Did Khalistanis kill Chamkila! ?

[H908]

45 minutes ago, dallysingh101 said:

I can't see 'the competition' doing this. That's not the impression I get of apnay, and I don't exactly look at our people with gulaab coloured anhkhaan.  As for the tarkhan community doing it: naah, they aren't as obsessed with that honour thing like certain others in the panth - for better or for worse. I don't think they would give a toss about him marrying some other singer, even if she was a tarkhan, in terms of a monolithic community. 

But I will say that a certain prudish mindset might have been at work? What's made me reflect upon this is looking at CP recently, I mean look at chariter 111 (link posted below). Now this chariter isn't coy or prudish AT ALL About animal human instincts and behaviour. And if we have blatant expositions like this within the DG itself, it sort of pushes us away from an excessively puritan mindset about these things? No? 

 

http://www.sikhawareness.com/topic/19991-sri-charitropakhyan-sahib-jee-series-charitar-111/  

Regarding the charitar, i think theres a balance between loving your partner by focusing your physical and mental energy on them. Which would make you be less keen at looking at other people. I think in a sense guru sahib tries to encourage healthy, loving relationships to avoid promiscuity. What chamkila sang about isnt the exact opposite but if you do it in a long term relationship. However, sleeping around isnt going to help you focus in a long term partner or help fight spread of disease

[MisterrSingh]

54 minutes ago, dallysingh101 said:

I can't see 'the competition' doing this. That's not the impression I get of apnay, and I don't exactly look at our people with gulaab coloured anhkhaan.  As for the tarkhan community doing it: naah, they aren't as obsessed with that honour thing like certain others in the panth - for better or for worse. I don't think they would give a toss about him marrying some other singer, even if she was a tarkhan, in terms of a monolithic community. 

But I will say that a certain prudish mindset might have been at work? What's made me reflect upon this is looking at CP recently, I mean look at chariter 111 (link posted below). Now this chariter isn't coy or prudish AT ALL About animal human instincts and behaviour. And if we have blatant expositions like this within the DG itself, it sort of pushes us away from an excessively puritan mindset about these things? No? 

 

http://www.sikhawareness.com/topic/19991-sri-charitropakhyan-sahib-jee-series-charitar-111/  

I can understand why Singh's did it -- if they actually took him out -- but I disagree with the policy. Also, it fuels the animosity between two Punjabi ethnic factions (the largely Jatt militants Vs one of the Ravidassia community's so-called shining lights). These seemingly nuanced issues really should be analysed and discussed before blowing someone away. They really do have deep ramifications beyond the surface problem. 

In essence, yes, gandh filled songs are a no-no, but killing the creator of them is overkill. There's many ways of dealing with someone like that.

[dallysingh101]

36 minutes ago, MisterrSingh said:

In essence, yes, gandh filled songs are a no-no, but killing the creator of them is overkill. There's many ways of dealing with someone like that.

That's the ironic thing though (to me), I didn't like what little I heard of those songs back then (that's even if the snippets I heard were Chamkila's and not someone else's?), but having gone through about a quarter of CP (not to any great depth yet admittedly), a prude could easily be offended by what's within! 

It's this very puritan mindset  that makes hordes of apnay dismiss DG! (You know me already, I think this mindset was introduced by Anglos with their suppressed victorian 'values' after 'annexation'). If kharkus did smoked off Chamkila, what would they have made of CP???

The other thing with that time is the lack of central coordination between kharkus too. It would only take one hothead (or a small group) to go this route (without informing anyone else) for the whole movement to be associated with it.    

I guess what I'm trying to say is that based on what I've read in CP thus far is that prudery of this type (as tasteless as Chamkila could be), let alone a hyper-violent reaction to it, doesn't seem to be part of Sikhi?

Get what I'm saying?

Also look at chariter 3. That's not exactly coy either....

[MisterrSingh]

6 hours ago, dallysingh101 said:

That's the ironic thing though (to me), I didn't like what little I heard of those songs back then (that's even if the snippets I heard were Chamkila's and not someone else's?), but having gone through about a quarter of CP (not to any great depth yet admittedly), a prude could easily be offended by what's within! 

It's this very puritan mindset  that makes hordes of apnay dismiss DG! (You know me already, I think this mindset was introduced by Anglos with their suppressed victorian 'values' after 'annexation'). If kharkus did smoked off Chamkila, what would they have made of CP???

The other thing with that time is the lack of central coordination between kharkus too. It would only take one hothead (or a small group) to go this route (without informing anyone else) for the whole movement to be associated with it.    

I guess what I'm trying to say is that based on what I've read in CP thus far is that prudery of this type (as tasteless as Chamkila could be), let alone a hyper-violent reaction to it, doesn't seem to be part of Sikhi?

Get what I'm saying?

Also look at chariter 3. That's not exactly coy either....

Context, delivery, and intended message  are important, too. I personally wouldn't make the error of drawing parallels between the two (DG and Chamkila's songs) as being analogous to them of possessing similar intent. I don't think DG was ever meant to titilate, for while as entertaining as Chamkila's songs might've been (to the animalistic part of the male brain, lol), I don't believe they were anything other than the Punjabi folk song with a risque bent taken to the extreme. Portions of the DG are a manual, veiled as literature, for the male on how to conduct himself, as well as being a a warning about the unchanging aspects of female nature as manifested in certain types of women, that can destroy a man who perhaps is ignorant of certain norms and behaviours. I refuse to be cowed and bullied by contemporary ideologues who would serve to dismiss these essential life lessons as misogyny because they reveal uncomfortable truths about things they've been brainwashed by secular academics of certain backgrounds. But that's another issue.

A fairly intelligent and somewhat creatively inclined population would take those songs at face value; be entertained by them, admire the compositions, the lyricism, the taboo nature of their stark yet painfully honest social commentary, and leave it at that. Emulating the situations described in those songs by bringing them to life, if that's what people actually started doing, was idiotic and proof of why we can't be trusted to have nice things, lol. 

But there's also the other slightly austere and spiritual part of me that argues that a community or society that revels in debased and provocative tendencies and related expressions, isn't conducive to a healthy collective mindset attuned to goodness. That has nothing to do with white Christian puritanism. I don't buy the theory of ancient Kama Sutra stone carvings in india as being particularly aspirational or something to be emulated, or an indication of a past where low sexual inhibition was indicative of greatness and prosperity.

The ancient empires of the Assyrians, the Babylonians, and the Romans, to name a few, were brought to their knees by a combination of many political and social issues, but the chief of these reasons among the vast majority were their respective population's capitulation to lasciviousness and the indulgence of their voluptuous desires across all levels of society at periods in their history where the phase of pioneering and struggling to build those great civilsations had subsided. Basically, idle minds make work for the devil. That's neither progressive nor admirable.

A healthy and prosperous community with aims of longevity doesn't get to where it needs to be when the males of that society are secretly fondling their wives' younger sisters behind the cow shed or the younger sister in-law is giving her brother-in-law the come-on on the sly. If a people can't be trusted to demarcate fiction / fantasy with real life, then they obviously aren't fit to be trusted with the basics. In that case, I don't see anything other than censoring that behaviour as an obvious recourse. I still wouldn't have killed Chamkila, though. 

[Guest]

14 hours ago, MisterrSingh said:

A guerilla movement should focus its efforts on targeting prominent political and similar figureheads of that standing. Intimidating and cultivating grudges with the very people with whom a rapport should be established in order to construct a groundswell of public support for one's movement, isn't a smart thing to do. It's picking off low hanging fruit, and the smarter and considerably calculating types (or at least those who prone to betray the cause and aren't passionate about the insurgency) within the "janta" are more likely to collaborate with the government and turn informant if they see militants fiddling around with inconsequential trivialities whilst the important stuff is ignored. Sorting out corrosive personalities from within one's own community that undermine that society's moral compass are secondary issues. Important in the long-term, yes, but ultimately an issue that can wait in the face of more pressing matters.

A Chamkila can be cajoled into dropping the gandh and channelling his talent toward making songs that aren't morally subversive. There's ways of dealing with people like Chamkila that don't involve implementing a Sharia mentality. Equally, one has to wonder whether Chamkila, as an artist, was simply commenting on the social phenomena he was observing, or whether he was actively encouraging this behaviour by creating a mindset and worldview eagerly adopted by unintelligent and gullible people.  Of course, if Singhs were used as scapegoats by Chamkila's devious competitors, then that's another issue entirely.

Not trying to boost ur haumae but I wish we had more intelligent ppl like u in qaum

I have long suspected the stereotypical low iq intoxicated Sikh is deliberately promoted to keep the sikhs in dark 

We are far more capable of what the indian establishment wud like us to believe

We're a cultivated petri dish that is useful and praised here and there, but if u take it too seriously and start asking serious questions u r shot dead

Btw since that kuttta pic is beside maanak , someone called him another guru Gobind Singh for Hindus . 

[puzzled]

he was killed by Gurdeep Singh Deepa Heranwala  who was from a pind named heran which is in Doaba.  In Canada chamkila was asked on stage that despite the khalistan movement in full force in Punjab how comes he is still singing his dirty songs and why hasnt any1 stopped him, he replied saying that he was told to stop singing dirty songs several times but then he gave money to members the Sikh student federation and in return they said that he can continue singing. This wasn't true. These people were fighting for the kaum why would they take dirty money from chamkila     So Gurdeep Singh Deepa Heranwala killed him.  It was less to do with dirty songs but more to do with chamkila saying that he settled it down with the singhs by giving them money, which the kharkus took as a big insult.      It terms of dirty songs  most other singers were singing dirty songs anyway.  

Prior to this he had been warned several times and he even released a dharmic album with songs like tera nankana and talwar kalgidhar, which are brilliant songs! but after that he went to his usual songs. 

Gurdeep singh heranwala had killed many corrupt police officers and politicians who were involved in killing innocent sikhs.   Chamkila wasnt a one off kill    he had killed many corrupt officers and politicians.

 

[puzzled]

On 3/15/2020 at 10:59 PM, dallysingh101 said:

As for the tarkhan community doing it: naah, they aren't as obsessed with that honour thing like certain others in the panth - for better or for worse. I don't think they would give a toss about him marrying some other singer, even if she was a tarkhan, in terms of a monolithic community. 

try suggesting tarkhans in the pind to marry their daughters to chamars and see what their reaction is LOL     it aint gnna be a pleasant one i tell you that,   they definitely wont be making you the bachola  

her in laws playing a role in the murder was one of the main theories. Having your daughter-inlaw run away with another man to sing on stage that too with a chamar aint considered some small thing in Punjab lol    especially punjab in the 80s/90s     the amount of shame they faced must of been and probably still is unbearable.  And from what iv heard her inlaws were quite influential which would of made it even worse for them.  

 

As for other singers getting to kill him. Competition was a big thing.  One of his biggest rivals was mohd sadiq and ranjit kaur who by that time were much older but still popular in the 80s. Ranjit kaur had apparently lost her voice, which she did, becoz some1 spiked her drink and it messed her throat up and she could no longer sing    mohd sadiq eventually dumped her.  Stuff like this was quite common among singers.     Singer used to get booked, chamkila was the most booked singer in punjab at the time. Most others singers were pretty much out of work because of him. 

Punjab in the 70s/80s was very feudal like

A lot of these singers were involved in performing for policemen and politicians aswell.  Things used to get political. Singers were used at political rallies depending on the police officers present in the audience and the party they supported .    The stage was used for all sorts of things   

[puzzled]

From todays time it seems bad, but you need to remember this was 1980s/90s Punjab  the place was lawless    people were dying left right center     he just didn't fit in with what was going on considering the situation. So many innocent Sikhs were getting killed  and then there he was singing filth on stage    how do you think that made the kharkus feel? Who had lost everything 

[puzzled]

On 3/15/2020 at 11:53 PM, MisterrSingh said:

There's many ways of dealing with someone like that.

He actually had been warned many times  and that's y he even released a dharmic album    but then he went back to singing his usual stuff     

Singhs had met up with him several times, but he just wouldn't cooperate. And the final thing was what he said on stage in canada. 

 

[MisterrSingh]

8 hours ago, puzzled said:

He actually had been warned many times  and that's y he even released a dharmic album    but then he went back to singing his usual stuff     

Singhs had met up with him several times, but he just wouldn't cooperate. And the final thing was what he said on stage in canada. 

 

Break a limb or two. Put the squeeze on family members. Make his sponsors cancel shows. Intimidate audience into not showing up for his shows. There's countless ways to get at arty types where they'll immediately respond.