proactive

Come on, you can't expect 'the last Sikh warrior' to have the time to respond to every post on his facebook page! Like a true warrior he's fighting the enemies of Sikhism each and every moment of the day! Haven't you heard of all those enemies falling like flies around the world!

In most countries the media is accused of dumbing down their content but only in India can the media pass on such lies from the Punjab and publish them without even verifying any of the facts.

Ahmediyas including their leader have been publishing LIES about Guru Nanak being a Muslim for the last 100 years. Lately I have seen a pamphlet published in Punjabi called 'Parganna Batala Da Guru' where the same bukwas that the original Ahmediya leader wrote about Guru Nanak is being handed out in Southall by the Ahmediyas. The FB thing may or may not be an Ahmediya but lets not overlook the insidious propaganda that Ahmediyas publish both on line and in their books.

Apparently it happened last night and he has been operated on. Let's hope today's the day he dies a dog's death.

i saw the last episode and that Adil Ray guy is playing with fire. It had an incident where the Khan guy goes into a room looking for the remote control where some women are praying and when the light is switched on he's on top of one woman in a very compromising position. When asked by his wife 'what are you doing?' he says 'I'm just offering Mrs Shafiq my condolences!' I'm surprised that the extremist Muslims haven't protested, maybe they are too busy with the 'Innocence of Muslims' movie

Neo, I seem to remember that when the two Singhs were arrested and charged over the Air India blast some years ago you were the one that was demanding that Akal Takht issue a Hukumnama against them! This was even before the case had come to court! Now, how would that have looked if your advice had been followed and a Hukumnama condemning them had been issued and then they were found NOT GUILTY? You can have extremes on both sides, ones who make irresponsible statements and those who would like the whole community to apologise each time some Sikh makes an irresponsible statement. The biased media and the sell outs who demonise the community will never allow the Sikhs a right to reply. If they did then we need to point out that the statement was made at an emotional time. If the media doesn't understand that then there's not much we can do about that.

Neo you've been going on about that guy for ages. Try and think back to the time he was making the emotional speech. The Durbar Sahib had been attacked and no one knew what damage the haram.zada Indian army had done there and how many Sikhs had been murdered. It wasn't the best thing to have said but that time was an emotional time. So give the guy a break. He didn't actually go out and kill 50,000 Hindus.

Had a rough look, will post half today and half tomorrow it seems to be a document prepared in 1882 AD by various Akharas. It has the Mohars of Mahant Biyan Das Ji, Dastakhat of Mahant Sewa Das Akhara, Mahant Manda Das etc. It makes reference to Raja Narinder Bahadur ( Possibly Narinder Singh of Patiala state). It relates to ten conditions (shartan) of the Hukumnama of Abchalnagar Sahib signed by Doola Singh and Babalhen (?) Singh. The attending Singhs and mahants of Amritsar saw this Hukumnama in both Gurmukhi and Persian. All the Singhs, Mahants and Pujaris accepted all ten conditions as all Gurdwaras, Akharas and Dharamsalas are the houses of Guru Parmeshar and from the Ad Guru to Dasme Guru both the Maryada has been considered as being equal. The Bhekh Udasi started by Baba Sri Chand who was an celibate give up women, meat, wine, theft and gambling and now this is the tradition in all the Akharas upto now. If any Mahant or Sant takes to such things then he is relieved of his seat. This is also the tradition in all Gurdwaras, These are run under the instructions of the Hakam (Government?). If any Pujari, Singh, Bihamgam or Sarbrah becomes corrupt then they should be relived of their duties. If any of them commits fraud or takes any money from the Gurdwara then he should be given the relevant punishment and after the return of the items be taken back and from then on he should be considered as one who has transgressed. A person such as this wants to see the destruction of the Gurdwara, all Gurdwaras and Akharas have the same type of management.

I actually read the quote a few days ago and it states 'within the limits of the constitution'.. so basically it Canadian minister said that he will take action if any Khalistani activists breaks any Canadian laws. That's to be expected, it's the stupid Indian media that seems to imply that the Canadians will take actions against Khalistani activists simply for propagating Khalistan!

True. Both the right wing and the islamofascists recruit from prisons. People who have a grouse against society are more easy to turn into fanatics. We're told that veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan become anti-war after their experiences in those war zones and yet now Singh559 says that the right wing recruits amongst the military!

What people forget here is that the film is based on Islamic sources mostly the Hadiths. So why are Muslims protesting when the hadiths contain the same stories about Mohammed. The reason is that most Muslims don't know what is contained in the hadiths and so they are led by their religious leaders to believe that what the movie portrays are lies. The thing that we need to consider is whether we have similar sakhis in our religion which can be used by anti-Sikh forces to portray the Gurus in a negative light?

Chatanga, So Guru Nanak gave Baba Budha knowledge of Shastar Vidya by his pavittar nazar and Baba Budha then taught Guru Hargobind? Guru Hargobind is the same jyot as Guru Nanak, so why did Guru Hargobind need to be taught Shastar Vidya when as Guru he would have the knowledge already. Is reference to pavittar nazar to both Bhai Mardana and Baba Budha contained in the Janam Sakhis?

One Guy says that Nihangs are the original Khalsa and another says they've used to soldiers in the army of some mythical Godess!

Having researched this further, it seems like an internet hoax, similar to the ones that Indian idiots publicise like '60% of scientists at Nasa are Indian'! Is there any Israeli verification of these kills by the Pakistanis? Or if they deny it then do you just take that to typical of the evil Joos? Let's be honest here, Muslims are quick to claim a victory even when the whole world knows they have lost. Remember Comical Ali from the Iraq war? Get over yourself! You seem to implying that Pakistan has some sort of power in the middle east! What a joke, your military gets it's but.t kicked by the Americans on a regular basis, remember when the US troops killed those 25 Pakistanis and all the Pakistanis could do was to stop NATO supplies through its borders! Those Pakistanis in the middle east are merceneries propping up Arab dictators. If like Libya there is these Arab dictators are taken down then just like the black mercenaries were lyched by the Libyans then no doubt these Pakistanis will also be lynched!

Auzer, Even if we accept your analysis of the air war, the plain fact is that over 90.000 pakistani troops surrendered in East Pakistan. Can we just say you might have won the air battle but Pakistan lost the war. So some Pakistani got lucky and shot down two Israeli jets, if the Pakistanis are so good then why don't the Arab states that lost three wars against Israel not having all their air forces manned by Pakistani pilots. I know the Saudis have Pakistani pilots but that is probably more to do with the fact that having all that wealth their lazy youth can't be bothered to risk their lives, so they bring in some mercenaries from Pakistan to take that risk. These Pakistani pilots are just an elite bunch of Bhaiyas or just higher paid camel jockeys that the Saudis love to bring over from Pakistan!

Whether Bhai Bala really existed or not is open to question. Just read the posts on Bhai Bala janamsakhi on this forum. Sikhi is not some ancient mystery cult with some adherents only allowed some knowledge and other full knowledge. You are playing a dangerous game if you try and go that route. Tomorrow someone will turn you said and quoting some oral source will state something new which was never known before. Are you going to accept this? As for oral tradition, who is the oldest Nihang living today? Only he can confirm whether something was a part of oral tradition when he first heard it, whereas if something is written down we know that that was a belief known at the time of writing. You can claim that I hate Nihangs all you like, but if an Udasi or Singh Sabha follower were to come on her and make statement which could not be verified then I would write the same about their belief.

Why would something as significant as Guru Nanak knowing Shastar Vidya be excluded from the Janamsakhis and the Vars of Bhai Gurdas? Are we interested in the truth and authentic history or downright lies propogated by Nihangs?

Then you will believe that Harry Potter is real as is Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy.

Auzer, If you studied biology then you should be aware of Human Vestigiality. That's organs whose original function has been made redundant through evolution and which might have taken on new functions. The tailbone and appendix are the most famous example of this. So humans have evolved from meat eaters to vegetarians and for vegetarians the canine teeth are not needed for their diet and yet their body still retains them. As Sikhism has no issues with human evolution unlike Islam, there is no issue with Sikhs being vegetarians are still retaining their canines. But in Islam, as Allah created humans as they are now, unless you believe the ridiculous hadith that Adam's height was 60 feet tall, the presence of organs being present and yet not required is an issue.

It's amazing how the made up history of Shastar Vidya is gaining currency, albeit with some naive and starry eyed youth. Guru Nanak taught Shastar Vidya to Baba Budha? How is it that Bhai Gurdas forgot to mention this 'fact'? How is it not in any of Janamsakhis? If the starting point of Shastar Vidya is based on a lie then can the rest of it's history be authentic?

I would have thought that was obvious. Baba Hari Singh claims that those who are criticising Baba Sri Chand are indirectly insulting Guru Nanak because the greatest insult you can say to someone is to say that your sons are unworthy. But many of the sons of the Gurus were unworthy such as Ram Rai and Prithi Chand. So here you have someone whom his chelas claim to be a BRAHMGYANI but he cannot see how flawed his argument is and how easy it is to show that he cannot put forward a consistent argument. I am sure a large number of the people in the audience know the story of Ram Rai and Prithi Chand yet they allowed his foolish argument to pass without showing his argument for what it is. Had someone stood up and shown his how inconsistent his argument was then maybe he would go back reading basic Sikh history and come back with a consistent argument.

This is a very important point but the chelas of Baba Hari Singh are ignoring this point because anyone with some sound knowledge of Sikh history would be able address this point of Baba Hari Singh. If someone had stood up from the audience and pointed out a load of rubbish his point was that would have been the end [MOD CUT] *MOD EDIT* - All inflammatory posts that don't have anything to do with this topic have been deleted. It is advised you think before you post. This applies to everyone equally.

Anyone claiming that the Sikhs started the partition violence and the Muslims were just on the receiving end is either grossly ignorant or someone with an agenda. You said that you will not challenge my assertion so I urge you to read the latest book by Istiaq Ahmed, Punjab bloodied and partitioned and his presentation at Lund university. The link is here-; http://www.sasnet.lu...leansing-punjab No Sikhs have ever claimed that their leaders or many Sikhs in general acted like Angels during partition, but the Sikh violence was the violence of a minority which had lost its political objective and was fighting to ensure the resettlement of half of their population who were refugees from West Punjab. The violence of the Muslims was the violence of those who had achieved their political objective and yet still wanted to wipe out a minority from their midst. I don't know whether you can appreciate the difference but it is there. As Chatanga wrote, we lost our best lands and all our historic Gurdwaras. In the central districts of Punjab, every nook and corner has some association with Sikh history. These districts were the ones that our Gurus nurtured Sikhi in and the ones which formed the backbone of the Sikh empire. No doubt on your side attempts are being made to not publicise the Sikh association but it is there for anyone who is keen to find the truth to see. Even many Pakistani scholars are unaware of what an attachment that land has for Sikhs and deeply we felt it's loss. The only way that I can give you an example is how you would feel if Mecca and Medina were under the control of the Christian or the Jews? Obviously Sikhs hope for good relations between India and Pakistan and in future between Khalistan and Pakistan. Only a few fools who are under the control of Indian government want the relations to be worst. It was the Sikhs through the Nankana Sahib Foundation in 1978 and 1979 that did the leg work to ensure that Sikh pilgrims could go on yatras to Pakistan. If you ever see any footage of the ridiculous tamasha that takes place every evening the border is closed at wagha-Attari you will note that very few Sikhs will be seen jingoisticly shouting slogans such as Hindustan Zindabad. It is mostly the urban Hindus and Indian tourists who make a point of showing their nationalistic zeal on these occasions. Yet, if there was a war there, these fools would be the first to flee across the Jamna! As for how and when your family might converted to Islam, no one apart from your elders or if you have them their Mirasis would be able to give you the right answer. I have noted that 100% of Pakistani will always note that their ancestors were converted by the Sufis. It's almost as if there was no Islamic invasions and the Turk and Afghan invaders never existed. You should read some of the writings of the Muslims from that time about how the survivors of the battles between the Muslims and Hindus were given the choice of Islam or death. Many chose Islam. As for the Sufi contribution, no doubt they propogated Islam and some Hindus especially the lower castes would have gone over to Islam, but the vast majority were forcibly converted. If you look at the Sufis, there were probably more Sufis in East Punjab than in West Punjab yet the Hindus in West Punjab were the ones that converted to Islam whilst the ones in East Punjab either remained Hindus, became Sultanis or converted to Sikhism. If anything the wholescale conversion to Islam that you claim for the Sufis should have occurred in East Punjab rather than West Punjab. The influence of the Sufis in East Punjab was limited to having Hindu followers who became known as Sultanis which was a half way house between Hinduism and Islam. How is it that the Sufis were able to convert en masse in West Punjab whilst they could only make little headway in East Punjab and even that was negated when these Sultanis became Sikhs during the times of the Gurus and after. The reason for believing that conversion was forcible is because as someone pointed out about 70% of the Rajputs of Punjab were Muslims. Their conversion was almost universal from Rawalpindi to Jalandhar. How is it that a caste such as that which had a high position in the Hindu caste system become Muslim when there was really nothing to be gained from becoming Muslim. The case is made stronger given that many of the Rajputs of Hoshiarpur who lived on the plain became Muslims but the ones in the Hills and Himachal were strongly Hindu. They were so strongly Hindu that they fought against Guru Gobind Singh and the Khalsa because of the Khalsa's anti-caste character. How is it that the same caste in Himachal are fanatic Hindus and the ones on the plains left their high caste origin behind and joined a casteless Islam from which they had nothing to gain? The only reason was that Muslim political influence was never strong in the hills and any concerted campaign to forcibly convert requires the use of superior power in the first instance to convert by force and then a strong presence for many years to stop those forcibly converted from going back to their old religion. The Rajputs were the soldier class in Punjab at the time of the Muslims invasions so they were the ones who would have been defeated and then offered Islam or death.

Guys let's not get into the India vs Pakistan debate. At the end of the day the creation of Pakistan was a disaster for Sikhs. We lost our best lands as well as our historic Gurdwaras. India has killed lakhs of Sikhs as well as infiltrated anti-Sikh forces into our institutions and political parties. But let's not turn this into a Sikh Vs Muslim thread. That can be left for another thread should the opening poster see fit to create one. [MOD CUT] Pakistan -Sikh relations start around the late 1930s when the Muslims started to demand Pakistan. So let's take it from there. The whole Pakistan project was presented to the Muslim masses as the creation of a state when the Muslims would be ruling the roost. The Muslims although a bare majority were the worst off economically, educationally, socially and politically in Punjab. The Sikhs held the majority of land in the central districts, they also had along with the Hindus the best private schools. The Hindus being more urban based controlled the economy having the most commercial establishments followed by Sikhs and then followed far behind by Muslims. Pakistan to the common Muslims meant that the then state of affairs would be flipped. Muslims would be the ruling class and the Sikhs and Hindus would then become the downtrodden class. The lands of the Sikhs and the factories and shops of the Hindus would come into Muslim hands. The Muslims in Punjab were the first to use violence to acheive their political objective of Pakistan during March 1947. The Muslim league party which was the largest party in the Punjab assembly was not asked to try and from a government and whether it could have got enough support from any of the other parties in the assembly is academic. The point is that a MAJORITY of the Punjab voters had not voted in favour of Pakistan. Being frustrated in their aims the Muslim League used its paramilitary force to kill thousands of Sikhs and Hindus around Rawalpindi. So this was the first event in Pakistan-Sikh relations. The use of violence against Sikhs in order to achieve a political objective. When the Sikhs retaliated against the Muslim violence it was when they ahd lost all their best lands and half of their population were being turned into refugees. The aim of the Sikhs were to clear East Punjab of Muslims and thus create space for the refugee Sikhs from West Punjab. Had Gandhi and Nehru had their way they would have ensured that all Muslims stayed put in East Punjab and refugee Sikhs would have been resettled outside Punjab. This would probably have been preceeded by a political stunt of attempting to send back the refugees to Pakistan from where they had only saved themselves by the skin of the teeth. It might be true what Auzer has stated that more Muslims were killed than Sikhs and Hindus in 1947. It wasn't for want of trying on the part of the Muslims. The recent book by Istiaq Ahmed about the partition violence concedes that the Muslims were the first to use violence to acheive their political objective. The reason he believes that more Muslims were killed than non-Musims was due to the fact that having suffered heavily in March 1947, the Sikhs were able to make preparations for the coming violence. In my view the Muslims having seen that there was no Sikh retaliation in March 1947, the Muslims believed that they had beaten the Sikhs into submission and having achieved that objective the Hindus of Punjab could easily be bullied into acquiesce to Pakistan. Having, in their view beaten the Sikhs, the Muslim League did not believe that they needed to make concessions to the Sikhs and hence the offer of a Sikh state within Pakistan was an afterthought and offered at a time when the Sikhs knew that Pakistan meant to the Muslim masses. Ironically had the Sikhs retaliated heavily against the Muslims in East Punjab in March 1947 rather than as they did in August there might have been likelihood of some sort of Muslim-Sikh agreement which would have possible. 2. After 1947 there was a lot of hostility towards Sikhs in Pakistan, more than the hostility to Hindus. After realising how they had badly they misjudged the Sikhs, the Muslim rulers of Pakistan ensured that the Sikhs were always presented as the enemies of the Pakistanis. The Government published two books, The Sikh Plan and The Sikh Plan in Action trying to blame the Sikhs for all the violence against the Muslims. They conveniently forgot that they had been the ones who had used violence to achieve Pakistan. The Pakistani representative also blamed the Sikhs at a speech at the UN. From what I have heard the Pakistani primary textbooks from the 1950s had a picture of a Sikh as a representation of the word Z for Zalim (tyrant). 3. On the point of the 1965 and 1971 wars. Both sides present 1965 as a victory for their side. Indira Gandhi armed and trained the Mukti Bahini so Pakistan had every right to arm and train Sikhs and Kashmiris in the 1980s. But the big difference is that whereas Indira Gandhi was sincere in creating Bangladesh, the Pakistani have never been sincere in helping the Sikhs create Khalistan. Their aim in to keep the Indian army bogged down in Punjab so that Kashmir can be 'liberated'. Most Kharkoos realised this double game of the Pakistanis. Benazir Bhutto helped Rajeev Gandhi with intelligence about the Khalistani groups in Punjab.

I think from what I have read these veterans had come out to welcome US troop coming to England to fight in the first world war. It was their way of saying that just as the Americans are coming to help the Allies against the Germans, they had also gone over in the 1860s to help the Union against the Confederacy. These veterans if that is the case were similar to the International Brigade of people from all over Europe who went over to fight for the Republicans side in the Spanish Civil War.