The Events Of 1984 And Before Are The Only Morally Disputed Events In Sikh History -- Ever Noticed ?

[Guest]

When Baba Deep Singh ji fought with his head on his palm , we don't dispute whether what Baba deep Singh did were morally correct ? we know it was right thing to fight then !

When Guru Gobind singh ji fought against mughal , regarding that time also we don't question whether the violence adopted by Guru Gobind singh ji against mughals was correct because

1) we were not existing at that time . so its irrelevant to us how many singhs got shaheed .

We are selfish in this thinking , yes , because we wouldn't have risked losing our lives in fight against tyrant

or

2) we are sure that fight against zulam against mughals and afghans were legitimate

Most sikhs who however respect Baba Deep singh ji , head of damdami taksal , take a sharp u-turn regarding Jarnail Singh Bhindrawala , former head of same taksal and those singhs who resorted to way of violence back in the days

its becoz of 2 points mentioned above !

[Not2Cool2Argue]

I've noticed the same thing that from 47 onwards many things have been morally disputed and seem wrong. But i disagree about the cause. It's not the legitimacy that's in question. It's the disunity. I always think of 2 types of ppl when 84 is brought up...the innocent ppl who got butchered in Harminder Sahib or the valiant heroes who got shaheed in Akaal Takhat Sahib. I would rather be the latter. If all the panth would've been united we wouldn't have had casualties of innocent ppl, back then( Guru Ji's time and Baba Deep singh Ji's time) ppl were united. ppl weren't selfish enough to stand on the sidelines and watch other ppl get shaheed back then. The fact that ppl got the same kind of thinking that was prevalent during the Jewish Holocaust times that as long as its not me 'i'm safe' or as long as i don't stand up for something 'I'm safe' as long as i pretend i'm not jewish and follow each restriction on jewish ppl to the letter 'i'll be safe'. well they weren't. the more they allowed themselves to get repressed and integrated and followed their countries governments and the more they stayed silent abt injustices...the more they got hurt later on.

Same with Sikhs, the ppl who didn't support bhindranwale, didn't mind the injustices going on at the time, the more they got hurt....and the more they will get hurt. Hurt as in killed, wiped out, destroyed.

[Ek0sikh]

BECAUSE in those times the government were not too clever to mis-represent or inglorify the actions of sikh warriors to the outer world OR maybe the media was not there or controlled by the government.

There were less clever stratgists thinking how to MALIGN others e.g. placing liquor bottles room no 14 Darbar sahib?, intruding khalistani groups disguised as sikh warriors and raping innocents i.e. KPS Gills formula etc.

all these led to difference in opinion of the general public who can't intellectually judge things but believe what someone reports/or tells them.