Master Tara Singh

[chatanga]

Just look at what is happening to the Christians in Pakistan. In 1947 their leaders threw their lot in with the Muslims and wanted their population to be counted with the Muslims in determining the partition boundary. That's why I have no sympathy for those Christians who are crying about the way they are treated by the Muslims. Their leaders stated before the boundary commission that they did not wish to live with the idol worshiping Hindus.

the christians were just numbers for the muslim league. what about the ahmadis? the main guy who debated the pakistan argument was an ahmadi, chosen to rep the muslim league in the 4s0s and now they cant even call themsleves muslims.

[Jonny101]

the christians were just numbers for the muslim league. what about the ahmadis? the main guy who debated the pakistan argument was an ahmadi, chosen to rep the muslim league in the 4s0s and now they cant even call themsleves muslims.

The Ahmadis played a very dirty role. Originally they are the ones who started making trouble in Kashmir way back when it was a peaceful princely state. Then they were on the forefront of the Pakistan movement. They thought since they were British lackeys, their British masters would reward Gurdaspur to Pakistan. But that didn't happen and Sikhs cleared Gurdaspur of them remembering their prominent role in Pakistan's creation.

It's ironic that they are the most persecuted minority in Pakistan a state that they help found. Perhaps they should have listened to Maulana Abdul Azad instead of Jinnah. In fact the whole aggressive Dawa tactics that Muslims in the west today use is inspired by the tactics that Ahmadis originally created

[Nalwa]

Considering what we've been put through the past 60odd years, my answer would be Pakistan.

How old are you Kid ? Muslims are worst but it doesn't mean we should become Hindustanis . I see Sikhs more safe in western countries then in Asian countries. I dont how many of you know that so many Sikhs are on the hit list of Philippines mafia everyday there is news of Sikh man killed . We should wait and try to do more to make our community strong specially in India . Time will come when Hindus and Muslims will be on street against each other and that time Sikhs should remain neutral and will strike when it counts .

[UKLondonSikh]

I have heard that he was the one to turn down Dr Ambedkar and 50,000 other dailts to take amrit and become sikhs on the orders of Gandhi

I heard it from some dhadi jatha

UK = The dhadi jatha were clearly wrong on their facts Khalsa Ji. If they don't respect Master Tara Singh they shouldn't stoop so low with such an accusation. No true Sikh on the planet will ever dissuade new entrants to the Panth and Master Tara Singh was a sincere Sikh by conviction. He could easily have lived a comfortable life as a Hindu but instead he chose the Khalsa Panth by sincerity of conviction.

Great discussion.

I thought Akaal Takhat Sahib jathedar declined the Dalits?

So sad this happened.

UK = Don't forget that these jathedars were often British lackeys who chose to define Sikhs in the 1940's Rehat Maryada in such a way as to limit our Panth's population to as small a demographic as possible, which we saw the future consequences of in the Punjabi Suba issue as well as 1984 ... that defining our Panth's population to as small a number as possible (whilst our enemies cleverly do the exact opposite) is the most course of action for the SGPC to take.

I heard some state of heads in Delhi ( under the British rule) sent high ranking sikh army officers to try to talk some sense into Baldev Singh and accept Sikh empire boundries prior to 1848. And the british envisioned three country, India, Pakistan and old sikh empire.

Churchill did say "without sikhs the war might have been lost", and the british were pushing for the three countries.

UK = Simply not true Atwal Ji. The so-called Sikh country in which 87% of the population were non-Sikhs is something the British would never have countenanced given that they gave Sri Nankana Sahib to their Muslim jagirdar friends. The British Empire never gave a damn about the Sikhs and so much is proved by the fact that Sikhs shouldered the majority of the responsibility of freeing erstwhile "British" India (as seen in martyrdom figures and prisoners etc, etc)

http://www.sikhreview.org/january2008/demography.htm

What if we somehow managed to get these 12.24 crore forgotten Sikhs counted as Sikhs and not as Hindus in the Indian population census? That would spontaneously hike up the Sikh numbers from 2.5 crores to some 15 crores? Then the number of Hindus would fall to some 75 crores. Muslims are already at some odd 20 crores or so.

UK = Some of the mentioned population figures in the link are over-exaggerated but the Jatav community (Mayawati's), Kabirpanthi's, Satnami's Vanjara's, Sikligars etc can certainly bring a combined new Sikh Panth population to in excess of 10 crores. However, are we ready to accept our non-Punjabi brothers and sisters as sehajdhari members of the Sikh Panth or is it important that we follow the RSS orders to define them as Hindu's?

Its all rumour nothing else , where are lakhs of Dalit Buddhist who should have converted with Ambedkar ?

UK = Lakhs of Maharashtra Dalitrs did convert to Buddhism. In fact the Buddhist population of India has risen from a few thousand to almost one crore currently on the strength of Dr Ambedkar's conversion alone. Even 10 million extra Sikhs would have boosted the Panth ability to serve humanity for Sarbat Da Bhala to a massive degree.

some excellent points there jashb.

I would like to see more younger SIkhs get into nationalist politics. They seem to shy away from this thinking that its not part of Sikhi, and also the negative politics of our parents generations are also having an effect on them.

UK = Jashb always makes great points but I disagree with Paji on this matter. As for nationalist politics, I think we need to substantially eradicate drugs, female foeticide, socio-economic and cultural discrimination within the Panth, alcohol, poverty, poor health and illiteracy within the Panth as pre-cursors for being in "shape" to win the freedom from terrorist control that all of us desire.

to accept that there is diversity in the panth, and that all samprdayes have their part to play.

UK = 100% agree with you Paji (as well as great points by Proactive Paji and Jonny Paji as usual)

Can we somehow start some sort of agitation to include/count the forgotten 12 crore Sikhs (Vanjaras, Sikligar, et al) as Sikhs and not Hindus. Say the 2014 census of India says Sikhs are now 15 crores, that is like 12% of the 1 billion Indian population, and trust me that number just can NOT be neglected ever, in terms of politics, economy, education or any field. What is even better is that they are spread out all over India, especially in the western and southern states. Add to this a small number of Sikhs coming in from Pakistan and Afghanistan also.

UK = We can start by doing two things - cleaning up our act in Punjab itself (see the threads relating Dhan Dhan (Gur) Ravidas Ji Maharaj and Badal funding the 115cr Valmiki Mandir in Amritsar) and accepting that we need at least 10 crore sehajdhari's for every 10 lakh true Amritdhari's we hope to add to the Panth. So let's stop labelling all those sehajdhari's with faith in Dhan Dhan Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji Maharaj as non-Sikhs. The Puratan definition of a Sikh was anyone of any background who bowed down before Maharaj.

Ambedkar started hobnobbing with sikhs that he wanted to embrace sikhism.Sikhs responded positively.His nephew came

to Akal takhat was initiated as a khalsa.

Amebdkar was a politician.He changed his mind and instead opted for budhism.Sikhs went out of way to accommodate him.

Master Tara singh opened khalsa college at matunga, Bombay so that their children could get higher education. So pl

do not blame Master tara singh ji for that.

During independence he was sidelines by congress promoted leaders like Baldev singh who represented sikhs.Baldev

singh was amde a leader out of nowhere.He sided with nehru without consideration to sikh rights.

Master Tara singh was an honest and true sikh leader much better than likes of Fateh singh and co and todays akali leader.

He lived a simple life, made no meoney and lived ina modest house in one amritsar's dingy area called putlighar. i remember

visiting his house as a kid during his last days when he was bed ridden.He led his life like a man of very modest means and had

no personal property or bank balance when he died.

UK = It pleases me Paji to say that, for once, I wholeheartedly agree with you.

It was Master Tara Singh who sewnt one of his trusted lieutenanst to Mumbai to discourage the mass dalit conversion to sikhi.

ambedkar wanted to raise the social standing (naturally) of the dalits, and saw that the true Sikh ethos was the vehicle to do this, but the attitude of the present Sikh leaders turned his mind. He didnt want to jump out the fire into the frying pan.

I can understand his intentions, and why he took the u turn he did.

UK = I don't believe the allegation against Master Tara Singh Ji. Though I would believe it in relation to Baldev Singh.

One of my best buddies at work is a Dalit Buddhist from Maharashtra who is a hardcore devotee of Dr. Ambedkar. Now let me confess beforehand, I haven't read much about him, just bits and pieces. Most of my knowledge is from my friend who has been unable to answer some of my basic questions.

He says Dr. Ambedkar wanted Dalits to be armed and brave, sort of militant type so that they would never be oppressed ever again. My question was, if that was the case, he would never have opted for Buddhism no matter what as Buddhism has always faced oppression in history. I didn't get a satisfactory answer. In fact, the Buddhism followed by his followers is a totally new concept and different from the ancient Buddhism (I think).

UK = Sikhi alone, would have been the answer to ending oppression (globally) and it still is.

Dr. Ambedkar choosing to adopt any religion that hikes up the social status of his people was indeed a noble gesture, however, that makes me feel he probably wasn't serious about any religion (per say), and only wanted a guaranteed safe political status for his people (irrespective of their religion). The way I understand Sikhi, you become a Sikh once you've decided to die but not quit your faith, you live and die as a Sikh at any cost. You don't ask for anything in return, but are ready to give up your life and also that of your loved ones if needed. Someone "demanding" something before embracing Sikhi seems to me as some sort of a "bargain". Sorry but the only bargain in Sikhi is you offering SatGuru Jee your head and Him giving you whatever He feels best. I apologize but this is how I see Sikhi. The ideals of Gurmat would anyways provide equal status for his community. I don't see a need to ask for enforcing it? I don't mean to offend anyone, but this particular aspect of his somehow makes me feel he probably didn't fully comprehend the actual meaning of becoming a Sikh perhaps? We don't make deals with Guru Sahib now, do we? Please help me understand this about him.

UK = Mehtab Paji i agree with you. However, Sikh leaders should have realised that even if Ambedkar Ji didn't quite fully comprehend Sikhi (as anyone that does only opts for believing it) the millions he would have bought into the Panth could transform the fight against oppression and potentially prevented 1984 from happening had we been numerically stronger. To view non-Punjabi sehajdhari (Dalit) brothers and sisters on the basis of 1940's Rehat Maryada in contradiction to the Puratan definition of a Sikh was a grave mistake to allow Baldev Singh to make (when Baldev Singh did not represent the Panth).

Dr. Ambedkar is the father of the Indian Constitution. He condemned Hinduism, abandoned the thought of embracing Sikhi and ended up embracing Buddhism. As we know, Article 25 of the Indian Constitution brackets both Sikhs and Buddhists as Hindus. My question is how and why did he do that? When I asked my friend, he said it was in fact an entire committee that drafted the Constitution and not just him alone. It doesn't make sense as he is always seen as the father of the Indian Constitution. Can someone please try and explain this as well? Maybe there is a page of history missing? If you hate the religion you are born into, and you end up converting, you would never call both of them the same, would you?

UK = In 1947 India, the Arab word Hindu was seen to encompass all those of Sanatan Dharmic faith schools which include Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhi. Clearly, the rise of Hindutva has meant that all now understand that Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains are not Hindu and never will be. Even Master Tara Singh was merely a nominal signatory of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad in the days when Hindu stood for non-Muslim (outside of Punjab).

Please also help me understand how Dr. Ambedkar not becoming a Sikh proved to be harmful for us. As you can see, the caste system (or any other sugar-coated phrase anyone may want to use) is very much deep rooted in the present day Punjabi Sikh community.

UK = By making all constituents elements of the Panth a minority (for example Punjabi's would have become a minority) it would have encouraged respect for diversity within the Panth. It would have eased the re-integration of tens of crorores of Satnami, Kabirpanthi, Jatavs etc into the Sikh Panth and prevented the splintering funded by RSS and Congress in Punjab's villages (with the aim of making Sikhs a minority in East Punjab by the 2021 census)

How would 7 crore Dalit Sikhs make it any better/worse? What kind of scenarios do we see? Our population would be 22 crores, I am counting 12 and a half crore forgotten Sikhs as well, in addition to the 2 and a half crore Sikhs we already count. We would have a huge population, much more than Christians and Muslims. But what kind of other "caste" related internal issues would we face? Not saying that its good they did not become Sikhs, NO, NEVER! Just trying to think...what if they did?

UK = If our population ever reached 22 crores the Sikh Panth would be the strongest, most united and most "not to be messed with" block within the country. The day would thereafter follow whereby the whole of India would become Khalistan by virtue of a Sikh majority. Right now we are (if we ignore casteism) likely to become a minority in East Punjab by the 2021 census which is only 7 and a half years away. Bear in mind that the Brahmins number 5crores, as do Rajputs, Yadavs and Jatavs similarly. So an individual basis we are not far off matching the biggest non-Muslim communities initially if we can return to the fundamental truths of Sikhi rather than sinking into the drugs, alcohol, caste, illiteracy, infanticide traps laid out by Congress and their RSS allies in the ongoing (silent) Genocide of Sikhs.

[jashb]

Sikhi alone, would have been the answer to ending oppression (globally) and it still is.

Put that in BOLD and BLOCK CAPITAL LETTERS from me my brother

[Mehtab Singh]

SIKHI ALONE, WOULD HAVE BEEN THE ANSWER TO ENDING OPPRESSION (GLOBALLY) AND IT STILL IS.