Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by jashb

  1. The video could certainly have been made A LOT more informative. There was a whole wealth of information that could have accompanied the video that could have explained the armed struggle to the lay person. Recorded statements like those passed by balram kutha jakhar, the 8th speaker of lok sabha no less, pertaining to the Sikh Genocide could have been presented. Facts and figures about the genocide of 1984 could have been given. Figures of the Sikh contribution to the struggle for freedom from Britain could also have been provided to contrast with the treatment Sikhs received immediately from 1947. Bhai Sahib Bhai Kapoor Singh Ji's Sachi Sakhi is a treasure box of information on the subject. Images of indian state torture victims could have been included to show the depraved acts of terror Sikhs suffered at the hands of agents of the indian government during this period, in what was almost always illegal custody, that for some continues without charge even to today (Jaggi is the tip of an iceberg). E.g. How Sikh babies were set on fire and even fed to kingdoms of ants by indian police officers just to end the bloodline of certain families. How Pregnant women were killed just so they wouldn't give birth to a Sikh child. How Singhs like Bhai Gurdev Singh Debu Ji were boiled alive in police stations just like Shaheed Bhai Dayala Ji. How the panth's daughters were gang raped by indian police kuthey like gobind ram in broad daylight and the pind was rounded up and forced to watch. How the jails of mir mannu were resurrected under the directions of kachi dilli darbar. How whole families were wiped out, yet india just went by its business like nothing happened. Tyrants like abdali would have been proud of the systematic genocide of Sikhs. A little research would have revealed names and locations of the victims, there were so many that it is baffling such information is not provided routinely in videos that touch upon the subject of the Sikh Genocide, there are plenty of Amnesty cases on Panjaab that the lay person could be inspired to look up. Factual information regarding what forced Sikhs to start the morcha for their rights in india in the first place is also totally missing. E.g. the loot of panjaab's river waters that continues to today, continued denial of the semi-independent status of the Sikh homeland that was promised to the Sikhs in 1946, article 25 that even denies the independent existence of Sikhi. The blatant discrimination of denial of state language status to saadi pavitar maa boli Panjaabi for decades despite the fact that every other state was granted its local state language. Only for dilli darbar to eventually carve out haryana and himachal out of Panjaab, whilst passing entire swathes of Panjabi majority areas to non-Panjabi administrations. The enactment of TADA, the unconstitutional "law" specifically designed to be enforced on the state of Panjaab in order to suspend the most basic and fundamental human right that any human being can expect of their government - THE RIGHT TO LIFE - enabling the indian government to summarily execute Sikhs for the simple crime of being Sikh, without having to go through the formalities of detention, trial or even charge, providing the butchers of Panjaab, kachi sarkar the ability to systematically cut the panth down to size. Providing the indian punjab police and crpf the freedom to kill thousands upon thousands of Sikhs at will since 1984. The numerous, dozens of link canals that have been dug up in the blink of an eye since 1947 from Satluj to divert river waters to rajasthan and haryana and deprive Panjaab of its only natural resource without compensation of even an anna to Panjaab. (SYL wasn't even the tip of an iceberg, yet some of our people seem to think stopping that has stopped the loot of our river waters. Think again.) The reduction to destitute beggars of a proud kaum by deliberate centralised policies of keeping Panjaab under-educated and reliant on agriculture. Then the failure of the indian government even to provide a sustainable price for the crop it procures by force - a pitiful fraction of the international going market rate at any time - not even allowing farmers to market their produce privately but instead banning them from private enterprise, and even the blatant in-your-face discrimination of throwing Panjabi farmers the pittance of a rate as low as half the price for the staple crop that it pays to those outside Panjaab in neighbouring rajasthan and haryana! Deliberately overlooking the superior educated potential youth workforce of Panjaab in favour of the unpadh backwater of haryana for mass industrialisation in order that Panjaab's economy remains dependent on state controlled agriculture. How the deliberate failure to provide the farmers a fair price for their crop has led to the curtailment of the growth of the panth by forcing farmers to have smaller families in order to have enough to provide a half-decent yet astronomically priced private education to their child, since teachers are non-existent or useless in Panjaab's sarkari schools. How the continued discrimination against Panjabi farmers since 1947 has led them into the vicious cycle of continued debt, drug addiction, and eventually suicide in order to escape such a wretched existence. The counter argument would be as to how much can you fit into a three minute music video. That point might be partially valid, but I would disagree. The video is almost completely devoid of factual information, so at least a start should have been made. Overall, the video is more than a decent effort as a starting point, and is miles better than the gundh being pumped out in the name of "kalakari" in Panjaab. Its main downfall is that it is completely missing accompanying information which would have done a lot better justice to the song. Hopefully, if these Singhs make another music video, they will make it much more informative to the lay person.
  2. A lot of the b1tching simply seems to be about these Singhs being decked out in all black from head to toe. This is a really superficial argument, and is the same as the one levelled against Sikh Unit and others back in the day. Now I don't claim to know the background of these Singhs or where they grew up, but for anyone who grew up in or around a council estate, being dressed out in mostly or even all black was simply the norm for a lot of youth. It didn't necessarily imply gang membership, though those wearing it may well have been affiliated with a gang, and if so usually for their safety. If these Singhs were truly gang banging there's no way they'd be openly displaying their faces in this video, so it's safe to say it all largely appears to be posturing. They also shouldn't be waving around shastars like it's all just fun, though anyone with half a brain would have realised they are merely replicas. But that's hardly as bad as some are trying to make out. Immature certainly, given that I can safely bet none of them are tied up in gang life, but then again this video isn't aimed at the intellectuals of the panth.
  3. LOL If you say so, kakeyo! Stupid argument da lagda, chhittar na khalee tutti'ch pyonke. Kal da jammeya kakeya, tu sanu panjaab da santaap bare sikhayenga? Ponki ja kakeya, lagga reh... Vadda aaya judge te jury Karleh update fer. Pesh kar teri navi strategy. Lol
  4. Thanks for putting this video up brother. Singhs have been assassinating dushts since Akaal Purakh Waheguru Jio gave Sachi Sarkaar Chhevin Patshah Sri Guru Hargobind Sahib Ji Maharaj the hukam to raise the panth's army for this very purpose. All of the panth's wars, battles and encounters have been fought for this purpose. If it wasn't for panthic Singhs assassinating enemies of the panth, it's likely many ordinary Sikhs wouldn't exist today. I can't even put into words how Gurbani resonates with the beauty of Akaal striking the living daylights out of dushts. There is nothing wrong with assassinating dushts. In fact it is Har Hukam. There is no plainer way of saying this, but those that don't punish dushts are just disobeying Hukam (I don't exclude myself from this statement). There is nothing wrong with talking about assassinating dushts either. What's wrong is just talking about it, and not carrying it out. Bhagti mein Shakti I have considered and debated these issues for years. Eventually, I concluded that none of these issues can be solved without Khalistan. (Though I know you don't dispute this,) It's the other way around. The main advocates of Khalistan were and are still in the east. Here in the west we are just following in their footsteps. It's not really their fault that Singhs on the ground can't afford to be outspoken though. Lol To be honest, I thought it was alright
  5. Neither am I, but you haven't half dragged this out, theeye. Like I said, all the best.
  6. You'd find that so do most of the lot round here. Your "joke" just simply wasn't funny though, which I hoped you'd have clocked onto by now. It clearly had you in stitches however. No sh1t sherlock. Thanks, for stating the bleeding obvious though. Like I said, I don't agree, so let's leave it at that funnyman. Likewise. All the best.
  7. On this occasion, I humbly disagree. Lol, obviously I read the "whole thing". I only highlighted the part I'm referring to. It's only five words short for gods sake. Depends on who's the subject of the said "humour". I'd venture to say it's generally a good policy to leave any mention of Guru Sahiban out of jokes. As for bajjar kurehats, what is or isn't one is no business of mine.
  8. Easy geezer. There's a line between banter and taking the p1$$.
  9. Agreed. It is one person's imagination. I think it's a good idea overall to view some of these artists depictions with a healthy dose of scepticism. Especially considering some of their (Non-Sikh) backgrounds. Don't forget that male artists generally gravitate towards the effeminate side of the spectrum. Art and painting aren't skills that come naturally to most blokes. It's no surprise then that some of these artists might want to depict their subjects wearing things like earrings, and even ankle bracelets(!).
  10. I don't think we do to be honest. I would say that we commemorate it, or at least that's what I think we do. To say that we celebrate it carries the wrong kind of connotations for this pivotal moment in Sikh history, and is imho inaccurate. The whole month of June in particular is shahadat da mahina. In this month, I salute the heroic nature of their selfless sacrifices, their defiance of state tyranny, and their defence of Gurbani and Guru Panth. I remember Pancham Patshah Guru Arjan Dev Ji, Banda Singh Ji Bahadur, Sant Jarnail Singh Ji Khalsa Bhindranwale, Bhai Amrik Singh Ji, General Subheg Singh Ji and the 1984 Shaheeds. I pay respect to the way they all stared down the barrel of death without fear. I don't however think I could honestly say that I celebrate the shahadat of my Guru Ji or thousands of innocent pilgrims. To say that we celebrate these events, in the manner that others might celebrate festivals, weddings and birthdays (although I know you're not suggesting that), is a bit of a stretch. We don't necessarily have to be sad, but one can vow vengeance on one's enemies. I think the best way to really "celebrate" all the Shaheeds is to remember them, never forget them, bow down to their selfless sacrifices, and disseminate as much information as we can about them so that we can prepare and train current and future generations for the difficulties that lie ahead, in order that they can follow in the footsteps of the Shaheeds and their sacrifices that we commemorate.
  11. Completely inconsequential. Every politician is power hungry. No they were not. This premise is entirely incorrect. Indra gundhi abused the electoral process to gain her seat in the lok sabha. It was the janata dal in 1975, the forerunner of the BJP, not the "Akali Sikhs", that took the case of her fraudulent election to court and won. The high court ruled her election to lok sabha void due to electoral malpractice. The judgment disallowed her holding the office of prime minister. She was ordered to make way and step down in a matter of days. In response to the prospect of being unseated, she imposed the "emergency" and conveniently handed herself draconian powers as a result. Following her imposition of "emergency", it was again the janata dal, not the "Akali Sikhs", that was foremost in opposing it across india, amidst a wider background of resentment against her rule. The "Akali Sikhs" were by no means "the most rebellious to central govt in 1977 emergency", though that may well be their own present line of propaganda. It seems you are trying to downplay or brush aside the widespread desire for the congress party led Sikh Genocide by attributing it to some sort of minor political dispute between political factions that subscribe to the same overall anti-Sikh policy. However that is not the case. The "Akalis" were in fact wholly accommodative of the Sikh Genocide and were in league with the congress party at this point and they have been ever since. If anything, it is clear that we tend to carelessly (or deliberately) undermine it. Either wishful thinking, or ignorance is bliss. Perhaps the proximity of indra gundhi's ancestry to the same "aurangzeb" is underestimated. Perhaps one should investigate the lineage of this litter. Besides being the product of a b*****d jawahar lal nehru that shares its birth in a muslim (mughal) brothel of Allahabad with the other b*****d zulfiqar ali bhutto, the so-called "gundhi" clan traces directly via its paternal line through moti lal nehru and further raj kaul-nehru to gangu bahman. So if Hitler appointed self-hating Jews as nazi army generals, which incidentally he did, then I suppose his actions couldn't remotely be determined as anti-Jewish could they? Lol This is equivalent to the kind of simple logic that the quoted statement represents. One can only make that juvenile assertion if one chooses to close their eyes to the fact that he (and she) might have intended to provide their regimes with the convenient camouflage of a veneer of secularism in so doing, whilst charging those very self-hating cretins appointed with the act of rounding up and indiscriminately slaughtering members of their own race and faith. Other than the Sikh Genocide, what exactly did she provide to the Sikhs? This sense of "nostalgia" that is felt by some waylaid Sikhs for the inherently anti-Sikh congress party that executed the 1984 pogroms and the 1980s Panjab genocide that eliminated 250,000 youths, turned Panjab into a government sponsored slaughter house, and forced over 1 million Sikh males off the register of india within a decade between 1981 and 1991, which leads them to retrospectively rewrite contemporary events in the congress party's favour, is due to anti-incumbency sentiments against the BJP. It is mostly because a hindutva government led by another dictator is in power and is clearly the result of aggression by the RSS and BJP. However no Sikh should ever try to downplay the anti-Sikh actions of the kaul-nehru litter and the congress party in particular. The two opposing political factions are both thoroughly brahmanical and biparvadi. They differ in approach only, not in degree.
  12. The so called "anti-fascists" are inherently more intolerant, fascist and racist than those they pretend to oppose. The complete stupidity, incoherence and lack of any kind of skill of the women in this "debate" speaks volumes. If these are the kind of degenerates that eulogise and form the base of support of Jeremy Corbyn, I'm glad Labour didn't win. In truth, what these communists really oppose is the right of anybody to criticise islam.
  13. I don't think this should realistically be played down like this. The problem with this kind of behaviour by the leaders of any nation/society is that they don't live in a vacuum. If they did, they could theoretically get up to whatever kind of depraved anti-Sikh debaucheries they felt inclined to as far as I'm concerned. As long as these didn't adversely affect their rule in particular and the behaviour of society as a whole. Which, in itself is a pipe dream. The reason why that's not advisable policy in any event in the real world is because leaders possess a very real and powerful signalling function. This can be highly beneficial in the right hands and potentially seriously dangerous in the wrong hands. Public perception of a leader's behavior is hugely magnified, and, inevitably, it filters all the way down society. Therefore, leaders have a strict duty and responsibility to their subjects to set them a healthy and positive example to follow. They need not only to possess the correct morals, but more importantly, to be seen to possess the correct morals. This is more or less dharam, to which the Maharaja appeared to give wild abandon towards the end of his life. Now these kinds of restrictions could well be deemed a bit of a straightjacket for a red-blooded ruler, and I suspect that the one being referred to here felt that to be the case. But, quite frankly, that is the price of the job. Either accept it, or leave it to someone with greater self-restraint. At this point, it should be self-evident that any form of widespread addiction to the baser sensual pleasures is seriously detrimental to the future existence as a going concern of any nation. I shouldn't need to explain how these addictions encourage and normalise the very vikaars that produce a society of weak, shallow, easily manipulable individuals, low in morals, and crippled by a complete absence of the family values that are required to maintain a healthy strong and growing nation. However, by the Maharaja and most (though not all) of his close leadership indulging in this exact kind of downright utter gundh, it gave a green light to the rest of society that this stuff was strictly A-OK. So you could get drunk, get high, sleep with multiple partners that you never intend to get married with, and still call yourself a practising Sikh. All with the endorsement of the Maharaja. Happy days. Ironically, the Maharaja, increasingly brazenly in his latter days, got up to the very kind of anti-Sikh rubbish that the Khalsa was instructed and mandated to eradicate. So much for Khalsa Rahe Niara. Consequently, I think that the roots of the current simplistic, unsophisticated, promiscuous, and shallow "balle balle" drinking/dancing/bhangra culture (which is incidentally a totally mughal imitation) that our society is currently infested with can be traced back to this era. As a result, I believe that Guru Maharaj gave us a good and well deserved lesson when the Khalsa Raj that was abused in this fashion came crashing down. Yet, apparently we've learnt nothing, and some people appear to actually fantasise about returning to an age where this exact same gundh can be repeated and replicated with impunity, whilst somehow avoiding the side-effects that are bound to accompany it. It's impossible. No serious nation ever prospered whose rulers gave into cheap pleasures, sensual thrills and hedonistic debauchery.
  14. Maybe this is because you're, more or less, so resoundingly simple? Try to recognise that there is more than one dimension, and try to accept there may even be positive aspects, to the people you don't like. People want to listen to someone that stimulates them intellectually, not someone that reduces everything to a couple of soundbites. Perhaps this is also something to do with their impression of you? Maybe you're perceived as being, rightly or wrongly, someone not worth listening to? Sadly, no matter how high truthful and beneficial the message, in this case, even the path of Gurmat, people tend to judge the messenger before they pay any heed whatsoever to the message. To provide you with an example, you could do much worse than look to Shaheed Sant Jarnail Singh Ji Khalsa Bhindranwale for guidance in this respect. Sant ji was, on the face of it, identical to nearly every other parcharak. He wasn't the only bhujangi educated in the Taksal, and he wasn't the only Amritdhari Singh. Others were given far better stages and opportunities to influence Panjab, nay bharat, for the commonwealth good. Yet, despite these obvious similarities, ungint numbers of bharatis felt raised, inspired and compelled to step onto the path of Sikhi due to hearing Sant Ji's bachans, but at the same time, next to nobody and his dog listened to the other parcharaks even though they encouraged effectively the same thing. Now go figure why. And don't try to reduce the reasons for this to a simple catchphrase or two when you do.
  15. That's your whole explanation for misquoting me? You are so one-dimensional it's unbelievable. You reduce the complexity of everything you see to black and white, without caring for the finer, sometimes hidden, message that lies in shades of grey within. Have you ever bothered to discover the background to these assassinations? For example, where the conspirators came from, and what were their several, complex motivations? How they managed to obtain such power that they were able to effectively collude with each other to cause the assassinations of the sons of Maharaja Ranjit Singh, and consequently suck the Kaum dry during the resulting chaos? These aren't events that can be dismissed in a single sentence - nothing is ever that simple. You can't do justice to this period by simply declaring "Maharaja bad". Things don't work like that. Moreover, the events that we are referring to possess relevance and importance of the highest magnitude for the Kaum right now. They have shaped the destiny of the Kaum for the last 170 years, and if we're not careful, they will continue to do so for a long time more. Fail to understand what went wrong before, and you'll keep on committing the same mistakes over and over again. I can see the exact same things occurring within the Panth right now, but you can't correct what you don't see. Too many evidently don't.
  16. Where have I said there's anything wrong with having "Non-Punjabi Sikhs"? You are deluded if you believe that non-Panjabis and "Non-Punjabi Sikhs" are the same thing. The entirely reasonable and justifiable position in this respect is that putting non-Sikhs and furthermore non-Panjabis in charge of the destiny of Panjab was an incredibly poor, stupid, and myopic decision by Maharaja Ranjit Singh. Moreover, it treated with utter contempt the very Guru Sahiban in whose name he claimed to rule. This does not in anyone's wildest imagination equal the kind of anti-Sikh discrimination you have tried to allege. What is there about the distinction between these two disparate groups of people that you don't understand? Are you one of those people that have been brainwashed into believing that Panjabis and Sikhs are equivalent terms? Or do you simply believe the retarded equation that "Panjabi = Sikh"? Explain yourself. There are 90 million reasons why you and others like you are wrong. You really need to read about the demise of Khalsa Raj from an objective, authentic, and truly Sikh source (stress applied on the latter factor being operative), then come back here when you're ready. I can help to point you in the right direction. But only if you're willing. Frankly speaking, it was a stupid and nepotic mistake. But it was by no means his worst decision. I'm no fan of Kharak Singh. But that doesn't mean he shouldn't have been given the opportunity to rule once appointed. Moreover, this wasn't the incredibly poor, stupid, and myopic decision I referred to that so strictly and brazenly violated Guru Ji's hukams. Understand this. There were then, and there remain, certain non-Sikh elements, that we have stupidly permitted, in our blind sleep, to infiltrate our society, that walk the walk, and talk the talk, yet do not hold the authentic Sikh ethos and interests in the form of Khalsa Halemi Raj in any way shape or form at heart. It is not that sincere Sikhs that existed at the time of the events being referred to didn't have the parkh to recognise this fact. It is, that, to a large extent, their hands were tied by a regime that started more or less as a Sikh democracy, and ended definitively as an anti-Sikh autocracy. It was these non-Sikh, nay, anti-Sikh elements that had no intention of ever letting a Sikh, even one like Kharak Singh, from succeeding to rule.
  17. For me, there is no more complex a figure in Sikh history, no greater a paradox, no other man that evokes a more diverse range of opinions emotions and feelings within the Kaum, than Maharaja Ranjit Singh. If the Kaum were to properly consider, and with balance, assess the life, successes and failures of this remarkable man, I have no doubt that this would provide great lessons that would help us manage the future. Maharaja Ranjit Singh, for the first time in history, so successfully defended Panjab from foreign invasion that he was able to take the fight against the islamic onslaught into the very regions from which the jihadis emerged. He countered and comprehensively defeated the jihadis of his time, people with the same ideology as modern day islamists, those who can reasonably be said to be the antecedents of the present day ISIS and taliban. This was no mean feat. While assessing his achievements one has to bear in mind that the overwhelming majority of the citizens of Khalsa Raj belonged to the same mindset as the Panth's enemies. Yet, he actually managed to earn their respect, admiration and loyalty, even after he defeated them, to such an extent that they welcomed him. Whether this was the result of his sense of tolerance, his political expediency, or his weakness in excessively pandering to the islamic population to the detriment of the entire region, is not definite. I suspect the answer lies somewhat in degrees of all three. Now, having said all that, it would be a matter of pure dishonesty if one did not provide balance and address the fact that in so doing, he committed the very serious transgressions against Guru Ji's hukams that would eventually consign Khalsa Raj to history. What troubles me the most about the way he went about this is that Khalsa Raj did not belong to Maharaja Ranjit Singh, nor was it his creation, nor was it for him to throw away. In this respect, the speech delivered by General Hari Singh Ji Nalwa, the greatest and most successful General of his time, in response to Maharaja Ranjit Singh's announcement that his son would succeed him, is particularly poignant and relevant. When assessing the life and achievements of Maharaja Ranjit Singh, we must never overlook the fact that Sadde das lakh Sikh fought and died in multiple genocides in order to achieve Khalsa Raj. Khalsa Raj was built on the foundation of these shaheedis of huge numbers of Sikhs over several generations for the cause of Sikhi and out of love for Guru Maharaj. It did not belong to a single family alone. But by choosing to pass on his reign to his son, Maharaja Ranjit Singh consigned the Kaum to a fate that we are still reeling from 170 years later. This nepotism was acted out in an almost nonchalantly shameless and neglectful manner. General Hari Singh Ji Nalwa was entirely correct when he said that Kharak Singh, whilst being his friend and brother, was unsuitable and incapable of shouldering the responsibility of running Khalsa Raj. Yet this advice, which merely repeated what was by then already apparent among sincere Sikhs who cared about the future of the Kaum, had little to no effect on a man that started off his life as a Gursikh in the true sense of the term, and ended it as something quite different, as a creature that sought to ape the myopic rajputs of old. Furthermore, by appointing non-Sikhs and worse still even non-Panjabis to the government, he committed the fatal mistake that made the collapse of Khalsa Raj inevitable. These outsiders had no stake whatsoever in the continuing future as a going concern of Panjab. Even a fool with no respect for Guru Ji's hukams should have been able to see what was forthcoming. Yet, the Maharaja apparently didn't. The result of his non-adherence is plain for all to see. Panjab, the sohni di chirri of our ancestors only a few lifetimes ago, was reduced to dust. The parasitic non-Sikh traitors that Maharaja Ranjit Singh passed control to leached off the Kaum in the same way that the jews profiteered off post-great war Germany. However, the Germans at least identified, opposed and later avenged this treason. We never have, and, due to deliberately planted defects in the transmission of our values to future generations, designed to protect our oppressors, we quite possibly never will. Nobody put a gun to his head and forced Maharaja Ranjit Singh to ignore, neglect, and dismiss Sikhi rehat in the brazen way he did. He did so purely of his own will. And yet, for all of that, I still possess an outstanding admiration for the man, who was at one point, one of the greatest Sikh leaders in history. He is one of the greatest paradoxes I have known. Maharaja Ranjit Singh is for me simultaneously a source of great inspiration and pride, and an object of revile and disgust. Whatever you think about Maharaja Ranjit Singh, and there is much to think about, we could do a lot worse than learn from both the positive and negative aspects of his example, of how to obtain sovereignty, and how to subsequently lose it. In conclusion, when faced with the sobering fact that we have yet to recover our stolen land, there are few better examples to look to in this respect than our own. I have faith that Guru Maharaj has greater things planned for the Kaum than we know at present. And I believe that we were given Maharaja Ranjit Singh to learn from his successes and failures for a reason.
  18. I would return to this point specifically. I believe this is more or less a fact, and one that requires more detailed examination. Two points. 1. I think what you have addressed here should be widely acknowledged, if it isn't already accepted by now. It made sense for the colonisers to do this. The colonisers had the motive, opportunity, and means. Given that 9 million out of 10 million Sikhs left the Panth in the ten years immediately post-annexation, very few Sikhs would have even known Sikhi as it was revealed by Guru Sahiban. This gave the colonisers pretty much a blank slate to dictate a distorted, inauthentic, and politically convenient/subservient form of religion to us. I think the early Singh Sabhias were understandably so alarmed at the rapid loss of numbers in the Panth that they unwittingly played into the colonisers' hands. However, we have the opportunity and duty to correct that. Having said that, had the Singh Sabhias not urgently done what was realistically achievable within the parameters of the critical situation the Panth was in then, you and I may not have known Sikhi today. The reasons for annexation have never been properly examined by the Kaum in my opinion, even until today. The Panth went into a state of shock at this time, and I believe we are yet to fully recover from this. But that is another matter. 2. In regards to the way this induced state of "lullooness" was enforced on us, I think we have to go back much further than annexation to truly get to the root of this. It is my sincere belief that the way the colonisers slyly encouraged and enacted this is analogous to the way the hindu priestly class dumbed down hindu society for thousands of years. They impressed the ordinary and somewhat simple and sincere hindus with their intellect and study, and used that intellectual superiority to preach to them the basic message that; "We know better than you. We know what's good for you, and what's bad for you. Do as we say". The ordinary hindus were banned from learning and advancing themselves politically. This enabled the brahmans to exploit them. And they did that brutally. Different sections of the hindus were each provided disparate instructions in ways to serve the brahmans, be that by fighting and dying for them, making money for them or feeding them. The brahmans termed the resulting disparate classes of society as jaatis. They are what have became known as castes. The ordinary and somewhat simple and sincere hindus succumbed to this exploitation, and this naturally led to the downfall of hindu society. They became the willing or unwilling unthinking pawns of the brahmans. They lost all sense of examination and introspection. They simply accepted what the brahmans told them. "Be honest and innocent in all your doings. Don't study, leave that to us. Keep what you need to feed yourselves and your families and hand over the rest to us". Notice how others, particularly Dalits, who resisted these instructions were ruthlessly dealt with in order to send down a firm message to the rest. The shameful and awful treatment, ostracisation, and consequent killing of Sant Shambook comes to mind. To this day, hindus conveniently manipulate and defend this atrocity with the sort of nonsensical, illogical, mythological bs that is known only to them and is their expertise. The colonisers didn't invent this concept at all. They found, as a result of their research, a religious system that was proven to have worked on the indigenous people for thousands of years. They understood that religion is probably the most effective medium with which to influence a population. They adapted it to suit themselves and deployed it to their own benefit. I don't mean to understate the colonisers' role in deploying this to their benefit. However, it was already there. All they did was ruthlessly take advantage of it. It's still there after they've gone, and to some extent it always will be, because it is and always will be woven into the fabric of hinduism. These problems are intrinsically intertwined. Although this is slightly different to what we were originally alluding to here, you can also see a parallel in the way they deployed the hindu caste system against us in a similar fashion. This can be seen in their propagation of different Sikh "caste" units in the british indian army, each stupidly competing with each other for the affection of the white master, to divide and control us. They didn't invent caste either, but it was the result of their study that they stumbled across the work of bahmans to divide the indigenous people over thousands of years, and that it was highly convenient to them. They simply ruthlessly put it to use. It's what I believe our Guru Sahiban pulled us out of when they banned the hindu caste system and instructed all Sikhs to become politically aware. It's at any rate partially down to the colonisers that we're once again mired in it. But those colonisers have long gone. We now need to look beyond that, and actually get out of this mess. If we don't, I fear there will be grave consequences for the Kaum. We have no right to dishonour the destroyer of hindu caste by hypocritical calling ourselves Sikhs if we don't do everything in our power to remove the stain of hindu caste from the Panth once and for all. This has to go. From our minds, from our mouths, from our Gurdwara Sahib.
  19. I picked up on this. I accept that many did attain Shaheedi. I just don't think that so many of them have been wiped out to render a dire situation hopeless. Or, at least, some of them have come back, lol. There are some forces at work in this mortal existence that can't be rationalised. An atheist would laugh at the whole notion, or more likely, fail to understand completely. But then again, an atheist would laugh at most of Sikh history, if it hadn't already happened.
  20. I think this is true. However, I for one would never seek to play it down or deny it. I believe that the thinking behind this was that a relaxation of government policies towards the agricultural sector would have provided real and tangible benefits which would have filtered down to the the manual labourers working on the farm and the petty peasants owning 1-2 acres or taking them on lease, because let's face it, an outright and overwhelming majority of Sikhs in Panjab were and are engaged in agriculture and the proportion involved during the 1980s would have been even higher. In this sense, I think the panthic committee were being practical to incorporate these into their demands. I sincerely believe this was an innocent measure proposed to make life easier for the overwhelming majority of the Kaum that resides in Panjab. I don't believe that this was at all sinister or underhanded in any way. This proposal practically reflected the demography of the Panth, and to a large extent it remains the case. For an organisation whose members were essentially always on the run and a fire fight away from certain death, they lacked the time and resources to come up with an optimal economic solution for Panjab. I think they simply had to make do with the limited resources they had. Hindsight is always a wonderful thing, but it doesn't always work out perfectly in practice. It is another matter altogether that had these demands been met, the indian national congress funding large landowners owning 100+ acres, their own worst enemies, would have been the first to benefit. But it's a consequence of any fiscal policy designed to cut taxes on the poor that the wealthy will benefit first. In this sense, accusing them of adopting these policies simply out of a sense of "tribal loyalty" so to speak is unfair, and it would have been counterproductive in any case. I can only speak from my own experience, but I am unaware of such a thing. I'd say the worst enemies of progressive segments of rural society are ironically its wealthiest members, who are perfectly satisfied with the status quo and don't wish to rock the boat in any way. It is these casteist elitists that are the real problem, and they should be the object of our ire. I believe they are the ones who bought wholesale into and started the whole superiority complex and separate race bs. As an aside, notice how the very wealthy ones that have the time and money to waste on producing music willingly do bahman's work in culturally propagating this same message through the lyrics of the music they produce on bahman's behest. It has not gone unnoticed how the so called "high caste" hindu elitists control the "music industry" in Panjab, and I believe it is no coincidence that every second track produced there cites the term "jat". Popular music is a powerful medium for propagation of a subliminal message. But given our people's addiction to bhangra, getting them to accept that a message detrimental to the Kaum is being propagated and consequently to exercise some self restraint in relation to it is largely a wasted effort. There needs to be a popular alternative instead. The petty peasant followers of these casteist elitists are simply hangers on who are pointlessly looking up to them to confer some small petty benefits on them. They are simply being exploited. They will turn elsewhere if they are presented with a potentially better system. We should not forget however that the panthic committee promised to recruit only Dalits/Sikhs to all state sector vacancies for the first 10 years after independence. That would have certainly annoyed a certain prominent privileged class I can think of, which means it is no convenient coincidence that their opposition to it was also the most vociferous. Even today, easing economic conditions for the agricultural sector, or paying small farmers a better rate, possibly subsidised by progressive taxation on large landowners, would be beneficial in preventing thousands of suicides. At the very least, they should not be prevented as they have been since india's conception from marketing their produce privately, which is a blatantly negative intervention and a complete farce. Our people are perfectly capable of private enterprise when their hands are not tied. However, the government's attitude to the agricultural sector is not about to change. It views it as a cash cow, and given that its members are to uneducated to know better, they will continue milking them for as long they can. In this sense, rather than waiting for the government to change its tune, mass scale industrialisation in Panjab would be a better and more immediate solution, and is an outstanding and urgent priority. Having said that, we should not overlook the fact the panthic committee were foresighted enough to realise that Panjab would badly require the proliferation of industry. This was a key demand that still hasn't been met some 30 years later. This is blatantly discriminatory as Haryana, probably the most backward state in northern india after UP and one that confers no special benefits other than it being largely non-Sikh, has received the lion's share of industry in northern india at Panjab's expense, even though Panjab has a countload of factors in its favour, such as a far more numerous and higher educated workforce, most of whom are consequently unemployed or underemployed. I think if the whole movement was conducted today, we'd be able to handle it a lot better. But that's hindsight for you, and in any case, other circumstances have changed. Given the level of drug dependency enforced on Panjab's potentially productive youth on a level akin to that deployed to depress the Chinese during british occupation, it is a matter of debate whether we'd have sufficient numbers to rise to the challenge now.
  21. I disagree, and you are making a wild generalisation here. The allegation being made, if I have understood it correctly, is that "pendus" only undertake direct action when some sort of personal benefit accrues to themselves out of it, and they subsequently have the gall to claim to have undertaken the same on behalf of the Panth. As all of the Shaheed Singhs are labelled with this derogatory term and would obviously fit it by your criteria anyhow, let's consider a case in point. We all know who was killed in the November 1984 Anti-Sikh pogroms. The innocent people massacred outside Panjab hundreds of miles away in places like Delhi and Kanpur were almost exclusively poor urban labourer Sikhs and middle class urban dwelling Sikhs. They were not rural Sikhs. Yet these atrocities moved rural Sikhs like Bhai Kuki Gill and Shaheeds Jinda and Sukha so much so that they felt compelled to essentially embrace death in order to travel to Delhi to eliminate the two perpetrators of this genocide who were the most instrumental on the ground in organising and committing the massacres of urban Sikhs, that these rural Sikhs had no personal relation with. Explain what personal benefit for taking these actions accrued to Bhai Kuki Gill and Shaheeds Jinda and Sukha, and thousands of others like them after 1984.
  22. I don't agree with everything you've got to say. However, what you have pointed to here is a valid point. Sophistication is not a trait overly associated with our people. I think this is a contributory factor to the way our people are slow to pick up on others' hidden inner motives. We have largely been dumbed down into doe-eyed overly honest innocent kaffirs/malechh waiting to be taken advantage of. I believe that certain elements within the Kaum have deliberately propagated this honesty and innocence via distorted Parchar that has become so common now that it's almost fully accepted. I'm talking about the forceful prioritisation and pronouncement of the virtues of innocence and honesty in all our doings at the expense of sensible and necessary political expediency. I think this played a part in turning some of our people into useful id1ots ready to do the bidding of others, out of a misguided and almost groomed sense of duty, entirely failing to comprehend the concealed inner motivations of those that were and are using and abusing them. What is sad about our people's wholesale acceptance of such shortsighted behaviour is not only that it leaves them at the mercy of predators with no such misconceptions, but it actually flies in the face of Sikhi. We were actually given the hukam to instruct ourselves and our families in Raaj Niti by Dashmesh Pita. Yet we have accepted what is taught to us by fake sants and babas who have never seen a day's fight in their lives. Because for too long we have not been sophisticated enough to practice the art of warfare with concealed weapons and motives, we have failed to recognise it when others like abrahamics and revived hindus were and are doing just that against us. There is a very true saying that it takes one to recognise one. What I wouldn't do, is generalise that all rural Sikhs or "pendus" to use the urban hindu casteist elitist derogatory term for them are easily manipulable and that urban Sikhs are immune to this. I think it's far more serious than that. I think all Sikhs are prone to being used and abused like this. And I think the problem is at the heart of our religious/cultural dissemination.
  23. Seconded. We have to be careful not to unthinkingly let the smug deprecatory attitude of the urban hindu casteist elite towards all Sikhs as mere "pendus" to get embedded into our own Sikh psyche. Due to nonsensical illogical hindu casteist beliefs deliberately introduced, propagated and enforced by bahmans within the Kaum with the aim of keeping the Kaum disunited and weak, this has sadly to a large extent already happened. You just have to look at this forum for evidence of how much our own people casually insult each other with this derogatory term. The more affluent sections of our Kaum have certainly already imbibed the hindu casteist elitist perception of rural Sikhs into their own perspective. This needs to stop and be reversed. We should not willingly and knowingly continue to fall into their trap. When large sections of the Kaum are uttering the same derogatory remarks for our own people as our enemies, you should recognise that something is seriously wrong. No well meaning Sikh should belittle their fellow Sikh brethren as "pendu". By all means, remove their ignorance, if that is what you perceive. But don't attack the very reason they came to be born into Sikhi. Instead, attack the atheist lifestyle of our urban elitist enemies. Think about it. Dhan Dhan Guru Nanak Ji Maharaj themselves did manual labour on the farm. The most respected early companions of Guru Ji were from a rural background. The most respected early Sikhs were from a rural background. The defenders of Sikhi were from a rural background. The root of Sikhi is in the rural landscape of Panjab. It was accepted in undivided Panjab, and still largely applies, that the urban industrial elitist was a hindu, the urban labourer was muslim, and the rural labourer was Sikh. It was two rural Sikhs that beheaded Massa Ranghar. It was two rural Sikhs that killed Arun Vaidya, Lalit Maken and Arjun Dass. It was two rural Sikhs that burnt Paapi Ajit Poohla before he could be released from prison. The lethal power of our rural brethren is something to harness, not criticise. So what are we unwittingly saying when we casually insult someone using this derogatory term? Should we accept it to describe our Guru Sahiban and Shaheeds too? Our enemies well understand the physical threat that our rural brethren provide, and it is for this reason they cuss them while at the same stereotyping them as unthinking violent savages. No. They are just as capable of intellect as the urban elitists. Furthermore, they are far more inclined to act out what is necessary than our comfortable, scholarly, polished brethren.
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use