>Bikramjit Singh<

I don't know whether my theory has been tested but going by the people I know, Sikhs/Punjabis seem to be more right handed than on average and have very little left handed people. I've noticed that the number of lefties seem to increase the closer you get to Delhi. Don't know if anyone else has noticed this?

Listen geezer, I don't know, does saying something 'is' twist an insult in Canada? I meant to say you wrote 'getting my kachera in twist' which is an insult here, stop getting your knickers in a twist is an insult and you just subsituted kachera for knickers. That's what you meant to say and that is an insult in anyone's book. So stop acting like you're the innocent party here. You have some major issues which you need to resolve but stop using this forum to take out your anger because it's getting boring.

Wow..relax man. It seems you're the one with the issues here. I've just shown the forum that you have been hating and bad mouthing Khalistan just because some guys in bana and looking like Sikhs killed your relatives. Oh I forgot police cats wouldn't know how to put on bana or tie dastars right? I've seen naive people but man you take the biscuit. You have just admitted you do not know who they were YET you want us to apologise for their actions as if we are personally responsible for everything done by someone in bana and looking like Sikhs. Whoa there, young fella me lad! Niranjana is a member of this forum and I don't usually agree with him on some things and our debates are there for all to see. Perhaps Niranjana could come on the forum and clarify where I THREATENED him and his wife? I didn't even know he's married let alone know his wife!! Your comment about not getting my kachera is a twist..wow that's really an intelligent comment, insulting one of the kakaars.

First you said you didn't know who they were and now you say they were kharkoos in bana! FYI if there was an attack by Kharkoos, most of the people knew the Kharkoos by name and the people in the neighbourhood would know who it was who did the attack. As it is you are coming up with no names. Previously on your forum you were ready to hang the two Gursikhs accused of the Air India bombing even before they had been tried. It seems that for you the small matter of proof and evidence of guilt is not necessary in your eyes.

You've lost your argument. You've spent the last 20 odd years hating Khalistan and the Kharkoos because you think they might have killed your relatives. Yet you have no idea who these murdererss were. You have no proof that they were kharkoos.

I think the first writer to mention that Guruji might have visited Rome was Sardar Trilochan Singh in his book Guru Nanak which was written in 1969 on the 500th birth anniversary. It's not impossible that Guruji visited Rome because he visited the main centres of all religions.

Brindy So tell us what the incidents were and more IMPORTANTLY who the Shaheed was who killed these people. You might want to learn the correct spelling of Phagwara.

You know it's funny how someone keeps asking for apologies from us because the Kharkoos killed some dusht police officer but does the same guy know that the Punjab police used innocent people as human shields whenever they got into an actual encounter with the Kharkoos. Maybe we should all apologise for that as well!

Premkranti You may think what you like about marriage, for you it might be socially approved prostitution, I'm not surprised that a chela of Osho would have such views. But bringing out such bukwas as you did about the women and Guruji and them having a child shows that either you are making up this bukwas, maybe it's a Osho discourse or maybe those 'locals' who told you the story saw what kind of spicy stories you are into and give you one. Your views about so-called communes raising the children shows that you have brought into the osho mat in totality. So tell me great sage will these thousands of men and women be in married monogamous relationships or will it be osho's free love with everyone sleeping around? Thankfully you did the small mercy of not blackening the Khalsa name by putting 'Premkranti Singh Khalsa' at the end of you post which was full of Guru Nindya. Maybe you're not lost to Oshoism and maybe there is still a small speck of divine jyot underneath all the darkness of free love, Guru Nindya and Osho worship.

Is it just me or has Namstang just been going around in circles. As Jagjit Singh has asked Namstang to provide details of any of those Shaheed Gursikhs who ever killed innocent people. But Namstang just goes around and around in circles. He asks Bhai Jagjit Singh to define what a Shaheed is!! Sorry Bro but if you don't know what a Shaheed is then maybe you should be listening less to 'ghost' stories and taking time to read more about our glorious history. Unless you can name a specific Shaheed who killed innocents then your argument is lost. He didn't have much of an argument in the first place especially if he places reliance on a duff propaganda site like punjabtrauma. That site is similar to the Nazis setting up a site 'proving' that the Jews were terrorists because they killed 6 million germans in the gas chambers! There is a well known saying..' give a dog a bad name and then hang him' This is what Punjabtrauma has been doing, they are trying to place all the blame for the killings of innocents by black cats and nangs like Phoola on the Kharkoos. The sad part is that we have Sikhs taking their propaganda and trying to blacken the name of the Shaheeds. Bhai Jagjit Singh has so elequently described the debt we owe to our great Shaheeds of the period 1978-1995. They were no less than the Shaheeds like Baba Deep Singh, Bhai Taru Singh, Bhai Boota Singh etc. They gave their tan man and dhan for Sikhi, the fact that there is nothing tangible in the form of a sovereign Khalistan is not the fault of the Shaheeds but the fault of those like Badal who used their Shaheedi in order to become Chief Ministers and create political dynasties for their families. Also to blame are those who are so blinkered in their views that they cannot see when they are lied to and when Great Shaheeds are depicted as criminal thugs and murderers. Unfortunately while there have been great Shaheeds we have also had our share of great traitors. Recently it has been heartening that the younger generation in the UK as well as US and Canada have been taking steps to keep alive the memory of those Great Shaheeds. But for some people the very mention of those who gave their lives for Sikhi is hard to swallow. They want that Sikhs should forget the great Shaheeds and those who have contributed zilch to Sikhi think they can pontificate to fellow Sikhs on who is a Great Shaheed and who is just a common murderer. To this end great Shaheeds like Bhai Fauja Singh were described as a nang and as a vegetarian fanatic by someone who isn't fit to even to tie the shoes of such a great Shaheed. We have had others on other forums criticising Sant Jarnail Singh because apparantly they know better how to fight a war against a million strong army and a tyrannical government. They think that they know better and as such they think Santji should not have stayed in Akal Takht and come up with 'better' battle tactics probably gained from watching Robin Hood films!! The funny think is that one such 'salaahkar' wasn't even a Sikh in 1984. As Bhai Jagjit Singh wrote, the Shaheeds cannot defend their actions on this forum and it should be one of the duties of anyone who calls himself a Sikh to firstly know the reasons for them giving their lives for Sikhi and then to be able to defend them against the charges brought by those who think that we should be apologising for the Shaheed's actions. If anyone should be apologising it should be Namstang for trying to blacken the name of those who gave their all for Sikhi.

Still think your our 11th Guru?? Found this on another site "Rajneesh/Osho is the worst thing that ever happened to spirituality in the west. He rode herd over a mob of naive, idealistic spiritual seekers, but definitely lacked the traits of an enlightened master. "Enlightened masters are not drug addicts. They do not turn Dharma on its head -- like calling "sannyasins" those who adopt a path exactly opposite of Indian sannyas. They generally don't get arrested and have their mug shots taken, and ignomiously deported -- especially the Indian saints. (Christ was one notable historical exception to this rule.) A true saint, by his spiritual power, is never humiliated or bested. He has sufficient merit to receive protection and his honored in his lifetime. "More to the core, an enlightened master does not encourage his disciples to abandon time-honored moral norms -- especially the dharma concerning sex restraint. Osho was basically a kind of pimp who used the base desires of average people, along with their beautiful hunger for real spirituality, to build a financial empire and a following of worshippers who would do whatever he asked. "When I think back about that 'baby boomer generation' of sincere spiritual seekers -- all those intelligent, skilled young men and women of European descent like me -- it makes me so sad. What a harvest of potential saints that was! How much good might have arisen if all those young, idealistic westerners could have fallen in with a legitimate spiritual master -- say, a Vivekananda or a Ramakrishna. We will never know! I look at them today, and their condition, and they have missed the boat. "Thousands of sincere western seekers were misled and harmed by the novel teachings of Osho. I have seen many of them in the aftermath. They always lack the satvic glow that comes from yogic sex restraint; they look like spent rakes aged well beyond their actual years. Even in their age -- when they might show some spiritual attainment -- many still crave sex, and all the ordinary base things. Despite Osho's "indulgence technique," they never got over sex addiction and lust. "This was one of the Big Lies that Osho told: That by indulging your sex desire you would transcend it. The great sages of Yoga spoke the real and opposite truth: You get over sexual lust not by feeding it, but by restraining it until you encounter the higher thrill of meditative bliss. Meanwhile, it is only that renunciation -- the storing of the sexual energy -- that enables one to contact the transcendental bliss. This has been the message of the sages through all time, including Lord Buddha, who was frequently ripped off by "the Bhagwan." Osho's teachings, though sprinkled here and there with mystical truths, were dead wrong in the most basic ways, and ultimately spiritually destructive. "The proof is in the pudding. Christ said that one can know a true Master by the "fruit" that emerges from him. Through his disciples Osho gave us moral and family breakdown, drug addiction, a disturbed childhood for many, and crime -- even terrorism. Osho set Yoga back in the west perhaps hundreds of years. "The saddest thing is what happened to all those children of Osho followers. Osho wanted them to grow up not knowing who their Fathers were; raised by a mob, with no particular person as Parent. I can't think of anything much more ignorant, or more cruel. Krishnamurti was right: Osho was a criminal." -- Julian Lee

Singh132 I think it's all about novelty. Our people will always chase after novelty. It's novel to have someone like Osho write a book on Sikhi and whether it is any good or not the Sikhs around the world will buy the book for the sheer novelty. I have seen the books of Osho in the Gurdwara libraries for which Premkranti is proud of, I doubt many get read. As for Premkranti's contention that calling the Gurus after Guru Nanak weren't Gurus just to jolt fanatic people, well that's bukwas and he knows it. It's funny how some Sikhs are so tied down and follow slavishly the teachings of such hypocrites as Osho that they cannot understand when he has insulted the Gurus. These sorts of people try and rationalise everything bringing up excuses such as the context and the need to 'talk' to the person and see what his intentions were. As Osho is as dead as a dodo at the moment i'm not sure how Pheena Veer will be doing the talking with him. If you read the materials on cults on the net you'll see that Osho's cult is pretty much the architypal cult. His life story would pretty much be similar to the plot of the film 'The Guru' where some Indian guy goes from India to USA and talking a load of bukwas manages to impress some stupid americans into thinking he is a great religious teacher. Osho types are ten to a penny in India, the only difference is that Osho managed to get to the US at a time when the hippy types in the country were ripe to be ripped off of both their intellect as well as their money.

duplicate post

Namstang You seem to have brought the sanatan version of Sikh history with all it's sampardhay, secret texts, secret martial arts, lineages. History is much more complex than the simplistic version sold to you by the sanatan websites. Can we take it that before the Tat Khalsa - SGPC era, 1890's - 1920's there would only be Udasi, Nihang, Nirmala and Sewapanthi Sikhs? That would make sense wouldn't it. The Sanatan Singh Sabha although founded in 1873 was a part of the Sanatan group. The Tat Khalsa only came about in any force during the 1890's and the Sikhi that you would call 'angrezi' came about with the SGPC. Have you read Sri Guru Teerath Sangreh by Tara Singh Narotam written in 1884, one of the first writers to classify Gurdwaras into Udasis, Nirmala and Nihang management. We would assume that Gurdwaras would only be run by the so-called four sampardhas supposedly created by the Gurus. Well surprising about 60% or over of the Gurdwaras are classified as SIKH. Who are these SIKHS running Gurdwaras when we all know that there were only four types of Sikhs if we are to believe that great scholar Jagdeep Singh of Sanatan websites fame? If you think that Sikh history is just a series of so and so Baba is connected to so and so sampardha then you are very mistaken. It's truely ironic but according to Amritpal Singh's research the present Budha Dal was founded during BRITISH times and does not have any connection apart from the name to the Budha Dal founded in the 1730's. Truely IRONIC, so does this make the Budha Dal an ANGREZI Budha Dal??

Namstang Again you come along with your fairy stories and your description of the Khalsa as 'Malech'. Please read Amritpal Singh's site to see how insulting it is to place any insulting or negative word before the word Khalsa or Sikhi. Keep on calling Sikhi as 'Angrezi' and Khalsa as 'Malech', you are just insulting the Gurus by insulting their creations. I think I discussed your fairy tale about the Dasam Granth being thrown out of the Akal Takht during the Akali movement. From what I can remember you either said one of your relatives saw this happen or some Sant told you about it. First off I doubt the Akalis would have thrown Dasam Granth out of a window. I am surprised that the Sikh masses allowed this but more importantly where was the 960,000,000 Akali Nihang Chalda Vaheer Budha Dal? If a few hundred Akalis could throw out the Dasam Granth then should not the 96 crore disband because they aren't really doing what it says on the box! I've asked some of your sanatanists friends this and they didn't have an answer to this either although one guy said that only 'old' Nihangs were there. Reminds of another 'frail elderly' story recently from lemington spa!

Namstang 1. Can you tell us what religion Bhagat Kabirji, Bhagat Namdevji and others followed? 2. Do you bow to the teachings of the Bhagats when you bow to the Guru Granth Sahib or do you bow to the teachings of the Guru Granth Sahib in it's entirity?

The budget of the SGPC is published in the March-April editions of Gurdwara Gazette. There is corruption in every organisation, when ever the PM can be a chor such as Rajiv Gandhi then you can't expect the rest of the people to be squeeky clean. The SGPC runs many schools, hospitals and other institutions which take a great part of their revenue. It is true that parchar has suffered in the last few decades and the condition of Sikhi in Punjab at the moment shows that the SGPC has failed miserably in this regard. This is in marked constrast to the early days of the SGPC when the parchar was so strong that even parcharaks were sent to far off places such as south india. As for the laughable comment that the Akal Takht was in better hands with the Nihangs in charge I wish the person who made that comment would look at the conditions of the Gurdwaras before the SGPC.

So I take it that Banda Singh Bahadur was wrong to create a Khalsa Raj in East Punjab between 1710-1716? Misls were wrong to take over areas of Punjab from the Mughals and then defend it against the Afghan invaders like Abdali? Maharaja Ranjit Singh should not have ruled Punjab and called his rule as Sarkar Khalsaji? 134701[/snapback] Khalsa raj you talked about was different than khalistan you guys are aiming for. Khalsa raj by Banda Singh Bahudar and Sher-e-Punjab Maharaja Ranjit Singh Ji appreciated diversity in Sikhi, khalistan gives no signifance to flourish beautiful garden of sri guru nanak dev where diversity is there in form of different flowers all unique in its own way. Instead khalistan or khalistanis will provide acid rain to people who follows different mindset/approach to sikhi which was quite acceptable in Khalsa Raj we had in puratan times. Examples like- kharkho sikhs killing monay because they couldn't fullfill promise to grow their kesh and kharkho sikhs killing senior members of old nihangs just because they drank sukha in moderation. 134762[/snapback] You need to get off the forum and read a couple of good books on Sikh history and maybe then you might be able to take part in a worthwhile discussion. Diversity is Sikhism? I think your sanatan thinking is coming out here. As I wrote on another thread there is no such thing as 'diversity in Sikhi', none of the sampardhas you keep going on about were created by the Gurus. There was none of your diversity in Sikhism during the times of Banda Singh Bahadur, just a division between Khalsa into Bandai and Tat Khalsa. Same with the Misl period. Your diversity in Sikhi came about only during the time of Maharaja Ranjit Singh. 134824[/snapback] prove it academicaly damdami taksal and other sampardha's wasn't created by sri guru sahib? why not prove it? why keeping singin same old baja in denial? soon you will see an suprise which will tremble not only you but your sgpc leaders and other made made cults. I suggest you should brush up your scholarly skills and skills in language. It will come in handy to counter an "suprise" that you and others will receive. In words of my freind- Roop Singh: For some it be rain of amrit but for some it will be an rain of acid. 134841[/snapback] Firstly before you ask anyone to brush up on their scholarly skills you might take you're own advice and learn to spell before you do anything else and improving your grammer would be good as well! There is no need to prove that any samapardha was not created by the Gurus, the facts are there, check out Amritpal Singh's site and you will see that each sampardha started only in the 19th century. Only the Udasis are older but they were clearly exluded from Sikh Panth by Guru Amar Das. What proof does the sanantists have?... oh we got a tape recording by so and so baba that says blah blah blah so there you have it, we are Guru created and you are angrezi.. mallesh..british inspired Sikhi. It may work for people like you but normal people require more evidence and solid proof. The threat of so called 'suprise' that will bring down sgpc..your leaders..angrezi sikhi..blah blah blah has been there from your sanatan friends for the last three years. One sanatanist used to go on about how some motley crew of udasis, nihangs, nirmalas etc would march and take over Akal Takht from SGPC l'm still waiting for that, the funny thing is even given the corruption of the SGPC no Sikh would ever allow sanatanists to take over a single Gurdwara let alone the Akal Takht!

So I take it that Banda Singh Bahadur was wrong to create a Khalsa Raj in East Punjab between 1710-1716? Misls were wrong to take over areas of Punjab from the Mughals and then defend it against the Afghan invaders like Abdali? Maharaja Ranjit Singh should not have ruled Punjab and called his rule as Sarkar Khalsaji? 134701[/snapback] Khalsa raj you talked about was different than khalistan you guys are aiming for. Khalsa raj by Banda Singh Bahudar and Sher-e-Punjab Maharaja Ranjit Singh Ji appreciated diversity in Sikhi, khalistan gives no signifance to flourish beautiful garden of sri guru nanak dev where diversity is there in form of different flowers all unique in its own way. Instead khalistan or khalistanis will provide acid rain to people who follows different mindset/approach to sikhi which was quite acceptable in Khalsa Raj we had in puratan times. Examples like- kharkho sikhs killing monay because they couldn't fullfill promise to grow their kesh and kharkho sikhs killing senior members of old nihangs just because they drank sukha in moderation. 134762[/snapback] You need to get off the forum and read a couple of good books on Sikh history and maybe then you might be able to take part in a worthwhile discussion. Diversity is Sikhism? I think your sanatan thinking is coming out here. As I wrote on another thread there is no such thing as 'diversity in Sikhi', none of the sampardhas you keep going on about were created by the Gurus. There was none of your diversity in Sikhism during the times of Banda Singh Bahadur, just a division between Khalsa into Bandai and Tat Khalsa. Same with the Misl period. Your diversity in Sikhi came about only during the time of Maharaja Ranjit Singh.

So I take it that Banda Singh Bahadur was wrong to create a Khalsa Raj in East Punjab between 1710-1716? Misls were wrong to take over areas of Punjab from the Mughals and then defend it against the Afghan invaders like Abdali? Maharaja Ranjit Singh should not have ruled Punjab and called his rule as Sarkar Khalsaji?

The demand for making Chandigarh sole capital of Punjab is due to a number of relevant factors 1. Chandigarh was built as the capital of East Punjab as compensation for the loss of Lahore. Losing Lahore had more of an impact on people of Amritsar-Ludhiana-Julundur than it did on people of Hissar-Karnal-Panipat or Simla-Kulu. 2. The villages that were uprooted to make way for the Chandigarh project were Punjabi speaking Sikh villages 3. Present Punjab is the successor state of East Punjab, having territory in the factor of 42:37:26 of the East Punjab with Haryana and HP 4. Chandigarh has always been the Punjabi speaking area. It was only after 1961 census that Hindus have systemically been denying their mother tongue Punjabi and stating Hindi as their mother tongue. Even the GOI repudiated the 1961 language data results of East Punjab

Great post Kharkoo4life! You are 100% spot on about Sikhs willing to accept any story that anyone conjures up about Guru Gobind Singh. Take a look at the number of stories some kathakars are dreaming up, many of which are totally against Gurbani. Just as we are getting more and more Sakhis being made up by some kathakars, we are also now getting the nice and neat pidgeonholing of prominant Khalsa Sikhs into Nihangs, Nirmalas and Sewapanthis!

Loss of any innocent life is a tragedy. But you have to be a fool to think that any liberation struggle can ever guarantee that NO innocent person will ever die during its struggle. It's a new one on me. Even during the Misls days there must have been innocent people who lost their lives, that's what a WAR is. Even the US Army with all it's technology couldn't stop mistakes being made during the gulf war in which innocents were killed. Now if you are asking that the struggle for Khalistan be peaceful then that is a given in the post 9/11 world. The most recently successful independence struggles have been peaceful such as East Timor.

It's not just Khalsa Fauji, there is no PROOF or EVIDENCE that the Gurus created any sampardha be it Nirmalas, Nihangs, Udasis or Sewapanthis. Guru Gobind Singh created the KHALSA panth. The old wives tales of Nirmalas being sent to Kashi do not figure in any of the contemporary literature of the time of Guru Gobind Singh or even during the times of Banda Singh Bahadur or the Misls. Nirmalas start to appear in the literature of the early 19th century just as the KHALSA (nor Nihangs) have taken over the Punjab from the Mughals and Afghans. Just then also the Udasis start to get land grants from the Misldars citing their 'links' to Sikhi. Baba Deep Singh was a KHALSA and not a Nihang or Nirmala. Just because a Mahapurush like Sant Attar Singh Ji went to a Nirmala school during his childhood doesn't make him a Nirmala. During the times of Maharaja Ranjit Singh many learned people were getting grants from the state to run schools in their areas. Nirmalas were in the forefront of this and so it is not surprising that many famous Sikh personages went to Nirmala schools. It doesn't make them Nirmalas! If Sant Attar Singh was a Nirmala or Nirmala inspired why would one of his most famous acts be propagating what you would call 'ferengi agrenzi sgpc akali panth'? Would Santji be propagating Nirmala ideas or even Sanatan Sikhi? He even asked a number of his students in the 1920's to move to Canada and England to propagate 'ferengi agrenzi sgpc akali panth' in these countries. Santji's followers formed the Akal Academies which with the other modern schools have made the Nirmala schools virtually extinct. The SGPC maryada was made Panth Pravanit, the fact that they invited Nirmalas to the meetings just shows that they wanted everyone to have their input into the maryada. If they hadn't you would be accusing them of being extremist and close minded blah blah blah.. oh and don't forget fanatic People who create conspiracy theories about the formation of the SGPC maryada and just doing it because the maryada they follow is different. Follow whichever maryada you are happy with and follow it with all your heart. Trying to badmouth one maryada will lead to other people creating conspiracy theories about your maryada, just as Taksal has about Bhai Randhir Singh accepting Raagmaala during his last moments.

Hot Sausage You're posts in this thread are very confusing. You seem to making the same biased comments about Sikhism that Indian parents would make about white guys. If you want to learn about Sikhism then take time out and read about Sikhism. If you are stuck with your ignorant and pre-conceived notions about Sikhism and Punjabi culture ( arranged marriages + overbearing parents ) probably gained from Coronation Street and Eastenders then it's best for both of you to decide on what you want to do. It seems your gf is already going against her parents by dating you so i don't know how you're going to convince her parents that you are a good match for their daughter. Starting off as the guy their daughter is secretly and deceitfully dating isn't the best of starts. You need to understand this, in Punjabi culture as well as in Sikhism a great deal of emphesis is placed on the family and a son in law has to fit in with the family. I don't know whether you're gfs family is ultra liberal but even then they might take offence at your ignorant comments about Sikhism. As for the other guy, he has my sympathy, not only is your gf badmouthing him but she's also being unfaithful to him. You're gf called him a pimp and if he ever found out what you're gf is up to then i'm sure he would have some choice expletives to say about her as well as i'm sure most right thinking people would as well. As for you're comment that Sikhism is a bit of a boys club and you're gf wants freedom from it. That should ring some alarm bells. Maybe she's someone who wants to live the western lifestyle, u know multiple partners, kids by more than one man, drinking and puking on the high street and her parents want her to grow up and marry a respectable Sikh guy. She probably sees you as a way of getting away from a respectable lifestyle and do all the stuff that is frowned upon by Sikhs. If it weren't you it would some next white guy Sorry mate you probably came her thinking we would be telling your what a great match you are and how your gfs lucky to have you. Sorry but this is not some romance but real life!