How SikhISM became a ‘peaceful’ Religion
Yesterday’s news about the attack on KS Brar has excited, angered, inspired, and agitated many Sikhs throughout the world.
Many have questioned the Indian media’s initial assumption, before even the facts had arrived. Still others are wondering if the news is even factual. I have seen numerous postings on social media, believing that the attack was just a fabrication in order to make Sikhs appear ‘violent’ and ‘extreme’, especially after the recent goodwill expressed by some channels in the US and abroad after the recent Wisconsin Massacre. Finally, our brothers and sisters at Naujawani have written an intriguing article asking larger questions about a more sinister timing of all events (though not sure if I agree, well worth a read!).
I believe that the case of Kulbir Singh Barapind and Daljit Singh Bittu is extremely important, but that warrants a separate post. I will return to that issue at a future time.
Personally I am quite surprised that no names have appeared yet, as I figure someone would probably take credit and I wouldn’t imagine the names could be held a secret for too long within the community, especially if those that confronted him were young, as the claim is being made. Still I think that I want to take this conversation in a different direction. How do we ‘present’ SikhISM and its implicationsi?
I remember a time, when especially middle-class Sikhs were bent on telling everyone that SikhISM is a “scientific religion” or “modern religion.” Then the need would be to explain what that meant and usually people would describe the solar system, maybe the galaxies, maybe the number of species on the planet earth and saying that somehow this equals 8.4 million and all other kind of hair-brained theories that they could make with randomly selected lines from JapJi Sahib. I always found it interesting that due to their own complexes and insecurities, they would try to reduce the mission and revolution of Guru Nanak to that which would be found in an elementary science textbook.
Then came 9/11. At one time, I wrote that the Sikh world didn’t really change that much after 9/11, but I wanted to follow up here with how much our language did. Our Sikh organizations and numerous Sikh individuals now had to “re-package” our Sikhi for a new market that were concerned with a so-called ‘war on terrorism’ and other boogeyman. Overnight we changed. No longer were we ‘modern’ and ‘scientific,’ now we became ‘peaceful.’
Especially, with the recent massacre at Oak Creek, victim along with those innocents, along with any sense of shame (IJ Singh’s last paragraph in a recent article is beyond repulsive, would he dare say this to the family members that lost lives!), is also our sense of self. Google tells me that when I type in ‘sikhism peaceful religion’ I receive some 6.3 million results, with some 200K since 8/5/2012 with wonderful titles such as “Sikhs’ greatest fears are realised: Peaceful religion targeted in temple massacre after years of being confused with 9/11 terrorists” (I assume Muslims are the ‘non-peaceful’ religion, despite years of us hearing that Islam is a religion of peace, although to be fair in a way they have a great claim from the very etymology of the word ‘Islam.’) or even “Sikhs hope to educate about peaceful religion” [notice in the article in providing 2 sentences on SikhISM, which 2 were selected in the article and spoken by the interviewee – “This is a loving country; that is why we are here. We love it, we are peaceful people.”]
My point isn’t whether Sikhs are peaceful or not, individuals come in all shapes and colors. The level of violence against women, against female fetuses, and often against one another, doesn’t seem to me that we are a particularly ‘peaceful’ people and should be so glib with our descriptions. Moving from Sikhs to Sikhi – I hope we never forget the reality – Guru Gobind Singh also put a kirpan in our hand. Sikhi is neither violent, nor peaceful. We have a duty towards justice. In order to ‘sanitize’ us so much for a gora audience, are we also willing to sacrifice our values, tradition, and history?
I know I could write another article on the stupidity (and double-standard) in a society that calls for Muslims and Sikhs to constantly say they are ‘peaceful.’ Strangely this is not asked of Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, or even Christians who also have plenty of violence in their own histories. Somehow Sikhs and Muslims are reserved this special in/dignity.
Now I do not know the facts of the Brar attack, however the thought that Sikhs couldn’t or wouldn’t do it seems to shock me as well. I feel like dozens of people that I know would have taken the opportunity to confront Brar, should the chance have arisen. In fact his own mama (maternal brother) did previously!!!! Brar isn’t alone in people that would probably be confronted by Sikhs, I would put KPS Gill, Tytler, Sajjan Kumar, and a number of other people in that category as well. Would the confrontation be violent as this? I am not sure, but I know that for many people the injustices in Punjab have not been forgotten by the populace, and in fact the Indian media openly celebrates the violent suppression. Justice continues to be denied as it has been for nearly 30 years.
Should we believe that all Sikhs have forgotten their duty towards justice (not revenge) and have become brainwashed by all the ‘peaceful’ jargon that we have constantly spewed for a decade? This may sell well for American, Canadian, and UK audiences, but again will we sacrifice Punjab and our own identity in this ‘peaceful’ pursuit to appease?
81 Responses to “How SikhISM became a ‘peaceful’ Religion”
The man is totally besharm. Thrives of publicity that makes him a 'national hero'. Talk to anyone in London and they'll tell you that there's only one reason anyone would be on that street late at night and that reason is to visit the casino, as the casino is the only thing open at that time on that quiet side street. Talk to anyone some more and they'll tell you that street muggings / robberies are common on that street at that time as the casino customers offer rich pickings on this quiet, dark, narrow street. People get mugged there all the time. Its a mugging hotspot. Brar is the first to claim it as an 'assassination attempt'. There are clearly more questions than answers :
1) Who are these mysterious men with beards but no moustaches ?
2) Who are these mysterious men with beards but no turbans ?
3) What wonderfull, magical, genetics does Mr Brar possess than enables him to be discharged from hospital after a throat cutting in a matter of hours whilst normal people would have to spend longer in hospital with a sore thumb ?
@Blighty – great points bhaaji. I defer to your local knowledge, Singh, and as always, appreciate your perspective. I think my broader point of 'peaceful' still stands, but you raise key point about the news story!
Stop this rant Manadey, no suspect has been arrested and no organisation has claimed the attack. Without condoning the attack, it could also be a case of mindless mugging. I would also like to know what our hero of 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War was doing in that street around midnight.
Hope Blighty would have got answers to all of his queries and few names too.
Must be heart-wrenching, for Blighty, to read about two young Khalsa braves attacking a 80-year-old, and his equally decrepit wife, only to get their posteriors whooped in the process.
Very well put..
i prayed today for his death
I find this comment appalling
You can't.. After the prayer you would have said 'Tere Bhane Sarbar da bhala' ; that will negate prayer for his death. Please don't pray for death of that person.. He will surely die someday(may be killed) and will suffer for his actions. But always pray for 'Sarbat da Bhala'
I am also quite annoyed with the rhetoric about peace and forgiveness like we're Amish, and gloss over the whole kirpan, sant-sipahi, khalsa panth "thing" because the only other alternative to a peaceful religion is a violent one. Since the shooter at the Wisconsin Gurduara was a white, Christian male, he is naturally a "lone wolf," and not representative of the entire white, Christian community. Many of the news items about the shooting had to clarify that Sikhs are not Muslim, with some going as far as saying "Sikhs believe in peace" having to clarify why a crime had even been committed.
I've met I.J. Singh and he's a lovely person, but I also thought the last two lines in the article were incredibly insensitive and I don't quite agree that the lives lost are a silver lining because Sikhs got a little P.R. for five minutes on CNN. Our five minutes in the national spotlight ended the second a token Sikh stumbled through the prayer at the RNC. Now it's business as usual.
I've read the piece by Naujawani and thought it was well written. I don't know whether this is a government conspiracy, but there are things that don't add up. Four "Sikh terrorists," or "Khalistanis," even if they're four youths who just planned to mug him, allegedly attacked him with knives and because he's such a badass, he fought them off and all he gets are minor cuts, every single one of them on his neck? His bandaids look like the kind I put on my 2 year old daughter when she gets mosquito bites.
I also don't understand why he would decide that England is a safe place for him to either be walking about or hanging out in his hotel room with no security, when his movements are being tracked and put out on the internet. If anything, I'd say he is much more likely to be murdered outside India, where he is protected better than the president of the United States. If this were a conspiracy, I'd expect at least one believable knife wound that looks like a potential knife cut, not like he cut himself shaving.
This just seems like a guy who doesn't want to be forgotten for "flushing terrorists out of the Golden Temple," and who is now giving KP Gill a run for his money in the media fawning over the "hero" narrative they've built around him. Nobody really call Sajjan Kumar or Tytler "heroes," they're just victims of slander and libel. Perhaps now Brar will also be invited to give his expert advice on issues around India, like KP Gill does. Maybe a book deal or tv show is in the works?
Before going to extremes of either going out of our way to say that Brar should be killed (not a new threat by the way) thereby legitimizing this highly improbable attack as a botched one by Sikh "insert descriptor here" or doing the opposite and saying no Sikh could ever or would ever do such a heinous thing because of our commitment to peace and meditation, we should get all the facts. I'm especially curious about a) why there is even a debate about where the attack took place – shouldn't this be in the police report and b) the results of the medical examination.
[…] a thought-provoking article, Jodha, at the blog The Langar Hall, discusses the recent framing of Sikhism as a “peaceful” religion: My point isn’t whether Sikhs are peaceful or not, individuals come in all shapes and colors. […]
brother. The reason i believe it was not a singh who attacked him is that he is still alive!! Any Singh that would have attacked him would have killed him let alone what 3 or 4 of them would have done. He walked away with a couple bandages on his neck??? its absolutely ridiculous. Then in his interview on India TV he talks about how he fought and boxed 3 large men. I mean wtf get over yourself your 80 years old and you wouldn't have stood a chance!
IJ Singh's article reeks of internalized oppression, and this issue that you raise (a very important one) is the result of our collective internalized oppression. We as a qaum are not yet ready for the revolution Nanak has asked us to take on, may we join hands soon and all wear the suit.
Finally Jodha and his cohorts have made me laugh.Sikhism as being or being potrayed as peaceful is totally ridiculous,what sikhs call justice is nothing but old fashioned revenge.As for gen.Brar he is a big boy and can take care of himself,like he did in 1984.
Or like he did in '71. Gen. Brar has seen the business end of quite a few enemy rifles… few knife wielding kharkus won't scare him.
Thank you for the post, Jodha. I tried 3 times to get the admin. at TLH to post the article but noone at the TLH even returned my email. It's related to the Sikh Film Festival in NYC & I feel there is a connection with Sikhs wanting to "re-Indianize themselves" and those that don't conform are extremist or out of touch:
Fateh. Hope all is well. One of the highlights of fall in NYC is the Sikh Arts and Film Festival which showcases the story of our community via films and is being held November 2&3, 2012. Along with that there is a Heritage Gala which is being held November 3, 2012 “to celebrate the rich heritage, culture and traditions of the Sikhs.” In the past dignitaries and business leaders have been selected as Chief Guest and Guest of Honors. Unfortunately, The Chief Guest this year is Nirupama Rao, India's Ambassador to the United States and the Guest of Honors include Prabhu Dayal, Consul General India, New York and Hardeep Puri, India's Permanent Representative to the United Nations. Please see link: http://www.sikharts.com/gala.html
For some Sikhs having Indian Government representatives as honorees poses no conflict and should be encouraged. One may argue that the attack on Darbar Sahib and Genocide in 1984 are distant events that occurred twenty eight years ago and should be forgotten. One may argue that the civil war which ensued for ten years afterwards in Panjab and led to the death of the tens of thousands of Sikh youth were collateral damage and justifiable in order to preserve the unity of India. One may argue that that struggle for an independent Panjab has reached its nadir and it’s important to “re-Indianize” ourselves and take advantage of the current economic environment.
However the recent Rajoana hanging episode (his sentence was deferred but not commuted), continuing impunity for politicians involved in the 1984 Delhi Genocide, promotion of Sumedh Saini (“Panjab’s Dirty Harry”) to DGP of Panjab and electing former DSP Izhar Alam’s (Alam Sena) wife as an Akali Dal candidate points to recent attempts to stamp out any remnants of Sikh sovereignty as well as the continuing denial of accountability of human rights abuses committed by India.
After the Oak Creek Massacre, Sikhs in the US have united to make sure our rights are better protected, yet little attention is given to events in India over the past 38 years. Though a Film Festival may not be the ideal venue to bring up these issues, honoring officials of a country that has caused so much destruction to our community goes directly against the ethos of our rich heritage, culture and tradition which is based on justice, goodwill and helping those that cannot help themselves. Rather the invitation of the Indian officials smacks in the face these universal values and sends a message of impunity and lack of accountability. The recent US District Court’s summons for visiting Punjab Chief Minister Prakash Singh Badal on the charges of police custodial torture and shielding police officers may not have teeth but any time we can restrict the movement of Indian politicians in the West we put them on notice that they have to abide by the standards of international law. In my humble opinion, the Sikh Film Festival committee should not invite Indian dignitaries to their venue but rather urge them to bring about changes in India to help all suffering minorities including Muslims, Christians and Dalits. I’m writing this letter to ask your expertise on this issue
while disagreeing on most of the points you have highlighted, I would agree on one point – there are serious disconnectS here.
The disconnect is between the perceptions of the Sikh Diaspora (those who do not consider themselves to be of 'Indian' origins) and the ground reality in Punjab.
Another disconnect is between the 'radicals' interpretation of not only the recent history of Indian Punjab but also that of Sikhs from the very beginning.
In Spite of 100s of books available on the events (1978-1995) which pushed Punjab into total anarchy, radical elements focus JUST on the atrocities committed on extremist Sikhs (inc the innocents).
While condemning the killing of ever single innocent Sikh by state forces, I would also condemn those who negate the atrocities committed by Sikh extremists starting from Bhindranwala and also communal politics of Sikh leadership going back to 1940s.
Coming back to the ground reality in Punjab today, I would urge you to simply research the elections results in the post 1980 period. What you would notice from the latest poll results is a simple fact: TOTAL rejection of the politics of the Sikh secessionists.
Simranjit Mann the top Khalistani ideologue (euphemism for rabble rouser) in Punjab managed to get just 3000 votes from an overwhelmingly Sikh dominated constituency of Fatehgarh Sahib and lost his (like ALL of his candidates) lost security deposit which is considered the ultimate insult for anyone contesting elections in India.
The other negation is about the Punjab population. While assuming that the Punjab population is committed against India and (by implication) Hindus; radical sikhs living overseas forget that almost 60% population can NEVER support any demand for a moronic concept like Khalistan. Simple logic, 40% are Hindus and 35% of Punjab population is that of Mazhabis/Dalits (mixed Hindus and Sikhs). The overwhelming majority of the Sikhs (read Jats, Khatris, Ramgharias, communists, nationalists, Dera followers,Congress supporters, Namdharis, radha Soami followers, etc ) is equally committed against any idea of separating from India and the 'Indianness'.
Akalis are in power today but they cannot imagine holding the reigns of power without equally bigoted and communal Hindu counterparts in BJP.
Would it be a not good idea to ask the clear majority to ask about their views on Khalistan and Sikh terrorism? Would you like to hear their stories about how terrorists killed, maimed, raped their relatives (inc 17 innocent victims of Rajoana)? Would you like to know how they cringed when Bhindranwala indulged in open racism, extremism, etc? No, you would not as you live in your world of undiluted hatred for everything 'Indian' based on fiction about "ethos of our rich heritage, culture and tradition" fed to you.
As far as your ideas about "…justice, goodwill and helping those that cannot help themselves" are concerned; i may prick your bubble some other day.
in the conclusion, you are so wrong about Rajoana trial and Indian government not commuting his death sentence to life imprisonment.
First, you are in denial about Rajoana's crime of killing a democratically elected leader and 17 INNOCENTS. Secondly, death sentence cannot be commuted unless the convict makes an appeal. Third, the death sentence of the mastermind Jagtar Hawara and another convicted killer have been commuted.
Get over your ideology which is a poisonous cocktail of hatred, extremism and negation.
@ Sher: From your reply anyone holding a dissenting opinion to you is guilty of 'hatred, extremism and negation". My argument would be that your intolerance of any criticism of India and its actions against the Sikhs is exactly that. You mirror what you see in other people, Sher. You are all the things you accuse others off and your psychological manipulation and use of these words to silence is evidence for all to see.
Meena, You are wrong about my "..intolerance of any criticism of India and its actions against the Sikhs" for one simple reason as I first condemned the other party in the following words:
"While condemning the killing of ever single innocent Sikh by state forces…"
How can I even think about silencing those who specialise in stifling free speech and every dissenting voice? I am content (and grateful too) that my comments are not being deleted by the Langarhall Moderators for asking too many uncomfortable questions and trying to prick too many bubbles.
@Sher – FIrst off I think Meena’s points are worth consideration.
I could comment on any number of your claims, but I will focus on just one that is factually incorrect.
You write: “Coming back to the ground reality in Punjab today, I would urge you to simply research the elections results in the post 1980 period. What you would notice from the latest poll results is a simple fact: TOTAL rejection of the politics of the Sikh secessionists. ”
So let us study the election results and focus on two – the Lok Sabha elections of 1989 and the Punjab Vidhan Sabha elections of 1992. In 1989, in the first elections where ‘secessionist’ candidates contested, 9 out of 13 were won, including Mann, Bimal Kaur Khalsa, Atinderpal Singh, and 6 others. It was with this overwhelming victory (when has there ever been a third force in Punjab’s politics?) that the Central Government decided it could not risk the chance (the MP elections were the ‘testing ground’ to see if the movement had been crushed as Punjab’s 13 seats in a 545 member LS body is negligible, but seeing the results changed the mind of the Centre) that ‘secessionists’ would gain democratic clout in the Punjab Assembly, so it canceled the 1991 elections.
Then again in the 1992 Punjab Vidhan Sabha, the ‘secessionist’ groups called for a boycott (in my opinion, the fatal mistake). In a state that has historically has had an approximately 70% voter turnout since the 1970s (one of the higher voter participations in all of India), in 1992 the turnout was a mere 20% (actually 12% in the rural constituencies). This fraudulent election that was rejected by the citizenry in Punjab was then represented by Beant Singh and KPS Gill as if they received a mandate. That is patently false as is your claim that these groups have always been democratically rejected. In fact, when the citizenry sided with them, the oppression escalated.
Also, you are wrong to see that Mann gave voice to these people. In 1989, Mann was elected, because he was in jail. People had hope that he was an honest voice. When he was released, the brother-in-law of Capt. Amrinder Singh showed his true colors – to be as corrupt and only seeking to form patron-client relationships as all other Punjabi politicians. The people left him, because they never voted for him as an individual in the first place, they voted for an idea and a movement they thought he represented. He failed miserably. Badal has learned the lesson of not allowing any democratic challenge to even sprout. It is for this reason that he has imprisoned SGPC-elected member Kulbir Singh Barapind, who defeated Badal’s candidate.
You are entitled to your interpretation and we can discuss that. You are NOT entitled to create your own facts.
At the time of partition Sikhs were about 14% of the population of Punjab and per some reports had a majority percentage in about two towns.
Any idea that there is within the historical punjab an area to which Sikhs alone have claim is ahistorical and the product of the same disfunction that has led to so much violence.
As late as the 1940's the Punjab Unionist Party (per Ahmed a non-sectarian party) was the leading party in Punjab.
There is no historical claim for a seperate Sikh state in Punjab and rather than always lay the blame elsewhere Sikhs need to place themselves back within history and not within a priviledged space of entitlement. If anything Sikhs in Punjab are more aware of this than Diaspora Sikhs.
@nuanceishard – I do not seek at this time to go into your discussion of the legitimacy of illegitimacy of a Sikh state.
However, I do wish to correct you historically. The claim of numeric majority as the basis of legitimate claim is quite novel indeed.
In the past, it was political sovereignty based on force of arms that dictated people to make claims or not. The Mughals claimed ruler over South Asia, not because they were invoking their numeric majority. If we go deeper into the Mughal case, the claim for sovereignty was based on their being the descendent of Timur (Tamerlane).
Sikh history is very recent, but all claims to sovereignty have been based upon its bestowal by the Sikh Gurus. In numerous instances in Panjab's history, Sikhs have made claims to territorial sovereignty. This can be seen in the numerous mints and coinage struck by Sikhs. Again, all of these pointing to sovereignty bestowed upon them by the Sikh Gurus.
Again, my point at this time, is not to go into the question of the basis of a Sikh-majority nation-state, but it is to point to the weak historical claims that you are making and in fact that they are not sustainable.
In regards to the Punjab Unionist Party being non-sectarian, it depends how we are using that word. If non-sectarian means that it had members of different religion then you are quite right. However, it was the party of the feudal landlords. It was vehemently casteist and protected the rights of landlords, irrespective of religion. The same Unionist Party sentiments rule Punjab today – whether in the Badal Akali Dal or the Congress Party led by Amrinder Singh, both parties are ruled by non-sectarian plutocrats.
Adding my two cents worth, in spite of the bombastic claims made by the Sikh supremacists, no Sikh ruler has ruled the WHOLE of Punjab ever. Similarly idiotic are the claims of ruling Afghanistan. The best Sikh armies did was to control Jamrud fort (near Khyber Pass) which is in the modern day Pakistan.
While exaggerating tales of their military achievements, these supremacists always fail to mention the conquest of Punjab up to the same Khyber Pass by Maratha force led by a 'Bahman' (as denigrated by radical Sikhs) Raghunath Rao in 1758. The maratha control of Punjab may have been brief but it was a statement of their militaristic achievements as they controlled most of the Indian subcontinent (including Delhi of course) at that stage.
@Sher – your 2 cents don't even equal that – again sloppiness. What does that mean, the 'whole of Punjab'? Does that include present day Himachal Pradesh and Haryana? West Punjab (now in Pakistan)?
No ruler of any religion has ruled the "whole of Punjab" as you claim. This concept of the 'whole of Punjab' is quite novel. Most people only begin discussing Panjabiyat from the period of Ranjit Singh. Even the British did not claim 'the WHOLE Punjab' and local rulers – including in Nabha, Kapurthala, and Patiala – maintained their control. The Mughals could not make claims against all the Pahari Rajas and for a brief period even Guru Gobind Singh (1689-1795) held sway near Anandpur Sahib that was not subject to Mughal authority.
While your straw man of Sikh supremacists may indeed be idiotic, creating straw men and equally making weak claims says something similar about you.
I did not see this response before so…Anyway, by 'whole of Punjab' I mean districts in the truncated version we know as Punjab (India) and the western part which is in Pakistan now.
Jodha you are wrong, I did not say "No ruler of any religion has ruled the "whole of Punjab". My assertion is ONLY about Sikhs and I repeat "no Sikh ruler has ruled the WHOLE of Punjab ever". Many Hindu and Muslim Kings controlled what we know as Punjab but not ONE Sikh ruler has done so.
The best was M Ranjit Singh but he was not allowed to cross the Satluj river by the British by the Treaty of Amritsar, (April 25, 1809).
As you have stated yourself, British vassals like Patiala, Jhind, Nabha, Kapurthala chiefs controlled their eastern Punjab territories.
Still want to dismiss my post as a "weak claim" and an attempt to create straw men?
@Sher – yes, I do, because that was my point that no single ruler of any religion has held undisputed sovereignty over the whole of Panjab – be they Sikh, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, or anything else.
If we are limiting the discussion to the districts that make up present day East Punjab, then again you are right no single Sikh has ruled over these districts, but as you pointed out, it would be right that SikhS (not a Sikh, but SikhS plural) – Ranjit Singh, the houses of Kapurthala, Jind, Nabha, and Patiala (all ruled by Sikhs) – did indeed rule.
Thanks for acknowledging my assertion about 'no single ruler ever ruling the UNITED Punjab'. As far as your point no 'non;Sikh' has got this privilege too, sorry Jodha, you are wrong. Even after the creation of Khalsa, a Maratha Raghu Nath Rao conquered Punjab (inc Kashmir) up to Khyber pass in 1758 and held the territory for a year or till 1761 invasion of Abdali.
Going back to BC era, you had such magnificent empires as Mauryas followed by Indo-Greeks, Kushans, Guptas, Hunas, Palas and finally (Hindu) Shahis. they all ruled Punjab and parts of modern day Afghanistan. Shahis were the last Hindu rulers of Afghanistan if I am not wrong.
@Sher – I think you are confusing sovereignty and suzerainty. Raghu Nath Rao claimed suzerainty (not sovereignty!), but it was hardly recognized by either the Sikh Sardars (we have accounts of Ala Singh of Patiala rejecting alliances and recognition – thus we cannot say the Marathas even ruled Patiala region) nor the Punjabi Pathans (Rohillas) of the areas surrounding the Jallandhar Doab that was ruled by the Burki and Bangash. These groups repeatedly attacked the Marathan lines and held on to to their jagirs, claiming sovereignty. These are just two examples and I am limiting my discourse to the area of the present-day state of East Punjab.
Going back to the BC era, again we are in a place of suzerainty, not sovereignty. Our knowledge of some of those you list are not even based on textual evidence, but ceramic shards found in the archaeological record.
The problem with your analysis is that you are seeking a Hindu nationalism amongst the Marathas and other groups that does not exist. You are quick to point out Sikhs that engage in anachronistic thinking, yet you have been heaping it yourself. You can't have it both ways.
Jodha,
I have appreciated your vast knowledge before and would do it one more time. I should also add your command over the language which, unfortunately for me, I do not have. This allows you to indulge in a play of words I cannot afford.
Suzerainty and sovereignty, hmm interesting. Would you please tell us why Marathas did not exercise 'sovereignty' over the areas (up to Khyber Pass) they definitely conquered?
Ala Singh's discomfort is understandable as he was a vassal of Ahmed Shah Abdali, the same Abdali who destroyed Harimandir sahib three times!
You may have intellectual prowess but your sense of denial is amazing and so is some insecurity which comes into play once your well grounded ideas are challenged.
I find the accusation of "…seeking a Hindu nationalism amongst the Marathas and other groups that does not exist" ridiculous. The moment someone points out inaccuracies in your narrative you become overtly sensitive and use the 'anti-Sikh' or 'Hindu nationalist' cards.
You have in one sweeping statement changed the history of Punjab! No Mauryas, no Guptas, no Shahis… and of course, most definitely, NO MARATHAS!
Ask yourself if you are helping the current crop of Sikh youth by perpetuating the myth of Hindu cowardice and 'Sikhs' saving Hindu faith while the story could be extremely, if not entirely, different.
Respects
"During the Third Battle of Panipat between Marathas and Ahmad Shah, The Sikhs did not support either side and decided to sitback and see what would happen. The exception was Ala Singh of Patiala, who sided with the Afghans and was actually being granted and crowned the first Sikh Maharajah at the Sikh holy temple."
Sinha, Narendra Krishna (2008) [1973]. "Ala Singh". Rise of the Sikh power. University of Michigan. p. 37.
How Sikh historians would have treated Ala Singh if he had a Hindu name?
Treacherous?
@Sher -you really miss my whole point. If you want to call out Sikh chauvinists on fanciful distortions of the past, I am with you. However, if your goal is to replace Sikh distortions with "Hindu" distortions, then we part company. All your replies have shown me that you are only interested in the latter.
Sovereignty/suzerainty is not a new concept and most that are well-read in political history are more than familiar with it. The British claimed suzerainty over the India, while leaving certain native rajas in place. It is this same principle why Akbar claimed to be the "Shahehshah" (King of kings) while not making claims or attempts to dislodge local rulers, because he would have been unsuccessful. So again, the Marathas did not make local links and claims over the territory of Punjab, they claimed suzerainty, but as I stated, even this was contested.
You completely miss my point on Ala Singh. I am not trying to laud him or diminish him. I am pointing out that your claim that the Marathas were undisputed rulers of the small truncated East Punjab is patently false. I have provided you with a number of examples that cut across religious lines. That is my point.
You use this point against Ranjit Singh that he did not control all of present-day East Punjab and I agreed with you. So my point stands here that the Marathas, too, did not control all of present-day East Punjab.
I have no insecurity, because I am not wedded to communalist jingoism. You think you can pigeon-hole me as an easy Sikh nationalist; my positions are far more complex than that. However, all of your claims easily pigeon hole you, since on this website you are not one that calls for justice for all, nor are you one that seeks to understand history in its own terms, but rather for your political project. If you call another trash and all you offer is more trash, you are no different.
Nowhere will you find anything I have written about Hindu cowardice in the past, because even the modern understanding of Hindu is essentially that – extremely modern!
I have not changed Punjab's history. I have merely challenged your simplistic NCERT understanding of it.
Jodha when it is convenient you reject the Sikh nationalist label which is great, hopefully you will keep pushing that line of thinking and challenge those in your circle who think along those lines. Many Sikhs are lost in a thinly veiled supremacist line of thinking and it is sad. Maybe it's slug Ty better than it was in the height of the Punjab troubles, but is quite limiting. Also, it might be nice to have enough self awareness to see that Sher has a pretty tough ask to counter the Sikh nationalist line while you are replying from home ground as it were. You consistently miss this. Every audience has biases that it frames arguments in and Sher for better or worse lines up against almost all of them. Your arguments and perspective have a receptive audience and it would be nice to see Sher as having to argue uphill. Really take the Sikh nationalist position to task, risk alienating the Sikh nationalism in your circle, interrogate the way Sikhs view the 70s-90s, look at Singh Sabha as one of a competing set of religious reform movements, and look into something like the Oberoi critique of orthodox Sikhi and then you will have earned your stripes as someone who opposes Sikh nationalism.
@Nuance – I can reject chauvinism without being a toady of the government line that you are suggesting. Oberoi's position is hardly tenable any more. Read Grewal, GS Mann, and a list of others that have come to question this thesis. Your support of it gives away your political project, rather than any quest for the truth.
Nuance has a "political project" I am distortionist Hindu and the one who manufacture history facts which do not exist…
well, i am just trying to correct some of the "fanciful distortions" of the Sikh chauvinist masquerading as Punjab historians, political leaders, theologians and other such supremacist element among the Sikhs/Khalsas.
I would go back to my mention of the Maratha conquest of the pre-partition Punjab and the areas up to Khyber Pass; please enlighten where is the distortion in my post.
Marathas had complete control over the territory from Deccan to Attock including Kashmir. Raghunath Rao had earlier conquered Delhi followed by Sirhind, lahore and finally Peshawar. He appointed Adina Beg the Maratha Governor and, after his death in 1759, a Maratha was appointed a Governor of Punjab.
"Lahore, Multan, Kashmir and other subhas on this side of Attock are under our rule for the most part, and places which have not come under our rule we shall soon bring under us. Ahmad Shah Durrani's son Timur Shah Durrani and Jahan Khan have been pursued by our troops, and their troops completely looted. Both of them have now reached Peshawar with a few broken troops. So Ahmad Shah Durrani has returned to Kandahar with some 12–14 thousand broken troops. Thus all have risen against Ahmad who has lost control over the region. We have decided to extend our rule up to Kandahar" This is what RaghuNath Rao wrote to Peshwa before conquering Peshawar.
"the Maratha power was at its zenith. Their frontiers, wrote Elphinstone extended on the north to the Indus and the Himalaya, and on to the south nearly to the extremity of the Peninsula" Cambridge History of India page 416.
What is the distortion in this? You on the other hand mentioned the opportunist Ala Singh who do not find a mention in this book, not even as a footnote. If Ala singh was whimpering from the security of his insignificant position, how does it matter? Did he challenge the Maratha governors in the battle-field? no, not at all.
@Sher – this is my reply to you on this thread, so we'll just let it be after this.
Both of you have 'political projects' – you are not writing this in order for historical accuracy, you are writing this to push a particular Hindutva interpretation that's why you brought up the canard of 'Hindu cowardice.' You are writing this not to have a better understanding of Punjab's history (otherwise I would be with you – as I agreed about Ranjit Singh's actual holdings in Punjab), but your real purpose is to attempt to replace Sikh chauvinism with Hindutva chauvinism and make some sort of claim that "See, 'Hindus' have had an even greater triumphant military history." That's your actual point. That's a political project.
Yes, the Marathas claimed suzerainty. So did the Mughals, the Lodis, the British, and if you read primary materials such as Rattan Singh Bhangu, then so did the Khalsa. Our conversation was about sovereignty. The Mughals did not exercise sovereignty, nor did the British, and in no way did the Marathas. Just as Ranjit Singh's claims were contested by the Sardars of Patiala, so were the the Marathas. I say this not to laud the Patiala Sardars, but because it is a statement of fact. While it would be hilarious if it wasn't attached to such a sinister agenda, you are delusioned and believe I am celebrating Ala Singh. This is what Hindutva chauvinists or fascists of all kind cannot get their head around. I don't care about Ala Singh. I am only interested in history. I am not interested in serving a particular agenda when I am writing this to you. You are!
You selectively pick quotes from Wikipedia and then when I bother to actually check the author, I learn that he doesn't have the ability to read Marathi or Persian, which would have been the language of the letters of correspondence. Who knows what his source is? But for you, it doesn't matter. None of this matters. All this takes a second place to your Hindutva reading of history. Amateurish indeed.
You can continue espousing your Hindutva agenda. I actually hoped you were an intellectual. I am disappointed, but it doesn't matter. I no longer care to argue with an ideologue and I am sure everybody else on this site stopped caring a long time ago. Best wishes!
Your hypothesis is really strange. I'm actually a little weirded out at the bizarre accusation. I keep thinking you are more reasonable than you turn out to be. For the sake of my family, and the many, many family members who keep and have kept the faith in my community, I'll just say you are wrong and you have zero right to question my Bona fides as a Sikh. With all hope I expect this the last time I speak to you. I consider your comment a sign of disrepect to my family and me. Hope we never address one another again.
Send my condolences to your mom.
The kind of reply one expects from a teenager at best.
Please do not reply to me again.
As long as you'll forward the message!
No sorry. surprised you would reply assuming your words make any difference. The only thing I would like is to forget your existence as quickly as possible.
Btw, have read counters to Oberoi and apparently unlike you can try to understand both sides. Have engaged in discussion with family that took the Oberoi line while I argued against it. You are the one who have revealed your basic intolerance.
Sikh chauvanism is a real thing.
Rather than fighting for more and more purity, which caused so much misery, if Sikhs want to be the upholders of punjabiayat we should fight with all our might for a syncretic secular return to the previous normal state in which people did not fear as greatly as today to not be only this and not that. Probably that was not a pure state either, but this mania with seeing Sikhs as the victim is not shared by any other group in historically Punjab.
We need to open our eyes to a legitimate understanding of how other communities in the historical Punjab have seen us, as all too often chauvanists who do not take responsibilty for our historical role in the violence that has so unfortunately plagued that region of the world.
@nuanceishard – Again, I take issue with your historical sloppiness. If you are seeking to raise the point that the issue of 'purity' is wrong-headed, I may even find points of agreement with you. However, to claim some authentic 'syncretic secular return' even you know this is historically dubious. But your comparative point is even more sloppy. If you are going to compare, then make sure you are doing so methodically. We can see the treatment of Ahmediyas in West Punjab. We can read the literature in Devnagri script from Punjabi Hindus, first in their opposition to the Punjabi Suba and in many of their presses today. Sikhs may be unique in some ways, but not in the ways that you are suggesting. Nuance is hard indeed!
Ifnyou want to rally around an idea, a syncretic vision of punjabiayat can comptete with the idea of reclaiming a lost purity. Of the two, one leads to violence and ethnic cleansing and the other is much less likely too. I will again leave it to readers to pick which would be which.
Also your earlier comments on demography. I think what, in a kind of sloppy way, you were saying is that the governing institutions in Punjab have often come about not by popular will but by conquest. Would a progressive be able to advocate for that? The fact of the matter is in the historical Punjab the idea that any given area would include enough people to form a majority who would choose to live under a Sikh religious state is probably as close to zero as possible. The only way to create such a state is ethnic cleansing or the suppression of the rights of others through violence. Sound familiar?
Bringing up the unionist party was as a contrast to the parties that began to wield power shortly before partition, the parties based on hardened communal lines which forced on punjab (arguably) a tri partite mania for purity among Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs….the deleterious consequences of which we are impacted by to this day.
@nuance – A syncretic vision of punjabiyat or any other vision is something new and novel. That is all I am suggesting. Your claims of this in the past is dubious. A Sikh calling for a theocracy is also novel. His/Her claim of such a system in the past would be dubious as well.
I think for those interested in nationalist projects there are many competing visions. To believe that a theocracy is the only vision being suggested is erroneous. There are many ways to create many different states. Ideologies change during phases. Such is the case with all states. There are no facile teleologies, as you are suggesting. Suppression of rights, state-sponsored genocides, and ethnic cleansing has occurred in so-called in post-1947 India. So yes, what you suggest sounds very familiar because it is in India's recent history and the government has allowed impunity to the perpetrators, thus increasing the chances of such abuses in the future. It is people that make these unfortunate choices. There is contingency, nothing is pre-ordained.
The Unionist Party served to oppress the non-feudal majority. They chose caste to divide, instead of religion. The deleterious consequences of their choices and oppressions impact us to this day.
You have rather odd idols – the wonderful unifying system of 'caste' should be extolled and religion abhorred.
Apparently my reply was deleted. Please consider publishing the process by which comments are deleted.
[message neither deleted nor in our spam box. – Admin Singh]
Message above, did not show up for a couple hours. You sound defensive, try to calm down. I know we are getting to sensitive topics.
Your comment must be approved by the site admins before it will appear publicly. And since when have you started moderating comments???? WTF
we don't Meena, but the disqus system does in looking at possible spam or abuse.
There is NO SikhISM>This is a word coined by the west and alien to the SIKHI that our Gurus deseminated to us.We should revert back to using SIKHI and emphasise the way of life-SIKHI>As for brar; a total set up.People being rounded up are those I beleive that wee in teh area visiting, cruisng, shopping and wandering on that day.It is easy to identify the cars registered that plied around that area and round up for questioning!
@Gurcharan Singh – absolutely agreed with the problem of SikhISM, that's why I wrote it that way, to emphasize that it is just 'orientalism' that Sikhs have internalized.
Lead The way of life as Gurbani teaches .. This is Only what i want to say ..
http://www.gurmatsagar.in
Anyone person who knows about developing countries knows there is always room for hera pheri but let’s take a little more control of our situation. You can’t have it every which way. If you glorify revenge and badla you can’t be surprised when people act on it. Like i said above sikhs seem to be in denial of the rhetoric employed and way we often appear to others versus our own perception. If we don’t change we set ourselves up to be forever at the mercy of conspiracy
Very well said nuance, voices of sanity must prevail.
The walk is out there on these issues and the basis for the point of view I’m articulating is sound and I’ll leave it to anyone interested to look into it and decide for themselves.
@nuance – sure! sound arguments by creating straw men.
Sure it would be great if that was true, if it was the halath our community vis a vis these issues would not be so dire. As it is to pretend this is a strawman phenomenon is sadly more denial of the ground reality for the last 60 so years
Agree with the general idea of what Sher expressed about Sikhs in Punjab.
Majority always dominates the minority. All those crying foul about how badly Sikhs are treated in India should just pay attention to how Sikhs treat Hindus (Bhaiya/Baniya etc) in Punjab.
It is incorrect to paint everyone with the same brush. I don’t see anything wrong in explaining to people that Sikhism is peaceful religion just like any other religion because KIRPAN does not look “peaceful” to most non-Sikhs.
Something about straw man? Add in ad hominum and a deliberately misleading interpretation of what i wrote above. Wouldn’t it be great if everyone who disagrees with a point is a mean casteist?
@nuance – no, it's the reality for a person that lauds the Unionist Party, when it is apparent that your knowledge of it is rather superficial.
Actually no the communal nature of puniabi society demonstrably took a turn for the worse leading up to partition in many historical accounts.
@nuance – agreed, but it can be only understood as a pan-Punjab problem and must be historicized to a particular time and period. You are making claims of some essentialism unique to the Sikhs. That is invalid.
Your interpretation of my use of the unionist party is what is superficial. Really the entire progressive yet ethno religious nationalist project you have going here is superficial and untenable. It breaks down on so many levels. Also while other communities had hardened along communal lines and for instance sikh ethno nationalists consider rss a rightist and malevolent force there has been no consideration that the sikh counterpart looks similiar to the hindu community, if not even more explicitly willing to employ the rhetoric of violence. And finally, sikhs do not reckon with how for example the muslim Punjabi community as a whole saw the role of sikhs in partition times. Sikhs don’t have to buy that wholesale but it would be instructive to consider a viewpoint in which all violence perpetrated on behalf of the supposed kaum is sanctified and sanctioned by our self belief in our status as eternal heros and martyrs fighting and winning against overwhelming odds. Also reckon with the fact some leftists have looked at the communal violence in partition as the reaction of the economically oppressed muslim majority against the sikh and hindu upper class. The cult of political violence will not always point in one direction.
@nuance – You brought up the Unionist Party and even up until now and have not talked about it in any meaningful manner. Nothing is untenable; again you fall back to your structuralist belief system. Humans have agency.
I am not trying to defend any Sikh ethno-nationalist and would agree with you that definitely this sort of repulsiveness exists. I have wrote about it very recently where I talked about 'Manufactured Outrage Inc.' However, there is a difference between an RSS and a Sikh chauvinist. The RSS has had and is some situations continues to have state sanction, access to its security, and machinery in a way that the Sikh chauvinist has never had and shouldn't have. So you cannot create equivalence.
I think all are repulsed by the actions of Sikhs and Muslims during Partition, however to claim that the Sikhs were more violent or even initiated the violence is dubious and actually untrue.
Again, these are straw men. Nobody sanctions 'all violence.' There is a conception of just and unjust. You are attempting to paper over this difference and the chasm is vast.
You are the one pointing to one direction of political violence, not I. I am trying to muddy your analysis that relies more on dogma than analysis. Your supposed 'leftist' analysis of the 'economically oppressed Muslim' requires specificity of locale and communities. Hardly were all Muslims the economically oppressed. These conversations require nuance and as we both know, nuance is hard.
Over and over i say the comparison with the unionist party is with the ascendence of communal and no less casteist parties in deed if not word. Take it further and its a classic straw man. Youur project here relies on the hope that critique be dismissed as directed toward straw men and this is only possible by presenting every criticism as directed against something not a problem. Lets see going forward what kinds of situations your site adocates and we’ll see. Take for example any time you want to get specific on the troubles in the 80s, the role of sikh nationalism and the relationship between hindus and sikhs and the use of religious nationalist violence. Go ahead and be specific on these and other questions because now you know we aren’t all fallioverng in line. Talk alittle about the singh sabha too in relation to arya samaj and why you see one different than the other. And your explanation of why the rss is different explains only why a similar sikh group is right to be opposed by non sikhs.
By the way when i say reckon with one leftist examination of partition violence i refer to the idea that political violence is just in cases where an oppressed group resists against their oppressors. I find this of course abborrent but i am asking whether others on the site will say the same. If one only identifies oneself with the oppressed and can not imagine themselves in all sides of a conflict they can lose sight of what the entire question entails. It would be novel for some to see sikhs as oppressors instead of how we often see ourselves as either the oppressed or as benevolent justice bringers. Basically what I’m saying is try taking a radically different view you are not used to seeing and see what that looks like. As someone pointed out Guru Gobind Singh met with the m mughal rulers and coming to terms with that is pretty key. That’s why your earlier statement that he only did so with banda bahadurs reign of violence as a second option is such an important question. Answer that and you see Sikh nationalist violence is at least two very different ways. My own view is there is little to say banda was doing wahegurus will as punjab burned in bandas wake.
@nuance – I'm actually working on a post to address your question about times that Sikhs have been oppressors. Collaboration with the British was one such period; collaboration with the Indian state another. Again, you are assuming you know my opinions before I've shared them. Bhaaji, I'm trying to engage with you, but you'd rather create a straw man. On Banda Singh, what's interesting is contemporary documents and those from a later period. Rattan Singh Bhangu condemned Banda Singh, but Bhangu also was writing nearly a century after the events. In popular Sikh memory, Banda Singh acknowledges his excesses during his torture. However, even Banda Singh doesn't exactly fit your communal interpretation of him. A number of Muslims (peasants and Sufi pirs, not conscripts) were in his army as well, as attested by contemporary documents.
I’m not creating straw men man you need to open your mind to other possibilities like that sikhs unfortunately can be oppressors all by themselves. Try getting rid of your bias. I’m kind of getting tired of this. You seem unable to move beyond a certain place in your ability to assess the Sikh community and our faults. I’ll leave you with one other thought. I believe if the message were to be sent today it would be there is no Hindu there is no musalmaan there is no sikh. I’ll wait to be surprised by your discussion on banda. Consider using another pat logical fallacy defense, there’s others out there that sound good.
@nuance – I was hoping you were capable of deeper engagement, instead it is puerile repetition. Of course Sikhs have been oppressors. Individuals are capable of anything. Banda Singh unleashed a number of forces. A revolution of that type can be studied using any number of analysis and many lenses should be used. It is clear that you have not read any of these documents nor are even aware of the historiography. Instead it is dogma. So be it. On your last point, you are absolutely right – we have both grown tired of this.
NAgain, the primary points re banda….you mentioned believing guru gobind singh sanctioned his violent campaign, and this goes to if you see his campaign as both a religious nationalist one and on of an agrarian oppressed class using political violence legitimately or not. It’s not my point whether there were non sikhs in his army. To suggest that’s my point can almost be called a argument by straw man.
roundabouts and circles….roundabouts and circles…whoo…whoo…round and round the merry go round we go. As the merry go round grinds to a halt lets see who got off and and who stayed on :
Flashing News (in India) : ASSASSINATION ATTEMPT ON BRAR THE INDIAN HERO.
Breaking news : OH MY GOD…THANK GOD SCOTLAND YARD IS ON OUR SIDE…… SCOTLAND YARD HAS BEEN ROUNDINDGUP THESE EVIL……TRULY EVIL…..MURDEROUS….TERRORIST SIKHS.
Headline News : Britain is on our side…..Britain agrees that something must be done about the sikh terrorists amongst us.
(This is a great movie script, which would be a comedy if it wern't true)
But then ?…………….Oh my god (staying in tune with the Hollywood screenplay) ………..Scotland Yard release 12 of the 14 that were arrested and now not only face multi million dollar law suits of the illegal arrests they made of these Siklhs – who committed the henious act of being a Sikh in a public place – but the 2 who were actually in contact with Brar that night are charged with common assault.
Oh my god………..Hollywoood…Nollywood….Lollywood……(scriptwriter:please help us now)…….What happens to this screenplay now ? Its all gone tits up. It turns out that Scotland Yard….The Crown Presecution Office and the English criminal justice system have all decided that Brar and the whole of India were all a bunch of lying, deceiving, untrufthul, dishonest lumps of hot steaming piles of tutti.
So lets give an update on what the headline news in India has for the last couple of weeks been given as the most important piece of news ever….in the history of world news …..Lets give the update that won't make the Indian news :
1) Scotland Yard ….after a thorough investigation….have decided that both Brar and his better half were lying and there was no attempted murder.
2) The only 2 Sikhs that have been charged have been charged with an offence that brings no greater penalty than having to paint the walls of an old peoples retirement home as community service.
3) All the other Sikhs arrested have now multi-million dollar law suits against the police as compensation for what is quite clearly illegal arrests.
4) The whole of Britain….who didn't know beforehand of the atrocities committed against Sikhs….now now.
Summary : This has been a bad day at the office for the Indians.
🙂 That was amusing theatrics…well, almost. Blighty Singh seems to be desperate to give some justification to the attack on an almost 80-year old man and his wife but he has got few basic points very wrong. The arrested Sikhs were released ON BAIL. They have not been exonerated and would return to have their day in the court sometime in November.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-19856…
"The nine who have been bailed are to return to police stations in November, pending further inquiries.
Following the attack, Mr Brar was taken to hospital with a neck wound and has since been discharged.
He led the 1984 raid on Sikhism's holiest shrine, which saw hundreds die when troops flushed Sikh separatist militants out of the Golden Temple in Amritsar in Punjab state."
The only 2 Sikhs that have been charged …The wannabe terrorists may get away with painting the walls of a toilet but would never get away from the humiliation of getting whooped by a 80-yea-old!!! Now that is amusing.
By the way you are wrong about what i have read but don’t let it get in the way of feeling superior. I’m going to keep on reading what i will without a care as to whether it meets or doesn’t meet your standard. You standard doesn’t matter to me, never asked for your evaluation of my reading habits and couldn’t care less for your opinion on the matter.
Yes and the best of luck with whatever you just said above you're gonna be doing. My french and Greek is rusty to say the lesat and my Latin extends no further than the Common Law and magna carta but I;m sure whatever you just said was profound. In the meantime may I politely suggest you contact either the samritans or some sort of mental health helpline for some empathetic help ? There is, afterall, no need to suffer in silence. We're all here to help.
Awesome comment bruv
U seem like a sellout still; u go on and on about this and that and sikhs done or didn't.
Long Live those who fight for justice! No matter what, who, or where they're from.
The imposition of a tax based on religion is un-just and unlawful and the destruction of a muslim rule needs only that reason.
I assume you are somewhere inside the british commonwealth so you would know about the common law and what's really popping.
I kind of doubt brar was attacked by singhs also or he wouldn't be breathing!
In between your repetitive accusations and haughty dismissal you say bhaaji once and you think that’s a call for deeper engagement? Okay. Sorry will forgo the opportunity for deeper engagement. You seem to forget i wrote my opinion and didn’t ask yours. I don’t really seek your opinion and i really don’t get much from most of your replies. Any time you want to prevent my comments go ahead but if the cost of commenting here is the privilege of deeper engagement with you during which you throw accusations of bad faith sloppy thinking and idolising caste politics and then make it better by saying bhaji its politely declined bhaaji.
No. Sorry. You've lost me bruvs. Next time try writing sober and in English and I might even understand what it is you're trying to say.
Awesome comment bruv.
[…] leadership in our children. From defending the Sikh identity with inapposite descriptions that accommodate to white Christian norms and we are not Muslim to conversations about who I am and how that relates to you. From political […]
????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????