Jump to content

The real reason why Hindustani's celebrate Bhagat Singh


genie
 Share

Recommended Posts

I used to think Shaheed bhagat singh came from a Sikh family and he was influenced by Sikhism at young age but then later came under wrong socialist communist Marxist influences which made him turn atheistic.

But it turns out from what I read recently his family was actually hindu punjabi arya samajists and arya samajists were deeply opposed to Sikh rights marches and movements back before partition.

This is why I believe he is celebrated more of a hero by indian/hindustani nationalists.than shaheed udham singh and other Indian independence Sikh revolutionaries. Perhaps its time we totally got shot of bhagat singh and look at him in a different light as he contributed nothing for Sikhs or Sikh nationalism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

His contribution was a united Indian voice to the British to stop their unjust ways of dealing with Indians which were the shootings of innocent citizens gathered at jileya wala bhag. His voice was also that of demanding independence. If he had not done what he had done, then maybe more such massacres would have taken place. he put the law breakers into their place. His contribution was never meant to be supportive of any religion. Maybe just the word Singh added after his name seems misleading in the first instance. Thank God that he was an atheist or else then the community gets the labelling of his fighting back behaviour. Perhaps this was also one of the incidents used to label the sikhs as fierce. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, genie said:

I used to think Shaheed bhagat singh came from a Sikh family and he was influenced by Sikhism at young age but then later came under wrong socialist communist Marxist influences which made him turn atheistic.

But it turns out from what I read recently his family was actually hindu punjabi arya samajists and arya samajists were deeply opposed to Sikh rights marches and movements back before partition.

This is why I believe he is celebrated more of a hero by indian/hindustani nationalists.than shaheed udham singh and other Indian independence Sikh revolutionaries. Perhaps its time we totally got shot of bhagat singh and look at him in a different light as he contributed nothing for Sikhs or Sikh nationalism.

Yes, I agree

 

Also, in those days, the division between being a Hindu and Sikh wasn't recognized very much by lots of nominal Sikhs.  They still partook in Hindu practices, etc.  Bhagat Singh's family was nominally Sikh, but they were in reality more into Arya Samaj practices.  Therefore it is not surprising that (to my knowledge) all of Bhagat Singh's brothers became clean shaven.  It was highly unusual for Sikhs born in the early 20th century to be monay.  Also, one of Bhagat Singh's brothers, Kulbir Singh, was an MLA for the Hindu nationalist Jan Sangh party.  So we can see that his family's connection to Sikhi was not very strong.

 

You nailed why Hindustanis celebrate Bhagat Singh, but I will add one reason why "modern" Sikhs celebrate him: became he was a mona.  Monay have inferiority complexes and are happy to have their own "shaheed", and to have someone who they can point to in order to justify why killing their kesh does not matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, californiasardar1 said:

 

Where are you getting this information?  The historical record states otherwise.  He died an atheist mona.

he didn't say to Bhai Randhir Singh he believed in God but by the end of the conversation he accepted that there was something more to life , that he had a soul and there was  an afterlife ... The eyewitness confirms that he had grown his moustache, beard and hair before death , the last picture was taken during the time of the conversation . It suits the hindus to make out he didn't change his position or look, because who else would they hold up as a hero of the struggle ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, jkvlondon said:

he didn't say to Bhai Randhir Singh he believed in God but by the end of the conversation he accepted that there was something more to life , that he had a soul and there was  an afterlife ... The eyewitness confirms that he had grown his moustache, beard and hair before death , the last picture was taken during the time of the conversation . It suits the hindus to make out he didn't change his position or look, because who else would they hold up as a hero of the struggle ?

 

The photo of Bhagat Singh sitting in prison with his dhari and kesh intact is from an arrest in 1927, not the days before his execution.

 

I agree that it is in the interest of Hindustanis to minimize the efforts of Sikhs, and propping up an atheist/arya samaji mona like Bhagat Singh as the only kind of acceptable "sikh" freedom fighter is part of that.  However, I disagree that they do not have icons of their own to hold up as heros of the struggle (see Rajguru, Sukhdev, Lala Lajpat Rai, for instance). 

What the Hindus did was not transform a devout Sikh hero to a secular or Hindu one to make up for the lack of a hero of their own.  But what they did do was, out of thousands of freedom fighters of Sikh descent, choose to highlight the one "Sikh" hero who was the most secular/Hindu.  They did this to portray Sikhs moving in a secular and/or Hindu direction (most importantly, away from Sikhi) as something positive and desirable.  On the other hand, their lack of recognition for the thousands of other, more observant Sikh freedom fighters shows their efforts to obscure the role of the Sikh values and spirit in liberating India.  The goal of these efforts is to prevent the ascendance of role models for the Sikh youth who might inspire them to move towards Sikhi.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, jkvlondon said:

OK so the photo was earlier but he did stop shaving and cutting hair after talking to Bhai Sahib ...

Where is the proof that pic was taken in a supposed 1st arrest? Complete garbage, he accepted sikhi again b4 he was hung as u mentioned. Sum fuddhus cant/wont accept this, but cling on to sum tatti book, he SUPPOSEDLY wrote.

Sardar kapur singh wrote in his book, 'sachi sakhi', that bhagat singh wanted to take amrit and also have bhai randhir singh to b 1 of the panj singhs. But i suppose sardars kapur/randhir singhs were a bunch of liars eh.?

 

Link to comment
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...
 Share

  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • yeh it's true, we shouldn't be lazy and need to learn jhatka shikaar. It doesn't help some of grew up in surrounding areas like Slough and Southall where everyone thought it was super bad for amrit dharis to eat meat, and they were following Sant babas and jathas, and instead the Singhs should have been normalising jhatka just like the recent world war soldiers did. We are trying to rectifiy this and khalsa should learn jhatka.  But I am just writing about bhog for those that are still learning rehit. As I explained, there are all these negative influences in the panth that talk against rehit, but this shouldn't deter us from taking khanda pahul, no matter what level of rehit we are!
    • How is it going to help? The link is of a Sikh hunter. Fine, but what good does that do the lazy Sikh who ate khulla maas in a restaurant? By the way, for the OP, yes, it's against rehit to eat khulla maas.
    • Yeah, Sikhs should do bhog of food they eat. But the point of bhog is to only do bhog of food which is fit to be presented to Maharaj. It's not maryada to do bhog of khulla maas and pretend it's OK to eat. It's not. Come on, bro, you should know better than to bring this Sakhi into it. Is this Sikh in the restaurant accompanied by Guru Gobind Singh ji? Is he fighting a dharam yudh? Or is he merely filling his belly with the nearest restaurant?  Please don't make a mockery of our puratan Singhs' sacrifices by comparing them to lazy Sikhs who eat khulla maas.
    • Seriously?? The Dhadi is trying to be cute. For those who didn't get it, he said: "Some say Maharaj killed bakras (goats). Some say he cut the heads of the Panj Piyaras. The truth is that they weren't goats. It was she-goats (ਬਕਰੀਆਂ). He jhatka'd she-goats. Not he-goats." Wow. This is possibly the stupidest thing I've ever heard in relation to Sikhi.
    • Instead of a 9 inch or larger kirpan, take a smaller kirpan and put it (without gatra) inside your smaller turban and tie the turban tightly. This keeps a kirpan on your person without interfering with the massage or alarming the masseuse. I'm not talking about a trinket but rather an actual small kirpan that fits in a sheath (you'll have to search to find one). As for ahem, "problems", you could get a male masseuse. I don't know where you are, but in most places there are professional masseuses who actually know what they are doing and can really relieve your muscle pains.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use