Why The Movement Died?

[dallysingh101 3,044]

It wasn't based on an individual but a small group of people inc Shaheed Harminder Singh, Bhai Manjit Singh, Harminder Singh Gill (eventual traitor to the panth), Rajinder Singh Mehta, Amarjit Singh Chawla amongst others.

The men were members of AISSF, but fought more from an ideological perspective than the actual warfare which is where most Sikhs were concentrated.

Because these men were in jails for years in india, they didn't get the opportunity to advance their cause as much as they wanted to. The motivation was there, but circumstances were against them.

I know you've got a better chance of understanding what I'm about to say because you've got a reasonable idea of historical documents of our community from another forum.

Let me try and contextualise something very important to you. If you look at the dating of Prem Sumarag and the contents; so we are looking at at least an early 1800s dating as evidenced by Leyden's translations (and maybe possibly earlier?), note the outright sophistication and sheer breadth of the contents, from arranging military units, statecraft, prescribed prayers, acceptable marriage practices including across caste and even religion, meditation techniques, employment, remedies for excess drug consumption etc. etc. - you should note that our community was able to produce manuscripts of such detail and wisdom despite all manner of violence and disruption being inflicted on Panjab during the period. Contrast that with the Khalistani lehar. I mean the violent 1700s even generated the creation of umpteen rehat-namas, which (when you look at it) are (amongst other things) essentially attempts to normalise or standardise behaviour in an extremely volatile, unpredictable time. Again, compare this to modern times.

You know from SA that some us feel that our indigenous intellectual traditions were subverted or hammered out of existence under British rule and this might explain the lack of sophistication in the movement compared to what historically preceded it?

I mean look at this for a contrast:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/07/isis-papers-guardian-syria-iraq-bureaucracy

[JagsawSingh 860]

In theory, this is a nice little thread. I salute not2cool2rgue's valiant effort to instigate an intellectual discussion based on historical events. The man (or woman....for, in my experience, it is mostly women with whom you shouldn't argue......unless you (unlike me) are capable of making your own roti) deserves upmost respect for starting this thread.

Ordinarily, I'd be in my element on this thread but there;s something about it that reminds me of what I teach my boys when I sit them down for one my 'history lectures' and for that reason, I'm going to rewind a generation before the American Civil War and tell you Sikh brothers and sisters that it is the American War of Independance that s most relevant to we, the Sikhs......and one that we should not relent in reminding not only the Indians about but also using as a lobbying tool amongst American Senators and Congresmen, for it is one that would make the entire American nation understand and support our cause:

Let us, of course, remind ourselves how the Indians refer to the night of 31st October 1984 in Delhi where 5000 Sikhs were murdered and 10000 Sikh women were gang-raped, as a 'riot'. Keep that thought in your mind for one moment.

Now though, transplant yourselves to America in 1770. It was a nation ruled by the British. It was part of Britain. There were some that were OK with that and there were some that wern't. The ones that wern't were labelled 'terrorists' by the govt and subjected to the kind of torture, imprisonment and death that the Sikhs of India 2016 know only too well as the present rather than 'history'. But then came something that happened in Boston on March 5th 1770. The British murdered a lot of Americans. It was not the first time. They'd murdered Americans before but what made this different is the word that they used. It was a massacre. Even a child who had no concept of the word 'massacre' knew that this type of killing must be a massacre. The British however, refused to call it a 'massacre'. Instead, they described it as a 'riot'. There were debates in the British Parliament about whether what happened in Boston could be called a 'riot' even though it was clearly a massacre. In the end though, after the debates, they realised how semantics could either chalenge or reinforce their rule so.....They described it as the 'Boston Riot'. At that point, the entire American nation became united. They realised that if the occupying force can describe thier mass murder as a 'riot' rather than the massacre that it was than that must mean that they (the occupying force) must place a very low value on theirs and their children's lives. And so, from that moment, because the words 'riot' and 'massacre' meant so much to people who genuinely believed in self-determination and freedom, the American revolution was born. From that moment, because of that reason, it became the entire American nation against the British, and we all know who won that one.

And so, every story, or every post, must have a moral and I suppose the moral of this one is that we shouldn't be looking for inspiration in the American Civil War when then the American War of Idependance just a few years before, shows us that their catalyst is our catalyst. Should we not be showing the most powerfull and influential nation on earth tthat we are them ?

[JSinghnz 1,086]

In theory, this is a nice little thread. I salute not2cool2rgue's valiant effort to instigate an intellectual discussion based on historical events. The man (or woman....for, in my experience, it is mostly women with whom you shouldn't argue......unless you (unlike me) are capable of making your own roti) deserves upmost respect for starting this thread.

Ordinarily, I'd be in my element on this thread but there;s something about it that reminds me of what I teach my boys when I sit them down for one my 'history lectures' and for that reason, I'm going to rewind a generation before the American Civil War and tell you Sikh brothers and sisters that it is the American War of Independance that s most relevant to we, the Sikhs......and one that we should not relent in reminding not only the Indians about but also using as a lobbying tool amongst American Senators and Congresmen, for it is one that would make the entire American nation understand and support our cause:

Let us, of course, remind ourselves how the Indians refer to the night of 31st October 1984 in Delhi where 5000 Sikhs were murdered and 10000 Sikh women were gang-raped, as a 'riot'. Keep that thought in your mind for one moment.

Now though, transplant yourselves to America in 1770. It was a nation ruled by the British. It was part of Britain. There were some that were OK with that and there were some that wern't. The ones that wern't were labelled 'terrorists' by the govt and subjected to the kind of torture, imprisonment and death that the Sikhs of India 2016 know only too well as the present rather than 'history'. But then came something that happened in Boston on March 5th 1770. The British murdered a lot of Americans. It was not the first time. They'd murdered Americans before but what made this different is the word that they used. It was a massacre. Even a child who had no concept of the word 'massacre' knew that this type of killing must be a massacre. The British however, refused to call it a 'massacre'. Instead, they described it as a 'riot'. There were debates in the British Parliament about whether what happened in Boston could be called a 'riot' even though it was clearly a massacre. In the end though, after the debates, they realised how semantics could either chalenge or reinforce their rule so.....They described it as the 'Boston Riot'. At that point, the entire American nation became united. They realised that if the occupying force can describe thier mass murder as a 'riot' rather than the massacre that it was than that must mean that they (the occupying force) must place a very low value on theirs and their children's lives. And so, from that moment, because the words 'riot' and 'massacre' meant so much to people who genuinely believed in self-determination and freedom, the American revolution was born. From that moment, because of that reason, it became the entire American nation against the British, and we all know who won that one.

And so, every story, or every post, must have a moral and I suppose the moral of this one is that we shouldn't be looking for inspiration in the American Civil War when then the American War of Idependance just a few years before, shows us that their catalyst is our catalyst. Should we not be showing the most powerfull and influential nation on earth tthat we are them ?

"At that point, the entire American nation became united."

At that says it all because our people do not understand the meaning of unity.

Till date they are divided by the hindu created and britsh promoted caste system.

Unless we are united there is no hope for us.