BBC's Sonia Deol Is Forced Off Facebook By Sikhs Furious Over TV Film

[Lee]

I watched this the other week, I found it interesting, I failed to notice any of the nuances that have some Sikhs angry enought to bombard this woman with such anger that she felt she had to sclose her facebook account.

*shrug* Then I'm not Indian so perhaps that has much bearing on it, but anger, now that IS certianly un-Sikh.

People, we are a strange lot, the whole world over. It is sad really and just serves as yet another reminder to me that there are soooooo very few Gursikhs in the world. Company of the Sadh Sangat? Ahhhh if only I could find such a group.

 

[Gyani Jarnail Singh]

Lee you have got the entire PLOT. GURSIKHS are as rare as Birds milk.

 

[Tejwant Singh]

Sikhi is based on truthful living. SGGS, our only Guru gives us tools so that we can keep ourselves in check 24-7 so that introspection and self examinations do not become the rugs under which we throw our inner dirt. If we open the SGGS randomly on any page, it warns us and also reminds us about the mound of our inner grime that we have been sweeping under the rug will make us trip with the result that we will fall flat on our own faces.

If Bhindrawale was not good for Sikhi from certain aspects, then it should be discussed openly sans bias. It has been said that he made many, many of the lost youth take Khandei de Pahul, which is a good thing. But the truthful living demands from us to find out what these people did or are doing as Sikhs after having taken Khandei de Pahul or was this just something which turned into a Sikh dogma by Bhindrawale?

As mentioned above that truthful living is the only way no matter what odds are stacked up against us. Just giving khandei de pahul is not enough if it is not backed by deeds. It rather becomes a disgrace.

We know that our Gurus used shastars against tyranny and taught us the same. But, one thing I still fail to understand is that why would Bhindrawale flaunt arms and wear them unashamedly at Darbaar Sahib? What threat did he face in the beginning when he and his cohorts paraded around carrying rifles at the most sacred place of Sikhi which has four doors to invite all humanity?

Was this just a sanctimonious gesture to flaunt the outer might where as our Gurus showed us through their own sacrifices about the strength and the power of the inner might?

History shows that he came into the picture thanks to Indira Gandhi, the tyrant, a woman who would have liked to be a king.

Needless to say that he abused his power especially at a place where the parkash of Adi Granth took place for the first time, the place of solace which generates inner strength in all of us when we visit it.

So, if we call ourselves Sikhs and strive to be on the path of truthful living, then it is OK to check ourselves and others out and point out the wrongs so they are never repeated again.

Otherwise we ought to trip and fall because of the self created mound under the rug and the blame would squarely lie on us.

Just a thought!

Tejwant Singh

 

[Randip Singh]

Excellent point Tejwant Singh ji. It was some of these points that made me question my support for Bhindranwala.

 

[ballym]

There are two mistakes which sant ji made first he took refuge in Akal Takhat which he should not have done. Second he miscalculated the power of politics, media which generated so much hate and never thought that being an Indian, Government will send Tanks and use poisnous gas.

Best regards

A person, especially a leader , is known by his/her actions.
He took wrong actions when faced with a dilemma and had a short span of public life.
She never liked Sikhs( Anand family?) and also had luck on her side. 1971 gave her popularity which she mismanaged by 1973 when jayprakash Narayan was really the leader. She came back due to absence of good leadership in 1980... and was gone by 1984. She was not having a good prospect in 1985 elections. It was her death which benefitted Rajiv.
I would say, Rajiv was an educated leader who took a different direction and modernised India. Iam nor commenting on other aspects of Bofors etc.
May be he was too nice to expose his crony who benefitted from Bofors. Arun Singh, Martand, Arun Nehru, Sstish Sharma.
Why Amitabh is silent? These people surely know.
I am not praising him ... just my thoughts.

 

[AusDesi]

To be honest, I don't like this aristocracy stuff so I won't give Rajiv the credit of modernising India. If it wasn't for his family, We would have modernised before this. India was a huge market and we didn't have the restriction of China.

 

[kds1980]

To be honest, I don't like this aristocracy stuff so I won't give Rajiv the credit of modernising India. If it wasn't for his family, We would have modernised before this. India was a huge market and we didn't have the restriction of China.

India was impressed by soviet union.That's why it imposed socialistic policies
and like soviet it end up ruining it itself .EVen in the university books of India pro soviet and anti america,Europe material is written .I don't know if they change it now

 

[Randip Singh]

I don't think having a Socialist or left wing Government is a problem. Look at Sweden, a properous and left wing country.

However, Socialism and Corruption don't mix, something India and Russia have in common.

 

[kds1980]

I don't think having a Socialist or left wing Government is a problem. Look at Sweden, a properous and left wing country.

However, Socialism and Corruption don't mix, something India and Russia have in common.

India cannot be compared with a small European country. .The comaprision of India could only be made with China,russia and other large countries.even majority of communist countries after 2nd world war in East europe never became as prosperous as west European countries

 

[Randip Singh]

India cannot be compared with a small European country. .The comaprision of India could only be made with China,russia and other large countries.even majority of communist countries after 2nd world war in East europe never became as prosperous as west European countries

I would say China is still a Socialist country despite it opening up its markets. It is a real powerhouse and spearheading the world recovery from recession.

In China they execute government member for corruption. I think India would have 3 or 4 politicians left.

 

[kds1980]

I would say China is still a Socialist country despite it opening up its markets. It is a real powerhouse and spearheading the world recovery from recession.

In China they execute government member for corruption. I think India would have 3 or 4 politicians left.

LOL China is socialistic countries only on papers.The reforms started in China in 1979 and they adopted Brutal capitalistic policies.The most Recent example is they banned Film Avatar because They feel because of Film People may against revolt china's Land acquisition in village's

------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the back of China's workers / Economic lift is tainted by exploitation - SFGate

"An American bricklayer makes about $40 an hour and in China the rate is less than $1 a day"

"The exploitation here is getting harsher" said Han Dongfang a union advocate with the China Labor Bulletin in Hong Kong. "On one hand we have better laws than ever. But in reality there is no enforcement."

Activists who try to promote change face harsh reprisals. About 35 labor activists are languishing in Chinese prisons according to human rights groups
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the above is not Labour exploitation then we need to change the defination of it.China's prosperity is based on labour exploitation and capitalistic policies which communism always opposed.India is corrupt but still if large number of people oppose anything then Government has to withdraw it.On the other hand in China because of communism News hardly come's out of it

 

[AusDesi]

India was impressed by soviet union.That's why it imposed socialistic policies
and like soviet it end up ruining it itself .EVen in the university books of India pro soviet and anti america,Europe material is written .I don't know if they change it now

I doubt that is the reason. I don't mind Nehru's policies, India needed those to recharge itself after a century of british and royalty rule.

However, Indira's policies were ridiculous. It was mainly to keep the people in order. I mean up until 1991 I think we had one tv channel. That is utterly ridiculous for a country with a population of 800 million.

Not only that She suppressed Industry. I remember my dad telling me you had to book a Bajaj scooter years in advance and then go to another city to pick it up.

That makes no sense even from a soviet prespective. At least Soviets would have mass produced scooters.

 

[kds1980]

I doubt that is the reason. I don't mind Nehru's policies, India needed those to recharge itself after a century of british and royalty rule.

However, Indira's policies were ridiculous. It was mainly to keep the people in order. I mean up until 1991 I think we had one tv channel. That is utterly ridiculous for a country with a population of 800 million.

Not only that She suppressed Industry. I remember my dad telling me you had to book a Bajaj scooter years in advance and then go to another city to pick it up.

That makes no sense even from a soviet prespective. At least Soviets would have mass produced scooters.

May be Indira's policies were worse but Nehru's were not good either.There was no long trerm vision in that.I myself read in my college books that for first 20-30 years India did not try to boost any export.The Gandhi 's slogan
of swadeshi things was adopted.But they forgot that OIL is something that India badly needed as a result there was massive inflation early 70's because of OPEc increased oil prices.The collapse of Indian economy in 91 proved that policies of Both Nehre and Indira were wrong.

 

[roab1]

Actually both were in the wrong job. India elects its leaders who have mass appeal, and how intelligent or foresighted they are does not count. If Nehru and Mohandas were really great statesmen then there would have been no divided India. They were just mass leaders. Gandhi died a confused man in the end. No real direction. It cost millions to keep up his 'poor lifestyle'. The 'policy making' procedure was largely still British, so no real changes were made or seen. It is still very common in India to have a powerful person, official trampel over common peoples life and right. See ruchika murder case by State Police DGP as that example. If you read Gandhis economic thoughts and what path he had for India in mind, you will be happy that he didnt live long enough.