Haha....an Interesting Sikh History

[curious_man]

WJKK

WJKF!!

hmm...the writer (sudheer birodkar) needs some understanding!!

comments!!

sikh history

[Akaali]

thats a anti-sikh site.

[mann_kaum_layee_qurbaan]

"Though the Sikhs reject idol worship, they look upon the Granth Saheb as their Guru. The Granth Saheb is placed on a throne (takht) where offerings are made to it and as an act of reverence, fans are waved before it so as to keep it comfortable by circulating the wind around in a way similar to that done for Kings in the past. This betrays a kind of respect for the Guru Granth as though it were a living Guru. This personifies the Guru Granth. The Granth being looked upon as an 'object' of reverence rather than only as a text that gives a message of universal brotherhood in itself betrays a trait of object worship which is but one step behind idol worship (moorti puja of the Hindus). "

wow! sikhi safe in INdia, i don't think so.

[ms514]

Sat Sri Akal:

Heck, I got some free time:

"Though born a Hindu, Nanak was quite careless of the formal demands of Hinduism and openly attacked some of its practices. "

The quote above from the author states:

"We get an insight into the boy's mind when during his thread ceremony he riddled the officiating priest, with questions as to how the mere placing of a thread around his body could initiate him into the religion."

It shows that Guru Nanak Sahib abandoned the customs and traditions of the Hindus and did not comply with their "Rehat". How is one to be a Hindu when he fails to follows any of the religion's commandments? Religion is something that an individual committs to and follows, not something that is genetic.

"This symbol is the Omkar in the Gurumukhi Script. In its graphic as well as in its concept Ek Onkar is quite similar to Om or Omkar."

The prounounciation is OnKaar. This is outlined in the Guru Granth Sahib and Vaaran Bhai Gurdas Sahib. The author is blatantly ignoring correct pronounciation.

"But his ignorance of Mohammedan etiquette nearly cost him his life."

That is like saying that Lord Rama was blatantly ignorant that Raavan was powerful king. Guru Nanak Sahib, through Gurbani, exhibits that poetry that is life-altering...and here we have a man trying to lower that Supremem Being to that of a simpleton. It shows the clear lack of tact and intelligence on the part of the author. Even on the "humanistic" level that the author says he writes, Guru Nanak Sahib's cleverness at the Mecca incident was supremely brilliant and achieved the purpose of forcing those he came into contact with to re-evaluate their blind following of rituals.

"The reason why only Nanak's tradition survived the death of the founder could be found in the fact that Nanak did not present himself as belonging to any particular religion and his message was directed towards all. "

Vaaran Bhai Gurdas Sahib describe the Rehat of the Sikhs of Guru Nanak, that they took Charan Amrit and had a Nitnem...a defined religious path to follow. Guru Nanak established a unique religion from the very beginning and formalized it to its complete form in the tenth form of Guru Gobind Singh Ji by way of the Khalsa Panth. The author is ignoring the very basics of Sikh history to twist the article to his own designs.

"To begin with no name was given to the followers of Guru Nanak but later on they acquired a name. The term 'Sikh' used to describe term means 'disciple' of the Guru and is derived from the term 'Shishya' which in Sanskrit means 'disciple'. "

How much of the Gurbani composed in the Guru Granth Sahib under the title of the First Nanak uses the word Sikh? The author would have the reader believe that Guru Nanak did not even know what the word Sikh was. The word Sikh was not haphazardly applied to the Sikhs at some random point of time. It was there since the time of Guru Nanak. The words of Bhai Gurdas shed light on the matter:

charan dhhoe rehiraas kar charanaamrith skhiaan peelaayaa||

He washed His feet, eulogised God and got his Disciples drink the ambrosia of his feet.

(http://searchgurbani.com/main.ppa?book=bhai_gurdas_vaaran&action=pauripage&pauri=23&vaar=1).

Note the word SIKH, who drank the Charan Amrit. Not there by mere coincidence.

"The fifth Guru Arjan Dev compiled the Sikh canon)the Adi Granth (later to be called Guru Granth Saheb Ji) which alongwith the Sukhmani and the Japjee compi1ed by Guru Nanak, forms part of the worship (Ardas) of the Sikhs."

The author demonstrates his lack of knowledge of Sikhism at every turn of the article. The Gurbani compositions mentioned above are not the "Ardaas" of the Sikhs. The Ardaas is composed of a stanza of the Tenth Master, followed by a composition of Sikhs history and supplication to the Almighty that is generally accepted by the Sikh Panth.

"Guru Arjan Dev declared that it was the duty of every Sikh to give one tenth of his income to the communal treasury and he appointed collectors for each of the twenty two segments to implement this. Thus Sikhism became a theocracy and a state of which the Guru was virtually a king. He used to wear two swords one on each hip which came to known as the 'Piri' the Saint and 'Miri' the Administrator. Here we see the combination of the role of the Church and the State in the context of Sikhism."

That would be Guru Hargobind Sahib Ji...Miri Piri Dah Maalak (keeper of the Temporal-Spiritual). Ignorance knows no limits.

"This was so although as the Gurus preached the message of universal brotherhood all the Gurus themselves and almost all of their followers were drawn from Hinduism."

Could it possibly be that the yoke of Casteism and the downtrodden state of the Hindu population starved for an answer to their spiritual hunger...something that could not be answered by the corrupt Brahmins, who were more interested in protecting their own lives and stomachs behind a curtain of ritualism and genetic superiority?

"It was under the later Gurus that Sikhism came to appear as the militant wing of the Hindu community. The idea of Sikhs being defenders of Hinduism was strengthened during the tenure of the 9th and 10th Gurus. "

Every community and country is willing to accept Sikhism as a separate religion execept India. Somehow, with blindness unparalleled in history, people in India remain the only people that refuse to believe that a Sikh could be separate from a Hindu. Despite the very words offered by Guru Arjun Sahib but a few lines up, the author is able to somehow insist that Sikhism is a militant wing of Hinduism. Despite stating countless times in his own article that Sikhism had a message of universal brotherhood, the author tows his main theme immediately afterwards...that Sikhism is a part of Hinduism. Rather than rehash history that Daas is sure that even the author knows about Sikhism, perhaps it is simply time to request the author to make up his mind...whether Sikhism really does preach universal brotherhood and equality (concepts that are not in line with traditional Hinduism/Brahminism, with reference to caste) or is it really a branch of Hinduism (despite the very teachings of the Gurus themselves that deride the Brahminical teachings, deride unequality, deride useless ritualism and uphold the One Supreme Almighty, a concept that is no practicing Hindu follows).

"This phase of the Sikh religion was a direct result of Mughal oppression. The Mughal rulers had no love for a sect that originated from among the Kafirs (Hindus) but had adapted Islamic ideas like monotheism rejection of idol worship, military theocracy and who with the indigenous Hindu terminology of expression tried to secure a following also among the adherents of Islam. "

From the time of Guru Nanak Sahib, the Gurus spoke vehemently against the Mughals. They founded the concept of calling a spade a spade right from the beginning. Guru Nanak himself describes the conquest of Babbar into India and the rampant violence against the helpless that ensued. This was not a concept that began only after Sikhism became a target of Mughals...it was the lofty concept that was embedded into the religion right from the First Master.

"Seen here is a Keshadhari dwarpala guarding a Gurudwara."

Suddenly, the author has had a bout of amnesia and forgotten the physical form of a Sikh. Mr. Birodkar, in the picture stands a Sikh...the very people that saved not only Hinduism, but the entirity of Indian culture from assimilation. The least respect that you could pay them is to label them appropriately. Shame on you.

"True to the spirit of his faith the Guru decided to approach the fanatical Mughal emperor Aurangzeb himself for a redress of the grievances."

Obviously, the "faith" of the Ninth Master was not that of a Hindu, as per Hindu law, these complaints should be directly forwarded to the Kshytrias, who were too busy marrying their daughters, or forcing them into the harems, of the Mughals to protect their Kingdoms.

"All members of the Khalsa were required to suffix their name with the term 'Singh' meaning 'lion'."

Have we forgotten that there are women Sikhs too?

"Once the Guru was delivering an inspiring speech before a group of Sikh youths on the necessity for every youth in the community to be ready to sacrifice everything he had including his life for the cause of his faith. The response of the youths was enthusiastic and many expressed their readiness to get enrolled in the Khalsa Panth. But the Guru' s standards of integrity were very high and he said that he would require the heads of those who wanted to join the Khalsa. The Guru pulled out his sword and beckoned the enthusiastic youths to come forward and lay down their lives there and then. "

That would be Bisakhi 1699. Those present were not just "youths", but rather his Sikhs. They numbered in about 80,000, to whom the Guru Sahib had hand written invitations to Bisakhi himself for months.

"But those who fled were never to learn the secret of what happened to those brave youths, five in number, who had offered their heads to the Guru and who were the first Panj Pyaras. Contrary to the impression that he created, after leading every youth into the tent, the Guru embraced each of them and installed them as his select soldiers who were to form the Khalsa army. "

To igonore the spiritual events of the Amrit Sanchar that ensued is the grossest of insults to the Sikh ceremony of Amrit. The author completely ignores the spiritual meaning and ignores the very status of the Panj Pyare, belittling them to an "army". These five were Guru Roop and even Guru Gobind Singh Sahib answered to them. They were not simply Generals or Mercenaries...they were the Supreme Culmination of the work of the Ten Physical Masters of One Light.

"This aspect of the kada signifying womanhood and shame was later not mentioned for obvious reasons and is not reflected in the Sikh legend. It was this act on part of Guru Ji that spurred on his followers to avenge their oppression by the Muslims and finally led to their successes under Maharaja Ranjit Singh in 1799. "

The author now claims to know history of Sikhs better than Sikhs themselves. The above explanation is not mentioned in ANY Sikh historical text and the author admits to that. So one must wonder where the author's source for his assumption is founded in. Daas would mention the source, but it is commonly regarded as a curse word. Suffice it to say that it is the solid waste product of a bull after digestion.

"Those members of the Sikh Panth (sect) who observed the five visible signs, and also used the suffix "Singh" (lion) with their names, imbibed the fighting spirit inculcated by Guru Gobind Singh. They came to be known as Keshadharis (wearers of unshorn hair) and those Sikhs (i.e. virtually all the remaining people of Punjab) who revered the Gurus but did not accept the 5 Kakkars laid down by Guru Gobind Singh Ji and did not use the suffix "Singh" were called Sahejdharis (casual devotees), or plainly speaking - Punjabis (i.e. Punjabi Hindus). "

"They came known as...". The definition of a Sikh is outlined in the Rehat Maryada (the WHOLE Rehat Maryada...not just the first few sections). A Sikh must commit the self to the Guru and give his/her head up for the title of Sikh. One does not (as the author believes) just observe the five signs and adopt Singh as the last name to become a Sikh. Mind you, by this assertion, no woman can ever be a Sikh, acording to the author. The distinction between a Sehajdhari and a Punjabi is clear. Punjabi is a genetic label. It refers to those people whose ancestry is of the Punjab. Sehajdharis are those people who are training themselves to become Sikhs, but have not yet made the committment to become Sikhs. The author seems to have closed his eyes to the Western Sikhs, who are not of the Punjab. In the obtuse world of the author, Sikhism was only meant for the Punjabis. Again, the author turns a blind eye to even his own writings, that state Sikhism's Universal appeal. Mr. Birodkar, Sikhism is a Universal Faith. Open your eyes and look around.

"After a stormy life, full of daring adventures, he died on the battlefield fighting the Mughal Oppressors."

No knowledge of Sikh history. Gurbaksh Singh aka. Banda Singh Bahadur was taken prisioner, along with his soldiers in battle and was tortured to death. He did not die on the battlefield.

"Marathas this...Marathas that..."

Of course, the Sikhs were doing nothing at all during this time...right. Thanks to the author for neglecting to mention any of the brave Sikh campaigns during this time period.

"(On his death-bed he is said to have expressed a desire to offer his most precious possession to the Jagannath Puri temple at Orissa. He was asked by the chief Mahant (priest) of the Jagannath Puri temple as to what he considered most precious. In reply Maharaja Ranjit Singh Ji is said to have told the Mahant that as a Keshadhari follower of the Guru, his unshorn hair was most precious to him and he wanted to donate that to the temple along with umpteen gold and jewellery.) "

Daas is anxious to see the link to this reference. Not that it would make a difference. The character of Maharaja Ranjit Singh was at many times at odd with Sikh ideals.

"These Mahants were considered to have uncertain loyalty towards their Sikh faith vis-a-vis Hinduism. And by virtue of the vital position they held as officiating priests at Gurudwaras, they represented a potent force that could merge the Sikhs with Hinduism. "

The author neglects to mention the unsavory character of some of these Mahants. But given his selective ignorance for history, one is not surprised that the root cause of the Singh Sabha movement and the Gurudwara Reform Movement is lost to the author.

"The emphasis on Sikhs being a separate community distinct from the Hindus was sought to be expressed in terms of the 5 distinguishing symbols the Keshadhari Sikhs thus implying that the Sahejdhari Sikhs were not true Sikhs and that the religion which bore the name Sikhism was limited to members of the Khalsa Panth."

The Tenth Master thought so too. But perhaps the author chooses not to read certain parts of Sikh history.

" The list of parallels could be an endless one."

Please...provide. Daas can provide a list just as long of Sikhism's parallels with other religions of the world too. Making generalizations and remarks with no references seems to be the trademark of this author.

"A look atop a Gurudwara cannot miss the triangular saffron flag due to which a the place of worship could be considered to be a Hindu temple unless one is aware of the distinguishing architectural features of a Gurudwara. "

Sikhs have beards too...does that make them Muslims? Sikhs wear Kacherras...does that make them Jewish priests? The desparate attempts being made by the author to link Sikhism to Hinduism are pity-inducing.

"Sikh spiritual leaders and priests use Saffron cloth for their turbans and dress as they consider the Saffron colour to have a religious significance though in the 1980s it had become a symbol of revivalism and bigotry (for the terrorists)."

The author must be reading NCERT sponsored books for his material. What part of the movement was bigotry? Were Sikhs as a whole running around killing Hindus every day, or was it the other way around?

"The second thing that meets the eye while looking at Gurudwara is the letter "Ek Onkar" which is inscrlbed on most Gurudwaras (it means "One God"). The concept of God as Om is evidently borrowed from the Hindu concept which is also inscribed on many Hindu temples."

The concept of Om has also a basis in the Hindu concept of the Trinity...namely the Brahm, the Vishnu and the Shiva. Guru Nanak Sahib's use of Ik OnKaar is actually the opposite of that and speaks of the ONE Almighty, not the Trinity. One could also state that the Om looks like a 3...so Hinduism has a monopoly on the number 3 now.

"Pheres"

The author states the truth. Until recently, Sikhs were even using Pandits to get married. But that was more an ignorance of their own faith's teachings than a "parallel" to Hinduism.

"Cremation"

The Sikh Rehat Maryada is explicit that the method of disposing of a deceased corpse is not important. Cremation is popular, but by no means exclusive.

"The pond or lotus pond (Pushkara) that is built near many Hindu temples has its parallel to the Amrit-sarovar around the Golden temple at Amritsar."

The Sarovar also looks like a moat around many castles...shall we say that Sikhs were really inspired by Saxon castle builders?

"Since ancient times those who entered Sanyasa, the last stage of an ideal life for a Hindu, grew beard and hair and tied the hair in a knot atop their heads. The presence of long hair and beard was a sign of a man who had forsaken material pursuits. "

The long uncut hair are not exclusive to Hinduism or India either. Again, the author's vision does not peer outside of India. Sad really...

"the Guru-Shishya tradition around which the Sikh Panth is built evidently betrays its Hindu Origin."

But not the tradition of the Guru being embodied in the Shabad. Suddenly, the Sikhism that the author would have us believe was a photocopy of Hinduism looks like the Semetic religions...there's that Universality again...darn, it keeps ruining the author's claims.

"Though the Sikhs reject idol worship, they look upon the Granth Saheb as their Guru. The Granth Saheb is placed on a throne (takht) where offerings are made to it and as an act of reverence, fans are waved before it so as to keep it comfortable by circulating the wind around in a way similar to that done for Kings in the past. This betrays a kind of respect for the Guru Granth as though it were a living Guru. This personifies the Guru Granth. The Granth being looked upon as an 'object' of reverence rather than only as a text that gives a message of universal brotherhood in itself betrays a trait of object worship which is but one step behind idol worship (moorti puja of the Hindus). "

One who listens to the teachings of the Guru Granth Sahib and is caused by the Almighty to understand and embody them will want to matha tek that word. The teachings that take a simpleton and raise him/her to the Abode of the Almighty is to be treated like a King. The problem with the author is that his vision is unable to see the priceless teachings of the Guru Granth Sahib. He does not understand WHY a person would bow to a "mere scripture". But to a Sikh, to whom the Almighty has blessed with the message of Gurbani, there is no choice but to bow to that message which opens the mind to a higher living.

"Despite their insistence on having a cultural identity distinct from the Hindus the Keshadharis continue to celebrate Hindu festivals like Diwali, Holi (Hola Mohalla) and Baisikhi in a popular way. Even other traditional Hindu festivals like Janmastami, Ramnavami, Mahashivratri and Vijaya-Dashmi are observed, though keshadhari participation in these festivals is not as popular) and in recent times it seems to be on the wane."

Diwali=Bandi Chhor - has nothing to do with Lord Rama as per Sikhism. Hola Mohalla has nothing to do with Holi. Bisakhi - Sikhs are not celebrating a harvest, but the Birth of the Khalsa. So what do these have to do with Hinduism? And if Sikhs are participating in Hindu festivals, it is not beacuse their religion tells them to do so.

"And in doing so the terrorists were waging a matricidal war on a people whose religion and religion, history and culture was their own cradle. It is not surprising that several Indians regarded the activities of the terrorists as those of prodigals gone berserk. Though Keshadharis have always tried to ensure their status as an independent religious community, the anti-Hindu slant was of recent origin. Hindus (Sahejadharis in the context of Punjab) and Keshadharis had till recently never looked upon each other as members of different faiths leave alone of rival or enemy faiths."

The Gurus were executed and harassed at the advice of the Hindu advisors of the Mughals. Hill Rajas attacked alongside with the Mughals against the Sikhs. Brahmins reeked havok with Sikh history by attempting at various times to insert Hindu principles into Sikh history (much like this author). Sikhism has been under siege by Brahminism since its inception. It was not until 1984 that Sikhs began to see this for the first time.

"The anti-Hindu slant of the 1980s among the Keshadharis (or at least among some sections of them) was a recent phenomenon. In its earlier days Sikhism functioned as a reform movement among the Hindus of Punjab from whom came the followers of the Gurus some of whom became Keshadharis. "

...and in the process gave up everything "Hindu" about themselves.

"The principles of Guru Nanak Dev Ji were fundamentally different from the various Hindu sects his message was nevertheless couched in a Hindu terminology and methods of expression."

The author admits that the teachings of Guru Nanak were different from Hinduism. They were "couched" in "Hindu" terminology because he was preaching to a Hindu country. If I was trying to start a religion in Russia, I would not go there and speak Swahili now would I?

I am tired of reading this poop. The author demonstrates not even the slightest knowledge of Sikhism in his essay. His references are non-existent and his creation of warped history in the midst of the essay is a vain attempt at subverting Sikh history.

One aspect I would certainly ask...that Sikhnet vehmently pursue litigation against the author and the host site for using the images on the website without permission from them.

My impression of the author:

[ms514]

Sat Sri Akal:

Daas is a moorakh. Have the words of a Guru Ka Sikh, Sant Jarnal Singh Ji, regarding the issue:

THE SIKH RELIGION IS DISTINCT

They are not prepared to accept Sikhs as a distinct Nation. I had a

conversation with Subramaniam and Ram Jethamalani. They

consider themselves to be wise persons. They asked (me): "How are

the Sikhs a separate Nation?" I said: "If I prove it will you agree?

They answered: "In that case, perhaps". I told them: "The (Sikh)

Nation has some attributes that set it apart.

Sikh Scripture Is Different

Our religious authority is different from that of other people. Khalsa

Ji: Qura'n has thirty chapters, Geeta has eighteen. Geeta nowhere

provides for a Muslim to attain heaven. Geeta does not provide for

the deliverance of a Muslim. In the thirty chapters of the Qura'n

nothing is written about the deliverance of a Hindu. But the place

where we are sitting today, in the Guru (that it belongs to), in the

Beloved Guru (Siri Guru Granth Sahib) whom we all revere; Kabir

Ji, the weaver, is seated; out of Cobblers, Bhagat Ravidas Ji is

seated; of Potters, Beni Ji is seated; of Jats, Dhanna Ji is seated; of

Brahmins, Jaidev Ji is seated; of Washermen, Namdev Ji is seated; of

Barbers, Sain Ji, the barber, is seated. Who did not get a place here?

A Hindu can not touch the ground with his forehead in a mosque. In

a Hindu temple, a Muslim cannot touch the ground with his

forehead. But has anyone ever been turned away from this (the

Guru's) door? This is our uniqueness.

Only Sikhs Have Free Kitchens

If you travel in this world - I too have had the opportunity to go out

in Hindostan to a few places. I have been to Gaya. The Budh Temple

in Gaya cost four crores of rupees to build, but if anyone wants a

drink of water, he has to pay half a rupee for a glass of water. You

will get it for a price, not free. The row of people getting free food

will not be found in a mosque or in a Hindu temple. Nor will it be

found in a church. The row of people getting free food is only found

in the court of Guru Ram Das, Guru Nanak, Guru Gobind Singh

Sahib. You will not find it elsewhere.

Why The Opposition To Sikh Identity?

Jethamalani said: "I consider the entire population of Hindostan to be

a Nation". I said: "How many countries are there (in the world)?" He

said: "117." I said: "There are 117 nations. If you accept the

existence of Sikhs as the 118th nation, would some calamity strike?"

He answered: "None". I asked him: "Section 25 of the Indian

Constitution says Jains are Hindu, Budhs are Hindu, and Sikhs are

Hindu. If the entire population of India is one nation, what was the

need to specially name these three in the Constitution?" He said: "I

have no answer". Here is a lawyer of the Supreme Court (of India).

He charges twelve thousand rupees for each hour of debate and he

says: "I have no answer". It is not in my control that there is no

answer. "You tell me if we are a separate nation or not. Why don't

you accept this? Is it because this is a Nation that wishes to live with

a sense of honor, it is a Nation that wishes to live with self-respect?",

I asked him.

Sikhs Have Always Stood For Justice For All

He (Ram Jethamalani) said: "Hindus are being unfairly treated, there

is communalism in the minds of many Sikhs." I asked him: "When

the agitation against the emergency (1975-1977) was going on, were

handcuffs put on Longowal?" He said: "No". I asked: "How about

Tohra (Jathedar Gurcharan Singh Tohra, President of Shiromani

Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee), Talwandi (Jathedar Jagdev Singh

Talwandi), Badal (Sardar Parkash Singh Badal, former Chief

Minister of Punjab), other Sikh leaders, Bhindranwale?" He said:

"No one was handcuffed." I asked him who arrested you? He said:

"Hindus". I asked him who were arrested (at that time)? He said:

"Hindus". I said: "What then was the need for us (Sikhs) to launch a

protest (against the declaration of national emergency and

curtailment of civil liberties) from the (Akal) Takhat Sahib? (It was

because) we believed in brotherhood of all, we had love for

because) we believed in brotherhood of all, we had love for

humanity. We had firm conviction in the teaching: Naanak Naam

Charrdee Kalaa(n) ["Nanak says: God's Name is glorious"]. We

followed (the teaching): Tere Bhaane Sarbat Daa(n) Bhallaa ["There

is good for all in accepting Your will"]. That was the reason we

started the agitation from here. Now you tell (us) how many out of

your community of 660 million went to jail to protect your rights,

and how many out of the community of 17.5 million courted arrest to

get you released?" He said: "You had more". I told him: "Now we

are struggling on behalf of all Punjabis. We are not making demands.

We are asking for our rights, only our rights. And we have to get our

rights, it is not that we are not to get them and all this is idle talk. We

have to get them even if it means we are cut up bit by bit. We have to

get them under all circumstances." Khalsa Ji: when I asked him:

"Tell me this. Here the Akali Dal has assembled the entire Sikh

Panth in this protest. Out of our 660 million Hindu brothers, how

many have courted arrest? How many have gone with us to get us out

of jails?" He (had no answer and) was quiet. Khalsa Ji: the

Congregation should please pardon me but the weakness is in

ourselves. When we sit on this stage and speak, why don't we talk

about the Sikh Nation being distinct? The weakness is ours. We are

sinners of the house of our Guru.

Laws Discriminate Against Sikh Beliefs And Practices

Sikhs are a distinct Nation. It is not (really) necessary to be so called

but from the worldly point of view and other reasons it has become

necessary. When you have to go to a foreign country, if you have

been married here according to Anand Karaj (the Sikh marriage

ceremony) in the presence of our Guru (Siri Guru Granth Sahib), you

will have to certify in writing that you were married according to

Hindu rites, not according to Sikh religion in the presence of the

Guru. Else you will not be able to travel. Son of a Sikh cannot inherit

his paternal property till he is 17. If Chhalli Ram (a Hindu) is born to

Talli Ram (Hindu names contemptuously coined by Sant

Bhindranwale), he is heir to his father's property at birth. For these

reasons it is necessary to have us declared a separate religion in the

Constitution. We cannot acquire more than 17 acres of land, we

cannot own property (beyond this limit). But if Gulli Ram is born to

Chhalli Ram, even if the property is worth four crore (forty million)

rupees, he is the owner of that property. This is (the yoke of) slavery

around our necks.

Sikhs Not Allowed Free Travel In India

The country is free, but a line is drawn. A person who has a turban

on, whether he belongs to the Congress party or is an Akali or a

Communist, cannot reach Delhi during the Asian Games. But a

fellow who has cut his hair, is associated with a Hindu there, can go.

Isn't this slavery?

Sant Ji gives the real picture.

:e: