has to come from the public, from the families. There’s enough momentum that they’ve started to do something about cargo. We’ll see something about ex gratia payments by an independent body to victims. Q: No one was really brought to justice after 25 years. How do you feel about that? A: This report at least opens the government to public scrutiny in a small way. There’s enough blame to go around. There’s the justice system, there’s the RCMP, there are airlines. If you want to go back to the source, the lady that permitted the suitcase with the bomb to be checked in with the Air India plane when there was no reservation on the flight . . . Q: Do we know the name of that person? A: Yeah. Q: She didn’t testify at the commission? A: No. And, you know, the families bear her no animosity. Q: After 25 years, is the story now over? Is your report the last word? A: I don’t think so. It will dim in memory, but every year relatives of the victims go to Ireland—the Irish built a memorial, the first memorial, which is a bit ironic. And they have a public tribute to the victims. Q: The Irish did better on this one. A: Oh, absolutely. We had no ambassador in Ireland. There were two civil servants from London sent to Cork, and they were very decent people. They gave evidence, and one of them attended a lot of the hearings. He was almost in tears, and he felt he was unable to do anything, he didn’t have any money, he had no instructions. He’d meet the families but he couldn’t say to them, “We’ve got accommodation here or there.” Whereas the Irish immediately took them into their homes. Virtually everybody in the town had some family members staying with them. And it was a grisly time because they were trying to recognize bodies. Q: Have you visited that memorial? A: No, I haven’t. Q: Do you plan to go sometime? A: I had obvious sympathy for the victims but I had to remain neutral, so I thought it would be inappropriate. Now that it’s over, I’d like to go.

source: http://www.hindustantimes.com/Excommuni ... 54040.aspx Hindustan Times　 Amritsar, June 06, 2010 First Published: 21:24 IST(6/6/2010) Last Updated: 21:28 IST(6/6/2010) Excommunicated get apology chance: Sikh high priests The Sikh high priests in a meeting at the Akal Takht on Sunday announced that all those excommunicated from the panth (community) could return to the mainstream if they apologised at Akal Takht within a month. Akal Takht Jathedar Giani Gurbachan Singh said, "Keeping in mind the recent tricentenary celebrations in connection with Baba Banda Singh Bahadur’s Sirhind Fateh Divas, it was decided to give such a chance to all those who had been excommunicated." If someone still did not turn up to apologise before the Akal Takht, the Sikh community must boycott such persons, he added. The high priests also decided that nobody was allowed to play the role of Sikh Gurus or their relatives in any film. Even the role of ‘panj pyaras’ in any movie will be played by the ‘panj pyaras’ approved by the panth. In another decision, only important or serious issues could come straight to the Akal Takht, whereas other issues will now be sent to the Dharam Parchar Committee of the SGPC. The pending issues at Akal Takht will now be sent to the Dharam Parchar Committee. To look into these issues, the SGPC will form an expert panel, which will try to bring a solution to issues forwarded to the Dharam Parchar Committee, Jathedar Gurbachan Singh said. The Akal Takht also asked the SGPC to seek suggestions from around the world for the upkeep of the gurdwara at Nankana Sahib in Pakistan. © Copyright 2009 Hindustan Times

source: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/todays-paper/only+immigrants+have+multiple+loyalties/3117142/story.html It's not only immigrants who have multiple loyalties We all have to juggle family, religion, work, friends, culture, ideas -- and we're much the better for it By Douglas Todd, Vancouver Sun - June 5, 2010 　How can Sikh immigrants be loyal to Canada and, at the same time, press to create an independent Sikh homeland in India called Khalistan? How can devout Muslim Canadians be loyal to both Canada's democratic laws and the teachings of the Koran? How can Chinese immigrants be loyal to Metro Vancouver if they speak Mandarin in their homes and retain citizenship in China? These are some of the ways that Canadians in the 21st century are talking about controversies revolving around the issue of "dual loyalties." The phrase is typically pejorative. It's mostly used to question the level of commitment that immigrants may or may not bring to their new homeland. But is it fair to accuse recent immigrants of having "dual loyalties," let alone " multiple loyalties?" Is having multiple loyalties as dangerous as it's made to sound? Is it an act of betrayal? Even though the multiple loyalty discussion usually focuses on immigrants, it stretches across the social spectrum -- to all of us. Questions about multiple loyalties pop up in politics, workplaces, families and even intimate relationships. We all face loyalty challenges. We all have to make choices about how committed we intend to be to different things about which we care, which can sometimes feel in conflict. Before exploring how each one of us must juggle divergent loyalties in our pluralistic society, let's first explore the traditional way people have seized the issue. It has usually centred on nationalism. In North America, one the most famous battles over dual loyalties emerged during the Second World War. That's when Canadian and U.S. citizens of Japanese, German and Italian ancestry were confined to internment camps because of fears they would undermine the Allied cause as traitors. Later, in the 1950s, U.S. senator Joe McCarthy harassed and jailed many noted Americans for allegedly being a fifth column, more loyal to communism than America. During John F. Kennedy's campaign for U.S. president in 1960, some opponents questioned whether a Roman Catholic would be more beholden to the pope than the citizens of his own country. Similarly, in Canada at the beginning of the 20th century, the University of Victoria's Paul Bramadat said some members of the dominant Anglo-Protestant community worried that allowing more Roman Catholic immigrants from Ireland and Italy would lead to the collapse of English-speaking Canada. "This question is not new at all in North America," says Bramadat, director of the Centre for Studies in Religion and Society at UVic. "What does change are the names of the people whose 'multiple loyalties' some people fear will lead to social disintegration." Still, Bramadat acknowledges that questions about multiple loyalties are again coming to the fore in North America because of rising immigration, more affordable travel, economic globalization and advanced communication technology. While Bramadat is right to argue that the dangers associated with multiple loyalties can be greatly exaggerated, it's not entirely fair to suggest, as some do, that anyone who asks questions about multiple loyalties is a bigot. In an increasingly complex society -- where a host of politicians, spiritual leaders, sports teams, corporate brands and loved ones ask us to commit to them -- there is still something good about old-fashioned loyalty. Loyalty helps us create a coherent sense of who we are and where we're heading. Commitment ties people and communities together. In the confusion of contemporary life, it is beneficial to declare we are strongly attached to something -- our country, our family, our faith or our ethical principles. When our traditional loyalties are threatened, it can feel as if our psyches are breaking into fragments. We can feel emotionally torn, says Simon Fraser University ethicist Mark Wexler, when we attempt to be loyal to both a new country and our country of birth, to both our growing families and our demanding workplaces, to both our religious leader's teachings and our individual consciences. Our sense of personal integrity and purity can feel as if it's becoming undone, Wexler says, when we start asking questions such as: "How can I be loyal to two countries, particularly when one is at war with the other? "How can I be loyal to my principles when I am drawn to many different and viable options? [if I divorce and remarry] how can I be loyal to two families? How can I be loyal to two faiths, each with their own version of God? " As we loosen traditional loyalties, Wexler says, we can regret leaving behind our previous identity, and fear we will fail at our new one. Worst of all, we might lose track of who we are. With multiple loyalties, as Wexler says, we have reason to fret about becoming "a chameleon on a Persian rug;" a chaotic patchwork of conflicting identities. It's clearly not only immigrants who have to struggle with such questions of multiple attachments. The issues are inescapable for most of us. And that can be a good thing. The positive aspect of being open to multiple loyalties is that it helps us grow. It stretches our boundaries. It makes life adventurous. There is a sense of romance and excitement in trying out new loyalties, new commitments, new attachments. We leave behind the "old country" to bring our talents and hopes to a new nation. We develop new friends as we change professions or social status. We find ourselves with additional family members as we step out of old relationships and into new ones. When we experience multiple loyalties, Wexler says, "The joys of a new sense of self come into being. There is the romance of what may be possible in an alternate world or an alternate identity. "This is far more than a delusion. It is the hope of becoming." In other words, it could well be empty nostalgia to yearn for a time when we thought we could avoid multiple loyalties. The only way to sidestep them is to remain static, in a rut. If we want to live with creativity, the challenge of juggling multiple loyalties becomes virtually unavoidable. Maybe that's the kind of thing Bob Dylan was talking about when he famously sang, "he not busy being born is busy dying." dtodd@vancouversun.com © Copyright © The Vancouver Sun

source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/indians-abroad/Indian-Canadian-gets-life-term-for-honour-killing/articleshow/6014521.cms Indian-Canadian gets life term for 'honour killing' IANS, Jun 5, 2010, 02.33pm IST TORONTO: A 48-year-old Indian Canadian man has been jailed for life by a city court for killing his daughter-in-law for allegedly having an affair with another man. Kamikar Singh Dhillon, who pleaded guilty to stabbing Amandeep Kaur, 22, to death Jan 1, 2009, said he feared his daughter-in-law would leave his son for another man with whom she was allegedly having an affair. The young woman, who came to Canada from Isru village near Ludhiana after marrying Dhillon's son in 2005, was stabbed multiple times with a knife in the family-run grocery store near Toronto airport. The victim, who had an 18-month-old son, died after suffering multiple wounds to her face, head, throat and upper body. Her body was found in the washroom of a grocery store. Dhillon, who comes from Saharan Majra village near Ludhiana, justified the murder, saying that his daughter-in-law would have disgraced his family by leaving his son for another man. All he said in Punjabi during the verdict Friday was: "I am just sorry...I am guilty." "He wanted the police to tell the media that he was justified in killing the deceased (because) of the imminent disgrace to his family name," the court heard. Dhillon told police that his daughter-in-law even offered to have sex with him but he refused. But investigations found no evidence of Kaur's alleged affair with another man or her offer to have sex with Dhillon. Initially, when police reached the spot after the murder, Dhillon tried to mislead them by telling them his daughter-in-law had been kidnapped by five masked black men. He also inflicted stab injuries on himself to tell the cops that he too was attacked by the masked men. A source familiar with the family said: "The girl's family in Punjab fell victim to their craze to send their daughter to Canada even though Dhillon's son is not mentally fit. Once Kaur came here after marriage to his son, Dhillon attempted to exploit her. But when she got her permanent residence and started asserting herself, he stabbed her and spread the lies that she was involved with another man."

source: http://www.nationalpost.com/scripts/Liberal+values+Sikh+terrorism/3110007/story.html Liberal values vs. Sikh terrorism National Post · Thursday, Jun. 3, 2010 Before the 1984 anti-Sikh riots in India, Sikh terrorists carried out indiscriminate attacks designed to cause extensive civilian casualties, including derailing trains and setting off bombs in markets and restaurants. Moderate Sikh political leaders were assassinated for opposing the militants, while several others were killed as a result of militant group rivalries. Threats were also made to the minority Hindu population so as to drive them out of Punjab. In fact, a large population of Hindus left Punjab permanently in 1980s. Democratic India's defeat of the Khalistan terror movement is one of the great success stories of our time, and key to this victory were the actions of 1984. Far from being a "genocide" against Sikhs, as Liberal MP Andrew Kania wants to call it, the events of 1984 should be celebrated as a decisive blow against terrorism. Ron Banerjee, director, Canadian Hindu Advocacy, Toronto.

Can Sikh Leaders & the community emulate The Aga Khan and his community, with our resources, numbers & the Universal teachings of Guru Granth Sahib Ji? Harbhajan S. Sangha __________________________________________________ _ Aga Khan named honourary Canadian Breaks ground on $300 cultural centre By Adam McDowell and Drew Halfnight, National Post - May 29, 2010 TORONTO — Prime Minister Stephen Harper conferred honorary Canadian citizenship on the Aga Khan on Friday, making the billionaire descendant of the Prophet Mohammed and spiritual leader to 15 million Ismaili Muslim followers worldwide only the fifth person to be so honoured. Though that “citizenship” is merely a symbolic gesture, those who gathered to see the spiritual leader Friday already thought him a model Canadian. “He’s going to be a tremendous addition to our country — your country,” said Shenaz Ladak of Brampton, Ont., who, with a few dozen other Ismaili Muslim Canadians, stood on a sweltering street in Toronto’s northeast end in the hope of catching a glimpse of the Aga Khan. His followers know him as Mawlana Hazar Imam. The Prime Minister and the Aga Khan met Friday to break ground on a $300 million cultural centre, museum and park that will be built on the seven-acre site. The Aga Khan Museum — the first of its kind — will be a white-stone building with a low dome by prize-winning architect Fumihiko Maki. Directly south, the larger Ismaili Centre Toronto by Mumbai-based architect Charles Correa will strike a similar, modern pose, with a multi-faceted glass roof and a limestone exterior. It will contain meeting rooms, a prayer room, youth lounge and a library. Surrounding these buildings will be a network of geometric ponds, fountains, gardens and pathways. The Aga Khan expressed his hope that the cultural edifice — particularly the collection of artifacts from Islamic history — would serve as a beacon for his sect’s moderate take on Islam and its “search for knowledge and beauty.” Harper praised the Aga Khan’s pluralistic view of the world before making him an honorary citizen; the rare gesture follows the assent of both houses of Parliament. “As you yourself said, Your Highness, we cannot make the world safe for democracy without first making the world safe for diversity,” Harper said. “If I may say, sir, you sound like a Canadian — and in fact, you are.” Like many of his people, the Aga Khan is a cosmopolitan figure. Born in Geneva, Switzerland, he spent his early childhood in Nairobi, Kenya, his teens back in Switzerland, and completed his undergraduate degree at the U. S-based Harvard University. He currently lives in France. Those Ismaili Muslims who gathered to steal a peek at their spiritual guide Friday had moved to Canada from Uganda, Tanzania, Tajikistan and Afghanistan. Ladak moved to Canada 35 years ago from Tanzania. She said the education she received at Ismaili schools in her homeland, including English language instruction, prepared her well for Canadian life. “You are born taken care of,” she said. Several other onlookers Friday confirmed the Ismaili reputation for privacy by declining to give their names. But they praised the Aga Khan for supporting his people with educational and other assistance through the Aga Khan Development Network and related organizations. At the Toronto dig site this week, more than 100 volunteers from around North America could be seen bustling about, prepping the site for the groundbreaking. “There’s a strong volunteer ethic in the community,” said Farid Damji, a member of the Ismaili Council for Canada who came from Vancouver to pitch in. “It’s an ethic and a value that is instilled from a very young age, in terms of volunteering.” Damji said the Aga Khan chose to build the centre in Toronto because of its “cosmopolitan cultural outlook.” Almost half of Canada’s 70,000 Ismailis live in Toronto. For his part, the Aga Khan has given Canada credit for the successful integration of Ismailis in the country. When Ugandan dictator Idi Amin expelled his countrymen of Asian descent in 1972, the Aga Khan contacted his friend, then-prime minister Pierre Trudeau, and negotiated Canada’s acceptance of thousands of Ismailis fleeing persecution. The Aga Khan has exhorted Ismailis in this country with the simple but powerful phrase: “Make Canada your home.” Many Ismailis have said this command played a role in their decision to stay in Canada. Noted Ismaili Muslim-Canadians include Rogers CEO Nadir Mohamed and Senator Mobina Jaffer. The Toronto-based project — to be completed in 2013 — will complete a trio of architectural projects in the country, including the Ismaili Centre in Burnaby, B.C., and the Delegation of the Ismaili Imamat in Ottawa, inaugurated by Harper and the Aga Khan in 2008. National Post source: http://www.vancouversun.com/life/Khan+named+honourary+Canadian/3085424/story.html