-
Bhangra discussion is still going strong. Join us in our Facebook group!
New user registration has been closed (as it was entirely spam). We encourage you to post in our Facebook group, even if it's a followup to an existing thread. BTF will continue to be archived and hosted here - Saleem
.
- Thread starter Turbo
- Start date
turbo good post, i had asked a Sikh friend about him once, and his response basically along the lines of your response.
i started becoming confused because of the things i read on pol about him (in the non bhangra forums) and recently here. my friend moved away to england tho, and unfortunately i havent heard from him in a while.
i started becoming confused because of the things i read on pol about him (in the non bhangra forums) and recently here. my friend moved away to england tho, and unfortunately i havent heard from him in a while.
Summy
New Member
- Messages
- 11
A little bit of wikipedia mixed with some personal bias, never a great thing.
I was also raised in Punjab. Bhindranwale came to Nakodar many times and preached his stuff. I lived through the terrorism of Punjab, I lived through it. Now, if you want to defend Bhindranwale, a separator, someone who walked around with a gun in Harimandir Sahib Ji, a fortress that Guru Ram Das built and was told that this wa sbuilt so no more wars could be fought, and you bring fights into there I will defend my religion from people like this. Personally, Bhindranwale, everyone knows, I dont seem him as a sant. Not at all. A Sant doesnt entice fights, he merely defends innocents. You can say that he defended innocents, which in some manner he did, but he was defending them from things he brought on.
So lets do it, lets talk about Mr. Bhindranwale.
1) Your whole assertion of Bhindranwale being a religious man without political influence, and how he started to become political is wrong. Its blinding to the real story:
Here are some facts, and I will cite all the works for your happiness:
---During the S.G.P.C. elections of 1979, 'Of the forty candidates Bhindranwale put up [for a total of 140 seats], all but four were defeated. Cite: Singh, Khushwant, p. 332. A History of the Sikhs, Volume 2: 1839-1988 (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1999), p. 328.
--- 'For all his protestations that he was not a politician, Bhindranwale campaigned actively for the Congress in three constituencies' during the 1980 general elections. -> Tully, p. 61. Amritsar: Mrs Gandhi's Last Battle (New Delhi: Rupa & Co, 1985), p. 177.
---During the 1981 elections to the Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (D.S.G.P.C.), 'in an attempt to divide Akali votes, the Congress (I) had asked the A.I.S.S.F. [All India Sikh Students Federation] to put up candidates for the Delhi gurdwaras whose campaign was led by Sant Bhindranwale. No A.I.S.S.F. candidate won.' -- Joshi, Chand, Bhindranwale: Myth and Reality (New Delhi: Vikas Publishing House, 1984), p. 85
--- At one point in 1983, the Talwandi-Tohra faction of the Akali Dal got a section of the S.G.P.C. to recommend Bhindranwale for the position of jathedar of the Akal Takht.
Joshi, p. 130
---According to India Today, in the months leading up to Operation Bluestar about a third of Longowal's S.G.P.C. members and district Akali Dal presidents had 'defected' to Bhindranwale.
--- The Darbar Sahib's Public Relations Officer (P.R.O.) Narinderjit Singh Nanda recalled, 'Bhindranwale told me that within thirty days he was taking over the S.G.P.C. Tully, p. 202
This is coming from the same guy who said, beat me with a shoe if I ever become president of the SGPC. He had political desires. His want was not for the rightouesness of sikhism, because those people dont go around spreading the word with ak47's attached to their chest. He had an agenda.
=======================================================================
He was "accused" of killing Lala Jagat Narin? He was involved with the murder, or else he wouldnt have hid, or he wouldnt have done the things he did. Your kidding yourself. Dilbir Singh related the following account of how masterfully Bhindranwale ordered the killing of Lala Jagat Narain, proprietor-editor of the Hind Samachar group of newspapers:
And in one edition Lala had written in an editorial comment that Taura [Tohra, then president of the S.G.P.C.] and Ajnoha [then jathedar of the Akal Takht] are traitors. On that day in a great fury he [Bhindranwale] called upon someone to read aloud what Lala had said. There was quiet. 'Our turban has been torn from our heads,' he proclaimed. Then one of his followers asked, 'What are your orders?' Again in anger, he said 'Orders, you need orders! What orders? Are you blind?' Now you see he did not say anything. And they said it. 'O.K.' meaning thereby, we'll finish this man. So, then, 3-4 days later, Lala was coming from Ludhiana and they fired upon him.65
Haha, the "indian government brought people from pakistan, dressed them up as sikhs and made them go around killing veryone"... hahahah. What? Prove that. Thats the wildest, most uneducated claim ive ever heard. Give me ONE citation from a respectable source. Haha. That was funny.
He was not a terrorist because of Indian propaganda? Why when nothing goes the way of the little guy, do they blame it on big state coverups? Some things are just reality.
Ok he was NOT a terrorist, tell me if this sounds like a religiously, pious man:
----Harmit Singh Batra was in the Darbar Sahib complex on April 13, 1978 and quotes Bhindranwale, 'We will not allow this Nirankari convention to take place. We are going to march there and cut them to pieces!'55
Tully, p. 59.
----Following the clash with the Nirankaris on April 13, 1978, the 'Sant' and his cohorts were always armed. Bhindranwale often publicly recited his mantra, 'being armed, there is no sin greater than not seeking justice.'56 And they perceived plenty of injustice all around, which they rectified with the use of illegal force.
Joshi, p. 144; Sandhu, p. 256 Sandhu, Ranbir Singh, Struggle for Justice: Speeches and Conversations of Sant Jarnail Singh Khalsa Bhindranwale (Dublin, Ohio: Sikh Educational & Religious Foundation, 1999),
----After the assassination of the Nirankari leader Gurbachan Singh on April 24, 1980, Bhindranwale is universally acknowledged to have remarked that if he ever met Ranjit Singh, the suspected killer, he would weigh him in gold (i.e. reward him with his weight in gold).57
Sandhu, p. vi.
----On October 22, 1982, Bhindranwale made a public statement threatening the 'political and physical end' of anyone who didn't press for the full implementation of the Anandpur Sahib Resolution.58
Joshi, p. 120
On August 17, 1983, Bhindranwale asked Sikh youth to buy a motorcycle and a revolver and threatened to kill 5,000 Hindus in an hour if the police delayed the minibus he had sent to fetch Amrik Singh who had just been released from police custody.59
---Joshi, p. 144; Sandhu, p. 256.
----During a speech on September 20, 1983, Bhindranwale stated clearly that he would 'embrace' Sikhs who exacted revenge upon those who were guilty of torturing, killing, or humiliating Sikhs. He said, 'Getting away from there is your job, protecting you here [in the Darbar Sahib complex] is mine.'60
Sandhu, p. 286.
---On November 17, 1983, Bhindranwale bluntly demanded 'that all Hindus should leave Punjab.'61
Joshi, pp. 148-149.
---During a public speech delivered on May 24, 1984 at the Darbar Sahib complex, Bhindranwale openly admitted his complicity in the gruesome beheading of Surinder Singh Chinda for his role in the elimination of Bhindranwale's leading hit man, Surinder Singh Sodhi.62
Sandhu, p. 471.
--Even Bhindranwale's staunchest supporters only go as far as stating, 'Bhindranwale consistently opposed violence against any innocent person.
Cole, W. Owen and Piara Singh Sambhi, The Sikhs: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices, Second Fully Revised Edition, (Brighton: Sussex Academic Press, 1998), p. 176.
---Nachhatar Singh, arrested by the police for the murder of Lala Jagat Narain, is said to have fingered Bhindranwale for ordering the killing.68
Joshi, p. 88.
---The hijackers of an Indian Airlines plane on September 20, 1981 claimed to be members of the Dal Khalsa and demanded the release of Bhindranwale, who had been arrested in connection with the murder of Lala Jagat Narain.69 In a speech, Bhindranwale 'praised his young lieutenants' for the hijacking.70
Juergensmeyer, Mark, Terror in the Mind of God: The Global Rise of Religious Violence, Third Edition, Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003, p. 100.
---On July 18, 1982, a police party from the Beas Thana in Amritsar district stopped a jeep. Most of the occupants were residents of Bhindranwale's gurdwara Gurdarshan Parkash at Chowk Mehta. They attacked the police and were arrested. No case was initiated.71
Joshi, p. 115.
---The next day, Amrik Singh, Bhindranwale's most trusted lieutenant, and six close associates of Bhindranwale, including Bhindranwale's personal driver Kulwant Singh, were arrested for an attempt on the life of Joginder Singh Sandhu, the Nirankari Mandal's propaganda secretary.72
Singh, Tavleen in Amarjit Kaur, et al, p. 34.
Im not saying the Indian government was perfect, they are dogs too. But to put bhindranwale is a pedostol above them is funny and against reality.
Hahah dressing up pakistani's, wow. Sometimes followers of whatever they believe in will never cease to amaze you. If someone came here supporting the indian government, I would have got nuts on them as well, so I have no alligence to any side.
I was also raised in Punjab. Bhindranwale came to Nakodar many times and preached his stuff. I lived through the terrorism of Punjab, I lived through it. Now, if you want to defend Bhindranwale, a separator, someone who walked around with a gun in Harimandir Sahib Ji, a fortress that Guru Ram Das built and was told that this wa sbuilt so no more wars could be fought, and you bring fights into there I will defend my religion from people like this. Personally, Bhindranwale, everyone knows, I dont seem him as a sant. Not at all. A Sant doesnt entice fights, he merely defends innocents. You can say that he defended innocents, which in some manner he did, but he was defending them from things he brought on.
So lets do it, lets talk about Mr. Bhindranwale.
1) Your whole assertion of Bhindranwale being a religious man without political influence, and how he started to become political is wrong. Its blinding to the real story:
Here are some facts, and I will cite all the works for your happiness:
---During the S.G.P.C. elections of 1979, 'Of the forty candidates Bhindranwale put up [for a total of 140 seats], all but four were defeated. Cite: Singh, Khushwant, p. 332. A History of the Sikhs, Volume 2: 1839-1988 (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1999), p. 328.
--- 'For all his protestations that he was not a politician, Bhindranwale campaigned actively for the Congress in three constituencies' during the 1980 general elections. -> Tully, p. 61. Amritsar: Mrs Gandhi's Last Battle (New Delhi: Rupa & Co, 1985), p. 177.
---During the 1981 elections to the Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (D.S.G.P.C.), 'in an attempt to divide Akali votes, the Congress (I) had asked the A.I.S.S.F. [All India Sikh Students Federation] to put up candidates for the Delhi gurdwaras whose campaign was led by Sant Bhindranwale. No A.I.S.S.F. candidate won.' -- Joshi, Chand, Bhindranwale: Myth and Reality (New Delhi: Vikas Publishing House, 1984), p. 85
--- At one point in 1983, the Talwandi-Tohra faction of the Akali Dal got a section of the S.G.P.C. to recommend Bhindranwale for the position of jathedar of the Akal Takht.
Joshi, p. 130
---According to India Today, in the months leading up to Operation Bluestar about a third of Longowal's S.G.P.C. members and district Akali Dal presidents had 'defected' to Bhindranwale.
--- The Darbar Sahib's Public Relations Officer (P.R.O.) Narinderjit Singh Nanda recalled, 'Bhindranwale told me that within thirty days he was taking over the S.G.P.C. Tully, p. 202
This is coming from the same guy who said, beat me with a shoe if I ever become president of the SGPC. He had political desires. His want was not for the rightouesness of sikhism, because those people dont go around spreading the word with ak47's attached to their chest. He had an agenda.
=======================================================================
He was "accused" of killing Lala Jagat Narin? He was involved with the murder, or else he wouldnt have hid, or he wouldnt have done the things he did. Your kidding yourself. Dilbir Singh related the following account of how masterfully Bhindranwale ordered the killing of Lala Jagat Narain, proprietor-editor of the Hind Samachar group of newspapers:
And in one edition Lala had written in an editorial comment that Taura [Tohra, then president of the S.G.P.C.] and Ajnoha [then jathedar of the Akal Takht] are traitors. On that day in a great fury he [Bhindranwale] called upon someone to read aloud what Lala had said. There was quiet. 'Our turban has been torn from our heads,' he proclaimed. Then one of his followers asked, 'What are your orders?' Again in anger, he said 'Orders, you need orders! What orders? Are you blind?' Now you see he did not say anything. And they said it. 'O.K.' meaning thereby, we'll finish this man. So, then, 3-4 days later, Lala was coming from Ludhiana and they fired upon him.65
Haha, the "indian government brought people from pakistan, dressed them up as sikhs and made them go around killing veryone"... hahahah. What? Prove that. Thats the wildest, most uneducated claim ive ever heard. Give me ONE citation from a respectable source. Haha. That was funny.
He was not a terrorist because of Indian propaganda? Why when nothing goes the way of the little guy, do they blame it on big state coverups? Some things are just reality.
Ok he was NOT a terrorist, tell me if this sounds like a religiously, pious man:
----Harmit Singh Batra was in the Darbar Sahib complex on April 13, 1978 and quotes Bhindranwale, 'We will not allow this Nirankari convention to take place. We are going to march there and cut them to pieces!'55
Tully, p. 59.
----Following the clash with the Nirankaris on April 13, 1978, the 'Sant' and his cohorts were always armed. Bhindranwale often publicly recited his mantra, 'being armed, there is no sin greater than not seeking justice.'56 And they perceived plenty of injustice all around, which they rectified with the use of illegal force.
Joshi, p. 144; Sandhu, p. 256 Sandhu, Ranbir Singh, Struggle for Justice: Speeches and Conversations of Sant Jarnail Singh Khalsa Bhindranwale (Dublin, Ohio: Sikh Educational & Religious Foundation, 1999),
----After the assassination of the Nirankari leader Gurbachan Singh on April 24, 1980, Bhindranwale is universally acknowledged to have remarked that if he ever met Ranjit Singh, the suspected killer, he would weigh him in gold (i.e. reward him with his weight in gold).57
Sandhu, p. vi.
----On October 22, 1982, Bhindranwale made a public statement threatening the 'political and physical end' of anyone who didn't press for the full implementation of the Anandpur Sahib Resolution.58
Joshi, p. 120
On August 17, 1983, Bhindranwale asked Sikh youth to buy a motorcycle and a revolver and threatened to kill 5,000 Hindus in an hour if the police delayed the minibus he had sent to fetch Amrik Singh who had just been released from police custody.59
---Joshi, p. 144; Sandhu, p. 256.
----During a speech on September 20, 1983, Bhindranwale stated clearly that he would 'embrace' Sikhs who exacted revenge upon those who were guilty of torturing, killing, or humiliating Sikhs. He said, 'Getting away from there is your job, protecting you here [in the Darbar Sahib complex] is mine.'60
Sandhu, p. 286.
---On November 17, 1983, Bhindranwale bluntly demanded 'that all Hindus should leave Punjab.'61
Joshi, pp. 148-149.
---During a public speech delivered on May 24, 1984 at the Darbar Sahib complex, Bhindranwale openly admitted his complicity in the gruesome beheading of Surinder Singh Chinda for his role in the elimination of Bhindranwale's leading hit man, Surinder Singh Sodhi.62
Sandhu, p. 471.
--Even Bhindranwale's staunchest supporters only go as far as stating, 'Bhindranwale consistently opposed violence against any innocent person.
Cole, W. Owen and Piara Singh Sambhi, The Sikhs: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices, Second Fully Revised Edition, (Brighton: Sussex Academic Press, 1998), p. 176.
---Nachhatar Singh, arrested by the police for the murder of Lala Jagat Narain, is said to have fingered Bhindranwale for ordering the killing.68
Joshi, p. 88.
---The hijackers of an Indian Airlines plane on September 20, 1981 claimed to be members of the Dal Khalsa and demanded the release of Bhindranwale, who had been arrested in connection with the murder of Lala Jagat Narain.69 In a speech, Bhindranwale 'praised his young lieutenants' for the hijacking.70
Juergensmeyer, Mark, Terror in the Mind of God: The Global Rise of Religious Violence, Third Edition, Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003, p. 100.
---On July 18, 1982, a police party from the Beas Thana in Amritsar district stopped a jeep. Most of the occupants were residents of Bhindranwale's gurdwara Gurdarshan Parkash at Chowk Mehta. They attacked the police and were arrested. No case was initiated.71
Joshi, p. 115.
---The next day, Amrik Singh, Bhindranwale's most trusted lieutenant, and six close associates of Bhindranwale, including Bhindranwale's personal driver Kulwant Singh, were arrested for an attempt on the life of Joginder Singh Sandhu, the Nirankari Mandal's propaganda secretary.72
Singh, Tavleen in Amarjit Kaur, et al, p. 34.
Im not saying the Indian government was perfect, they are dogs too. But to put bhindranwale is a pedostol above them is funny and against reality.
Hahah dressing up pakistani's, wow. Sometimes followers of whatever they believe in will never cease to amaze you. If someone came here supporting the indian government, I would have got nuts on them as well, so I have no alligence to any side.
Summy
New Member
- Messages
- 11
Oh yeah, your plesant commentary on Nirankari's burning Guru Granth Sahib Jee's are ridicolous and better left said behind a computer. Give one source that they burn it. Im not saying that Nirankari's are people who I follow or anything like that, but thats the most prejudice claim I have ever heard.
I did a quick google search:
No results found for "nirankari + burning + guru granth sahib".
Their satsangs are carried out in Gurdwara's. Their avtar bani comes from the Guru Granth Sahib Ji, as does their simran. I am not saying I agree with them, but your baseless claims of them burning Guru Granth Sahib Jee's is prejudice and uneducated. Dont say something without factual assertions.
Show me one citation from a respectable source that Nirankari's practiced the burning of Guru Granth Sahib Jee's... wow wow wow. Thats bad karma man, you shouldnt say things like that.
They dont see themselves as living guru's, the diffrence as they see god in everyone. TUHI NIRANKAR. They believe in a formless god, and it is more of a spiritual entity. haha. See themselves as guru's? WHAT are you talking about?!?!
Common now Turbo, your talking to me, Summinder Singh Dhaliwal, how can you make baseless claims and think that people on BTF would just follow them...
I did a quick google search:
No results found for "nirankari + burning + guru granth sahib".
Their satsangs are carried out in Gurdwara's. Their avtar bani comes from the Guru Granth Sahib Ji, as does their simran. I am not saying I agree with them, but your baseless claims of them burning Guru Granth Sahib Jee's is prejudice and uneducated. Dont say something without factual assertions.
Show me one citation from a respectable source that Nirankari's practiced the burning of Guru Granth Sahib Jee's... wow wow wow. Thats bad karma man, you shouldnt say things like that.
They dont see themselves as living guru's, the diffrence as they see god in everyone. TUHI NIRANKAR. They believe in a formless god, and it is more of a spiritual entity. haha. See themselves as guru's? WHAT are you talking about?!?!
Common now Turbo, your talking to me, Summinder Singh Dhaliwal, how can you make baseless claims and think that people on BTF would just follow them...
Avneet
New Member
- Messages
- 78
I have tried to look as deeply into "Operation Bluestar" as possible- supposed reportings, articles, books, documentaries from different perspectives... but most of them, if not all, were created from very Bias standpoints- or accounts from the government which sadly in today's world (if ever) you can not always count as "true" or 100% factual- Whether it be for someone in support Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale or against him. So whatever you chose to cite, Summy, can be just as bias as ones opinion who saw things differently. A citing does not necessarily make them true, especially on historical events- it is just a perspective mixed in with what they ?gathered? from supposed ?trusted? sources. Also your OPINION against him doesn?t make what you feel or say factual just because of what you cited- and of course what you choose to cite backs up your opinion? that is the whole purpose of a citation: to back up what YOU choose to SUPPORT- because there are publishings that express the opposite of what you said. And as the famous line from a John Mayer song says "When they own the information they can mend it all they want."
What is true, what is not true, what was a conspiracy and what was fate, WE can not approve or disapprove because we honestly do not know- how many conspiracies exist? How many people had their stories twisted around to make them sound ?saintly? or like the devil himself?- even simply searching the events online to get some sort of "understanding" of the situation is difficult because to the rest of the world these events and these people were so small and insignificant that sooner or later they could very well claim it was all a "figment of our imagination." And I say this because something as large as the Holocaust is now being discounted as never really happening by some Jewish people themselves!!! Absurd! The further in time we get from 1984, and the more we feel we have educated ourselves about it or ?know,? the less we will truly understand- the truth will continue to become diluted or polluted. And who cares if you can?t get ?search? results on certain things???- It?s the BLOODY INTERNET! You can barely manage to pull up anything decent about the whole event, so what makes you think you can do ?world wide web? research on the details of the bigger picture when the big picture is tiny to anyone who has slim to nothing to do with India??? It?s sad to say it but people of the world can not even differentiate between Indian and Pakistan, let alone Punjabi and Gujurati or Bengali etc etc, and you?re expecting to find non bias opinions from the ?outside world? and that too on the internet?! And let?s face it, from what you did find, if an Indian had anything to do with the write up about the event or Bhindranwale there is without a doubt a bias spin on it.
Where are any of us going to dig up the real truth... and how? Every single thing any person says about this topic can be argued. But because these people, the government, the actions and reactions, were in our history, regardless of which side is right or wrong, it was still so profound and it is still VERY important to all of us. Every one is entitled to their own feelings and opinions and what they feel was and is the truth- whether you count or discount them because frankly what you typed up could all be "fluff" to a person who was in support- and there are MANY Sikhs and non Sikhs that believed in him and understood him. Please do not try to discount what they are saying.
Indians everywhere have mixed opinions on many things within Indian history. The events leading up to it, the government?s motives and actions, the riots afterward, Indira Gandhi herself- good or evil (tons were in full support of her actions). One persons saint could very well be another?s sinner, and that we all have to accept. But if you are to share your opinions please do so with tact and not try to push it up against somebody- if you have something to share then you should learn how to do it graciously, especially if your goals are to try to make some change in this world. You say you are in the middle of the road about this subject so if you are trying to be wise and educate or share (this is what I take from most of your posts on topics you are passionate about) then always keep this quote in mind "You can attract more bees with honey than vinegar." Starting and ending your posts by trying to belittle others or having no regard for others personal experiences and equal intelligence is not only distasteful but gives off the strong impression that no matter what you cite or if you claim to be "neutral" or some sort of intellect, you are just as bias or ignorant as those you try to challenge.
What is true, what is not true, what was a conspiracy and what was fate, WE can not approve or disapprove because we honestly do not know- how many conspiracies exist? How many people had their stories twisted around to make them sound ?saintly? or like the devil himself?- even simply searching the events online to get some sort of "understanding" of the situation is difficult because to the rest of the world these events and these people were so small and insignificant that sooner or later they could very well claim it was all a "figment of our imagination." And I say this because something as large as the Holocaust is now being discounted as never really happening by some Jewish people themselves!!! Absurd! The further in time we get from 1984, and the more we feel we have educated ourselves about it or ?know,? the less we will truly understand- the truth will continue to become diluted or polluted. And who cares if you can?t get ?search? results on certain things???- It?s the BLOODY INTERNET! You can barely manage to pull up anything decent about the whole event, so what makes you think you can do ?world wide web? research on the details of the bigger picture when the big picture is tiny to anyone who has slim to nothing to do with India??? It?s sad to say it but people of the world can not even differentiate between Indian and Pakistan, let alone Punjabi and Gujurati or Bengali etc etc, and you?re expecting to find non bias opinions from the ?outside world? and that too on the internet?! And let?s face it, from what you did find, if an Indian had anything to do with the write up about the event or Bhindranwale there is without a doubt a bias spin on it.
Where are any of us going to dig up the real truth... and how? Every single thing any person says about this topic can be argued. But because these people, the government, the actions and reactions, were in our history, regardless of which side is right or wrong, it was still so profound and it is still VERY important to all of us. Every one is entitled to their own feelings and opinions and what they feel was and is the truth- whether you count or discount them because frankly what you typed up could all be "fluff" to a person who was in support- and there are MANY Sikhs and non Sikhs that believed in him and understood him. Please do not try to discount what they are saying.
Indians everywhere have mixed opinions on many things within Indian history. The events leading up to it, the government?s motives and actions, the riots afterward, Indira Gandhi herself- good or evil (tons were in full support of her actions). One persons saint could very well be another?s sinner, and that we all have to accept. But if you are to share your opinions please do so with tact and not try to push it up against somebody- if you have something to share then you should learn how to do it graciously, especially if your goals are to try to make some change in this world. You say you are in the middle of the road about this subject so if you are trying to be wise and educate or share (this is what I take from most of your posts on topics you are passionate about) then always keep this quote in mind "You can attract more bees with honey than vinegar." Starting and ending your posts by trying to belittle others or having no regard for others personal experiences and equal intelligence is not only distasteful but gives off the strong impression that no matter what you cite or if you claim to be "neutral" or some sort of intellect, you are just as bias or ignorant as those you try to challenge.
Avneet, lets talk about this tonight.
Great points Turbo.
Summy, I implore you to look at the ways in which you arrive at some of your viewpoints on Khalistan and on Bhindranwale. What if, by chance, Sikhs were given a sovereign space, and Muslims were denied it during partition? Would Muslims be stupid to ask for autonomy? Pakistan makes no sense. There are arguably more Muslims in India. East Pakistan made no sense. Your arguments are based on the decisions that you take for granted. Remember that the nation state emerges in the twentieth century while ideas of Sikh sovereignty are much older. To posit these ideas in the western framework that you come to appreciate (the UN etc.), in conjunction with your adoration for the Indian state to me at least displays the remarkable work of the new Indian nation in sanitizing its histories and (mis)using pasts to create its homogenized present.
I have a lot of respect for the Indian government, not because of what they manage to give to their religious minorities, but what they take away, repackage in a nationalist framework, and get their citizens to beg for it back.
If you think that the idea of K is dead in Punjab and you'd be killed for talking about it, you have not scratched the surface. For perhaps the best articulations of this, see Brian Axel, one of the few scholars who is respected in his field, and has done an authoritative study of some of the topics that you have brave misconceptions about.
Great points Turbo.
Summy, I implore you to look at the ways in which you arrive at some of your viewpoints on Khalistan and on Bhindranwale. What if, by chance, Sikhs were given a sovereign space, and Muslims were denied it during partition? Would Muslims be stupid to ask for autonomy? Pakistan makes no sense. There are arguably more Muslims in India. East Pakistan made no sense. Your arguments are based on the decisions that you take for granted. Remember that the nation state emerges in the twentieth century while ideas of Sikh sovereignty are much older. To posit these ideas in the western framework that you come to appreciate (the UN etc.), in conjunction with your adoration for the Indian state to me at least displays the remarkable work of the new Indian nation in sanitizing its histories and (mis)using pasts to create its homogenized present.
I have a lot of respect for the Indian government, not because of what they manage to give to their religious minorities, but what they take away, repackage in a nationalist framework, and get their citizens to beg for it back.
If you think that the idea of K is dead in Punjab and you'd be killed for talking about it, you have not scratched the surface. For perhaps the best articulations of this, see Brian Axel, one of the few scholars who is respected in his field, and has done an authoritative study of some of the topics that you have brave misconceptions about.
Summy
New Member
- Messages
- 11
I enjoy the fact that those who think your against khalistan and its supporters, are automatically claiming you have "adoration" for the Indian. It is that, which is the basis for so much ignorance that you find in those supporters. If you against one thing, but implication, you are for another thing. I have said it about one million times, that I am against the Indian government, I really do not know how to make it anymore clearer.
Turbo, I respect that your parents lived in Punjab, as did mine. Many of my relatives had contacts with supporters as did yours. You STILL NEED CITE A SOURCE. Just because YOUR family went "through it", and therefore no need for sources, makes the assumption that my family didnt "go through it" as well. I can tell you that, if you visit POL and you go through the my posts (ill send you the link) well before I even talked about this here, I had stories of how my family went through the problems of Punjab. How a family member of mine was killed by an attack in Punjab on a bus, because he looked hindu.
If your going to come up with the serious claim that it was Pakistani's dressed up like dolls, even though I respect you and your family, Im not going to take their word for it. But your logic, you must accept mine that those who killed my family member were a sikh separatist organization that claimed responsibility.
You are making hugely baseless claims that have no support. NEVER did I hear that sikh militatnts who claimed responsibilites for attacks, and were arrested, who wre arrested by people I know, who identities were marked, were all of a sudden dressed up pakistanis. First off, if I was a pakistani, I would be offended, second of all, your becoming increasingly ignorant to reality. Read any scholarly book on the terrorism era in punjab, you wont find ONE, not ONE BOOK, within or without India, that would claim those doing the attacks were dressed up pakistanis. Use India's most famous author Khushwant Singh, who got critisicsm after he claimed that Indra Gandhi deserved what she got, he has claimed that some sikhs got their matyr in Bhindranwale after the actions of the government, which proved fatal for her and the sanctity of the land.
You cant sit there and say "my family lived there, they knew people", and expect us do go, OHHH WOW, okay so YOU MUST BE RIGHT. No, MY family lived through it. MY father attended rallies of Bhindranwale, my thaiya was a doctor who treated Jagjit Chauhan who he tried to recruit to be his personal doctor. I can go on, and the fact is my family also suffered, like other families did, to from the hands of the dressed up pakistanis.
If you continue to go by your premise, I will continue to lace you with facts that not only was it militants who carried out the attacks, but the followers of Bhindranwale were those who instructed him. I go on and on, but I will let you read this paper from someone who lived through the attacks with no religious or cultural ties to Punjab or India.
http://repositories.cdlib.org/gis/20/
You forget that the authors that I quoted even though hindu (implying some sort of religious affilation, hmm looks like you indicted some of your own thoughts on this matter), were living through punjab at this time.
Indian prpaganda would nto want you to see the government's ugly face, which each books offers. The Indian government would want you to see how they mishandled operation Bluestar, which each citation offers. Indian propaganda is something that 20 years in retrospect people can understand and see, just like today we are able to see the prpganda employed by the states in the Gulf war. We have the advantage of time, and you using INdia propaganda and using my family was there excuse doesnt mean anything who is in the same position as you.
Avneet,
I understnad you post of basically being things are subjective. That was the basic premise of your point, I think we all understand that. But the fact of the matter is, that sometimes things DO transpire. If at a speech, it is recorded that Bhindranwale says we will cut up nirankari's to peices, and then you have people claiming that bhindranwale, the ak-47 wailing man, who was the FIRST person to bring ammo and guns into Harimandir Sahib is a perfectly religiously ious man... umm yeah, your implying there is nothing factual abou that situation.
Your whole post was nothing substantive at all. Im not insulting you, just your post could have been summed up with, things appear to different people. We all understand that.
But if you have the adocity to claim that certani people burn your religious text, this is isnt grade 10 history class, nobody is going to believe you without any sort of backup. you can claim that my sources are to prove a point, well it is mor indicitve of a person when they have no sources to prove a wildly unheard point.
No offense to you once again, but your last point showed no understanding of history. Let me break down the difference of why muslims were given (highly problematic) pakistan, and sikhs are in India.
Partition started in the by the AML (all muslim league in the 1930's) their job was to create a separate muslim land through violent means.
Jinnah worked his whole life to create muslim and hindu and sikh unity, but was forced to join the movement. The sikhs during this time, were involved with the freedom operation of India, and had no request for any sort of independent nation. Jinnah took hostage in Lahore, and mini-migrations started to occur. At this time, knowing the foundations for a separate nation was laid (1940's), it was a pact for all muslim leagues to encit whatver they could do to gain independence. Sikh religious leaders began to form armies, including the SKA which dedicated sikh identity to fight for Indian freedom. Muslims forces began to fight for freedom within india, there are two differences.
Direct action day in Calculatta saw 5000 people dead on the basis of muslim fighting for their own terriority. At this time, there was an estimated 200+ million muslims within india, and a possible 30 million sikhs, and the remaining hindu. On the EXACT same day of the direct action day, sikh leaders called for a mandator admission of sikh graduates of certain schools to join the Indian forces, on the exact same day.
Look back at all the freedom fighters for india, what religion do they stem from. Most are of the Sikh and hindu religion. Bhagat Singh, Udham Singh, Sukdev, and ALL their assoicates and groups they stood up for were majority hindu and sikh groups. That is not a coincidence, because Jinnah had called for a sub culture of muslim independence from India.
You have enormous stretches of logic with no factual assertions, that the Indian government santizied its history. How can you make such bold statements without any sort of conscious for all that is academia? Obviously there were talks of sikh nations prior to 47, as there was talks of independent nation althroughout india, especially south india.
But the major sikh heads of state, the general population, and the culture dictated something else. If you really thought there was sort of mass conspiracy to hide the fact that all sikhs in india wanted their own state, and the fact that me claiming otherwise is making me a patsy to indian propaganda, at least have the curtiosy to make logical connections between history and your claims.
When the two nations were made, nearly 7.2 million hindus and sikhs made their ways from pakistan to India. If there was a definte culture for a sikh indepndent nation supported by the decision makers of the sikh body, why was there no talk of such an occurence. Why on the other hand, did sikhs decide to stay where nearly 23 million of them lived, which was the indian controlled punjab?
Do I think muslims were stupid to ask for autonomy if in India today, its a hypothetical that is idiotic in its basic sense. There is a huge difference of approximaley 1/2 billion people spread out throughout a land, than sikhs who are concerntrated in two areas of india with about 450 million people short of that number.
When you have people who make outrageous claims, you'll usually have their marks against history. Now, any sort of reading or schlarly attempts to get an understanding of what went on, pigeon holds you to slaves of Indian propaganda. So it is a lose lose situation.
You guys have to come better than "shit is subjective" and "my family went through it" for it to hold any weight
Turbo, I respect that your parents lived in Punjab, as did mine. Many of my relatives had contacts with supporters as did yours. You STILL NEED CITE A SOURCE. Just because YOUR family went "through it", and therefore no need for sources, makes the assumption that my family didnt "go through it" as well. I can tell you that, if you visit POL and you go through the my posts (ill send you the link) well before I even talked about this here, I had stories of how my family went through the problems of Punjab. How a family member of mine was killed by an attack in Punjab on a bus, because he looked hindu.
If your going to come up with the serious claim that it was Pakistani's dressed up like dolls, even though I respect you and your family, Im not going to take their word for it. But your logic, you must accept mine that those who killed my family member were a sikh separatist organization that claimed responsibility.
You are making hugely baseless claims that have no support. NEVER did I hear that sikh militatnts who claimed responsibilites for attacks, and were arrested, who wre arrested by people I know, who identities were marked, were all of a sudden dressed up pakistanis. First off, if I was a pakistani, I would be offended, second of all, your becoming increasingly ignorant to reality. Read any scholarly book on the terrorism era in punjab, you wont find ONE, not ONE BOOK, within or without India, that would claim those doing the attacks were dressed up pakistanis. Use India's most famous author Khushwant Singh, who got critisicsm after he claimed that Indra Gandhi deserved what she got, he has claimed that some sikhs got their matyr in Bhindranwale after the actions of the government, which proved fatal for her and the sanctity of the land.
You cant sit there and say "my family lived there, they knew people", and expect us do go, OHHH WOW, okay so YOU MUST BE RIGHT. No, MY family lived through it. MY father attended rallies of Bhindranwale, my thaiya was a doctor who treated Jagjit Chauhan who he tried to recruit to be his personal doctor. I can go on, and the fact is my family also suffered, like other families did, to from the hands of the dressed up pakistanis.
If you continue to go by your premise, I will continue to lace you with facts that not only was it militants who carried out the attacks, but the followers of Bhindranwale were those who instructed him. I go on and on, but I will let you read this paper from someone who lived through the attacks with no religious or cultural ties to Punjab or India.
http://repositories.cdlib.org/gis/20/
You forget that the authors that I quoted even though hindu (implying some sort of religious affilation, hmm looks like you indicted some of your own thoughts on this matter), were living through punjab at this time.
Indian prpaganda would nto want you to see the government's ugly face, which each books offers. The Indian government would want you to see how they mishandled operation Bluestar, which each citation offers. Indian propaganda is something that 20 years in retrospect people can understand and see, just like today we are able to see the prpganda employed by the states in the Gulf war. We have the advantage of time, and you using INdia propaganda and using my family was there excuse doesnt mean anything who is in the same position as you.
Avneet,
I understnad you post of basically being things are subjective. That was the basic premise of your point, I think we all understand that. But the fact of the matter is, that sometimes things DO transpire. If at a speech, it is recorded that Bhindranwale says we will cut up nirankari's to peices, and then you have people claiming that bhindranwale, the ak-47 wailing man, who was the FIRST person to bring ammo and guns into Harimandir Sahib is a perfectly religiously ious man... umm yeah, your implying there is nothing factual abou that situation.
Your whole post was nothing substantive at all. Im not insulting you, just your post could have been summed up with, things appear to different people. We all understand that.
But if you have the adocity to claim that certani people burn your religious text, this is isnt grade 10 history class, nobody is going to believe you without any sort of backup. you can claim that my sources are to prove a point, well it is mor indicitve of a person when they have no sources to prove a wildly unheard point.
No offense to you once again, but your last point showed no understanding of history. Let me break down the difference of why muslims were given (highly problematic) pakistan, and sikhs are in India.
Partition started in the by the AML (all muslim league in the 1930's) their job was to create a separate muslim land through violent means.
Jinnah worked his whole life to create muslim and hindu and sikh unity, but was forced to join the movement. The sikhs during this time, were involved with the freedom operation of India, and had no request for any sort of independent nation. Jinnah took hostage in Lahore, and mini-migrations started to occur. At this time, knowing the foundations for a separate nation was laid (1940's), it was a pact for all muslim leagues to encit whatver they could do to gain independence. Sikh religious leaders began to form armies, including the SKA which dedicated sikh identity to fight for Indian freedom. Muslims forces began to fight for freedom within india, there are two differences.
Direct action day in Calculatta saw 5000 people dead on the basis of muslim fighting for their own terriority. At this time, there was an estimated 200+ million muslims within india, and a possible 30 million sikhs, and the remaining hindu. On the EXACT same day of the direct action day, sikh leaders called for a mandator admission of sikh graduates of certain schools to join the Indian forces, on the exact same day.
Look back at all the freedom fighters for india, what religion do they stem from. Most are of the Sikh and hindu religion. Bhagat Singh, Udham Singh, Sukdev, and ALL their assoicates and groups they stood up for were majority hindu and sikh groups. That is not a coincidence, because Jinnah had called for a sub culture of muslim independence from India.
You have enormous stretches of logic with no factual assertions, that the Indian government santizied its history. How can you make such bold statements without any sort of conscious for all that is academia? Obviously there were talks of sikh nations prior to 47, as there was talks of independent nation althroughout india, especially south india.
But the major sikh heads of state, the general population, and the culture dictated something else. If you really thought there was sort of mass conspiracy to hide the fact that all sikhs in india wanted their own state, and the fact that me claiming otherwise is making me a patsy to indian propaganda, at least have the curtiosy to make logical connections between history and your claims.
When the two nations were made, nearly 7.2 million hindus and sikhs made their ways from pakistan to India. If there was a definte culture for a sikh indepndent nation supported by the decision makers of the sikh body, why was there no talk of such an occurence. Why on the other hand, did sikhs decide to stay where nearly 23 million of them lived, which was the indian controlled punjab?
Do I think muslims were stupid to ask for autonomy if in India today, its a hypothetical that is idiotic in its basic sense. There is a huge difference of approximaley 1/2 billion people spread out throughout a land, than sikhs who are concerntrated in two areas of india with about 450 million people short of that number.
When you have people who make outrageous claims, you'll usually have their marks against history. Now, any sort of reading or schlarly attempts to get an understanding of what went on, pigeon holds you to slaves of Indian propaganda. So it is a lose lose situation.
You guys have to come better than "shit is subjective" and "my family went through it" for it to hold any weight
Avneet
New Member
- Messages
- 78
I don't feel I need to understand history to make the points *I* was trying to make... I wasnt trying to school anyone or prove a HUGE theory. My very first post about Khalistan was to make it simple for a member who had no idea what the notion of "Khalistan" was in the 20th century- she had barely heard of it for the first time in her life just a few days ago- I dont think it was fair to take a question she had and answer it with tons of information making Khalistan sound like a myth or "stupid notion" created in times before the British came to rule India... I said what I said in the simplest of terms... and it is very true the India could have been split three ways... I think I am smart enough to understand that much in History... You dont need to go into Sikhs in India vs Pakistan etc etc etc so please cut the lectures.
I also didnt make the claims about the burning of the Guru Granth Sahib. But even in 10th grade I had to cite sources, so I understand their relevance when supporting a Thesis or a Theory... *thesis or a theory*... 10th graders can be quite smart too you know- and papers we write in school always start on the basis of a claim or an opinion... HOWEVER neither then nor in the Institution where I received my degree were INTERNET citings credible- EVER- what a joke. I truly hope Google.com isnt your best friend when it comes to proving a point because what is taken from text and transfered to computer screen can also be altered somewhere in the middle.
We are talking about History... not some scientific experiment or mathematics where 1+1 ALWAYS equals 2, or the cause and effect is black or white. The only thing "factual" about historic events is what takes place- the wars, the destruction, the after math... what leads up to it is always HIGHLY debatable... who really started world war 1? what events TRULY led up to 9/11? etc etc. That was my point... and it is common sense at this age that history books are usually very, very meticulously edited.
And about being subjective... what do you understand about subjectivity??? You start everything on the offense and then quickly turn to the defense. You immaturely call people out and scream bloody murder any time someone posts a subjective opinion that goes against your own.
And please don't use words like "Audacity" with me... how do I have the audacity to do so???? hah... The claim wasnt mine but had i "claimed" something I have the same right to say what I want with confidence just like you do. My "audacity." You have go to be kidding me.
I also didnt make the claims about the burning of the Guru Granth Sahib. But even in 10th grade I had to cite sources, so I understand their relevance when supporting a Thesis or a Theory... *thesis or a theory*... 10th graders can be quite smart too you know- and papers we write in school always start on the basis of a claim or an opinion... HOWEVER neither then nor in the Institution where I received my degree were INTERNET citings credible- EVER- what a joke. I truly hope Google.com isnt your best friend when it comes to proving a point because what is taken from text and transfered to computer screen can also be altered somewhere in the middle.
We are talking about History... not some scientific experiment or mathematics where 1+1 ALWAYS equals 2, or the cause and effect is black or white. The only thing "factual" about historic events is what takes place- the wars, the destruction, the after math... what leads up to it is always HIGHLY debatable... who really started world war 1? what events TRULY led up to 9/11? etc etc. That was my point... and it is common sense at this age that history books are usually very, very meticulously edited.
And about being subjective... what do you understand about subjectivity??? You start everything on the offense and then quickly turn to the defense. You immaturely call people out and scream bloody murder any time someone posts a subjective opinion that goes against your own.
And please don't use words like "Audacity" with me... how do I have the audacity to do so???? hah... The claim wasnt mine but had i "claimed" something I have the same right to say what I want with confidence just like you do. My "audacity." You have go to be kidding me.
Naveen Singh Khokhar
New Member
- Messages
- 76
The problem with having sources for what occurred before and in 1984 and after is that it was extremely recent. Much of the news that came out right after the incidents were completely bias to make it seem as if those against the government were completely at fault. Also, one has to realize that a lot of people still have not come out and written about what happened in 1984. People saw their family cut apart and burned alive. Its not easy for people to come out and talk about topics that affected them soo badly. It took people soo long to come out and talk about their times in Concentration Camps during the Holocaust. Also, don't call Turbo's source not credible. If anything it is more credible than random journalists in Canada or Britain. Primary sources are the highest quality of source out there.
Further on the source issue. You have to think about who the people are who write history in the books. Just to make you think, for a long time in Germany after World War II most of the history books written made no reference of the Holocaust. Does that mean the Holocaust did not occur and all the Jews are lying? No
Also, the internet consists of I think less than 5% of actual knowledgeable content. Most knowledge and facts are still in books. Thats why in school it is always recommended to go to libraries and read books and cite books.
Also, I am not sure about the Pakistanis dressing like Sikhs and shooting up places and acting like terrorists but my grandfather did talk to one of the Generals under Indira Gandhi (talked to him years after all this had occurred) and he told me how Indira Gandhi did want to basically destroy Sikhs. He told me she had planned to shoot missiles into Pakistan to provoke them into attacking India, sit back so Punjab would get attacked, and then work for peace. Thus, the destruction would not be on her shoulders. I know you will all say I have no source for what I said and clearly it did not occur in that way but it is what my grandfather, Kulwant Singh Khokhar, told me when he spoke to a general. Hes asleep right now but Ill try and get the name of the general from him tom.
Further on the source issue. You have to think about who the people are who write history in the books. Just to make you think, for a long time in Germany after World War II most of the history books written made no reference of the Holocaust. Does that mean the Holocaust did not occur and all the Jews are lying? No
Also, the internet consists of I think less than 5% of actual knowledgeable content. Most knowledge and facts are still in books. Thats why in school it is always recommended to go to libraries and read books and cite books.
Also, I am not sure about the Pakistanis dressing like Sikhs and shooting up places and acting like terrorists but my grandfather did talk to one of the Generals under Indira Gandhi (talked to him years after all this had occurred) and he told me how Indira Gandhi did want to basically destroy Sikhs. He told me she had planned to shoot missiles into Pakistan to provoke them into attacking India, sit back so Punjab would get attacked, and then work for peace. Thus, the destruction would not be on her shoulders. I know you will all say I have no source for what I said and clearly it did not occur in that way but it is what my grandfather, Kulwant Singh Khokhar, told me when he spoke to a general. Hes asleep right now but Ill try and get the name of the general from him tom.
Summy
New Member
- Messages
- 11
Notions of Khalistan pre-colonization. Haha. Love it. How are you supposed to make comments on something somebody maybe heard in passing and in their mind drum up big notions. It seems like you want to make the first year university claim of "hey man, things are different to different people man". Yeah we get, heeray for subjectiveness. The world doesn't run on different opinions, either have one, or leave the hippie like talk to people who would swallow it.
The talk of any independent nation in Punjab was around notions of reviving Maharaj Ranjit Singh's prosperity which included all religions having an equal say and power. Khalistan, the land of rules under the Khalsa, is MUCH different than that.
India could have been split into a thousand peices Avneet, please cut the hypotheticals, they have no use. Maybe it is my training, or maybe its my mind, but how in the world can anyone live their life on, you know what COULD have happened. During the independence struggle, there were stronger voices for separatism in South India. What DID, in REALITY, what is KNOWN AS HISTORY, WHAT IS ACTUALLY 1 + 1= 2, is totally different. 1 + 1= 2 will teach you that the almost all sikh governing bodies were in favour to staying in India. Sikh bodies did not anticipate I am sure 1984 and other actions, but at the time of partition, sikh governing heads, preferred that a mere 20 million were unable to sustain its own land, there stayed with India. That is FACT. That is 1+1=2. This isnt fairy pixie, everything is subjective, we look at things different wonderland, where obsecurity runs wild in those people who are too uneducated to have a formal opinion, thats actually what happened.
The citations were from books Avneet, so the next time you want to critisize "internet" citations, I suggest you look more into what was cited. Citations are merely points to backup or further your own opinion, your own stance.
I dont know what world you live in, but when you step into the real world, like lets say a court of law, precedent is all you have. Because the world doesnt live on subjectivity and pixie dust like you want to make it out to be. In fact, people demand you have an opinion. Anyone can say what you say and get through a basic undergrad degree, but if you ever brought that stuff into a world that demands opinions and concrete stances what are people going to say.
I completely UNDERSTAND and APPRECIATE your commentary. I understand that people view events in different manners. If thats the leg your going to stand on in an internet website based on giving your own opinion, your going to get trampled on. I want people to appreciate your stance, because I know there are two sides to EVERY story, but to adhere to your thinking, gives people NO chance to develop their own stance, their own morality and their own opinion on what happens, which is crucial to the human condition.
Avneet, because I adressed your name at the beginning of the paragraph dopesnt mean each and every sentence is addressed to you. Try to follow the flow of the conversation and assuming that we both know the english language you can see who I was addressing my claims too...
----
I've been through high school, undergrad and currently through grad school, and if I EVER cited a source like Turbo did, Naveen, I wouldnt be able to sleep at night because my prof's would have ripped me apart. Sources like that are FULL of bias, the most bias in the world. You seem like a young kid who hasnt reached his educational peak yet, so understand that nobody in the real world would accept Turbo's family as a credible source of what is going on. Not to say they are not right, or they are not entitled to their opinion, but I could get a thousand people to say things different to Turbo and the cricle would never stop.
The world, from your educational papers to what happens in the court of law, trusts people with credentials. If I gave you a source that was there during the time of the diasters, who was neutral and came out with their own assertions, it is him, the PhD, who the world will look at as a credible source, not my family, or Turbo's, or joe schmo's.
-----------
If you dont want to develope an opinion, and use the 1st year rhetoric like " In my opinion, historical events are subject to one's own interpretation. Many people depending on the intersectionality of their values can see events quite different from one another. Therefore, in conclusion, the world is subjective, and I have no stance in life" then leave that for your tutorials.
Have an opinion, and have people backing up your opinion, and then we will go back and forth. I dont need to hear...
"We are talking about History... not some scientific experiment or mathematics where 1+1 ALWAYS equals 2, or the cause and effect is black or white. The only thing "factual" about historic events is what takes place- the wars, the destruction, the after math... what leads up to it is always HIGHLY debatable... "
Yeah thanks for the breaking news, thats why we debate.
When I say a sentence, I know its open to interpretation, so interpret it. Do I think everyone see's that as factual, no, and nor would I ever. But I just spent the last 5 minutes reading posts on how people think things are subjective.
Sometimes BTF provides you with great insight into people's thought processes. Then on occassion, sometimes BTF gives you the most de-moralizing examples of the darkness of human intellect.
Man I need some Solzhenitsyn in my life right about now....
The talk of any independent nation in Punjab was around notions of reviving Maharaj Ranjit Singh's prosperity which included all religions having an equal say and power. Khalistan, the land of rules under the Khalsa, is MUCH different than that.
India could have been split into a thousand peices Avneet, please cut the hypotheticals, they have no use. Maybe it is my training, or maybe its my mind, but how in the world can anyone live their life on, you know what COULD have happened. During the independence struggle, there were stronger voices for separatism in South India. What DID, in REALITY, what is KNOWN AS HISTORY, WHAT IS ACTUALLY 1 + 1= 2, is totally different. 1 + 1= 2 will teach you that the almost all sikh governing bodies were in favour to staying in India. Sikh bodies did not anticipate I am sure 1984 and other actions, but at the time of partition, sikh governing heads, preferred that a mere 20 million were unable to sustain its own land, there stayed with India. That is FACT. That is 1+1=2. This isnt fairy pixie, everything is subjective, we look at things different wonderland, where obsecurity runs wild in those people who are too uneducated to have a formal opinion, thats actually what happened.
The citations were from books Avneet, so the next time you want to critisize "internet" citations, I suggest you look more into what was cited. Citations are merely points to backup or further your own opinion, your own stance.
I dont know what world you live in, but when you step into the real world, like lets say a court of law, precedent is all you have. Because the world doesnt live on subjectivity and pixie dust like you want to make it out to be. In fact, people demand you have an opinion. Anyone can say what you say and get through a basic undergrad degree, but if you ever brought that stuff into a world that demands opinions and concrete stances what are people going to say.
I completely UNDERSTAND and APPRECIATE your commentary. I understand that people view events in different manners. If thats the leg your going to stand on in an internet website based on giving your own opinion, your going to get trampled on. I want people to appreciate your stance, because I know there are two sides to EVERY story, but to adhere to your thinking, gives people NO chance to develop their own stance, their own morality and their own opinion on what happens, which is crucial to the human condition.
Avneet, because I adressed your name at the beginning of the paragraph dopesnt mean each and every sentence is addressed to you. Try to follow the flow of the conversation and assuming that we both know the english language you can see who I was addressing my claims too...
----
I've been through high school, undergrad and currently through grad school, and if I EVER cited a source like Turbo did, Naveen, I wouldnt be able to sleep at night because my prof's would have ripped me apart. Sources like that are FULL of bias, the most bias in the world. You seem like a young kid who hasnt reached his educational peak yet, so understand that nobody in the real world would accept Turbo's family as a credible source of what is going on. Not to say they are not right, or they are not entitled to their opinion, but I could get a thousand people to say things different to Turbo and the cricle would never stop.
The world, from your educational papers to what happens in the court of law, trusts people with credentials. If I gave you a source that was there during the time of the diasters, who was neutral and came out with their own assertions, it is him, the PhD, who the world will look at as a credible source, not my family, or Turbo's, or joe schmo's.
-----------
If you dont want to develope an opinion, and use the 1st year rhetoric like " In my opinion, historical events are subject to one's own interpretation. Many people depending on the intersectionality of their values can see events quite different from one another. Therefore, in conclusion, the world is subjective, and I have no stance in life" then leave that for your tutorials.
Have an opinion, and have people backing up your opinion, and then we will go back and forth. I dont need to hear...
"We are talking about History... not some scientific experiment or mathematics where 1+1 ALWAYS equals 2, or the cause and effect is black or white. The only thing "factual" about historic events is what takes place- the wars, the destruction, the after math... what leads up to it is always HIGHLY debatable... "
Yeah thanks for the breaking news, thats why we debate.
When I say a sentence, I know its open to interpretation, so interpret it. Do I think everyone see's that as factual, no, and nor would I ever. But I just spent the last 5 minutes reading posts on how people think things are subjective.
Sometimes BTF provides you with great insight into people's thought processes. Then on occassion, sometimes BTF gives you the most de-moralizing examples of the darkness of human intellect.
Man I need some Solzhenitsyn in my life right about now....
Avneet
New Member
- Messages
- 78
Ok Summy... its funny how you say you can "understand and appreciate" what one has to say and then say something stupid about the darkness of human intellect blah blah blah... but whatever, thats just what you do.
And you said step into the real world like a court room??!... hahaha wow HOW SAD! A court room is the #1 example you have to the real world. That actually really makes me sad... its places like that that tear people apart and if thats the real world you want to exist in then more power to you.
As for citations from books... the quickest way you look them up is via the internet and if you read what I was saying... you know in the english conversation you referred to that I was having trouble following... I said from book to the internet, things can still be altered regardless of its "citations" to the original... unless you are implying that now, in such an honest world where anyone who is published speaks the truth and the whole truth, plagirism doesnt exist... well of course it cant if the book itself has a website dedicated solely to it and the authors and publishers had full control of what was being typed up. hah... so which of the books you cited off the internet has its own URL??
I dont live in a bubble nor do I need to get in touch with reality... I am living well in it... and ask anyone I know... my teammates would be a start (since we are on BTF), I am VERY opinionated and I stand for the things I feel strongly for or against because I firmly believe if you dont stand for something you will fall for anything. And I am anything BUT "middle of the road." I love things that are objective and, like ancient philosphers, try to seek out the black and white, and truth and justice. But sometimes I think things can be one too many shades of gray- they effect people differently, touch people differently, and for that I also have something called sensitivity and compassion and I choose to look at viewpoints subjectively and even sometimes talk about them loosely, especially when someones personal experience and family's integrity is being questioned or challenged. I am not super passionate about this subject (saint or sinner, martyr or terrorist) nor am I educated enough about this topic to pass on a strong opinion on it if I did choose to stand by one. And being educated on it doesnt simply mean reading up some stuff... education also comes from experience, understanding, practice- all of which I nor you have on this subject. But you have your cites and Turbo has his experiences. Books vs experience... how can you discredit either?! Its not even about hypothetical or subjective anymore, its about human courtesy and understanding and patience. And this goes beyond the subject at hand... you write these long posts with all these words and after a while they are just words... you try to be so smart but no one can take you seriously because you also manage to say some of the rudest things, thinking you are "crushing" somebodies thoughts or walking all over their opinions or serving them their words... you try to be this big shot but you do it in the smallest mindset. You dont understand common courtesy or grace yet you claim to be smarter than other people?!?! WHO would ever look at you as a leader or a scholar or an intellect??... You can rack up your diplomas and degrees but what examples have you set? Which perception of Summy has become his reality? The "know it all" or the jerk? You rant and rave and sound so silly. And you could have the smartest concept or point but it just doesnt matter when you say it in your ignorant tone- the basis of your thought doesnt even come across as clear as you had hoped because people are left with such a bad taste from all of your sideline commentary. I have noticed it for a very long time and I am sure people have said it along the way, you can have the loudest point and the strongest theory and the biggest, most extensive list of sources and citations but that isnt going to get you anywhere until you learn to become a bigger man. And dont protest it, just go back and read all the stuff you have posted... and if even then you still think you sounded SO smart then learn to read between the lines and your underlining tone. Our generation could use passion like yours and I think we are thirsty for our future great leaders and in search for the peers we can look up to for guidance, but you are in a bad need of an attitude adjustment. And if you are in need of me to back up my "opinion" on you maybe in the future I will have the time to go back to all of your posts (here and POL) and I can "Cite" them for you.
Have a goodnight and a good life.
And you said step into the real world like a court room??!... hahaha wow HOW SAD! A court room is the #1 example you have to the real world. That actually really makes me sad... its places like that that tear people apart and if thats the real world you want to exist in then more power to you.
As for citations from books... the quickest way you look them up is via the internet and if you read what I was saying... you know in the english conversation you referred to that I was having trouble following... I said from book to the internet, things can still be altered regardless of its "citations" to the original... unless you are implying that now, in such an honest world where anyone who is published speaks the truth and the whole truth, plagirism doesnt exist... well of course it cant if the book itself has a website dedicated solely to it and the authors and publishers had full control of what was being typed up. hah... so which of the books you cited off the internet has its own URL??
I dont live in a bubble nor do I need to get in touch with reality... I am living well in it... and ask anyone I know... my teammates would be a start (since we are on BTF), I am VERY opinionated and I stand for the things I feel strongly for or against because I firmly believe if you dont stand for something you will fall for anything. And I am anything BUT "middle of the road." I love things that are objective and, like ancient philosphers, try to seek out the black and white, and truth and justice. But sometimes I think things can be one too many shades of gray- they effect people differently, touch people differently, and for that I also have something called sensitivity and compassion and I choose to look at viewpoints subjectively and even sometimes talk about them loosely, especially when someones personal experience and family's integrity is being questioned or challenged. I am not super passionate about this subject (saint or sinner, martyr or terrorist) nor am I educated enough about this topic to pass on a strong opinion on it if I did choose to stand by one. And being educated on it doesnt simply mean reading up some stuff... education also comes from experience, understanding, practice- all of which I nor you have on this subject. But you have your cites and Turbo has his experiences. Books vs experience... how can you discredit either?! Its not even about hypothetical or subjective anymore, its about human courtesy and understanding and patience. And this goes beyond the subject at hand... you write these long posts with all these words and after a while they are just words... you try to be so smart but no one can take you seriously because you also manage to say some of the rudest things, thinking you are "crushing" somebodies thoughts or walking all over their opinions or serving them their words... you try to be this big shot but you do it in the smallest mindset. You dont understand common courtesy or grace yet you claim to be smarter than other people?!?! WHO would ever look at you as a leader or a scholar or an intellect??... You can rack up your diplomas and degrees but what examples have you set? Which perception of Summy has become his reality? The "know it all" or the jerk? You rant and rave and sound so silly. And you could have the smartest concept or point but it just doesnt matter when you say it in your ignorant tone- the basis of your thought doesnt even come across as clear as you had hoped because people are left with such a bad taste from all of your sideline commentary. I have noticed it for a very long time and I am sure people have said it along the way, you can have the loudest point and the strongest theory and the biggest, most extensive list of sources and citations but that isnt going to get you anywhere until you learn to become a bigger man. And dont protest it, just go back and read all the stuff you have posted... and if even then you still think you sounded SO smart then learn to read between the lines and your underlining tone. Our generation could use passion like yours and I think we are thirsty for our future great leaders and in search for the peers we can look up to for guidance, but you are in a bad need of an attitude adjustment. And if you are in need of me to back up my "opinion" on you maybe in the future I will have the time to go back to all of your posts (here and POL) and I can "Cite" them for you.
Have a goodnight and a good life.
Varun
Member
- Messages
- 268
If a lot of us accept the fact that history is biased and can be manipulated multiple ways, why is our new generation still arguing about this? Lets focus on today's issues, rather than historical nuances that just continue to separate. I am not expert on the past, BUT what I do know is that today there has still not be given justice for victims of Delhi massacre, 2003 Gujrat riots, and those civilian casualties in Bluestar, amongst many other events that have hurt India's populations regardless of majority or minority status (ie. Hindu Biharis being trafficked for slavelike labor into Delhi and Punjab). Not giving justice to all these Bharati citizens and to sideline the actual issues with arguments over history is just wrong.
Summy
New Member
- Messages
- 11
Avneet,
That was awesome. I am sure if you were writing a paper in undergrad about perceptions of history you would get a very good mark. You still don't understand my basic viewpoint. Experience is something that sways your judgement. If you think that Tubro's family has NO bias, and is MORE credible than lets say a neutral source, like the one I provided (a book which was published ONLINE- kinda defaults your whole books to internet WATCH OUT!!) the world would go with the neutral source. Why? I can tell you as who's parents lived through it, THEREFORE, MY EXPERIENCE, that Bhindranwale was a man with maybe good fundamental ambititions (if he didnt believe in all that killing, and stuff) but the way he carried out his tactics was lethal and anti sikhi.
Let me make one thing PERFECT CLEAR...
NONE OF MY ACTUAL POINTS, MY ACTUAL OPINIONS WERE EVER DEBATED. NOPE. NOT MY ASSERTIONS, NOT MY BELIEFS, WERE EVER QUESTIONED.
But nothing short of artistic escaping, they question two obscure notions: CITATIONS, AND THE SUBJECTIVENESS OF HISTORY. Hahaha.
So Avneet, as someone who has admitted to being uneducated about the matter, please dont stick your nose in then. If you want to talk about how you are sensitive and compassionate in an argument that has hotility written all over it, great. As do I. I would never insult Turbo's family, and I said, I have the greatest amount of respect for them. BUT PLEASE LEAVE THAT HIPPIE PIXIE FAIRY DUST bullshit at home please. If you are TOO uneducated to develope an opinion, DO NOT critisize others because they have developed one.
Please for your sanity, do not see me as a leader Avneet. You can name call till the dogs come home, but it will eventually get you nowhere. Because when you live your live benefitting from an education that you were deprived of earlier, you begin to appreciate what it means to have an educated opinion. You learn to sift out the pseudo intellects in the world that want to have NO OPINION, admit that they are UNEDUCATED ABOUT THE SUBJECT, but yet still choose to chime in because of their personal friendship with someone.
You learn to sift those people out, they will be mediocare, they will be run of the mill.
LETS USE AVNEET's LOVE of subjectiveness...
Some people see my tone as rude, others see it as strong. Some see my tone as agressive, others see it as passionate. WHO ARE YOU TO MAKE PEOPLE's mind up for them
Its not black and white. Its not all 1+1=2.
--------------
Somebody talk to me when they are educated and have an opinion.
That was awesome. I am sure if you were writing a paper in undergrad about perceptions of history you would get a very good mark. You still don't understand my basic viewpoint. Experience is something that sways your judgement. If you think that Tubro's family has NO bias, and is MORE credible than lets say a neutral source, like the one I provided (a book which was published ONLINE- kinda defaults your whole books to internet WATCH OUT!!) the world would go with the neutral source. Why? I can tell you as who's parents lived through it, THEREFORE, MY EXPERIENCE, that Bhindranwale was a man with maybe good fundamental ambititions (if he didnt believe in all that killing, and stuff) but the way he carried out his tactics was lethal and anti sikhi.
Let me make one thing PERFECT CLEAR...
NONE OF MY ACTUAL POINTS, MY ACTUAL OPINIONS WERE EVER DEBATED. NOPE. NOT MY ASSERTIONS, NOT MY BELIEFS, WERE EVER QUESTIONED.
But nothing short of artistic escaping, they question two obscure notions: CITATIONS, AND THE SUBJECTIVENESS OF HISTORY. Hahaha.
So Avneet, as someone who has admitted to being uneducated about the matter, please dont stick your nose in then. If you want to talk about how you are sensitive and compassionate in an argument that has hotility written all over it, great. As do I. I would never insult Turbo's family, and I said, I have the greatest amount of respect for them. BUT PLEASE LEAVE THAT HIPPIE PIXIE FAIRY DUST bullshit at home please. If you are TOO uneducated to develope an opinion, DO NOT critisize others because they have developed one.
Please for your sanity, do not see me as a leader Avneet. You can name call till the dogs come home, but it will eventually get you nowhere. Because when you live your live benefitting from an education that you were deprived of earlier, you begin to appreciate what it means to have an educated opinion. You learn to sift out the pseudo intellects in the world that want to have NO OPINION, admit that they are UNEDUCATED ABOUT THE SUBJECT, but yet still choose to chime in because of their personal friendship with someone.
You learn to sift those people out, they will be mediocare, they will be run of the mill.
LETS USE AVNEET's LOVE of subjectiveness...
Some people see my tone as rude, others see it as strong. Some see my tone as agressive, others see it as passionate. WHO ARE YOU TO MAKE PEOPLE's mind up for them
Its not black and white. Its not all 1+1=2.
--------------
Somebody talk to me when they are educated and have an opinion.
ranjit singh
New Member
- Messages
- 308
There is no question that the Indian government and the media (both working hand in hand) engaged in character assassination and the demonization of Bhindranwale. Government institutions in power do this all the time towards its "enemies". Killings, assassinations, etc. were all blamed on him/his followers in order to rally together public support for Indira Gandhi's actions and to revitalize the Hindu voting bloc.
It is common knowledge that the Congress party (Indira Gandhi's party) had supported Bhindranwale in the late 70's in order to cause a schism in the Sikh community and to take away support from the Akali Dal (other major political party in Punjab). But Bhindranwale's death wish was granted once he started speaking out against the actions of the Congress party and spoke about the oppression and the plight of the Sikhs. He was labeled as a "terrorist" and a "fanatic" wanting to "destroy the unity of India"----- all because he had immense support amongst his people and wanted more autonomy for his people of Punjab.
It is common knowledge that the Congress party (Indira Gandhi's party) had supported Bhindranwale in the late 70's in order to cause a schism in the Sikh community and to take away support from the Akali Dal (other major political party in Punjab). But Bhindranwale's death wish was granted once he started speaking out against the actions of the Congress party and spoke about the oppression and the plight of the Sikhs. He was labeled as a "terrorist" and a "fanatic" wanting to "destroy the unity of India"----- all because he had immense support amongst his people and wanted more autonomy for his people of Punjab.
Summy
New Member
- Messages
- 11
Couple of things that need to be clearified Ranjit, for my sake... Not being disrespectful, actually genuinely interested..
What are your opinions about Osama Bin Laden. Or Sadam Husseinm Or other people that have gone against big states and with your justification can be justified with their actions by the actions of state propaganda..
Also to claim that Bhindranwale wanted "autonomy" for his people of Punjab is extremely offensive. If you have hindus, muslims or whatever religion in Punjab, they would be extremely offended by your comments. He wanted autonomy (wouldnt use that word) for sikh, not only of punjab, but from punjab to up, to haryana, down to delhi.
When you create separatism, which I can pluck you straight out from his speeches, and your actions, which cannot be manipulated by the government (yeah bhindranwale did walk and he did talk, without the strings of the government) then there are some things that are factual. BUt I guess when you have a folk hero, and you need to blame somebody on how his values dont mesh with your western driven ideologies, its always great to blame the religion-less, face-less big state propaganda machines.
NOt to say that none of that went on, I am sure he was villianified, the same way Osama Bin Laden has been. But to the extent that you think, and to the extent that you are implying. This religious pious innocent man, that so happen to carry western machine guns (although he was against western life) is extremely mis-leading.
What are your opinions about Osama Bin Laden. Or Sadam Husseinm Or other people that have gone against big states and with your justification can be justified with their actions by the actions of state propaganda..
Also to claim that Bhindranwale wanted "autonomy" for his people of Punjab is extremely offensive. If you have hindus, muslims or whatever religion in Punjab, they would be extremely offended by your comments. He wanted autonomy (wouldnt use that word) for sikh, not only of punjab, but from punjab to up, to haryana, down to delhi.
When you create separatism, which I can pluck you straight out from his speeches, and your actions, which cannot be manipulated by the government (yeah bhindranwale did walk and he did talk, without the strings of the government) then there are some things that are factual. BUt I guess when you have a folk hero, and you need to blame somebody on how his values dont mesh with your western driven ideologies, its always great to blame the religion-less, face-less big state propaganda machines.
NOt to say that none of that went on, I am sure he was villianified, the same way Osama Bin Laden has been. But to the extent that you think, and to the extent that you are implying. This religious pious innocent man, that so happen to carry western machine guns (although he was against western life) is extremely mis-leading.
Naveen Singh Khokhar
New Member
- Messages
- 76
yo Ranjit this is exactly what my Gujarati Uncle told me happened with Bhindranwale. How he initially had governments support and then there was a change and thas when all the stuff started to happen. Good post broranjit.singh said:
Varun
Member
- Messages
- 268
And it is also common knowlege that the Akali Dal was willing to cause schisms in Punjab to create a state with a Sikh majority that would enable the Akali party to enjoy a greater vote bank and chances of election. This is why Himachal Pradesh and Haryana were created out of the original, stronger Punjab of the 1960s. To acknowledge one side's politics and disregard another's gives a skewed representation.ranjit.singh said:
ranjit singh
New Member
- Messages
- 308
Those who are interested in the events of 1984 and the Khalistan movement MUST know about the Anandpur Sahib Resolution. The resolution not only included safeguards for Sikhs, but for ALL Indians. It was not a rally cry for Khalistan, but rather a way to curb the power of the central government (something beneficial to ALL Indians), to create an environment in which the "sentiments and aspirations of the Sikh Panth will find full expression, satisfaction and growth", and to protect the economy of Punjab. It was endorsed by Bhindranwale, Sikh scholars/intelligentsia, politicians, servicemen, and many members of the Sikh community.
A full translation of the resolution can be found at http://www.sikhcoalition.org/Sikhism21.asp (I urge everyone to read it), but the major demands of the resolution are the recasting of the Indian constitution to increase states' autonomy, the return of Chandigarh to Punjab (instead of leaving it shared with Haryana), state control over its river waters, ending the reallocation of river water from Punjab to non-riparian states, and protecting Sikhs from discrimination.
As you can see, the resolution centered around a combination of economic, cultural, religious, and constitutional demands. One can easily see how the resolution was a threat to the hegemony and power of the central government. The demands were actively pursued but the central government would never concede. This is a major reason why the Khalistan movement and Bhindranwale garnered such support, NOT because of a blind hatred towards Hindus and India as Summy would like you to believe.
A full translation of the resolution can be found at http://www.sikhcoalition.org/Sikhism21.asp (I urge everyone to read it), but the major demands of the resolution are the recasting of the Indian constitution to increase states' autonomy, the return of Chandigarh to Punjab (instead of leaving it shared with Haryana), state control over its river waters, ending the reallocation of river water from Punjab to non-riparian states, and protecting Sikhs from discrimination.
As you can see, the resolution centered around a combination of economic, cultural, religious, and constitutional demands. One can easily see how the resolution was a threat to the hegemony and power of the central government. The demands were actively pursued but the central government would never concede. This is a major reason why the Khalistan movement and Bhindranwale garnered such support, NOT because of a blind hatred towards Hindus and India as Summy would like you to believe.