Shaheed Udam & Bhagat Singh

[mandeep99]

his family and friends say he wrote this letter, his sister who is religous herself claimed that this is what bhagat felt, he wrote many letters and articles in revolutionary papers regarding his choice to be an athiest and reason's behind it.

read this book, in it, it talks about interviews with his friends and family the book is well researched to get an understanding of the world bhagat saw and his philosphy and what he wanted and the person he was

http://www.amazon.com/Bhagat-Singh-Atheist...3659&sr=1-5

http://www.amazon.com/Shaheed-Bhagat-Singh...3659&sr=1-3

Yes bhagat was given books and paper to write and read, and he had occasionally sent out letters, one of the reasons bhagat went on hunger strike was for prisoner rights which meant clean food, book and newspapers and paper and pens and pencils.

Bhagats family friends say he was an athiest, read a book on bhagat singh and see what he visioned for a future india, im against socialism but i can understand his socialist views cause he believed that once england left india would become a slave to corruption which it did.

You also know bhagat never liked religous leaders.

[Bored]

they are Shaheeds!

[Aparadhee]

he was an atheist but after meeting bhai sahib bhai randhir singh in i think lahore jail, he realised his mistakes and had renewed faith in sikhi. in photos taken nearing his final days you can see he has uncut hair and a joora. ofcourse indian government doesnt want to admit that he died a sikh which is why in the films he gets fansi as a monah and potrayed as a atheist.

the whole account and conversation is written in bhai sahib randhir singhs autobiography

[dalsingh101]

Whatever the truth about Bhagat Singh and Udham Singh's religious beliefs, we can say that they were true sons of Punjab who demonstrated anakh and commitment to their causes and never turned their backs from fear of death.

They are shaheeds, whether or not they are specifically Sikh shaheeds is another matter. They are great people from whom we can learn much.

Salute to those who looked fear in face and didn't waver.

[Kharku]

its weird how monai aint considered sikh.

but when it comes to udham singh & bhagat singh there great sikhs

and they dident take amrit so they aint sikh like most of you would say

[Surban]

its weird how monai aint considered sikh.

but when it comes to udham singh & bhagat singh there great sikhs

and they dident take amrit so they aint sikh like most of you would say

who says monai aint sikhs.. there r 2 diff meanings u can get for sikhs. 1 is were one is born into sikhism, his religion is sikhism so he is a sikh(a studen who wants to learn about sikhi) but then the second would be were u are a sikh of the guru (i mean u have taken amrit)

monai r sikhs because that is there religion but there not singhs who have taken amrit

and if u dont consider the first type of sikhs real sikhs then wht are they? u cant just say they dont have a religion. what would you call them then?

[Kharku]

its weird how monai aint considered sikh.

but when it comes to udham singh & bhagat singh there great sikhs

and they dident take amrit so they aint sikh like most of you would say

who says monai aint sikhs.. there r 2 diff meanings u can get for sikhs. 1 is were one is born into sikhism, his religion is sikhism so he is a sikh(a studen who wants to learn about sikhi) but then the second would be were u are a sikh of the guru (i mean u have taken amrit)

monai r sikhs because that is there religion but there not singhs who have taken amrit

and if u dont consider the first type of sikhs real sikhs then wht are they? u cant just say they dont have a religion. what would you call them then?

i believe there sikh, alot of members on this forum dont

[dalsingh101]

One thing that is really annoying is that Sikhs (in the UK) have been legally given a status of both an ethnic group and a religious community. This is something they fought hard for and afforded them protection only given to others recently (i.e. Muslims).

Yet when you talk to some they totally fail to acknowledge this and fall back on a strictly religious identity. If they believe that they should go to the government and tell them that the definition Sikhs fought for in the past is a load of cobblers and is false.

[Guest dee]

your apologising fo your ignorance but still have not researched your own history, Udam Singh did not sacrifice himself, he dedicated his life,his mind soul and being to avenging the deaths of thousands of innocent men, women and children. not just for the Sikh race but for Hindustan, my brother, he was present at the time of the british colonialism in India and witnessed with his own eyes, what General dwyer did not to Sikhs Hindus and Muslims alike. he murdered them in cold blood and no british man was convicted for it because of the riegn that these foriegners had at the time on OUR SOIL.

Udam Singh devoted his life to repent these innocent men, women and children he moved to england in the early 1930's and actually moved to general dwyers home town in devon, he had plenty of opportunity to kill dwyer then, but chose not too, his crusade was not of a lone assasin he was doing this as a united front for Sikhs Muslims and Hindus alike, he lived under the alias 'Ram Mohammed Singh Azad', 'Ram' being Indian, 'Mohammed' obvious signifying the Muslim brother and 'Singh' on behalf of Sihk men and women alike, 'Azad' means free. He waited almost seven years until there was a gathering of the top colonial leaders that took reign on OUR SOIL, waited till 13th march 1940 in London, he killed General Dwyer in front of his comrades and in front of British society, and stood tall for OUR LAND, OUR PEOPLE and our rights and avenged the deaths of thousands of innocent men and women in the Jullianwala Bagh Masacre. the British police later found out his real name Shaheed Udam Singh but in one last attempt to make stand for OUR PEOPLE he stood by his name Ram Mohammed Singh Azad.