USA WSC-AR Condemns Board Of Trustees Of Gurdwara Of Rochester

[CharlesKnuckles]

To All Posters:

My apologies for the delay in response to Ajay Singh’s email. I was ill for several days after eating at a terrible Indian Restaurant in Webster NY.

In any case, most of you have been basing your opinions on one side of this story that has been prorogated by the three Insurgent Sikhs that have been banned from the Gurdwara of Rochester.

All of you have the right to that opinion based on the skewed lies that you have heard from them. Unfortunately for all of you, the Executive Committee of the GOR has not granted any interviews and are not making any statements on this matter due to the fact that the court case is still open in the New York State Supreme Court.

However, I would encourage anyone who would like to know more about this to visit the GOR during its Sunday services. I have been there the last several Sundays, while visiting Rochester, and these have been the best Services in many, many years. Seek the Answers personally…Not through the Internet.

Anyway, below are my responses back to Ajay Singh, who by the way, is one of the Insurgents that is banned from the GOR.

--------------------


Mr. Ajay Singh,





#1. What do you say about the ring leader trustee who openly claims himself as an Amritdhari Sikh? He has no kes, no dastaar, no kakaars and is usually found drunk..

-I have personally known this alleged ‘Ring Leader’ for over thirty years. If he was baptized, while he was unshaven many years ago, then are you saying that a person no longer is a Sikh if they cut their hair? Additionally, the accusation that this person is usually found drunk is totally false unless you have proof of such behavior. I was with this person this past Sunday at a social function and he never touched a drop of alcohol. Additionally, this person is one of the top monetary contributors to the GOR and has performed more Seva for the GOR than all of the banned insurgents put together could ever hope for.

#2. What do you have to say about your ring leader trustee who has stated in writing that Sikhs with turbans have very little brain? “Very little under the turban stand”

-This trustee was having a one on one conversation with a person and referred to a single individual as having very little under his turban. This has been misquoted and misused as a blanket statement.

#3. What do you have to say about the trustees who now say that there is no more constitution, the Gurdwara will be run under their dictatorship?

-Under the provisions of Article 9, this Gurdwara is a free standing entity that does not belong to, or report to, a greater Sikh organization. Funds were generated and donated privately without any other organization’s help.

#4. What about one of the trustees saying that Sikhs do not need the outer appearance?

-This is probably a misquoted /misused statement as well. However, a Sikh is not defined by the length of their hair, beard, or size of his Turban. A Sikh is defined by their own relationship with God and their personal actions. If you dress a Christian like a Sikh does not change that fact that they are Christian.

#5. What do you have to say about the time when Akahnd Paath was going on in memory of someone’s death and AT THE SAME TIME one of the trustee was performing Bhangra on unethical Punjabi songs in the Gurdwara.

-You make, what sounds to me like a scheduling conflict, into a heretic act. This Gurdwara also serves as a Cultural Center for the Punjabi community in the Monroe County Area. You act like this Bhangra was happening inside the area with the Guru Granth Sahib is kept. Additionally, what authority is saying these songs are unethical Punjabi songs? Did the Executive Committee of the GOR issue a statement or are you trying to state your opinions as facts?

#6. What do you have to say about your ring leader trustee who used to come once a year to the Gurdwara to announce the elections results and now he is giving his statements that elections never took place?

-Per the last election, the Insurgent group had only about 33% of the vote vs. the GOR Sangat that had 67%. Elections happen…just because the Insurgents lost does not mean that elections did not take place or that some unethical action happened.

#7. What do you have to say about the General Secretary holding 3 or more positions simultaneously?

-I personally know the General Secretary. He is MORE than capable of handling several positions simultaneously. Most likely, there was no one from the Insurgents that even qualified to clean the toilets let alone handle any significant post at the GOR.

#8. What do you have to say about people from other states and other Countries voting through mail in the Gurdwara election, and most of the local Sangat is not given the right to vote?

-As far as I know, all members, who have paid their dues, are allowed to vote regardless of location. This is true, specifically, for members who paid for a lifetime membership. I know that membership into the GOR has criteria that many followers of the Insurgents can’t meet (Residency, etc…) thus there is a phantom issue that the Insurgents cling to.

#9. What do you have to say about the trustees holding a meeting and saying not to talk about Kes (uncut hair) in the Gurdwara, because it is against their policy?

-The length of one’s hair does not constitute the merit of one’s character. There are plenty of Turban wearing Sikhs that act in shameful ways (like the banned Insurgents). Kes is an irrelevant criteria to segregate Sikhs from Sikhs.

#10. What about your ring leader trustee telling a young kid that he can go to clubs, cut his hair, and get drunk, we do not care?

-Again, you are talking hear-say…Do you have any evidence of this? My guess is that you have NOTHING to prove this slanderous accusation.

#11. What would you like to say about the General Secretary saying that Gurbani Vichar will not be allowed in this Gurdwara?

-Do you have any evidence of this? Has the General Secretary issued a formal statement on this? Are you just making this up?

#12. What would you like to say about one of the trustees saying that Guru Granth Sahib Jee is just a book. No need to treat it like a living Guru?

-Again, this is hear-say and probably taken out of context of the actual conversation. The reality is: The Guru Grath Sahib is a book…just like Quran and Bible. It is the eternal teachings of the Ten Gurus compiled into a single text to guide Sikhs in prayer. Some people, however, have gone to the extent of Idol Worshiping of this text. However, I do know that some fringe insurgents wanted to create a resting area for the Guru Granth Sahib at the GOR. However, when the insurgents were asked to perform the waking and resting ceremonies on a daily basis, they could not commit to the actions that they were asking for.

#13. The Gurdwara was built with the contributions from the Sangat and now the trustees are saying that it was only built by them. What do you have to say about the trustees, going through the back door and restating this Sikh Gurdwara as a Free Church, killing democracy and thus becoming a self perpetuating board? Turning Sangat’s property into their private property.

-This Gurdwara was deemed an Article 9 status based on how the majority of funding was received, how the Gurdwara of Rochester was formed, and how the GOR has been maintained. It is a private Gurdwara not affiliated with any outside organizations.

#14. What would you like to say about the $200,000 plus collected from the Sangat in the last 3 years and using this money against the Sangat?

-The money was not used against the Sangat. The money was used in legal proceedings to remove toxic, even cancerous, Insurgents from a normally peaceful Gurdwara. Only three Insurgents, and their direct families, were banned in the court ruling. Additionally, $200,000 was NOT spent on legal fees…much less. Get your facts straight.

#15. What would you like to say when your ring leader refused 60 plus members of the Sangat (protesting against their wrong doings) from eating Langar and told them to go outside and get your own langar?

-Again, without proper evidence of this I would say that this is a misinterpreted statement. The GOR is not a Soup-Kitchen for dishonorable people causing disruptions of Sunday prayers. What you failed to mention is that these people left the Gurdwara, in protest, during the services and then wanted a free meal after disturbing the Sunday activities. Additionally, if I am not mistaken, langar WAS served to them.

Are you saying to Ajay ji that there were 60 dishonorable people who were denied langar because the caused a "disruption?"


#16. What would you like to say about 3 Hindus giving their statement letters in support with the trustees affidavit?

-Are you racist against Hindus? There have been many Hindus, Americans, and people of many races and creeds that have come to the GOR to pray and be inspired. Deleted


Discussion of a named individual removed.


Deletion

I think everyone will find that you have selected a sentence fragment and are using it totally out of context to slander for you own benefit.


Deleted


I have answered your questions...I will be thinking up of some that you can answer for me next....[/FONT]


Regards,[/FONT]


CSK
[/FONT]

 

[spnadmin]

CharlesKnuckles ji

I have done some light editing and have to remove more references to individuals by name. One I overlooked the other day in Ajay Singh's comments, and it has now been removed.

Are you sure you are a Sikh? Some of the answers you have given Ajay ji below suggest your general level of knowledge about Gurdwara services is not complete. Here I am not entering into the more philosophical issues of "who is a Sikh?" or "who is Khalsa?" My comment is more nuts and bolts than that,. Some things you have said about what I would call Gurdwara protocols seem off base to me. My remarks may be offensive -- but there is no other way to put it. I invite members to respond to various comments you have made on that subject.

Either practices and procedures that you witnessed at the GOR were unusual, or you are not aware of how a Gurdwara is typically managed. If you are not a Sikh you might not have realized.

In addition, as you continue to tell the "other side of the story" it is sounding more, not less, likely that most of the amritdhari have a case against GOR. The number of individuals guilty of misdeeds started out to be around 3. The number now seems from your account to have mushroomed. It is all very fishy. Forgive me, but I must be blunt. At first I would have said that decisions should not be made based on the behavior of a rowdy few. But the rowdy few keep increasing in number, now sounding to include the entire Khalsa. That is really hard to believe.

In an earlier statement you said

I was, however, a long time member of the GOR before moving out of state and have in depth knowledge of what has been happening in GOR. Additionally, I personally know most of the people involved on both sides of this issue here in Rochester.

. In your recent comment you say you have been attending services

However, I would encourage anyone who would like to know more about this to visit the GOR during its Sunday services. I have been there the last several

How did it happen that you are visiting Rochester at the height of this controversy and in time for news to come out re: the court action?
There are other issues raised by you that other members may want to discuss that also raise questions in my mind -- too many for one person like me to tackle right now.

 

[spnadmin]

Admin note:

If any future posts include the names of individuals who are alleged to be members of the GOR controversy, or connected to the court case (excluding names/signatures on public documents) the post will be deleted immediately.

 

[Mai Harinder Kaur]

I just measured the blade of my kirpan. It is a bit over the 6" limit. I guess I would be unwelcome at this Rochester "gurdwara." Personally, I wouldn't set foot in the place anyway. A gurudwara has four doors and is open to all, even a grandmother with a blade that's a bit longer than recommended. I cannot guarantee I wouldn't use it on the premises of this building or of some real gurudwara, for that matter. If I am attacked, I will defend myself. If I see some innocent person under attack, I will defend them. swordfight

I cannot strongly enough express my disgust at this whole situation. I don't really have anything to add to this discussion; I just want to express my disgust.

 

[blingsingh]

“I think everyone will find that you have selected a sentence fragment and are using it totally out of context to slander for you own benefit.”
I’ll try not to take your sentences out of context, please correct me if I have.
“If he was baptized, while he was unshaven many years ago, then are you saying that a person no longer is a Sikh if they cut their hair?”
The formal definition of baptism is given in the dictionary as “A ceremony, trial, or experience by which one is initiated, purified, or given a name.” Hopefully this is a definition that we can both agree on; it’s a process of which a person dedicates themselves to their own religion. In Sikhism we call out baptism ceremony Amrit. When you take amrit your making a commitment to the guru that you will be a Sikh from the outside as in you HAVE to grow your hair, but not only look like a Sikh but you must be a Sikh internally as in read guru granth sahib and FOLLOW gurbani.


Once a baptized Sikh cuts their hair it’s safe to say that they have refused to live life according to gurbani and the teachings given by the guru. Since they have refused to look like a Sikh externally why would they still remain a Sikh internally? Should we still give them the name Sikh? These are questions you should be asking to your “ring leader” not us. In my previous post I have shown some parts of the affidavits that I have found. In those affidavits your “ring leader” clearly looks at the 2 of the 5 k’s and says that 2 of them are useless and one of them is a weapon and can cause harm to others. Since he looks at the k’s given by the guru it’s safe to say that he doesn’t follow the guru internally also.

“A Sikh is not defined by the length of their hair, beard, or size of his Turban. A Sikh is defined by their own relationship with God and their personal actions.”
This is a statement that depends on the context, it can be taken that you believe hair is pointless or those who grow their hair aren’t religious internally, but respectfully you have been defending the non keshdari Sikhs and you have stated that hair doesn’t have a true meaning. I will be assuming that you don’t keep your hair, please correct me if I’m wrong. Since you have stated a sikh is defined by their own relationship with god and their personal actions, you go to gurdwara every Sunday and bow in front of the guru ji yet you don’t follow his teachings and represent sikhi, yet those who represents Sikhism externally, you ridicule them for not being sikhi internally yet you don’t have sikhi externally either, and that was your personal action. Which means your relationship with god is pretty poor. I don’t know who gave you the right to make fun of Sikhs who have hair but you cannot just march into a forum and say you’re not Sikh internally when you’re not Sikh externally.


I was not given the right to say that these insurgents are Sikh and that your non-Sikh, but those Sikhs who make fun of the guru jis teaching and labeling hair meaningless but practice Sikhism internally are in the same boat as those who practice Sikhism externally but not internally.

“This Gurdwara was deemed an Article 9 status based on how the majority of funding was received, how the Gurdwara of Rochester was formed, and how the GOR has been maintained. It is a private Gurdwara not affiliated with any outside organizations.”


Since you have totally ignored Ajay Singh’s response about democracy, it is concluded that the Gurdwara of Rochester was taken over and turned into a private property. This is truly depressing to many Sikhs since you have stated that it has turned into a private property because of money. What you’re saying is that most of the money came from a certain group of people and since they didn’t want to lose the property they have paid for, you had to turn it into an article 9 status which makes me sad since gurdwara’s aren’t personal property.


“As far as I know, all members, who have paid their dues, are allowed to vote regardless of location. This is true, specifically, for members who paid for a lifetime membership. I know that membership into the GOR has criteria that many followers of the Insurgents can’t meet (Residency, etc…) thus there is a phantom issue that the Insurgents cling to.”


Charles you have contradicted yourself in your statement, you claim members can reside in any location and can vote regardless of location yet these “insurgents” can’t get into membership because of residency (location) and can’t vote at all.
“[/FONT]The Guru Granth Sahib is a book…just like Quran and Bible. It is the eternal teachings of the Ten Gurus compiled into a single text to guide Sikhs in prayer.”
This is also another sad statement. I don’t know if I should blame the gurdwara for not teaching you Sikhism or blame you for not caring enough. Charles, there’s a reason why we treat our “book” like a king. You don’t find our guru just sitting in a hotel room drawer or just piling with dust on a shelf in some peoples home, this is our guru ji here a map that leads us to god, filled with so much knowledge needed for us Sikh to get out of our cycle of reincarnation. It’s our guide to enlightenment. It’s not just a book with words, and not only does it have teachings of the guru but many other saints from other religions. Which brings me to the next point :
This Gurdwara also serves as a Cultural Center for the Punjabi community in the Monroe County Area. You act like this Bhangra was happening inside the area with the Guru Granth Sahib is kept. Additionally, what authority is saying these songs are unethical Punjabi songs?
Find me a bhangra song that promote Sikhism and doesn’t tell us to drink alcohol or have sex or about love, and then we’ll understand why these songs are not unethical
“Are you racist against Hindus? There have been many Hindus, Americans, and people of many races and creeds that have come to the GOR to pray and be inspired.”
Charles, Hinduism isn’t a race it’s a religion, and Ajay said how these Hindu’s claimed that yelling “jo bole so nihaal” was disturbing them. Please follow your words and don’t take ajay’s statement out of context for your own benefit.

 

[CharlesKnuckles]

Blingsingh Ji,

To respond to some of your comments:

1) Sikh Baptism - We can agree on the definition but we seem to disagree upon the end result. As I alluded to earlier, a Sikh can have all 5 K's be baptized and still be and act like a scoundrel. Likewise, a clean shaven Sikh can be very devout, generous, and perform Seva for the Gurdwara as well as anyone. I do not want to misinterpret you words, however your opinion appears to put equal (if not more) importance to outward appearances than moral character. All I can say is that we will need to agree to disagree on this point.

2) Ajay Singh's point about Democracy - In an earlier question I addressed the Democratic Process at the GOR. During the last election cycle, the Insurgent's supporters could only muster roughly 33% of the eligible voters at the GOR. The three Insurgents could not even find a nominate or a candidate to run for the open General Secretary position. The General Secretary ran unapposed. After such poor support, the Insurgents and their supporters (who by the way consist of mostly clean shaven Sikhs) started to claim that Democracy was being suppressed when they were CLEARLY in the minority, started using less than honorable language during Sunday services to slander other Sangat members (in the presence of the Guru Granth Sahib), and started intimidating people by drawing swords inside of the GOR. Promoting Democracy with a drawn sword is not Democracy.

3) Membership and Eligibility - Active Yearly and Lifetime Memberships have always been honored at the GOR. Even as members of the Sangat have moved out of Monroe County, their Lifetime Memberships are still honored because due to their past Seva to the GOR. However, the three Insurgents tried to buy memberships for the sole intent to commit voter fraud in the GOR General Elections. Applications were denied because the insurgents could not provide IDs for ficticious applicants, show any proof of legal residency, or show any proof of address. Memberships to GOR are not given out because someone shows up out of town and wants to vote in General Elections. There is an application process and criteria that needs to be followed. The Insurgents did not follow the process.

4) The Guru Granth Sahib - Perhaps my statement to Ajay Singh on this overly simplified things. The original point was that Ajay Singh made an accusation that a Trustee called the Guru Granth Sahib just a book. My statement was that this was taken out of context of the conversation and Ajay Singh needs to show proof before making such a slanderous statement. Additionally, I am not minimizing the sacred nature of the Guru Granth Sahib...I am only stating that, by all outward appearances, the Guru Granth Sahib looks more like a book than a living being or entity. Additionally, by the nature of personal humility that the Guru Granth Sahib teaches, I will not be prideful and state that the Sikh scripture is more important, better, or above the the Bible or Quran. That is for God to decide not me.

5) Bhangra Songs - I think you need to re-read the question posted by Ajay Singh and my response. Though I am not an expert of Bhangra songs, not every single one is about alcohol or sex. Ajay Singh claimed that unethical songs were being played. My response clearly asks by who's authority were these specific songs deemed unethical? If it was by Ajay Singh's standards, my question would be: Who is he to tell anyone that something is unethical? He is not a Guru, a Saint, and he hold no position of authority in the GOR. If the General Secretary of the GOR, or other officials, deemed that a specific song should not be played in the GOR due to vulgar content, then I would like to see documentation stating such a thing. Otherwise, Ajay Singh is just expressing his opinion and calling it a factual statement.

6) Boley So Nihaal & Hindus - Again, I would ask you to re-read Ajay Singh's original post and my original responses. You are mixing Question number 16 and number 17 together to distort facts.

As a refresher: #16. What would you like to say about 3 Hindus giving their statement letters in support with the trustees affidavit?



#17. What would you like to say about {NAME REMOVED} statement given to court with the trustees affidavit that Boley So Nihaal Jaikaras is disturbance?


My answer to question 16 was simple - Ajay Singh is prejudice against Hindus. Why else would he ask such an absurd question? Hindus in the community have attended the GOR for years. There is nothing wrong if some of them show support for the GOR and it does not matter what race, creed, religion they are.


Additionally, my answer to question 17 was simple: I had not read the affidavit submitted by the person who supposedly said this. I have known this person for many years and can say, with great confidence, that this quote has been taken out of context. However, I asked Ajay Singh that if he has a copy of this affidavit, he should post it so everyone, including me, can see what context this was written in.


Ultimately, the truth will not be discovered by exchanging notes. Everyone has given the benifit of the doubt to the three banned insurgents because they have the external appearances of Amritdhari Sikhs. However, none of you really know that they do not act like Amritdhari nor is there ANY evidence proving that they ACTUALLY ARE Amritdhari.

 

[CharlesKnuckles]

Sacha Ji (or Jhutha Singh),

You claim to have knowledge of the validity of the affidavits submitted to the New York Supreme Court. You also seem to claim you have video evidence that was also submitted. Why don't you share the unedited evidence with all of us so we can see your version of the truth. I would also ask why you didn't submit the "real" evidence in the court of law when this case was being heard.

The only false item that was in the affidavits was from one submitted by one of the three Insurgents. Apparently, this lying Insurgent claimed to be a Medical Student at the University of Buffalo. One quick phone call determined that was a total fabrication and the contents of that affidavit was determined to be a lie.

Distorting the truth is saying All Amritdharis are Banned from the GOR. When in reality, only three Insurgents, who have yet to prove that they are actually real Amritdharis, were the only people banned.

Deleted

 

[CharlesKnuckles]

Mai Harinder Kaur Ji,

I can understand your disgust in this situation since you have been given twisted facts from the three banned Insurgents.

I would think you would have had a bit more understanding, since you live in Canada, after there have been several violent incidents in the Toronto area since the beginning of the year. Clearly different factions of Sikhs do not mix well with Kirpans and Long 'Ceremonial' Swords.

GOR decision to take legal action against the three ring leaders of the Insurgency was not an easy decision due to the fact that they knew of the backlash from people who did not know the types deceptive and incendiary actions the three insurgent leaders were up to.

I admire what you have said regarding the use of your Kirpan: Using it in defense of yourself or to aide those who can not defend themselves.

Though you stated you have nothing to add to this, I would like to know what your opinion is on the following:

1) Teaching children how to use the Kirpan as an offensive weapon in the Gurdwara.

2) Brandishing full length swords openly in the Gurdwara in an attempt to intimidate Sangat members.

3) Leaving unsheathed swords unattended and laying on the floor in the Gurdwara where children are.

4) Posing for pictures, while wielding a Kirpan, for entertainment purposes.

The three insurgents fail to mention some of the details

Unfortunately, their actions have intimidated many Sikhs, that have small children, away from the GOR because every week there seemed to be a threat of violence from the three Insurgents.

You can be disgusted all you want...You certainly have the right to. However, I wish you would be more understanding to the Sikhs that these Insurgents were harrassing.

 

[blingsingh]

1) Teaching children how to use the Kirpan as an offensive weapon in the Gurdwara.

2) Brandishing full length swords openly in the Gurdwara in an attempt to intimidate Sangat members.

3) Leaving unsheathed swords unattended and laying on the floor in the Gurdwara where children are.

4) Posing for pictures, while wielding a Kirpan, for entertainment purposes.

absolutely no proof given. why do you keep writing these type of remarks about the "insurgents" when you refuse to show any type of defense to back up your statements.

 

[spnadmin]

CharlesKnucles ji

Let's take a look at how far afield this discussion has gone. It really has deviated from the topic which is about the WSC-AR condemnation of the actions of GOR management committee. Let me pursue one of 2 serious dodges from the facts of the case that I am noticing.

Here you say:

GOR decision to take legal action against the three ring leaders of the Insurgency was not an easy decision due to the fact that they knew of the backlash from people who did not know the types deceptive and incendiary actions the three insurgent leaders were up to.

Here is what the WSC-AR is among other things criticizing:

As per the court petition filed by the Board of Trustees of GOR, Justice Kenneth Fisher of the Supreme Court (County of Monroe) of State of New York ordered on June 10, 2010 that till the dispute was settled “ all persons entering the GOR premises are prohibited from bringing in or carrying ceremonial swords or other weapons that could cause injury or threats to persons within GOR premises”.

You are making the alleged incidents more disruptive than they are with the word "incendiary."

And you have again made another U-turn. Formerly you described a situation where there were 3 insurgents. Then you changed it to there were many insurgents. Now back again you say there are only 3.

You are making it seem now as if 3 rotten amritdhari apples have spoiled the barrel -- but WDC-AR clearly indicated that all amritdhari are prohibited from bringing in or carrying swords or other weapons that could cause injury.

Please check the judge's decision and tell me whether he is banning 3 people or everyone/anyone who carries a ceremonial sword or weapon? And let's not be coy as we are talking about kirpan. We are not talking about flame-throwers or automatic machine-guns.

Again I ask you, Were all the khalsa insurgents? Or the only other inference one can make or question. Were there only 3 amritdhari insurgents? There is a big difference between all and 3. And if only 3 were insurgents, why did GOR ask for an injunction for all who carry ceremonial swords or kirpans code word for weapons?

Is it possible to get the number straight once and for all?

We might even get back to a serious discussion of kirpans viz this story. I don't know. Next thing I want to explore as a deviation from the thread topic : The question of how khalsa do you have to be to be khalsa in the eyes of the management committee and its friends. Or whether that is even a relevant issue given the case is about running a gurdwara like a business and not about religion.

 

[Mai Harinder Kaur]

Mai Harinder Kaur Ji,

I can understand your disgust in this situation since you have been given twisted facts from the three banned Insurgents.

I would think you would have had a bit more understanding, since you live in Canada, after there have been several violent incidents in the Toronto area since the beginning of the year. Clearly different factions of Sikhs do not mix well with Kirpans and Long 'Ceremonial' Swords.

GOR decision to take legal action against the three ring leaders of the Insurgency was not an easy decision due to the fact that they knew of the backlash from people who did not know the types deceptive and incendiary actions the three insurgent leaders were up to.

I admire what you have said regarding the use of your Kirpan: Using it in defense of yourself or to aide those who can not defend themselves.

Though you stated you have nothing to add to this, I would like to know what your opinion is on the following:

1) Teaching children how to use the Kirpan as an offensive weapon in the Gurdwara.

2) Brandishing full length swords openly in the Gurdwara in an attempt to intimidate Sangat members.

3) Leaving unsheathed swords unattended and laying on the floor in the Gurdwara where children are.

4) Posing for pictures, while wielding a Kirpan, for entertainment purposes.

The three insurgents fail to mention some of the details

Unfortunately, their actions have intimidated many Sikhs, that have small children, away from the GOR because every week there seemed to be a threat of violence from the three Insurgents.

You can be disgusted all you want...You certainly have the right to. However, I wish you would be more understanding to the Sikhs that these Insurgents were harrassing.

Charles Knuckles ji,

I am just as disgusted by what has occurred in Canada as I am by this. My disgust is not location specific. I have discussed what happened in Canada elsewhere. In fact I wrote a post in my blog, The Road To Khalistan, called When Is A Kirpan Not A Kirpan, where I make the point that if used as an offensive weapon, that object becomes merely a knife and is no longer an article of faith.

I have no argument with the Saadh Sangat (if it is, in fact, a Saadh Sangat) dealing with individuals who are disruptive. I do have a problem with making draconian rules for those who are not involved. Almost all Amritdhari Sikhs treat our kirpans with a high degree of respect, whatever the size of the blade.

Your questions, of course, are not really questions, but are statements furthering your position. Obviously, all four are wrong actions and I repeat - the miscreants should be dealt with as individuals.

BTW, I also question with your banning their families, as well. That seems a lot like guilt by association, as well as the collective guilt heaped upon Amritdharis by limiting the size of our kirpans. Perhaps the family members would also cause trouble, but they need to be dealt with as individuals, not part of a hereditary collective.

Now, here it is a beautiful day outside and I have better things to do than to sit at a computer desk. (I don't use a laptop.) icecreamkaur

 

[CharlesKnuckles]

Narayanjot Kaur Ji,

It is a pity that you do not scrutinize the post of the three banned Insurgents as much as you do mine. It would be a shame if people blindly support a person based on their looks vs. their character.

Anyway, since you appear to accusing me of dodging questions, I will answer you as directly as possible based on my knowledge.

1) Number of Insurgents - There are three ring leaders that have been banned. The faction of Sikhs the support these ring leaders are both clean shaven and not clean shaven. They represent, per the last election at the GOR, about 33% of the Sangat. At the supposed 'Peaceful' protest that Ajay Singh spoke of, about 60 people participated. The GOR did not file a motion to remove 1/3 of the Sangat, they filed a motion to remove the three ring leaders and their direct family members only. The remaining members of that faction, both clean shaven or not, have NOT been banned.

2) Kirpans vs. Swords - The original motion that the GOR filed was to ban ceramonial long swords that some of the Sangat, specifically the three ring leaders, were bringing and brandishing inside of the Gurdwara. The GOR submitted video evidence to the New York Supreme Court showing the three insurgent ring leaders intimidating people and brandishing these swords. The judge, citing violent incidents with Sikhs within Gurdwaras, decided to ban all weapons. The GOR Commitee is not thrilled with this but are going to follow Court Orders until this case is closed.

If there are any other questions you feel that I am dodging, please let me know and I will be more than happy to answer what I can.

 

[truesikh]

CharlesKnuckles
Before you lie more and show your cheap knowledge of Sikh faith, better you decide where you live. Don't waste your time coming all the way from other State to attend half an hour program at GOR every Sunday, and then you have to go to eat at Indian restaurant in Webster.
This way you will save time ,and read Gurbani and you will learn, A person who is Sikh from in side, has to be Sikh from out side.( This OUR GurBani Says.) So stop fooling your self and off course other.
As far as GOR elections are concern, that your fellow friends have already shown their cowardliness by reinstating GOR in article 9.
Now this is Panthak Issue weather any Gurdwara can be registered in Article 9. If you know any other gurdwara in article 9 please free to give information.
Guru fathe.

 

[ugsbay]

SSA.
CharlesKnuckles Ji, i see what you are saying, i do not condone the behaviour of the 3 you have mentioned if it is true. My problem with this is why should the whole Sikh community be affected for the actions of 3, can you see my point ?. Another thing that concerns me deeply with this case is laws start step by step just as this case. First its one Gurdwara then two and then it becomes law. We are all aware how important the Kirpan is to a Sikh.
How hard on countless occasions we have fought in courts for the simplest rights only for them to be thrown back in our face with cases like this. Its like banning all priests from a church because of the bad acts of one.

 

[truesikh]

Narayanjot Kaur Ji
I do want to clarify what CharlesKnuckles is using word Insurgents is not right as one of them out of three is Amritdhari Sikh ( Khalsa )and as per our Guruji "ਖ਼ਾਲਸਾ ਮੇਰੋ ਰੂਪ ਹੈ ਖ਼ਾਸ ॥ ".
Coming to point CharlesKnuckles may say 3 person but, GOR filed lawsuit againt 7 . Out of seven 2 are Amritdhari Sikh.
The lawsuit is destroy the Philosophy of Sikh faith
1. Make "GOR" their Personal Property.
2. Dictate their own terms of Sikh Religion in GOR.
3. Destroy and show 5K's and other Rehyat Maryada are useless.



My request is Guide us, how to handle these Mahants of GOR.

Guru Fathe

 

[spnadmin]

Narayanjot Kaur Ji
I do want to clarify what CharlesKnuckles is using word Insurgents is not right as one of them out of three is Amritdhari Sikh ( Khalsa )and as per our Guruji "ਖ਼ਾਲਸਾ ਮੇਰੋ ਰੂਪ ਹੈ ਖ਼ਾਸ ॥ ".
Coming to point CharlesKnuckles may say 3 person but, GOR filed lawsuit againt 7 . Out of seven 2 are Amritdhari Sikh.
The lawsuit is destroy the Philosophy of Sikh faith
1. Make "GOR" their Personal Property.
2. Dictate their own terms of Sikh Religion in GOR.
3. Destroy and show 5K's and other Rehyat Maryada are useless.



My request is Guide us, how to handle these Mahants of GOR.

Guru Fathe

truesikh ji

First and foremost I appreciate the facts regarding the number of individuals named. So now the number is actually 7, not 3 or some larger number, and 2 of them are amritdhari, which makes the entire discussion take on a completely different twist.

In my mind the WSC is even more justified because GOR took action against an entire class of people based on the actions of 7.

All the philosophical questions about being a Sikh from the inside out or the outside in are nonsensical because only 2 so-called insurgents were amritdhari.

Here is a question no one has asked or answered yet. Why did GOR get an injunction against the wearing of "swords" and dangerous weapons i.e., Kirpan? All they had to do was get a restraining order against 7 people?

The GOR is the personal property of the management committee. Actually it always was. What they do not have is a sadhsangat.

But ask yourself this question. Do you want some clean-shaven Sikhs telling you how long your kirpan can be or where to wear it (see their affidavits)? After they ran to a judge they misled in a civil court? This matter was settled in 1699, by Guru Gobind Singh. It was stated again in 1925 with the first draft of the Sikh Rehat Maryada. And the right to wear kirpan is federally protected by the constitution in the United States of America. You don't need guidance. You are already in good company. GOR needs to regain its sense of decency and fair play.

Contact WSC-AR and ask them how you can become involved to reverse this charade.

 

[Ajay Singh]

Gur Fateh to all,
I would give my inputs to the meaningless responses by Mr. Charles Knuckles but as per instructions of Guru Jee, “Murkhay Naal Na Lujeeh”, I will leave it at that.

But I would like to make a few points to clear some things up, and I have also uploaded parts of the Affidavit submitted to court by the trustees of Gurdwara of Rochester.

“Distorting the truth is saying All Amritdharis are Banned from the GOR. When in reality, only three Insurgents, who have yet to prove that they are actually real Amritdharis, were the only people banned.”
The truth is that out of the three people which Charles Knuckles is labeling as insurgents, only one person is Amritdhari.

Another point to note is that the other Amritdhari person out of the Seven, is a well respected elderly retired professor who used to teach at University. Due to his health conditions it is hard for Singh Jee to even stand during the entire Ardaas. Still he is loyal to his Guru, Sikhi, and Sikh Panth and stands by justice and Guru’s teachings and speaks up against these Dictators. The trustees should have some shame for dragging such a person in the courts.

The original motion that the GOR filed was to ban ceramonial long swords that some of the Sangat, specifically the three ring leaders, were bringing and brandishing inside of the Gurdwara. The GOR submitted video evidence to the New York Supreme Court showing the three insurgent ring leaders intimidating people and brandishing these swords.

Mr. Charlie is lying in broad daylight. There is no such video that shows the "three insurgent ring leaders" Brandishing full length swords openly in the Gurdwara in an attempt to intimidate Sangat members.
Because this has never happened.
The motion was filed to change the entire concept of Sikhism. Proof can be seen in the attached portion of the affidavit.
Ajay Singh

 

[spnadmin]

Ajay Singh ji

Bravo for your clear statement. The documents did not upload. If you want me to upload them let me know.

 

[Ajay Singh]

Sorry Jee. Another try to upload it.

 

[Ajay Singh]

This was one of the article submitted along with the Affidavit.