Follow us:
Bhindranwale Legacy COMMENTS
Bhindranwale never threatened, just replied to it, says his son


Post a Comment
You are not logged in, please log in or register
If you wish your letter to be considered for publication in the print magazine, we request you to use a proper name, with full postal address - you could still maintain your anonymity, but please desist from using unpublishable sobriquets and handles
Must See
Published
Daily Mail
Digression
Order by HAVE YOUR SAY
1/D-104
Oct 15, 2009
11:50 PM
It's not as if Sikh's were betrayed by Mahatma Gandhi during India's independence. If one looks today, have there not been many people who have been suffering? Some Kashmiri's are refugees in their own nation. True, perhaps India may not have been partitioned, but was there any Sikh leader then, who could have avoided partition? The Congress Party went against the Mahatma, and he was left alone, in opposing partition. The Sikh community is as well regarded as any community in India. Did the Guru Arjan Singh build the Golden Temple, so that people could express their love singing hymn's there to God, or because he foresaw Bhindranwale making a fortress out of the Golden Temple? Was Khalistan conceived, because the Punjab was partitioned in 1947? What about Bengal? Before the Punjab was partitioned, where was the talk about Khalistan? Who am I to discuss the merits of being a Sikh, because a Sikh loves God?
Aditya Mookerjee
Belgaum, India
2/D-79
Nov 04, 2009
07:37 PM
@ Aditya Mookerjee: Gandhi did indeed betray the Sikhs, and there is documented evidence to prove this. I suggest reading the book "Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity" by G.B. Singh. Also, it was Guru Arjun Dev, not Arjun Singh, who built Harmandir Sahib. Further, Sikhs have been an established armed community since the times of Guru Hargobind Sahib (Guru Arjun Dev's son). Lastly, the idea of Khalistan was indeed conceived well before partition. Talks among Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Jawaharlal Nehru, and Master Tara Singh brought forth proposals of partition into three distinct nations (for Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs). For some time, the Hindu politicians accepted the idea of a Sikhs state, but Sikhs were conned into alliance with the Hindus against the Muslims. Thereafter, not only were plans for the establishment of a Sikh nation diminished, Sikhs (by means of Hindu-nationalist propaganda machines) have been dragged ideologically into the Hindu fold. It was precisely this injustice that reestablished the movements of Bhindranwale in the 70's and 80's. The Indian government's genocidal campaigns in Bluestar (and other anti-Sikh military operations) and the 1984 anti-Sikh government-sponsored pogroms, designed to crush the Sikhs' sense of sovereignty and solidarity and eliminate the Sikhs' perceived need for a homeland, set the stage for the Khalistan movement of the 80's, 90's and present.

To the author: How dare you liken this great saint to "infamous characters" such as Adolf Hitler or Saddam Hussein? He was a freedom-fighter for the Sikhs' freedom from Indian oppression. As his son himself maintains, Bhindranwale was misunderstood as an individual, and was decorated with offensive labels such as "extremist" or "terrorist." Please consider your approach, with his millions of supporters in mind. Thank you.
Shan Singh Tinna
New York City, United States
3/D-80
Nov 04, 2009
08:11 PM
if sikhs want a separate state,its ok .

i presume the name will be khalistan.

good luck
gayatri devi
delhi, India
4/D-17
Nov 07, 2009
03:40 AM
@ Gayatri Devi: Thanks, the movement welcomes your support.
Shan Singh Tinna
New York City, United States
5/D-22
Nov 07, 2009
04:56 AM
the talk about the greatness of ethnic and cultural
diversity apperas hollow.

in india some sikhs at least want khalistan, kashmiri
muslims want to be own their own.

the same goes for several other communities.

hindus are the ones who want to keep the shop running,
even though they know that others do not have the same
vision. it is an excersise in futility.

i have no objection if some want to part company and
go their separate way. it may be good for core india, which despite differences is bound togather.

this core in fact could be quite small. it will probably not include eastern states, who are heavily
populated by caste conscious dalits, obc,s and muslims.

a further division of india may not happen. in fact
the chances of this happening are quite small.however
it will be no tragedy if it does.
gayatri devi
delhi, India
6/D-23
Nov 07, 2009
05:15 AM
Gayathri,
Existing fascist-imperial-brahminical Indian state is the biggest tragedy inflicted on us in our long checkered history.

Shan Singh Tinna,

One cannot win against powerful fascist state through fast-paced, quick and violent means alone. It needs to be preceded by painstaking nation-building process. Khalistan efforts failed almost completely because after Indian government physically eliminated its overt supporters, there is no effort on the part of sikh community to keep the dream of sovereign sikh nation alive. Now only thing that is left is to educate your people on this and help to keep your national identity distinct and alive wherever you go! Indian brahminical-elitist establishment is well versed and notorious in subverting separate identities to reduce them into a lower rung clients of brahminical hierarchy.
Senthamarai
Chennai, India
7/D-24
Nov 07, 2009
05:47 AM
senthamarai

i support sikhs in case they want to form a separate state. will this mean that sikhs from the rest of india will move out and settle in their new state.

i support kashmiri muslims desire for independence.
this means that kshmiri muslims will be expelled from
india.

the same goes for dalits. they can also form their own state, or one with other nonbrahmins. muslims,dalits
who fear brahmin ,high caste domination are most welcome to live on their own.

the high caste hindus will be happy liveing in a smaller india, and be relieved of the guilt they are
made to feel. dalits,obc,s,muslims,sikhs,christians
will all leave for new states, headed by mayawati,
laloo ram, mulayam singh, augustus aaa, kumar bbb,
reddy ccc, and chutterjee ddd.

good bye
auf weidersehn
au revoir
gayatri devi
delhi, India
8/D-60
Nov 08, 2009
01:12 PM
@ Senthamarai: The Khalistan movement started with diplomacy, but because the common Sikhs in India had already been brainwashed not to want Khalistan, the movement lacked support. After extending campaigns of diplomacy for decades, and after enduring numerous acts of genocide by the Indian government, Khalistanis turned to more martial techniques in taking what was owed to them. I agree violence should come only as an ultimate last resort, and that is exactly what happened. What's fortunate is that about 85% of Sikhs outside India support the Khalistan movement, and after 25 years of exhaustive genocide, the movement is back in motion. You're right about keeping in touch with minority identity. That is the first step in solving the problem at this point, and many Sikhs outside of India are beginning to re-establish themselves, their Sikh identity, and their struggle and support for a homeland. To avoid having to turn to violence, lawmakers and human rights organizations in the United States, Canada, the UK, and other influential nations (in cooperation with the U.N.) are working to ensure justice to the Sikhs. Sikhs, Muslims, and other minorities are not safe in the fascist nation of India. Freedom, but more importantly identity, are suppressed for minorities in this brahminical State.
Shan Singh Tinna
New York City, United States
9/D-66
Nov 08, 2009
02:52 PM
shan singh tinna

i have studied and lived in europe for most of my life.
i honestly believe that hindus in india do not wish to
supress minorities.

in 1947 hindus thought that the muslim minority problem
had been solved after the creation of pakistan. obviously it was not. today india is at square one again. what exactly can hindus do now. i have suggested
that kashmir be allowed to separate, because in all respects it rejects india,hindus in totality.

sikhs have in reality obtained khalistan. all important
positions are occupied by sikhs. sikhs are doing well
in india in all fields. however if sikhs want to quit india it is fine for me. it will hurt them in very
possible way. a khalistani state will not be worth much in the world forum. a break of relations with india will hurt them economically. and how about sikhs in the rest of india. will they all immigrate to khalistan.

why are hindus held responsible for backwardnss of muslims. are they being prevented from english education which is the passport to progress. are they
being stopped from starting businesses. look at dawood
ibrahim, and his criminal empire. how about mohammed
telgi, taslimuddin in bihar, and several others.

all communities who fail point their finger at the
sucessful indians as those responsible for their misery
these are the dalits, obc,s, muslims whatever.

the recent acts of mayawati, koda show how the leaders
of these dalits and tribals are in reality.

the exposure of muslim poiticians in kerala show how
they are prepared to cheat the poor of their community
in the haj business.

as a hindu , a nominal one, an agnostic in reality,
i would say. you have enough power in various states
eg up, bihar, bengal to lift yourselves. you are also
welcome to leave the indian union along with kashmir.,
khalistan, and sundry other regions.

we do not need to exploit the poor of the backward communities. leave india, manage yourselves and send
us a new year card every year , and we will do the
same. it will mean independence for the guilt ridden
hindus of india.
gayatri devi
delhi, India
10/D-75
Nov 08, 2009
04:13 PM
@ Gayatri Devi: First off, I appreciate very much that this conversation is civil in nature. More often than not, both sides of the Khalistan issue will get at each others' throats (often with poor skills in negotiation and debate), something as a lover of peace I disapprove of entirely.

Now, I never blame Hindus themselves for the problem. Nor will I. It is not religions, but corrupted followers of these religions, who I find to be liable for injustice. The fault here lies very little in the Hindu populace, but more so in politicians who overlook India's origins in secularism by furthering the idea of a Hindu nation-state. THIS is what I am against. The perpetuation of the Sikh faith does not inherently depend on the existence of a homeland, and we are quite comfortable existing aside people of other faiths (a freedom Sikhs in the West enjoy quite liberally). The problem arises when India abridges the freedoms of its Sikh populace: Since well before India's independence, Sikhs have been alienated by Hindu politicians. Gandhi and Nehru both conned Sikh leaders like Master Tara Singh into alliance in joining the Indian union, with the promise that Sikhs would one day receive a homeland. That promise never having been delivered, politicians have further suppressed Sikh identity and Sikh sovereignty by funding Hindu-nationalist organizations such as the RSS, which propagandize claims such as "Sikhism being a descendant movement of Hinduism." The government even went genocidal on the Sikhs in Operation Bluestar, wherein numerous innocent Sikh civilians were slaughtered. The government covered up their intention to exterminate and ethnically cleanse the Sikh population by claiming the operation was intended to "flush out terrorists." It is clear the government used Bhindranwale as an excuse to get to the hearts of each and every Sikh, making them slaves in their own nation. The genocide then continued in November of that very year by means of the anti-Sikh pogroms. It is THESE atrocities that necessitate the creation of Khalistan, a land where Sikhs can be free from oppression and terrorism executed by the State.
Shan Singh Tinna
New York City, United States
11/D-99
Nov 08, 2009
08:27 PM
shan singh tinna

Why again you Khalistanies are trying to shed blood of Sikhs ? Keshdharies and we Sahajdharies are happy in India .We have learnt a lesson from Pakistan that clergy if allowed a free run in any Country can destroy it as clergy knows how to start the Religeous strife but does not know where and when to stop.

Please devote your energies to save your Country Pakistan .Are you and host of other supporters of Pakistan here not ashamed of the blood shed of Muslims taking place in Pakistanies ? Pakistan was created for you to prosper and live peacefully .What have you made of it ? Forget Khalistan concentrate to mend Pakistan.
a k ghai
mumbai, India
12/D-101
Nov 08, 2009
08:43 PM
"What's fortunate is that about 85% of Sikhs outside India support the Khalistan movement, and after 25 years of exhaustive genocide, the movement is back in motion. You're right about keeping in touch with minority identity. "


Tinna Mina

Lahore the seat of Khalas Raj of Ranjit Singh will be the Capital of Khalistan .And Jamrud Fort was the last limit of Khallsa kingdom . Please take up with Zardari and Nawaz brothers.

By the way Jamrud is 25 miles away from Peshawar towards Khebar .Have an exploratory ride there .
a k ghai
mumbai, India
13/D-15
Nov 09, 2009
04:43 AM
@ A K Ghai: By the way, I've already been to much of Pakistan, even the western fronts of the former Sikh empire. But all in all, I don't support the doctrine of irredentism, where the intention is to restore all lands once occupied by Sikhs. What I want is a haven for Sikhs, where they can be free to practice their faith. Unlike what you suggest, I don't envision a theocracy or any other clergy-run government. Khalistan ought ideally to be a democratic institution which supports and protects the existence of any minorities.

It's interesting you mention "Keshdharies and […] Sahajdharies." This is part of the reason why Khalistan is necessary: If it weren't for Hindu-nationalist influence on Sikhs, there ideally would be no so-called "Sehajdharis" to begin with. The word itself is a product of Hindu politicians' attempts to crush Sikh identity.
Shan Singh Tinna
New York City, United States
14/D-36
Nov 09, 2009
10:29 AM
"It's interesting you mention "Keshdharies and […] Sahajdharies." This is part of the reason why Khalistan is necessary: If it weren't for Hindu-nationalist influence on Sikhs, there ideally would be no so-called "Sehajdharis" to begin with. The word itself is a product of Hindu politicians' attempts to crush Sikh identity.'

tinna singh mina



The you have to renounce all the Sikh Gurus who all were Hindus.You have also to renounce Granthsahib as majority of Shabads are by the Hindu sants if you really want to get rid of Hindus' influence.

We know you belong to Sikh Freedom movement an upfront for Pak ISI and financed by the Jehadi funds.Your HQs are no more in NY but in Lahore now.

Please maintain the Lahore Fort well the future seat of kKhalistan.

"But all in all, I don't support the doctrine of irredentism, where the intention is to restore all lands once occupied by Sikhs. "

We don't bother what a Tinna Minna Singh wants .We want full restoration of The Khalas Kingdom which Sikhs lost due to sabotage by the Sikhs themselves as a major portion of Khalsa Fauj deserted Ranjit Singh's son and joined hands with Firangees in midst of the War.

Now you are betraying again the Khalas cause for the money you receive from Muslim Kingdom of Jehadies who want to Islamise sikhs.They imposed 4.5 Crores Jajia on Sikhs of NWFP last month .

Your joining hands with Pakistanies is like "Lal singh and Tej Singh came again to the rescue of the English. They both deserted the Khalsa army, Sikh soldiery without their leaders was stood waiting for orders and lost the battle once ammunition was done. In this battle British lost 1000 men 1721 were wounded, Sikhs lost about 2000 men and about 73 pieces of guns."

Sardar Tinna Mina Singh don't betray Khalsa Panth .
happy ram ambalvi
Ambala Cantt, India
15/D-39
Nov 09, 2009
10:45 AM
@ Happy Ram Ambalvi: I'm pretty sure you're blowing my level of involvement far out of proportion. I have no links with Pakistan...that's a ridiculous thought. I am not against Hindus or against Muslims, and "positive" influence I have no trouble with. Negative influences—those that keep the Sikh identity suppressed—are what hurt the efforts of the Panth.

I am not a Khalistani, per se. I simply want freedom for my people. In the end, I'm just an ordinary person who is open to any ideas that will uphold Sikhs' freedoms. Khalistan seems like a good idea, but I am not an aggressor or an extremist. My apologies to everyone if I come across that way.
Shan Singh Tinna
New York City, United States
16/D-45
Nov 09, 2009
12:01 PM
" I simply want freedom for my people. In the end, I'm just an ordinary person who is open to any ideas that will uphold Sikhs' freedoms. Khalistan seems like a good idea,"

Sardar Tina Singh Mina sahib

Sikhs freedom will be restored only and only once the kingdom of Maharaja Ranjit Singh is restored to them.That was the land of Khalsa Raj.Why you feel shy to restore glory of Sikh Raj ? Don't settle for small areas in India when the whole land right from Attari to Jamrud belongs to the Khalsa.

Another important task also needs to be accomplished by the Khalas.The present Northern Areas of Kashmir have been usurped by Pakistan in 1947 which were actually part of the Khalas Raj .We have to recover these areas from from them .About 2000 square miles have been illegally given to China by Pakistan .These areas too need to be restored to Khalsa.We will help you for this too.

Once Khalsa Raj is restored in Lahore then we will give you Jammu and Kashmir also which originally belonged to Mahraja Ranjit Singh. Gaddar Gulab Singh Dogra purchased the State by giving Rs 50 Lacs to Firangees in those days .That amount should be reimbursed to us but on comparative rate of exchange may be presently Rs 5000 crores.

So don't act like Gulab Singh or Tej Singh or Lal Sibgh as betrayers of the Khalsa .Strive and fight for what belonged to Khalsa !!

We too want give you freedom and original land of Khalsa .Learn from Jews.Don't fight for hanfull of villages when you own full Khalsa Kingdom !
happy ram ambalvi
Ambala Cantt, India
17/D-47
Nov 09, 2009
12:28 PM
A page from the History of Brave Sikhs :

"Governor-General, describes the last scenes of battle vividly in his book History of the Sikhs : "...although assailed on either side by squadrons of horse and battalions of foot, no Sikh offered to submit and no disciple of Guru Gobind Singh asked for quarter. They everywhere showed a front to the victors, and stalked slowly and sullenly away, while many rushed singly forth to meet assured death by contending with a multitude. The victors looked with stolid wonderment upon indomitable courage of the vanquished..."

http://www.sikh-hist...warriors/attari.html
a k ghai
mumbai, India
18/D-53
Nov 09, 2009
01:43 PM
To everyone: I've just been expressing some personal views, here. But ultimately, I find the action and tough decisions ought to be made by people of more expertise on the matter. Whether you agree or disagree with me, thank you for your responses to my input. Commenting on news articles isn't too productive an effort in any case, so I think I'm done here.
Shan Singh Tinna
New York City, United States
19/D-74
Nov 09, 2009
07:39 PM
"Commenting on news articles isn't too productive an effort in any case, so I think I'm done here.
Shan Singh Tinna


Sing :

"Jo tujhe bahve soh bhalikar !

Tun sada salamt Nirankar !!"

Let thy will be done !
a k ghai
mumbai, India
  Order by BACK TO ARTICLE 
Order by HAVE YOUR SAY
Order by HAVE YOUR SAY


ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SUBSCRIBE | ADVERTISING RATES | COPYRIGHT & DISCLAIMER | COMMENTS POLICY

OUTLOOK TOPICS:    a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9   
Or just type in a few initial letters of a topic: