proactive

The story of Hindu families raising their eldest son as a Sikh belongs to a particular area of West Punjab around Rawalpindi before 1947. Such a custom was unknown in the Punjab east of Lahore. In these areas if a Hindu family especially Jat or Chamar during the British period was interested in Sikhi then the whole family became Sikh. Amongst Jats the Keshdharis would not marry their daughters to Hindu or Sehajdhari Jats unless they became Keshdhari Sikhs. Hindu Jats also became Sikhs to join the Jat regiments of the British army. The reason that the custom which of the eldest son of the Hindu family becoming a Sikh is well known is that it is referred to in the so-called Hindu-Sikh Ekta articles by writers who belong to the area where it was a practice such as Khushwant Singh, Kuldeep Nayyar, Kartar Singh Duggal etc. They attempt to impose their own experiences from a small area of Punjab into an all Punjab custom which it never was. The Doordarshan myths of Sikh-Hindu Ekta which were the staple of Indian TV in the 80s such as Sanjha Chula etc belong to these writers' experiences. The common experience between the Sikh and Hindu in East Punjab pre-1947 was one of animosity between the Jat (Sikh) and the Bania (Hindu) The reason for the custom is due to a number of reasons-; 1. The Bedi clan under Baba Kartar Singh Bedi was strong around Rawalpindi. Hindu women who did not have a child or a son would visit the Dera to get the Baba's blessings for a child. If a son was born then they would vow to bring him up as a Sikh. If other sons were born after him then they would be raised as Hindus. This is probably because the visit to the Dera was due to the longing for a first son. 2. The relations between Sikh and Hindus who were both small minorities around Rawalpindi were especially close. There was a lot of intermarriage between them. There were also occasions where a keshdhari's daughter would be married into a Hindu or Sehajdhari family and would raise her first son as a Keshdhari Sikh.

Since you seem intent on dragging the good name of the Sikh Missionary College into the mud, let's take your faulty logic to it's natural conclusion. These are some of the people who attended the seminar FIVE years ago. Ajit Singh Bains, former justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court (Chandigarh, Punjab, India) Therefore all Sikhs who work in the legal system in India are anti-Akal Takht Dalip Singh, former president of the J&K Sikh Gurdwara Board All committee member of Jammu and Kashmir, or why not go the whole hog and say all Kashmiri Sikhs are anti-Akal Takht Major General (Retd.) Narinder Singh, World Sikh Council All Sikhs in the army? Dr. Sukhjit Kaur, a human rights activist All Sikh human rights activists? Dr. Tarlochan Singh, former president of the Sikh Missionary College, Ludhiana, Punjab Note the word FORMER. In Inder Singh's faulty logic this means that the tens of thousands of Sikhs who have studied at the college are anti-Akal Takht. Whatever your views on the SMC, one thing you will never see is them associating with the RSS or lying to the Sikh sangat for 20 years about the martyrdom of 20th Century's greatest Sikh Shaheed.

I don't know where you get that it's a part of everyday life in Punjab. Any Singh smoking a cigarette even in a place like Ludhiana would get a bollocking from other Singhs. I've never seen a Singh smoke in Punjab and I usually visit India every year. Alcohol yes but smoking no.

Nah I think he's referring to the Paki becoming a lot better acquainted with some guy called Bubba! Didn't this scumbag's sister have the nerve to disrupt the press conference by saying that the Singh wanted to cut his hair but was afraid of his family and asked the Paki to cut it for him!

V When Bhagat Singh was on the run from the British, he cut his hair to change his appearance. In prison he kept his hair and from the photo it seems that he was keeping his hair for a while. The point is that if he an atheist as he is supposed to have written a letter to that effect in prison then what was the point of his keeping his hair. Barbers were available in prison during that time otherwise gandhi would not have been able to keep his slaphead appearance!

The biggest proof that something had changed in Bhagat Singh before his hanging was that he was keeping his Kesh. The photo below was taken during his last days. If he was a real atheist then keeping Kesh becomes meaningless and if anything having cut hair would be a protest in the communist mindset against religion which they believe to be the opium of the people.

Mazumdar, On MPACUK, I disagree. The Bukhari may be guilty of anti-semitic remarks but it doesn't matter whether the organisation has any credibility with the powers that be or the media. What is important is that they are able to get airtime each time there is a Muslim issue in the news. If you are articulate and able to express your views pro or against anything then credibility in the media isn't worth much as the important constituency are the viewers whose views on a particular subject you are able to shape. Bukhari has some obnoxious views and he is an Islamist playing taqqiya with the media but his face has pretty much replaced that other equally obnoxious Bunglawala.

Muzumdar, I see your point. Unfortunately the Sikh community is caught in a catch 22 situation. If we make a fuss and start a campaign then the programme as well as media outlet gets publicity which as you correctly pointed out is it's lifeblood. But equally if we decide to ignore the programme then what we get is a perception in the media that Sikhs are an easy target and then we will get open season on us. The media is very aware of the repercussions that ensue when it decides to make a programme on a particular topic. This is shown by the way the whole British media did not show the Mohammed cartoons. A majority of the media is made up of left wing liberal nutcases who contrary to their assertions of being the defenders of freedom of speech are prone to giving in if they think that they may get hurt if they carry on. Obviously this isn't the way for Sikhs to react but that was just a example of what the media is. What is needed is an organisation similar to the Muslim Public Affairs Committee UK. Although that organisation is Islamist in nature but they are young and articulate and have virtually taken over from the 'usual suspects' like the MCB as the people that the media go to for reactions regarding any Muslim issues that are the news of the day.

Maybe another opportunity for the media to bash an ethic community. I wonder when Bassey will be put on the case, they usually wheel out sell outs like him on these kinds of occasions. Let's not jump on the same boat as the media and start blaming Punjabi culture or parents or anything else that comes to our heads. We don't have the full facts on this case.

Muzumdar, I didn't take your comments personally. The correct term for people like Bassey, Hundal etc is Monai. By no stretch of the imagination can such people be termed Sehajdhari especially as their agenda seems to be to scaremonger amongst the general community in order to advance their careers. If you have a look at Bassey's previous work on the R4G campaign, Hundal's 'asian media' website then you will realise that calling them Sehajdhari is the same as calling KPS Gill a Gursikh!

Just sent a complaint on the ofcom site. I hope others will do the same and show how strongly we feel about people trying to progress their careers at the expense of the good name of the community.

What a total load of bukwas! It seems like this Bassey guy's hoodwinked his white bosses into thinking that there a major problem with Sikh violence. The Al Qaeda link quote which is totally unsubstantiated was picked by the ever sensationalist Sun newspaper. Since when did the BBC accept any foreign government's definition of a terrorist? They didn't even call the 7/7 bombers as terrorists and yet this ignorant reporter just regurgitates Indian propaganda as gospel. As Asmlondon said, it's ironic that in the week that the courts have convicted Muslim of terror training our myopic friend Mr Bassey is turning over stones with a huge magnifying glass trying to project a non-existent problem into an equivalent of the Al Qaeda threat. The Al Qaeda link is accepted by the intrepid reporter without challenge and he is clearly trying to trap both Daljit Singh Bittu and Avtar Singh Sanghera into saying something which could then be used by the authorities. Bittu made the reporter look like an amateur and not matter what you think about Avtar Singh's language skills, he still did not fall into the carefully laid trap of Bassey. Bassey treated the controlling party of the Havelock Rd Gurdwara with kid gloves and accepted all their unsubstantiated allegations as fact and did not present any evidence which backed the party's version of events. He just referred to Sohi visit to an RSS event contary to the Akal Takht directive as a 'visit to a Hindu temple'. There is no way that Bassey is unaware of what the true reason for the opposition to Sohi has been. What was laughable was the irony of Sohi who uses his family and friends as well as freshies from India as his muscle and yet he has the nerve to accuse the opposition of doing this! At a time when the government is sending advisories to it's ministers to not talk of 'Islamic' terrorism, we have our own sells out using the media resource paid for in part by us through the licence fee dreaming up an imaginary 'Sikh' violence. The 'undercover tent in Gurdwara' attempt to copy the 'undercover mosque' format was laughable. There was not explanation as to who the people were who were jostling or fighting. Were they opposition members or part of the committee? The main issue here is-; Where are all the articulate members of the Sikh Federation and why did they not demand a right to reply and if they did then why did the BBC not grant them this? The evidence presented by Bassey was so vague and unsubstantiated that any articulate could easily wrecked the whole basis of his documentary. The Babbar Khalsa and ISYF were banned in the fall out of 9/11 when the west suddenly woke up to Islamic terrorism and then like all attempts to close the stable door after the horse has bolted, banned a number of organisation based on evidence for biased foreign government 'evidence' Why was not anyone from the opposition party not invited to answer Sohi's accusations. Sohi was given airtime to play act at being a victim and make as many accusations as he liked. The documentary was a hatchet job on the Sikh movement and the use of monas as authorities on the Sikh issue is another reason to be skeptical of this documentary. Unfortunately this is the state of affairs in the community when any sell out who wants to make a career for himself or herself can attack their fellow Sikhs with impunity. Unless the youth who are more articulate than the elders get involved and start to thrown out through elections scumbags like Sohi, then we will get more of the same.

Sunnybondsingh, Here's some info about Pachhadas and Sindhis. Pachhada Sikhs There are about 400,000 Pachhadas inhabiting mostly the western districts of Uttar Pradesh. Their greatest numbers are in the Moradabad district where some 785 villages are mostly populated by them. They belong to the Jat caste and are differentiated from the Hindu Jats of western U.P. by their names 'Pachhade' ( from the west ) Jats as opposed to the Hindu Jats who are called Deswali ( of this land ) Jats. Their name is a clue to their origins. According to the author of the Gazetteer of the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh ( present U.P ) writing in 1878 these tribes migrated about a hundred years ago into their present areas and settled there. The author also remarks that the language spoken by them is Punjabi and not Hindi. Although the Pachhadas claim that their ancestors came to U.P. during Banda Singh Bahadur's assault on the Mughal power at Saharanpur in 1711, it is possible that given the approximate date given by the Gazetteer that these Sikhs might have migrated during the great famine of 1783, the so-called Chalisa ( 1783 AD was 1840 in Bikrami calendar ). Whatever their date of settlement they are certainly the descendants of Sikhs. Although they do not keep the 5 K's, they like the Banjaras use the Guru Granth Sahib in their ceremonies. During the 1920s and 1930s there was a great desire amongst them to be accepted as Sikhs and between the 1921 and 1931 census the number of Sikhs in the Moradabad jumped from a mere 231 to 20631 due to the Pachhadas of moradabad registering themselves as Sikhs. Unfortunately these Pachhadas reverted back to Hinduism after 1947. Since the 1930s the U.P. Sikh Mission in active in these areas and there has been some success with regard to their reversion back to Sikhism. Sindhis There was a time when to be a non-muslim sindhi was synonomous with being a sehajdhari sikh. During the first decades of this century the Chief Khalsa Diwan of Amritsar sent out missionary groups once a year to Sindh to work amongst the sehajdhari sindhis. Over a period of 30 years with scarce resources this missionary actively resulted in a increase from 1000 keshdhari sindhis in 1901 to over 39,000 in 1941. The bond of the sehajdhari sindhis with sikhism is legendary. Like the Sikhs in Punjab the sehajdhari sikhs of sindhi also left behind their homeland and are now dispersed all over india and abroad. There are about 1.3 million sindhis in Sindh province of pakistan and about 2.5 million in india. Their main pilgrimage centres are Nankana Sahib and Dehra Sahib in Pakistani punjab and Sadh Bela near sukkur in Sindh. Sadh Bela is an udasi shrine built in 1823.

Let's put your argument to the test. Because there are a lot of Punjabi monay in British Columbia who do drugs, are in gangs, and are basically criminals. Therefore the Canadian government should withdraw all rights and privileges of citizenship from all the other monay in BC because a section of them can't handle having these rights? Is that ok with you?

DalSingh101 Power corrupts, that's well known. So Maharaja Ranjit Singh became more and more corrupt as the years went on. You don't need to tell lies about Amritdharis projecting him as some kind of ideal Sikh just to back up your argument. Most scholars of Sikh history and that includes Amritdharis are well aware of his non-Sikh actions. But unlike you they don't discard his achievements for Sikhi into the bin just because he wasn't an ideal Sikh. If your argument was correct then Amritdharis would be trying to delete Ranjit Singh's name from history. Contrary to your argument that a mona or atheist is more morally upright and less oppressive, did your know that a Hindu courtier of Maharaja Ranjit Singh had to escape to the British territories because the Maharaja wanted to convert him to Sikhi? Is this what a Gursikh would have done? Yet you hold him up as an example of a great (non-Gursikh) ruler. One of the main mosques in Lahore was used as a stable during his rule. Is that Gursikh behaviour? Where your foolishness becomes evident is your desire to present those who are Amritdharis as corrupt and immoral and those who cut their hair as moral and forthright. That is a very naive attitude. In order to boost your argument you present a case of a Sikh raiding party in the Hill states as kidnapping good looking children. Wow, hold the front page! Was that a wholesale practice amongst the Sikhs? How many times did the Sikhs raid the hill states? What a duff argument. You said that Amritdharis would oppress monas and force them to keep the Rehat and you cite an obscure quote about a Sikh raid! Bijla Singh I am sure wanted more substantial evidence, ie state policy by a Sikh Maharaja or even a minor Sikh tyrant would have done but no, all you could drudge up a minor quote about a Sikh raid! Is your argument so weak? Surely if you are right that Amritdharis would oppress monas then you should have had a mountain of evidence from history to choose from because if Amritdharis are so eager to oppress today then it follows that the Amritdharis of old would have been the same. Come on, where is the Sikh 'Mir Mannu', the Sikh 'Abdali', the Sikh 'Aurangzeb'? Surely there must have been a Sikh ruler or even a minor official who was Amritdhari, who oppressed others into doing their Nitnem and keeping the Rehat and justified all this because of his religiousity? Your evidence for the future conditions of Khalistan probably come from some bad experience you had from an Amritdhari telling you off in the Gurdwara when you were a kid! You next attempt was equally pointless! 1947 ..Sikhs killing Muslims! That proves your argument! Are you totally devoid of any sense? Your nonsense is something I would expect from a Muslim on a Muslim forum not someone who claims to be a Sikh. I suggest you read up on what was happening in West Punjab to the Sikhs and Hindus in order to understand the situation better.

Never thought I would see it, a slave scared of freedom! Freedom comes first from freeing your mind from the fear of being able to do your own thing without having to worry about your masters. Maybe in an independent state the people would be able to work at getting better leaders and not the ones that the Indian govt hoists on Sikhs How about a state where the Guru Granth Sahib is the constitution? Is there anything in the Guru Granth Sahib about forcing people to wear the 5 K's. How many times in history have Sikhs killed fellow Sikhs and justified it by saying those Sikhs weren't real Sikhs? So your talibanisation comment is just hot air. Intellectual reasons? Let's have them then. No religious idea for a Sikh state? I suppose you skip the Ardas where it says Raj Karega Khalsa or do you think that was just for the period 1699-1849? why not? 2 million Kosovans can have a country of 1/10th the size of Punjab but 25 million Sikhs can't make a country work. What happened to all the Sikh Chardi Kala or are we only good at serving others? That's debatable. If the indian govt had held a referandrum on independence anytime between 1984 -1995 then majority of Sikhs would have voted for Khalistan.

The Albanians seem to have done quite a bit of illegal immigrating to most of that area and have a large minority in Macedonia. The relevant point here is that the USA/UK seem to be trying to curry favour with the Muslim world by supporting Kosovan independence AGAINST the ceasefire agreement of 1999 which ended the Kosovan war and where the territorial integrity of Serbia was recognised. This anti-Serb policy is highlighted by the fact that they will allow 2 million Albanians in Kosovo to declare independence but won't all 2 million Serbs in Bosnia and Northern Kosovo to breakaway and join Serbia! They have allowed a multi-ethnic Yugoslavia to be dismantled but do not want to allow a Multi-enthnic Bosnia to break up as well. This is because if the Serbs and Croats breakaway from Bosnia and join Serbia and Croatia respectively then what is left of Bosnia will be unviable. The fact that Kosovo has been allowed to declare independence sets a great precedent for Punjab and other states where if a separatist party with an independence manifesto, can gain a majority and then unilaterally declare independence then the west would be forced to honour the decision.

Congrats to Amardeep Singh!

Today the former Serbian province of Kosovo unilaterally declared independence. The US, UK and a number of other EU states have supported the declaration while Serbia and Russia are against it. Interestingly enough other countries such as India and China are also against the declaration mainly because they also have minorities seeking independence. The nations in Europe who are also against it are also ones faced with separatist movements. Spain (basque region), Cyprus (Turkish republic), Romania (Hungarians) etc. I'm in two minds about the independence. Whilst it gives a massive fillip to other independence movements where if a minority can gain the majority in their state assembly then the precedent is created that the minority can pass a declaration of independence (no wonder India is so against this precedent!) and cite the Kosovo precedent. The reason why I'm in too minds is because Kosovo is the holy land of the Serbs who have many important monasteries and churches there. They were the majority in that area until the Turks took over and forcibly converted some Serbs and drove others out. They allowed Albanians to settle there and gradually the Albanians became the majority. The above is similar to what Sikhs had to face after partition in that we also lost our holy shrines solely because the Muslims could show a majority in these areas. What's the Sangat's views on Kosovo?

Jassa, Your arguments remind of a poem in the form of a Punjabi letter in a book about the Khalistan movement which listed a number of atrocities committed by the Indian government and ended each list with HOR SABH THEEK HAI - otherwise everything else is o.k. So going by your arguments-; 1. Harmandir Sahib attacked Akal Takht destroyed yet Sikhs still have full freedom in India 2. Tens of thousands of Sikh youth killed in fake encounters yet Sikhs still have full freedom in India. 3. Murderers of Sikhs are MPs and Government ministers yet Sikhs still have full freedom in India. Put aside the Khalistan issue can you name me one demands that Sikhs as a people have put forward that India has granted without there having to be an agitation? Surely if Sikhs have full freedom in India then the Indian state must be eager to resolve and grant any demands that it's Sikh citizens have? Look at any achievement of Sikhs as a people in India and they have always had to struggle to get even their most non-controversial demands met by the Indian state. I am surprised that you of all people who seemed to be very involved with the Sacha Sauda Sadh issue and yet you still think that Sikhs have full freedom. What happened just only a few days with Bittu and KAC leaders being arrested for attempting to take part in a PEACEFUL march? There's an expression in Punjabi - Deevay thalay Ghoor Andhera - under the lamp there is darkness meaning that the closest part of the lamp does not have the light ie people closest to an event or person are usually ignorant of it more than those far from it. Perhaps this is the case with people in Punjab. Sometimes if you oppress a people enough you reach a stage where they think they deserve the oppression and start to feel that they themselves are wrong and their oppressors are right. This might be the what is happening in Punjab. It would explain the views of people like you are other Hindustani desh bhagats. I know with your connections to the Nihangs you or any other Nihang associated with Santa Singh has pretty much cast aside the Raj Karega Khalsa objective and wouldn't support Khalistan even if it was given to Sikhs on a platter but do not let your petty partibaazi opposition to Khalistan blind you to what the Sikhs are suffering in India.

Lowest Sikh, It's strange to be accused of being brainwashed by someone who believes in the Illuminati! Do you also believe that the freemasons and the Jews run the world as well? Was 9/11 an 'inside job'? Yeah 9/11 documentary definitive word in Iraq. Try reading up on the subject and then form an opinion. As for the moneymaking, hasn't Micheal Moore also made millions from Fahrenheit 9/11?

I'm not here to change your or anyone elses' mind but to give an alternative opinion. You seem to think that I have a vendetta against you and to be honest I don't know how you got that idea. I only respond to those threads which are of interest to me so if some of these threads are yours then that only shows that we have similar interests although on the opposite ends of the spectrum with regards to politics.

I suppose people could approach the Budha Dal in India but then again they can't seem to decide who the real Jathedar is in India so that will probably not be much help. The simplest way is to find out who has CLAIMED to be the Jathedar in the UK and then ask that person to provide some details of where, when and on what occasion he was given charge. If no one has claimed to be Jathedar then chances are there isn't one.

Yeah, Muslims are great at telling people the truth about Sharia law A case in point, on Sunday morning there was a programme discussing the Archbishop's article about Sharia Law and there was a Muslim female lawyer who was going on about how the civil rules of Sharia law could easily be accommodated into the British legal system. When put on the spot by a newspaper editor about whether she supported the criminal rules of Sharia law such as stonings and amputations, she first tried to bypass answering the questions by saying 'that's not what we are discussing' and 'you are wasting my time asking me this question' only when the presenter put her on the spot did she say 'no'. So here was a 'practising' Muslim who doesn't believe in the 'divinely' sanctioned punishments of Sharia Law!! Her answer probably had more to do with the fact that if she answered 'yes' all his argument would just have been washed down the pan! I also look forward to your examples of media misinformation about Islam. They should be easy to find given they are so prevalent as you claim or is that just something your Muslim friends told you and you couldn't be bothered to check the facts?

Classic! You claim the agenda of the British Army was to rape and torture the people of Iraq, take over the resources and now you state that you never said you were against war? I think this says it all. You cannot answer a simple question about what the Socialist answer was to Saddam. Punjabi Link Your question is a bit like asking whether the Khalsa could have made common cause with Abdali? Or helped to resurrect the Mughal empire in 1857? What does the Khalsa have in common with Al Qaeda? Or for that matter the insurgents? Could the Khalsa ever be a party to the killing of innocent people? Could the Khalsa be an ally to people who think nothing of using disabled women to set of bombs that kill innocent people? Dalsingh101 What people seem to conveniently forgot is that when Saddam was first in power there was a cold war going on. Then in 1979 you had the mad mullahs come to power in Iran. Further east you had the USSR walking into Afghanistan. The west had to choose the best option. Either they did nothing and allow soviet influence to increase in Pakistan and then India and similarly watch the advance of extremist Islam towards the gulf states. Saddam offered the first line of defence in west asia and Pakistan offered the other in south asia. Saddam pre-empted everything by starting his war against Iran. In Pakistan the army came into power.