~ Time To Re-evaluate The Real Meaning Of Shaheedi..!

[N30S1NGH]

namstang bro, u talk to much man

dasam graht is just PARTLY written by dasmesh pita guru gobind singh ji

if ur mother was killed, ur father burnt alive, little brother killed n sister raped, wud u still talk of not targetting civilians????

no! krodh overtakes u

i know its bad but its not our fault

waheguru made us but also the 5 bads

and no one in this world can be freed from those 5 bads

GURU GURU ....IT SRI CHARITRO PAKHYAANAY TRIYA

CHARITRAY MANTREE BHOOP SAMABADAY

CHAR SO PANCH CHARITAR SAMAPAT

MAST SUBH MAST

sat bachan ji

[Mahakaal Singh]

why do people always try to demean satguru dasam granth sahib ji? "PARTLY WRITTEN" how much gian have these people got of satguru granth sahib ji that they so boldly raise their fingers at maharaj. Does bani that is written by a guru only have authority what about bhagta di bani?

[2desi]

Isn't SHAHEED OR SHAHEEDI a Persian Word for Sacrifice? So if you sacrifice your life for a greater cause, your Shaheed........Right?

[ParwinderSingh]

First of all , let me be clear this topic is "nowhere an personal attack to personal individuals/jatha who have fought during the times of 1980's". However this topic touches a very fine mindset of an true militant who have got complete understanding of "dharam yudh maryada" within sikhism and examples of shaheedi set by our beloved Guru Sahibs- Sri Guru Arjan Dev Ji, Sri Guru Tegh Bahadur Ji.

I think every sikh with bibek buddhi can somewhat agree that not all sikh militants back in the time of 1980-1995 were 100 percent genuine and they were some who were driven by vengeance not "revenge". This two different terms, vengeance is state of mind where a person who is soo driven by it, that will use any "unjustified force" to eliminate the target, even though that unjustified force will kill innocent civilians. Whereas true sikh of sri guru gobind singh ji, will use only "justified force" to eliminate the target that means abort the missions if its turning out that there are innocent civilians on the way of target. In real world, this is painful, talk to any militants around the world, amount of pressure they get and planning they have spent to eliminate the target is over-whelming, hence in their dictionary if target (ruthless opressors/killer) is eliminated even in the cost of one-two innocent civilians is acceptable, but remember we are not just any joe blow sormaie/soldiers , we are given an beautiful concept of saint and sipahi, we are given ideals of khalsa, shaheedi, maryada in the dharam yudh. In the dharam yudh, singh under no circumstances doesnt not target - innocent civilians. Regardless how much pressure, how much planning is done to kill targets, singh should instantly boycatt/cancel the mission to target (ruthless killers/oppressors) after knowning it will cost an live of an innocent.

Classical example of such sikhs who have gravely failed to be sikhs of sri guru nanak dev ji let alone- sant-sipahi, or shaheeds is an clip below, fwd to 3 minute- http://media.cbc.ca:8080/ramgen/cbc.ca/new...wski_030909b.rm

Quote " There will be sikhs around, thats a price of our revolution".

Now its sikhs in the interview shown in the clip, i dont care where they from, which group they belong, they have every terrorist intent around that time in their mind to target anyone , have no regards for life of an innocent individuals, as sikhs in that clip said- after all this is the price of our revolution.

not targetting the jatha/personality but targetting the mindset of such fanatics, question to sangat of sikh sangat, do they qualify to call themselves sant sipahi of sri guru gobind singh ji? if they were killed, do they qualify to be in realm of shaheedi which is very very pure concept laid down by examples of our guru's, sahibzadas, great warriors- baba deep singh ji, 40 mukhte, great mothers within khalsa panth. Do they qualify to have their names read next to great warriors like- baba deep singh??

Sikh need to be first sant (dya, dharam, sat, santokh, gyan) and then sipahi, its not other way around, only sipahihood in an person makes them demonic/tamoguni nothing else. You need santhood first and sipahi to anaylise each and every suitation in dharam yudh to questions- how much justified force need to be used? do assessment of dharam yudh, how is it impacting other innocent civilians life? how can one eliminate an target(ruthless killers/oppressors) soo pricesly that no innocent life is lost. And no these attributes of santhood first then sipahihood and questions and assesmment of dharam yudh is not only limited to only jathedar but each one of us who have desire to be shaheeds for the panth and Guru have this responsiblity.

Call this personal opnion since i dont have direct proof but fight for khalistan was failed because some in the movement

a) were just people, joe blow soramaie with terrorist intent use khalsa panth for their personal revenges ie- oh guy killed my family, i m going to kill his, all in the garb of kesh, dhara and all in garb of khalsa panth

b) gov't infiltration, nobody is ignoring that, however to use this govt inflitration on every stance is foolishness. to even be more foolish that to deny lack of acknowledgement that there is strategic failure.

c) lack of acknowledgement that there is such thing as "sikhs with terrorist intent, fanaticism within sikhs.

d) ignoring dharam yudh maryada the points are listed in sri dasam granth.

e) ignoring the concept of santhood (dya, dharam, sat, santokh, gyan) and then sipahi, its not other way around, only sipahihood in an person makes them demonic/tamoguni nothing else. You need santhood first and sipahi to anaylise each and every suitation in dharam yudh to questions- how much justified force need to be used? do assessment of dharam yudh, how is it impacting other innocent civilians life? how can one eliminate an target(ruthless killers/oppressors) soo pricesly that no innocent life is lost. And no these attributes of santhood first then sipahihood and questions and assesmment of dharam yudh is not only limited to only jathedar but each one of us who have desire to be shaheeds for the panth and Guru have this responsiblity.

Last but not least, yesterday i went to gurdwara, its my personal observation, but in the langar hall, all i can see pictures of "shaheeds" with no description of what they did, how genuine they were etc. This leads to great misconception if forgein reporter, media person walks in, he/she all they will see its guns, violence ruthless killers thats what they see , they need more information to change what they saw. This needs to be changed, description needs to be added, as for calling each and every sikh with gun in the langar hall - shaheed, i wouldnt go that far, i would hold my judgement until i study them, i think shaheed label itself just like- sant, bhramgyani, gyani, das is been over used and over abused.

Its about time we all re-evaulate our stance on concept of shaheedi laid by our beloved guru's via santhood-sipahihood, dharam yudh maryada lets not use pure term very freely,losely. Not saying to be hard core skeptic fanatic either but just have open mind, bring your own opnion after studying them.

i find it hard to define a shaheed, because for example what if Guru ji intended certain people to die in the process,who in our eyes were civillians, but we dont know about the crimes they may have commited in the past. but we wud say that singh is not a shaheed cos there were innocent deaths. or other scenarios, which in someones eyes would be murder, the main problem being the whole shaheed concept is against any man made law, e.g the law would class shaheeds as murderers and the only wy for justice is through trials, but if it is abused and unfair how are people to draw the line..... So next thing is we shudnt attempt to define a shaheed its kind of disrespectful..........anyway instead of being world greatest critics lets be try and be the greatest sikhs.......

[N30S1NGH]

First of all , let me be clear this topic is "nowhere an personal attack to personal individuals/jatha who have fought during the times of 1980's". However this topic touches a very fine mindset of an true militant who have got complete understanding of "dharam yudh maryada" within sikhism and examples of shaheedi set by our beloved Guru Sahibs- Sri Guru Arjan Dev Ji, Sri Guru Tegh Bahadur Ji.

I think every sikh with bibek buddhi can somewhat agree that not all sikh militants back in the time of 1980-1995 were 100 percent genuine and they were some who were driven by vengeance not "revenge". This two different terms, vengeance is state of mind where a person who is soo driven by it, that will use any "unjustified force" to eliminate the target, even though that unjustified force will kill innocent civilians. Whereas true sikh of sri guru gobind singh ji, will use only "justified force" to eliminate the target that means abort the missions if its turning out that there are innocent civilians on the way of target. In real world, this is painful, talk to any militants around the world, amount of pressure they get and planning they have spent to eliminate the target is over-whelming, hence in their dictionary if target (ruthless opressors/killer) is eliminated even in the cost of one-two innocent civilians is acceptable, but remember we are not just any joe blow sormaie/soldiers , we are given an beautiful concept of saint and sipahi, we are given ideals of khalsa, shaheedi, maryada in the dharam yudh. In the dharam yudh, singh under no circumstances doesnt not target - innocent civilians. Regardless how much pressure, how much planning is done to kill targets, singh should instantly boycatt/cancel the mission to target (ruthless killers/oppressors) after knowning it will cost an live of an innocent.

Classical example of such sikhs who have gravely failed to be sikhs of sri guru nanak dev ji let alone- sant-sipahi, or shaheeds is an clip below, fwd to 3 minute- http://media.cbc.ca:8080/ramgen/cbc.ca/new...wski_030909b.rm

Quote " There will be sikhs around, thats a price of our revolution".

Now its sikhs in the interview shown in the clip, i dont care where they from, which group they belong, they have every terrorist intent around that time in their mind to target anyone , have no regards for life of an innocent individuals, as sikhs in that clip said- after all this is the price of our revolution.

not targetting the jatha/personality but targetting the mindset of such fanatics, question to sangat of sikh sangat, do they qualify to call themselves sant sipahi of sri guru gobind singh ji? if they were killed, do they qualify to be in realm of shaheedi which is very very pure concept laid down by examples of our guru's, sahibzadas, great warriors- baba deep singh ji, 40 mukhte, great mothers within khalsa panth. Do they qualify to have their names read next to great warriors like- baba deep singh??

Sikh need to be first sant (dya, dharam, sat, santokh, gyan) and then sipahi, its not other way around, only sipahihood in an person makes them demonic/tamoguni nothing else. You need santhood first and sipahi to anaylise each and every suitation in dharam yudh to questions- how much justified force need to be used? do assessment of dharam yudh, how is it impacting other innocent civilians life? how can one eliminate an target(ruthless killers/oppressors) soo pricesly that no innocent life is lost. And no these attributes of santhood first then sipahihood and questions and assesmment of dharam yudh is not only limited to only jathedar but each one of us who have desire to be shaheeds for the panth and Guru have this responsiblity.

Call this personal opnion since i dont have direct proof but fight for khalistan was failed because some in the movement

a) were just people, joe blow soramaie with terrorist intent use khalsa panth for their personal revenges ie- oh guy killed my family, i m going to kill his, all in the garb of kesh, dhara and all in garb of khalsa panth

b) gov't infiltration, nobody is ignoring that, however to use this govt inflitration on every stance is foolishness. to even be more foolish that to deny lack of acknowledgement that there is strategic failure.

c) lack of acknowledgement that there is such thing as "sikhs with terrorist intent, fanaticism within sikhs.

d) ignoring dharam yudh maryada the points are listed in sri dasam granth.

e) ignoring the concept of santhood (dya, dharam, sat, santokh, gyan) and then sipahi, its not other way around, only sipahihood in an person makes them demonic/tamoguni nothing else. You need santhood first and sipahi to anaylise each and every suitation in dharam yudh to questions- how much justified force need to be used? do assessment of dharam yudh, how is it impacting other innocent civilians life? how can one eliminate an target(ruthless killers/oppressors) soo pricesly that no innocent life is lost. And no these attributes of santhood first then sipahihood and questions and assesmment of dharam yudh is not only limited to only jathedar but each one of us who have desire to be shaheeds for the panth and Guru have this responsiblity.

Last but not least, yesterday i went to gurdwara, its my personal observation, but in the langar hall, all i can see pictures of "shaheeds" with no description of what they did, how genuine they were etc. This leads to great misconception if forgein reporter, media person walks in, he/she all they will see its guns, violence ruthless killers thats what they see , they need more information to change what they saw. This needs to be changed, description needs to be added, as for calling each and every sikh with gun in the langar hall - shaheed, i wouldnt go that far, i would hold my judgement until i study them, i think shaheed label itself just like- sant, bhramgyani, gyani, das is been over used and over abused.

Its about time we all re-evaulate our stance on concept of shaheedi laid by our beloved guru's via santhood-sipahihood, dharam yudh maryada lets not use pure term very freely,losely. Not saying to be hard core skeptic fanatic either but just have open mind, bring your own opnion after studying them.

i find it hard to define a shaheed, because for example what if Guru ji intended certain people to die in the process,who in our eyes were civillians, but we dont know about the crimes they may have commited in the past. but we wud say that singh is not a shaheed cos there were innocent deaths. or other scenarios, which in someones eyes would be murder, the main problem being the whole shaheed concept is against any man made law, e.g the law would class shaheeds as murderers and the only wy for justice is through trials, but if it is abused and unfair how are people to draw the line..... So next thing is we shudnt attempt to define a shaheed its kind of disrespectful..........anyway instead of being world greatest critics lets be try and be the greatest sikhs.......

nobody is being great critics just trying to open eyes of few misguided individuals who perceive things as black and white- either you are with our idealogy- khalistan or you against it therefore panthic dusth therefore needs to be killed or shut off.

Its very common in militancy where regular joe blow soorma singh would live in denial, thats what my ears are tired to keep hearing it... real militant sikh are those who acknowledges that movement failed because of home grown sikh fanatics/terrorist , try to clean up mess/image they potrayed instead of blowing usual trumphet of rss and congress. and trust me i have talked to those people who acknowledges that after 84 most of khalistan movement was hijacked by goi by infltration and other half was hijacked by fanatics and sikhs with terrorist intent.

[Laadli Fauj]

yup

[guptveer1469]

why do people always try to demean satguru dasam granth sahib ji? "PARTLY WRITTEN" how much gian have these people got of satguru granth sahib ji that they so boldly raise their fingers at maharaj. Does bani that is written by a guru only have authority what about bhagta di bani?

-----------------------------------------------------

mahakaal, have u EVER read the dasam granth?? It praises the goddes Chandi and others

Guru Gobind Singh Ji cant have done this

IN sikhism there is only on god no gods or godesses

but still the dasam granth praises them

this proves it isnt written by dashmest pita guru gobind singh ji

but some parts indeed are written by shri guru gobind singh ji

but not fully

i will ALWAYS SAY THIS

namstang and co talk to much

if that wud happen to u

u wudnt talk about that

krodh always overtakes a person

krodh or justice

and for me justice is a part of krodh

dont talk to much

r u a real singh???

trying to find a definition of a singh - lion

u have got a big mouth but do u have the guts like the shaheeds who u r defaming (u didnt name people but mean groups like Khalistan Zindabad Force n Babbar Khalsa who bombed n killed many innocent people)

can u go in india and even say Khalistan Zindabad ONCE OPENLY???????? NO

or even just say once that those so called sikhs (radhasoamis, nirankaris, noormahallas, asutosh, fake nihangs like ajit phoola) arent sikhs

no

so stop talking like a lion in ur house

but be a lion in the jungle

hope that helps

gurfateh

[ParwinderSingh]

.

i find it hard to define a shaheed, because for example what if Guru ji intended certain people to die in the process,who in our eyes were civillians, but we dont know about the crimes they may have commited in the past. but we wud say that singh is not a shaheed cos there were innocent deaths. or other scenarios, which in someones eyes would be murder, the main problem being the whole shaheed concept is against any man made law, e.g the law would class shaheeds as murderers and the only wy for justice is through trials, but if it is abused and unfair how are people to draw the line..... So next thing is we shudnt attempt to define a shaheed its kind of disrespectful..........anyway instead of being world greatest critics lets be try and be the greatest sikhs.......

nobody is being great critics just trying to open eyes of few misguided individuals who perceive things as black and white- either you are with our idealogy- khalistan or you against it therefore panthic dusth therefore needs to be killed or shut off.

Its very common in militancy where regular joe blow soorma singh would live in denial, thats what my ears are tired to keep hearing it... real militant sikh are those who acknowledges that movement failed because of home grown sikh fanatics/terrorist , try to clean up mess/image they potrayed instead of blowing usual trumphet of rss and congress. and trust me i have talked to those people who acknowledges that after 84 most of khalistan movement was hijacked by goi by infltration and other half was hijacked by fanatics and sikhs with terrorist intent.

ok..............................your right ..........so wat do u beleive? lol................my post was not about takin sides if you took it the wrong way

[Jai Tegang!]

Ideally, warfare should only involve willful combatants, but that’s not what happens in guerilla warfare. As with everything else in Kalyug, even warfare becomes undignified.

Opposing sides don’t pick uninhabited open lands to engage one another. The weaponry doesn’t allow for it, as was first witnessed in the WWI.

As we know, our shaheeds of the 80s and 90s didn’t have anywhere near the resources as the state when they were giving up their lives to keep the dignity of the Panth alive. In the beginning of the war against the state, many singhs couldn’t even get their hands on a proper gun (if a gun at all), many had sawed off rifles.

Many of these shaheeds were proper dharmi-yodhay reminiscent of those in our glorious past. They state that the nature of guerilla warfare meant innocents would get killed by either those out to discredit the singhs; unavoidable circumstances (confrontations occurring in crowed areas). Purposely killing innocents would make the whole yudh meaningless.

Singhs just didn’t have the resources to wage a proper war. That’s why they had to resort to guerilla warfare (like the Singhs of the old who would attack the looting afghans at night).

Because there was not enough high-level organization, many groups worked independently to carry out hits against mostly those who were abusing families, sikhi saroop. Without high-level organization it was hard to hold anyone accountable.

If this post seems a bit off-course, there’s a reason. Understanding the nature of this warfare will help us understand why the war of the 80s and 90s was different to the stuff we read from our puraatan shaheeds.

Let’s not put such an unachievable high standard on our singhs considering the type of warfare they had to go through. It’s very easy to type out ideal scenarios where valiant singhs go rushing at the enemy taking bullets in their chests in deserted open plains…..but most of those jhujharoos were killed while they slept in some khet(field) and later showed as an “encounter”. Others were double-crossed. Or captured (and later killed in “encounters”) with massive police/paramilitary force descending upon their temporary dera. Singhs had to take equally drastic steps to fight back.

[Sarbloh]

Ideally, warfare should only involve willful combatants, but that’s not what happens in guerilla warfare. As with everything else in Kalyug, even warfare becomes undignified.

Opposing sides don’t pick uninhabited open lands to engage one another. The weaponry doesn’t allow for it, as was first witnessed in the WWI.

As we know, our shaheeds of the 80s and 90s didn’t have anywhere near the resources as the state when they were giving up their lives to keep the dignity of the Panth alive. In the beginning of the war against the state, many singhs couldn’t even get their hands on a proper gun (if a gun at all), many had sawed off rifles.

Many of these shaheeds were proper dharmi-yodhay reminiscent of those in our glorious past. They state that the nature of guerilla warfare meant innocents would get killed by either those out to discredit the singhs; unavoidable circumstances (confrontations occurring in crowed areas). Purposely killing innocents would make the whole yudh meaningless.

Singhs just didn’t have the resources to wage a proper war. That’s why they had to resort to guerilla warfare (like the Singhs of the old who would attack the looting afghans at night).

Because there was not enough high-level organization, many groups worked independently to carry out hits against mostly those who were abusing families, sikhi saroop. Without high-level organization it was hard to hold anyone accountable.

If this post seems a bit off-course, there’s a reason. Understanding the nature of this warfare will help us understand why the war of the 80s and 90s was different to the stuff we read from our puraatan shaheeds.

Let’s not put such an unachievable high standard on our singhs considering the type of warfare they had to go through. It’s very easy to type out ideal scenarios where valiant singhs go rushing at the enemy taking bullets in their chests in deserted open plains…..but most of those jhujharoos were killed while they slept in some khet(field) and later showed as an “encounter”. Others were double-crossed. Or captured (and later killed in “encounters”) with massive police/paramilitary force descending upon their temporary dera. Singhs had to take equally drastic steps to fight back.

I agree with Jai Tegang. I think many of us did not personally experience what happened during that period and I think it is difficult to make assumptions on what was legit and what was not. There may have been some immoral activities by Sikhs that did end up happening during that period, there's no point in denying that. But under all of that there was a "genuine" dharma yudh taking place and there were a large number of “genuine” Saheeds.