Akal Purakh Kee Rachha Hamnai, SarbLoh Dee Racchia Hamanai

    View Post Listing    |    Search    
Goto Page: Previous123456
Current Page: 6 of 6

Re: Sick Of Anti-Sant Bhindranwale "Sikhs"
Posted by: admin (IP Logged)
Date: June 13, 2009 07:15AM

This thread is now closed. Nothing new has been submitted that we don't already know. The thread had gone on long enough and it was with reluctance that we allowed new posts on it. If there is something new you want to share then please start a new topic.


Posted by: gb2000 (IP Logged)
Date: April 16, 2008 04:19AM


On Monday 14 April the BBC decided to hold a debate on whether or not there should be a separate Sikh State, Khalistan. Nihal presented the show on BBC Asian Network between 9-10am. The two invited to speak on the subject were Jagdeesh Singh, a Sikh activist from Slough and Deshpal Panesar, an employment law barrister from London.

Jagdeesh Singh put the case for the break up of India and gave a historical Sikh perspective. Whereas Deshpal Panesar – an Indian nationalist - argued Sikhs had flourished in India, although he later admitted Sikhs had ‘had a hard time’.

In total there were 19 other contributors that took part in the discussion or sent texts or emails that were read out on air. The BBC tried to ensure a balance between those for and against a separate Sikh State, but the Khalistanis clearly came out on top.

Gurjeet Singh a leading figure in the Sikh Federation (UK) and from Leicester was the first caller and described the discrimination Sikhs have experienced since 1947 and the lack of justice for the last 30 years since 13 April 1978. One thing that is often misinterpreted that both Gurjeet Singh and Jagdeesh Singh explained was that a sovereign Sikh State would be a home where people of all faiths have freedoms.

Hardeep Singh from Berkshire a graduate in Medical Biology from Brunel University in London and a media correspondent for Panjab Radio then explained the significance of the actions taken by the Indian authorities in 1984 in advancing the case for Sikh independence and Khalistan. He also corrected Nihal who in the introduction referred to Hindu/Sikh riots instead of state sponsored pogroms.

Someone from Leicester named Jagdeesh then explained he was against India breaking up and believed the status quo must be maintained. He was a poor speaker with a limited knowledge of freedom movements who not surprisingly refused to accept Sikhs and others should have the freedom to secure their independence.

Dabinderjit Singh then spoke of the broken promises to Sikhs following Indian independence and the Sikhs refusal to sign the Indian constitution that does not even recognise Sikhs as a separate faith. He argued the continued gross violation of the human rights of Sikhs in the last 30 years reinforced the need for Sikh independence. He also explained the paramount importance in the 9/11 era of Sikhs throughout the world having a Sikh voice to represent their interests. This in part addressed the presenter who asked a number of the callers if they would go and live in an independent Sikh State if it was created.

Other pro-Khalistan speakers before the debate was due to end at 10am included Harbhajan Singh from Leicester, Jagvir Singh from Bristol and Hardeep Singh from Walsall. The only other two callers were a Muslim Panjabi called Ross who argued Panjabis were already independent and someone who called himself Daljit Sahota from Derby. He said he was not in favour of Sikh independence, but also admitted he or his family had not really been impacted on by the events of 1984.

The BBC took the unusual step to extend the debate beyond 10am and invited two controversial callers called Ash and Paul. Ash a Hindu Panjabi was clearly upset and said he was opposed to the carving up of India. He said he had a nasty side and ‘pledged’ to take up arms that would ‘make Al Qaeda look like a little baby’.

Paul then continued with a barrage of abuse towards Sikhs that had spoken in favour of Sikh independence. He called them ‘crazy’, ‘nutters’, accused them of ‘talking bloody nonsense’, said they should have their ‘heads examined’ and that they had ‘mental problems’. People can listen to the programme and decide for themselves on the BBC web site by visiting:

[www.bbc]. co.uk/radio/ aod/asiannet_ ao.../asiannihal _mon

The BBC also read out 6 email messages that were mostly in support of Sikh independence and the arguments that had been put forward. The debate was ended by the BBC reading out an emailed statement from Bhai Amrik Singh, the Chair of the Sikh Federation (UK), which is reproduced below:

‘The Indian authorities have systematically discriminated against the Sikhs since 1947 and subverted or suppressed all legitimate political demands for greater autonomy. In the last 30 years the Indian authorities have unleashed a rein of terror through gross violation of human rights of Sikhs in an attempt to extinguish the calls for freedom and Sikh independence.

Sikhs first secured political power in the form of an independent state in 1710, after suffering centuries of foreign invasions and alien domination. The larger sovereign Sikh state was established in 1799 and was recognised by all the world powers. The Sikhs, after the two Anglo-Sikh wars, lost their kingdom and the Punjab came under British rule in 1849. However, in giving up power Sikhs were party to several Treaties with the British.

Sikhs are clear about their nationhood, but it is denied by the Indian State and the Indian political class which are not prepared to allow the Sikhs their national rights.’

Given what Nihal, the presenter who is Sri Lankan and a Buddhist, had just heard from Ash and Paul after 10am he finished by saying Bhai Amrik Singh had put the Sikh case very eloquently.


Posted by: mandeep (IP Logged)
Date: April 17, 2008 04:21PM

being a sikh i believe we need to fight for are rights and justice for 78 and 84 and for the crimes commited by security forced in 80's-90's, but i believe the reason's we didn't get justice is cause we were to focused on khalistan and feeling like victims, basicully what i would here is we need khalistan cause we can't get justice in india, but never did i hear khalistanis talk about getting justice for 78 and 84 and what the indian security forced did in the 80's and 90's.

also look at the corruption in punjab today what type of corruption would exsist in khalistan, especially if we can't run gurdwaras without fighting were ever we live

thirdly drug addictions are at 50% in punjab, 1 in 2 youth have a drug addiction how to deal with that

fourth, economically how would we run economically

fifth everyone wants to move out who would stay and live in khalistan

sixth india would want khalistna back and pakistna might want to take shots at us to, how would we do stuck between these two countrys

seventh everyone wants to leave punjab how many ppl would actually want to go live in khalistan, who would want to move back, especially when the economy wouldn't be stable and corruption ppl wouldn't raise their kids their

eighth, jews are discriminated against in america but are a powerhouse in that country, they are the most successfull ppl, sikhs are successfull were ever they go and even though we have had it hard in india we are still successfull, but the biggest problem facing now is parants won't teach their kids hard work and determination instead just spoil them, rather then cause even bigger problems by becoming are own country we need to get stronger within india so we can get justice, more and more sikhs no less and less about sikhi in punjab and more youth are cutting their hair and dropping out of school so how would khlaistan survive

with all these problems how would khlaistan survive.


Posted by: Harinder Singh (IP Logged)
Date: April 17, 2008 05:34PM

<< though we have had it hard in india we are still successfull,>>

All practicing strong honest sikhs WERE MASS MURDERED. So called sikhs who have accepted slavery are "successful". even today sikhs who want to live with DIGNITY are targeted, mocked, Spy cops after them.


Posted by: Harinder Singh (IP Logged)
Date: April 17, 2008 10:22PM

Not only sikhs, MUSLIMS are genocided too. INDIAN police and INDIAN army in reality IS BAMMAN POLICE AND BAMMAN ARMY.


Posted by: scimitar (IP Logged)
Date: April 18, 2008 03:51AM

mandeep states

"feeling like vitims?"

the sikhs faced mass murder rape police brutality if they were not victims during 80s and 90s what were they? there is a clear difference between feeling and actually being victims when sikhs were clearly marked out in state pogroms..

it is the sikh community who after who decided to move on, recrate their lives in their forgive and let liv eand start again after suffering the deafening silence of the world.

The fanatical rss were still hell bent well after the 90s into the new millenium, the bollywood film industry continually targets the sikh identity, sikhs were denied the free democratic right of protest to march in india against dera sacha sauda. The sikh stands in the midst of it all with only his her rehat as their support. Thats hardly a comparable scenario with jews and america.

jews and america have a different relationship to the relationship sikhs and india have. This is a relationship that india should encourage and foster with the sikhs, after the damage it caused to punjab and the sikh community.

On the one end of it an organised country with state resources experience of 50 years on the other the sikh. Most of us have no problems with indians any religions, we respect everyones right to live in dignity and exerience equality and free right to breathe be that a sikh hindu muslim indian american.

Goto Page: Previous123456
Current Page: 6 of 6

© 2007-2022 Gurdwara Tapoban Sahib