Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Mehtab Singh

Sikh Group Launches White House Online Petition Against Modi

Recommended Posts

Washington: A New York-based Sikh rights group, which had earlier campaigned against Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi and Manmohan Singh, has launched an online petition campaign urging President Barack Obama to cancel invitation to Prime Minister Narendra Modi for the 2002 communal riots in Gujarat.

"Instead of hosting Modi at White House, President Obama should condemn Modi and ban BJP for perpetrating violence against Muslims, Sikhs and Christians," said the White House online petition which was launched by the Sikh for Justice.

Obama has invited Modi to visit the US and for a meeting with him at the White House on September 30.

"In June 1984, BJP instigated military attack on the Golden Temple resulting in the massacre of thousands of Sikh pilgrims. In 2008, BJP orchestrated violence against Christians in Orissa," the petition alleges.

The petition, requires at least 100,000 signatures by August 20 to gain any attention of the White House, on the first day had got less than two dozen petitions.

The SFJ had campaigned against Gandhi and Singh in connection with the anti-Sikh riots of 1984 following the assassination of the then prime minister Indira Gandhi.

PTI

First Published: Tuesday, July 22, 2014, 19:33

http://zeenews.india.com/news/nation/sikh-group-launches-white-house-online-petition-against-modi_949363.html

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wondering, but why are Sikhs fighting other people's war? I mean we have our own issues with Modi, like the issue of him trying to evict Sikh farmers from Gujarat, let's focus on that. But why 2002 Hindu-Muslims riots that have nothing to do with us? When was the last time Indian Muslims fought for the Sikhs to get justice on 1984? far from it, Indian Muslims are hardcore supporters of Indira Gandhi and congress party which conducted the Sikh genocide.

When 1984 Sikh genocide was happening, the feelings of Indian Muslims is written by Dr. Salman Khursheed in his book "At home in India: a restatement of Indian Muslims"

Salman+Khurshid+on+1984+riots.jpg

We have a bad habit getting involved in other people's conflicts and making extra enemies in the process as if we don't have enough enemies as it is. Let's stick to our own agendas instead of making other people's agendas our own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wondering, but why are Sikhs fighting other people's war? I mean we have our own issues with Modi, like the issue of him trying to evict Sikh farmers from Gujarat, let's focus on that. But why 2002 Hindu-Muslims riots that have nothing to do with us? When was the last time Indian Muslims fought for the Sikhs to get justice on 1984? far from it, Indian Muslims are hardcore supporters of Indira Gandhi and congress party which conducted the Sikh genocide.

When 1984 Sikh genocide was happening, the feelings of Indian Muslims is written by Dr. Salman Khursheed in his book "At home in India: a restatement of Indian Muslims"

Salman+Khurshid+on+1984+riots.jpg

We have a bad habit getting involved in other people's conflicts and making extra enemies in the process as if we don't have enough enemies as it is. Let's stick to our own agendas instead of making other people's agendas our own.

veer ji read the post again it was an objection because violent treatment of sikhs , christians and muslims by Modi in Gujarat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

veer ji read the post again it was an objection because violent treatment of sikhs , christians and muslims by Modi in Gujarat

The article's says"

"A New York-based Sikh rights group, which had earlier campaigned against Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi and Manmohan Singh, has launched an online petition campaign urging President Barack Obama to cancel invitation to Prime Minister Narendra Modi for the 2002 communal riots in Gujarat.

2002 riots have nothing to do with the Sikh community. It is an Indian Muslim issue, the same Indian Muslims who have never put their weight behind the Sikhs on the issue of 1984 as our people are doing for them on 2002 riots. Rather they get a sense of satisfaction and feel 1984 is some sort of Karmic justice for 1947.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The article's says"

"A New York-based Sikh rights group, which had earlier campaigned against Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi and Manmohan Singh, has launched an online petition campaign urging President Barack Obama to cancel invitation to Prime Minister Narendra Modi for the 2002 communal riots in Gujarat.

2002 riots have nothing to do with the Sikh community. It is an Indian Muslim issue, the same Indian Muslims who have never put their weight behind the Sikhs on the issue of 1984 as our people are doing for them on 2002 riots. Rather they get a sense of satisfaction and feel 1984 is some sort of Karmic justice for 1947.

What your saying maybe true, but this is exactly why Maharaj made Sikhs unique, the very fabric of Sikhi is to uphold Dharam " the universal law of righeousness" to always speak the truth, to fight for justice and truth, protection of the weak an opressed. The very principles that were upheld by Guru Tegh Bahadur Maharaj when he attained Shaheedi standing up for the religious freedodoms of the Kashmiri Bhrahmins.

Sikhs are not a tunnel visioned people the role of the Khalsa is to stand up for truth and justice regardless of which faith the weak/oppressed/downtrodden belong to.

The petition itself however will fall on deaf ears even if 1 million signatures were obtained Modi is now PM and western countries are falling over thmeselves to try and get India onside for trade oppurtunities, the world powers dont care about ideals such as human rights, justice etc etc where theres money to be made..

Just like the previous petition where the USA refused to decalre the 1984 Delhi riots a genocide..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.sikhsangat.com/index.php?/topic/74929-should-uk-govt-be-sued-for-aiding-indian-govt-state-terrorism-in-1984-against-sikhs/?p=611477

until the day comes when Sikhs are in a position where they hold an irreplaceable asset extremely dear to the western powers, nobody is going to give a damn about how many massacres we have suffered.

we do NOT have numbers like Christians/Muslims/Hindus that the world will even notice us. But we can make use of whatever we have, in a way that they HAVE TO depend on us someday for something valuable to them, and I am talking in economic terms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the very fabric of Sikhi is to uphold Dharam " the universal law of righeousness" to always speak the truth, to fight for justice and truth, protection of the weak an opressed.

the role of the Khalsa is to stand up for truth and justice regardless of which faith the weak/oppressed/downtrodden belong to.

You're absolutely right veer. I am not disagreeing with you. However here is the thing. To stand up for someone, one first needs to be able to stand up for themselves. India has already used (and continues to use) Sikhs as watchmen over their borders (I am refraining from using the term "watchdog"). The examples of history we aspire to abide by are from the days when the Khalsa was what it is supposed to be, i.e. either baaghi (rebel) or baadshah (ruler). How much of either of these two do we have left today?

When the Singhs were fugitives in the jungles (i.e. baaghi) they rescued more than 22,000 Indian women. When the Singhs had raaj they caused the most feared Afghans and Pathaans to flee. What is our position today? I am in no way saying that what SFJ is doing is wrong. It is a great humanitarian effort and kudos to them. All I saying is that our primary focus, simultaneously, needs to be our own raaj.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The article's says"

"A New York-based Sikh rights group, which had earlier campaigned against Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi and Manmohan Singh, has launched an online petition campaign urging President Barack Obama to cancel invitation to Prime Minister Narendra Modi for the 2002 communal riots in Gujarat.

2002 riots have nothing to do with the Sikh community. It is an Indian Muslim issue, the same Indian Muslims who have never put their weight behind the Sikhs on the issue of 1984 as our people are doing for them on 2002 riots. Rather they get a sense of satisfaction and feel 1984 is some sort of Karmic justice for 1947.

Johnny Veer, please see this Online Petition wordings ...

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/cancel-white-house-invitation-pm-modi-organizer-2002-massacre-muslims-ban-bjp-1984-attack-golden/8fdsZrWf

"CANCEL White House Invitation To PM Modi-Organizer of 2002 Massacre of MUSLIMS. Ban BJP For 1984 Attack On Golden Temple"

Salman Khurshid is a Politician, he has no right OR approval from the entire Muslim community to represent him.

My personal experience - We used to live in Old Delhi in a HINDU Area, we were brutally attacked by Hindu mobs and barely saved our lives. 2 of our friend SIKH families lived in the near by Muslim area (near Jama Masjid), and their Muslim neighbors promised them that no body will be able to even touch them till they were ALIVE ...

Our friend Muslim Doctor living in Old Delhi Muslim area came in the midst of this Genocide and invited us to leave the Hindu area and we move to live with them, but we refused ...

This is a common fight against a system which has become used to attacking minorities religious institutions, whether it is Harminder Sahib, Babri Masjid OR Chritian churches.

This is a common fight against a system which has become used to committing minorities GENOCIDE, whether it is November 1984 OR Gujarat OR Dalit Or Christians massacre in Kerela and Orrisa.

Please sign the petition, I have done it ...Every small little step will take us towards RAAJ, we don't know the path but we will get there. Kudos to SFJ for leading the tough battle ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • The reason why if it is done by state is that if you start on a smaller scale with some flyover state like North Dakota or Arkansas and it is seen as successful and better than the current system, then other states will follow suit. The elites can probably handle one or two problems but if all the states to implement a comprehensive health system simultaneously then the elites will find it difficult to handle. Plus if it becomes a bottom up grass roots movement then you might stand a better chance. 
    • Divide and conquer, of course. Left-leaning coalitions are easy to defeat because they are made up of many different groups, and it is very easy to make it seem like one group is being favoured over another. Whatever issues Sikhs in the UK might have with another group, I think Corbyn (and even more so McDonnell) would have been great allies for the Sikhs. It's a shame. I get the impression that a majority of Sikhs vote Labour (although there are some who love the Tories ... they are the kind of odd people who feel proud that they can claim that their ancestors were from former British colonies). Do a majority of Hindus support the Tories? I don't understand why the British voters were not more receptive to Corbyn's proposals. They sounded pretty good to me: fund the NHS properly, nationalize the railways, etc. I agree that he was clearly a threat to the status quo. Note how it came out later that high-ranking Labour officials were relieved when Labour narrowly lost the 2017 election! I think something similar would have happened in the US if Bernie Sanders had gotten the Democratic party nomination to run for President. Most Dem politicians and most "progressive" business leaders (e.g. Bill Gates) would have privately (or even publicaly) preferred Trump to Sanders.
    • You won't get an argument from me defending insurance companies and the American healthcare model. As I said in my post, the wealthy and powerful (e.g. insurance companies) do everything they can to prevent social safety net programs from being established and/or expanding. They own most of the politicians, and they are very adept at scaring voters by spreading misinformation and framing things in misleading ways. For example, some more left-wing democrats proposed abolishing private health insurance and moving to a more efficient, universal healthcare system. The talking point became that these democrats were "trying to take away your health insurance." Technically it is true, they wanted to take it away and replace it with something better. You can see how misleading it is, but one-liners like that go a long way in politics. It's not the size of the America that makes an NHS-style system impossible. If such a thing were proposed at state levels, the same media campaign against it would take place in those states.
    • Wonderful replies here by the sangat 🙏🏾. A small point to note; if you walk side by side, one of you will stand closer to the Guru and have to walk a slightly shorter distance, while the other will have to stand a little further away from the Guru and walk a slightly longer distance. Who will it be? And how do you decide who gets to stand closer to the Guru? This is what happens when you start splitting hairs. As sangat have mentioned, if you don't like the Anand Karaj, you are more than welcome to get "married" in any other way you see fit...
    • From what I understand is that the insurance companies hold too much sway. In an average US salary, how much percentage of income goes into the medical insurance. What is the point of paying into insurance when it comes to using it, the insurance companies do everything they can not to pay.  In the UK, our NHS money is funded from our National Insurance contributions and I think we probably pay less into our healthcare than people do in the US, so what is your insurance contributions paying into? NI is a tax but at least it's an upfront tax, not this sly stealthy cr*p where it looks like you pay less tax but your money is taken elsewhere. The US maybe a vast place, but if it was done a state by state level where some states are between 5 million to 10 million people, I think it is quite do-able. 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use