Trouble at Vaisakhi mela


by Sunny
26th April, 2007 at 3:26 am    

The Gurudwara (Guru’s home) is the communal area where Sikhs come to worship, eat food with each other and get married. It is also a lucrative business, as anyone more intimately familiar with the institution will point out. People donate abundant amounts of money without giving much thought to who it goes to or what it’s spent on. Unsurprisingly then, some people get very interested in controlling them. And that is where the trouble starts.

On Sunday, during the annual Vaisakhi celebrations in Birmingham, a huge fight broke out between rival gangs and one man got badly stabbed. The police has since arrested four people. Some say it was a fight between Shere Punjab and Babbar Khalsa. Others link to the control of Smethwick Gurudwara. YouTube has the BBC News and ITV News reports. Laban Tall has some more material, illustrating, if anything, that young British Sikhs can’t spell to save their lives.
Update: Three men have been remanded now (via Laban).
More seriously, in Nov 2005 Jay Singh wrote an article here asking whether mob violence was taking British Sikhs into crisis. With gang-violence constantly flaring up in Birmingham over control of Gurudwaras, could this be a real possibility? And where are the local “community leaders”? Hiding from the issue and pretending that there isn’t a problem with Gurudwara corruption, money laundering to Punjab and complete lack of transparency within management committees.


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: Organisations,Sikh






69 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs


  1. Soso — on 26th April, 2007 at 2:08 pm  

    I’m just curious; what is the gang violent about? Is it over turf or drugs?

    There’s been similar problemes in Vancouver Can. lately

  2. Naxal 1849 — on 26th April, 2007 at 2:23 pm  

    No, there is not a ‘crisis’. Sikh ‘mob violence’ happens once in a blue moon.

    Soso

    If what Sunny says is true (that it was a fight between Shere Punjab and Babbar Khalsa), then it was not about turf or drugs.

    It would be more likely to do with Khalistan or Rehat Maryada.

    One thing that Sunny is right about though is the corruption within Gurdwara Committees.

    But the only people who are actively trying to put an end to Gurdwara committee corruption are the very same people that Sunny detests: British-born baptised Sikhs and other Sikhs who care passionately about Sikhi.

  3. Sunny — on 26th April, 2007 at 2:54 pm  

    are the very same people that Sunny detests: British-born baptised Sikhs

    How did you come to the conclusion I detest them?

  4. Naxal 1849 — on 26th April, 2007 at 3:27 pm  

    Sunny

    Like I said on another thread, you only ever have a bad word for Sikhs who at least are attempting to change things.

    If a Sikh/Sikh organisation ever speaks up in favour of Khalistan – you mock them.

    If a Sikh/Sikh organisation ever speaks up about human rights abuses in Punjab – you mock them.

    If a Sikh/Sikh organisation ever speaks up about discrimination in the UK – you mock them.

    Forgive me for getting the impression that you have issues with Sikhs that don’t subscribe to your brand of ultra-liberalism.

  5. Sunny — on 26th April, 2007 at 3:38 pm  

    If a Sikh/Sikh organisation ever speaks up in favour of Khalistan – you mock them.

    Thats because anyone who speaks in favour of Khalistan, like Muslims who talk about the Khalifah pipe dream, haven’t thought it through and deserve mocking.

    If a Sikh/Sikh organisation ever speaks up about human rights abuses in Punjab – you mock them.

    Only if they’re exaggerating or being hysterical. I’ve made the point about human rights abuses in Punjab myself. This is a rather lame attempt at mud-slinging.

    If a Sikh/Sikh organisation ever speaks up about discrimination in the UK – you mock them.

    Oh really? When? And which organisations are you referring to/

  6. Crystal — on 26th April, 2007 at 3:44 pm  

    As a British-born baptised Sikh I am sick and tired of nutcases hijacking the Sikh faith to deal with their personal agendas. This act of violence was a stupid Gurdwara election fued that went wrong. It is sad who youth are manipulated into this and that now 3 young Sikh men will be regrettably charged with attempted murder and even worse than that is someone was stabbed in the whole fiasco. The Sikh youth are not the problem. It’s the backward elders who still pull the strings and manipulate the youth to do their dirty work.

  7. Naxal 1849 — on 26th April, 2007 at 3:54 pm  

    Sunny

    Nobody is stopping you from being a sandal wearing, vegetarian sandwich eating, snotty nose, wet your pants at bed time liberal, it’s just that you don’t really have any authority to speak about Sikhs/Sikh causes the way that you do.

    It’s like Orientalists talking about ‘the natives’.

    Perhaps you should stick to commenting on Nirpal Singh Dhaliwal and Konnie Huq.

  8. Sunny — on 26th April, 2007 at 4:11 pm  

    , it’s just that you don’t really have any authority to speak about Sikhs/Sikh causes the way that you do.

    I don’t remember asking you on what I could comment on not. Bizarre that you seem to have assumed I’m even going to bother listening when you can’t even bother responding to my refutation of your cheap shots earlier.

  9. Kismet Hardy — on 26th April, 2007 at 4:29 pm  

    The thing about Naxal is he’s level-headed, logical, eloquent and completely devoid of any blinkered rage. A perfect representative for any cause, assuming we’re all living in 1849, that is…

  10. Naxal 1849 — on 26th April, 2007 at 4:42 pm  

    Sunny

    I didn’t say that you didn’t have the right to comment on whatever you wish. This is a free(ish) country, you can say as you please.

    My point was: you are clearly 100% assimilated into liberal-western-secular culture. You are like VS Naipaul, except he is a better writer.

    But since you and Mr Naipaul have disassociated yourselves with your religious/ethnic/birth communities, it invalidates anything you have to say about said communities.

    We know you don’t see yourself as Sikh. We know you don’t really give a damn about the Sikh community. That’s cool. Good for you. Pat yourself on the back.

    But don’t then proceed to comment on Sikh issues as if you are some sort of an authority or have a God-given right.

    Stick to things closer to home…like the next schmooz and booze with the Oxbridge boys.

    Leave the Sikh politics to Sikhs. Thanks.

  11. Ms_Xtreme — on 26th April, 2007 at 5:44 pm  

    Meoow @ Naxal. Whether or not Sunny cares about the sikh population, it affects him, as it does all of us – regardless of religion or culture. I’m Muslim, but attend Vaisahki melas because I truely enjoy them. It’d be pretty scarey if there was some threat of violence at one of them.

    Also, can someone please tell me why Gurudwaras don’t have voting for leadership like Mosques do? Many Mosques pick new leadership every 5 years or so, I’m curious as to why this process isn’t followed in other religions for house of prayer leadership.

  12. William — on 26th April, 2007 at 5:46 pm  

    a person can only be right or have a valid point if they are exactly the same as us. Not if they are just similar or sharing stuff and also an individual but only if exactly the same whatever this mythical exactly the same is. Does this mean they can’t that something is not right when something is not right.

  13. Bert Preast — on 26th April, 2007 at 5:58 pm  

    It’s damn good to see sikhs, even this Naxal chap, blaming no one but sikhs for their problems. Good show.

    However, a few more incidents like this and people will start to wonder if allowing kirpans is a good idea. Was the blade used a kirpan? With all the current hoo-hah over knife crime, I think they were extremely foolish stabbing anyone. What’s wrong with biting his nose off? Native ways are sometimes the best.

  14. Kulvinder — on 26th April, 2007 at 6:03 pm  

    But don’t then proceed to comment on Sikh issues as if you are some sort of an authority or have a God-given right.

    Pot.Kettle.Black.

  15. Kulvinder — on 26th April, 2007 at 6:09 pm  

    If a Sikh/Sikh organisation ever speaks up in favour of Khalistan – you mock them.

    Deservedly so.

    If a Sikh/Sikh organisation ever speaks up about human rights abuses in Punjab – you mock them.

    Like when?

    If a Sikh/Sikh organisation ever speaks up about discrimination in the UK – you mock them.

    As above.

  16. Naxal 1849 — on 26th April, 2007 at 6:18 pm  

    Kulvinder

    The difference between Sunny and I is that he has stated repeatedly that he is a die-hard liberal who doesn’t consider himself Sikh and has assimilated into his host community 100%. I have not assimilated and am not a liberal.

    Why would a person like Sunny constantly bang on about Sikh affairs purporting himself as some sort of demi-god/philosopher?

    As for Khalistan, let me ask you this: do the Palestinians deserve a state of their own? If yes, why?

  17. Kulvinder — on 26th April, 2007 at 6:28 pm  

    Why would a person like Sunny constantly bang on about Sikh affairs purporting himself as some sort of demi-god/philosopher?

    Because he has his own internet site, and hes allowed to publish what he wants on it. Unless you’re taking the overly draconian ‘thou shalt not post on anything not related to you as decided by naxal1849′

    As for Khalistan, let me ask you this: do the Palestinians deserve a state of their own? If yes, why?

    Ah I/P an issue ive more or less avoided as noone has anything interesting left to say on it.

    It depends on what you mean by ‘deserve’. Under my philosophy any individual or group of individuals has a right to self determination, so yeah the sikhs that want Khalistan should have it, the land that their Khalistan would realistically encompass would be a few hectares in area as the vast majority of people living in the land they want to be khalistan have self-determined that they’d rather stay indian or pakistani.

    That said most khalistanis get round this by refusing to tell me what the border of khalistan actually is, let alone how the institutions of the ‘country’ would function and what type of country it would be. Just like the Khalifah pipe dream.

  18. Bert Preast — on 26th April, 2007 at 6:35 pm  

    “The difference between Sunny and I is that he has stated repeatedly that he is a die-hard liberal who doesn’t consider himself Sikh and has assimilated into his host community 100%”

    Nah. We still point and laugh at his beard.

  19. Naxal 1849 — on 26th April, 2007 at 6:46 pm  

    Kulvinder

    1) Khalistanis aren’t a monolithic group.

    2) There are many different notions of ‘Khalistan’. Which one are you referring to?

    3) When was there a plebiscite on secession?

    4) Why don’t you answer the question?

  20. Kulvinder — on 26th April, 2007 at 6:56 pm  

    1) Khalistanis aren’t a monolithic group.

    2) There are many different notions of ‘Khalistan’. Which one are you referring to?

    Which one are you referring to? You asked the original question!?!?

    3) When was there a plebiscite on secession?

    There hasn’t been one as the electorate hasn’t put into office anyone who promised a referendum, which either means a massive conspiracy of keeping out anyone who wants a referendum or that the electorate don’t actually consider it an issue.

    4) Why don’t you answer the question?

    Eh?

  21. Naxal 1849 — on 26th April, 2007 at 7:01 pm  

    I asked a question about Palestinians.

    You have yet to answer.

    Instead you by-passed it by telling me that the people of Punjab had opted to stay within India – and then went on to admit that there has never been a plebiscite. That’s what we call a contradiction.

  22. Kulvinder — on 26th April, 2007 at 7:09 pm  

    I thought we were talking about the sikhs??? Any individuals or group of individuals have a right to self determiation including the palestinians, so yeah if they want an independant state more power to them.

    Instead you by-passed it by telling me that the people of Punjab had opted to stay within India – and then went on to admit that there has never been a plebiscite. That’s what we call a contradiction.

    No dear, i pointed out that before a referendum can take place (you can call it a plebiscite if you want) the electorate has to put into power someone who promises said referendum. An independant Khalistan isn’t a desire for the people living in punjab, hence they’ve never elected anyoone promising a referendum on it.

  23. Kulvinder — on 26th April, 2007 at 7:13 pm  

    nb the people of punjab have never had a plebiscite on their desire to be ruled by me as a god-king. But they must want it amirite?

  24. Bert Preast — on 26th April, 2007 at 7:16 pm  

    Frankly, mad not to.

  25. Naxal 1849 — on 26th April, 2007 at 7:35 pm  

    Kulvinder

    You obviously know very little about the centralised political structure in India. Let me educate you.

    The states, particularly ones on the periphery, have virtually no power to do anything unless it is sanctioned by the ruling government in Delhi.

    As for Punjab politics, any party that participates in the Indian electoral/political system is, in effect, recognizing Indian sovereignty over Punjab and hence it would be stupid for them to call for a plebiscite on independence.

    As for the ground realities in Punjab, you are probably right – as it stands Khalistan, to ordinary Punjabis, means some vague theocracy where women won’t be allowed to wear make-up and you will be shot for clipping your beard. Nobody wants that.

    Change the definition to mean new hospitals, roads, better sanitation, no electricity black-outs and vastly improved educational structures and you may find a different answer.

  26. Kulvinder — on 26th April, 2007 at 7:53 pm  

    As for Punjab politics, any party that participates in the Indian electoral/political system is, in effect, recognizing Indian sovereignty over Punjab and hence it would be stupid for them to call for a plebiscite on independence.

    Then your question was literally meaningless.

    Change the definition to mean new hospitals, roads, better sanitation, no electricity black-outs and vastly improved educational structures and you may find a different answer.

    Change your definition in what sense? If it isn’t a theocracy how would its institutions function any differently to those in india?

  27. Rumbold — on 26th April, 2007 at 8:02 pm  

    Naxal 1849: “As for Punjab politics, any party that participates in the Indian electoral/political system is, in effect, recognizing Indian sovereignty over Punjab and hence it would be stupid for them to call for a plebiscite on independence.”

    The SNP in Scotland are standing in elections, and calling for a referendum. It is not contradictory, and you should stop attacking Sunny just because he is not your kind of Sikh.

  28. Naxal 1849 — on 26th April, 2007 at 8:23 pm  

    ‘Then your question was literally meaningless’

    My question was in response to your laughable assertion that Punjabis ever had a choice in matters.

    ‘If it isn’t a theocracy’

    Israel, while being majority Jewish, is a Jewish State in name only. Same with my notion of Khalistan.

    ‘how would its institutions function any differently to those in India?’

    First of all, it won’t be a country intent on genocidal measures to keep its population in check. But I understand that you want a more nuanced response.

    In terms of hospitals, roads, better sanitation, no electricity black-outs and vastly improved educational structures these are possible now – Punjab is, after all, the richest (or second richest) state in India.

    Why aren’t these things implemented? Because the central government is more concerned with spending money on the rest of India. And local politicians (Akali Dal et al) are intent on squandering the State’s wealth on nepotistic pleasures, pointless melas and big houses.

    Why should Punjabis shell out for the rest of India, and these Akali Dal clowns, at the behest of a central government that has consistently treated them like shit?

    Especially when the money could be better put to use not only on the things I’ve already mentioned, but also on things like educating people about the evil of female infanticide, drugs, alcohol abuse and domestic violence.

    The means are there, but neither the Indian government (whichever party is in power) nor Punjabi politicians (who fully recognise Indian sovereignty) have the political will to change things.

    In addition to all of this is the plain fact that Sikhs were fucked over in 1947. The Brits didn’t leave the sub-continent as they found it. Remember the Sikh Kingdom?

    If the Palestinians deserve a state based on the fact that they were booted out of their homes to make way for a colonial entity, then we also deserve a state based on the fact that we were butchered to make way for two colonial entities AND the fact that we used to have a sovereign state before the Brits turned up.

  29. Naxal 1849 — on 26th April, 2007 at 8:28 pm  

    Rumbold

    The SNP, if elected, will keep Sterling and keep the monarchy. Their notion of independence is a joke.

    I’m not attacking Sunny because he is not ‘my kind of Sikh’ – I don’t have a ‘my kind of Sikh’ complex.

    I’m questioning his position, not attacking him, because I honestly feel that his view of the Sikh world is skewed by his blind adherence to Western liberalism and a self-loathing, Stockholm-syndrome type state of being.

  30. Naxal 1849 — on 26th April, 2007 at 8:36 pm  

    Rumbold

    Just to add, I’m sure Sunny is more than capable of defending his position.

    However, if he would prefer to surround himself with sycophants, like you and Kulvinder, then I will happily stop posting here and you can all live in your own cosy little bubble happily ever after.

  31. Rumbold — on 26th April, 2007 at 8:38 pm  

    Naxal 1849:

    “The Brits didn’t leave the sub-continent as they found it. Remember the Sikh Kingdom?”

    Just a minor historical point. When the first British/English travellers arrived, in Akbar’s time (sixteenth century), there was no Sikh Kingdom, and one would only emerge generations later when Aurangzeb (Akbar’s great grandson) forced the Sikhs into the hills and thus into conflict with the Rajputs.

    “The SNP, if elected, will keep Sterling and keep the monarchy. Their notion of independence is a joke.”

    Indeed. But they are still calling for independence, in their minds.

    “I’m questioning his position, not attacking him”

    I will take your word for it, it was just that you seemed to be getting too personal about Sunny.

  32. Naxal 1849 — on 26th April, 2007 at 9:03 pm  

    ‘Just a minor historical point. When the first British/English travellers arrived, in Akbar’s time (sixteenth century), there was no Sikh Kingdom, and one would only emerge generations later when Aurangzeb (Akbar’s great grandson) forced the Sikhs into the hills and thus into conflict with the Rajputs.’

    Just a major historical point: the East India Company didn’t start usurping land on the sub-continent until the 18th century when there was, from 1758, De facto Sikh Rule (a Republic) in Punjab that blossomed into a Kingdom in 1799.

  33. Twining or Black in Blue — on 26th April, 2007 at 9:42 pm  

    It’s sad, we really don’t need Sikhs fighting Sikh’s. This was a celebration. Sikh people are strong, warriors, or is that a stereotype? But whenever it has come to the crunch bar one or two Sikh officer’s, I will mention one by the name of Singh, who have sold me out, alot of Good Sikhs stand by the principality of truth and dignity. The name Singh is a true name. He would sell any colleague out to get power. Now there’s another one. I’ll talk more in my blog about these tokens.

    The Sikh community can do without this violence. It just does not suit Sikh principles I feel. Anyway who am I to talk as a Hindu having a bad day. These days, only good people, Asian or otherwise, are prepared not to collude.

  34. G. Tingey — on 26th April, 2007 at 9:46 pm  

    In all this, no-one has mentioned the play “Behzti” …

    And there has been violence over control of the equivalent of a church …

    Interesting, perhaps?

  35. Laban Tall — on 26th April, 2007 at 10:55 pm  

    BBC are reporting three arrests. Remanded on attemptedmurder charges.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/6596671.stm

  36. Don — on 26th April, 2007 at 11:09 pm  

    ‘I will mention one by the name of Singh,’

    Well, that narrows it down, officer.

  37. Kulvinder — on 27th April, 2007 at 12:58 am  

    My question was in response to your laughable assertion that Punjabis ever had a choice in matters.

    What!!? YOU were the one who first raised the issue of a referendum!!!!!

    Israel, while being majority Jewish, is a Jewish State in name only. Same with my notion of Khalistan

    Er no it isn’t, i’m not going to detract into what ‘in name only’ means but it is the jewish state and has laws that reflect that.

    In terms of hospitals, roads, better sanitation, no electricity black-outs and vastly improved educational structures these are possible now – Punjab is, after all, the richest (or second richest) state in India.

    How would the institutions of the country function? What exactly are you proposing a socialist country? Why should the rich in Khalistan take care of the poor? If you’re against the wealth of Punjab being taxed onto the poor of India, why should the rich of khalistan be taxed to accommodate the poor of khalistan?

    In addition to all of this is the plain fact that Sikhs were fucked over in 1947. The Brits didn’t leave the sub-continent as they found it. Remember the Sikh Kingdom?

    No i don’t i wasn’t alive then.

    If the Palestinians deserve a state based on the fact that they were booted out of their homes to make way for a colonial entity, then we also deserve a state based on the fact that we were butchered to make way for two colonial entities AND the fact that we used to have a sovereign state before the Brits turned up.

    Could you be more predictable? If you scroll up to #17 you’ll note i said it depends on what you mean by ‘deserve’. I knew you’d take it down this road.

    You don’t deserve anything based on what happened to people before you were born. If you mean ‘deserve’ in the sense of self-determination; i’d agree everyone ‘deserves’ that right.

    You don’t mean that though. You want generational debt – because you know that the vast vast majority of punjabis don’t think they ‘deserve’ Khalistan in the sense of self-determination. I don’t think, and i never said i thought the palestinians ‘deserve’ anything because of what happened in 1948.

  38. Sunny — on 27th April, 2007 at 2:35 am  

    Oh here we go, a Khalistani trying to conjure up some sort of intellectual basis for his position, and then trying to fling mud at anyone who doesn’t support it.

    Rule number one of brown mud-flingers: call anyone you don’t like a brown sahib or VS Naipul successor.

    Rule two: fling mud but pretend you’re not really doing so.

    Sunny

    I didn’t say that you didn’t have the right to comment on whatever you wish.

    and then later:

    But don’t then proceed to comment on Sikh issues as if you are some sort of an authority or have a God-given right.

    In addition to that stupidity, I’d like to point out that being a sandal wearing vegetarian liberal is perfectly consistent with Sikhi.

    because I honestly feel that his view of the Sikh world is skewed by his blind adherence to Western liberalism and a self-loathing, Stockholm-syndrome type state of being.

    Did writing all those big words make you feel intelligent?

    I’ll carry on commenting as I like. If you don’t like it, go away. No one asked you to comment here. You can either engage with the points or you can get banned. Your choice.

  39. Rumbold — on 27th April, 2007 at 9:14 am  

    Naxal 1849:

    Your words were “The Brits didn’t leave the sub-continent as they found it.” You then say a Sikh Kingdom was founded in the middle of the 18th century (or at least a solid Sikh state). Therefore the British had been there over 150 years before this happened, though you are right in saying that this was when the major expansion of British territory began.

  40. Crystal — on 27th April, 2007 at 10:11 am  

    Get back to the issue of violence at the Vasakhi celebration. These agendas such as Khalistan/Sikh Human rights are simply being used by rival groups in order to muster support for the Gurdwara election campaign. The danger is the easy manipulation of youth to do the dirty work in order to wipe out rival parties and that’s whats happening in Smethwick Gurdwara.

    The whole scenario of Smetwick has been so over blown out of proportion and spun around within the Sikh community that its now considered a crusade against the street gangsters (Sher E Punjab) and the militant Sikh group (Babber Khalsa). Both parties are now reflective of that, with the Babber Khalsa supporters pushing the ‘attack to survive’ angle and the Sher E Punjab being used for their muscle power.

    The cast list in this volatile humiliating drama are Avtar Singh Sanghera of Coventry, who claims he’s the leader of the BK international branch), Tarsem Singh of Willenhall and Joga Singh of West Bromwich who are youth recruiters for the BK international. On the SP side the key player is popular gangster Tari Kandola, who has been branded Sikh enemy number one along with Ravinder Singh Powar, the ex President of Smethwick Gurdwara who was stabbed in Sundays violence.

  41. Twining or Black in Blue — on 27th April, 2007 at 8:28 pm  

    Don, give me a chance. This same Singh Officer was due publicly to demean Dizaie at a NBPA conference. And this same Singh officer did not really like my views, because in my view whilst Dizaie is a character, he was never corrupt. Dizaie was and still is not liked for being intelligent, arrogant and brash I guess. But, mainstream police leaders don’t like him. He has not lied to me.

    So who do they try and get to do their dirty work? On came Singh and others like him. I spoke with Dizaie at the time, but this ass—- of an officer, Singh, cunningly took my legs also and would not let me progress within the NBPA. Police leaders don’t want movers and shakers in the NBPA, this is a fact.

    I can’t narrow it down any further Don. What is corrupt is the manner in which Singh was used, the manner in which he allowed himself to be used for promises of upwards movement, but I can’t prove that either. These are backroom chats that I believe do occur. In other words he was a sell out, and there are plenty like him about. This whole evidenced behaviour of Singh in this case goes against the principles of Sikhism in my opinion.

    Now, it’s up to you, you can either believe me or believe that I am lyeing. All I can tell you is that some of us warned that things within the NBPA were not rosy, and have not been for a long time.

    Some of us warned that funding on courses re: affirmative action was corrupted because the courses were in essence racist in their methodology. The courses did not allow Black officers to step out of the box that actually they might practice prejudices, nor what institutional racism was. Black officer’s that delivered these courses, who had little knowledge of training, gave feedback that the courses were good. Even the CRE bought this view from these officers, because it looked like the service were doing something positive, when actually it was doing nothing at all.

    Hundreds of thousands of pounds have been wasted on creating officer’s like Singh who was prepared to further his own career, and have no care for the wider Black community. If you give Black people something they have no access to and it makes them feel good, a bit like a + pill, then they will think it is good, but academics like Roe, and Cashmore and some others have stated that the course is wrong. We are then deafed out, by calls that hundreds of unqualified Black staff say the course is good.

    Diziae is the most qualified in the NBPA currently and has been for some time. There are other qualified Black officer’s, highly qualified officer’s. Why then are these not allowed in? Because people like Singh and their masters, ultimately, Chief Officer’s prevent these officer’s moving forward because they would be deemed a threat, because they can face the organisation. The Puppet Master would rather have puppets with less knowledge than masters of their own destiny.

  42. sixsix — on 29th April, 2007 at 6:24 pm  

    This sunny guy would support a hamas taliban style palestinian state, as it is white liberal thing to do. But deny the mass human right abuses in India.
    Support terrorist in the cuban jail , but turn a blind eye to innocent sikh activist rotting in indian prisons
    Support motions of war crimes against bush and blair but claim the congress politicians personally responsible for the 1984 delhi riots are the guadians of the worlds largest democray .Anywhere the sikhs had it coming

  43. sixsix — on 30th April, 2007 at 1:26 am  

    There was no sikh state before the British arrived. It must have been all a dream. So Maharaja ranjit singh never existed . The word India and the country were a British conception. Prior to the british, the subcontinent was made up of seperate kingdoms with their own languages and custom. They never left it like they found it.It was ok to erase a sovereign punjab off the map but not Palestine. Designer politics trend badges arab scarfs and sandals

  44. Don B69 — on 30th April, 2007 at 9:41 pm  

    What triggered off the events which took place at the handsworth mela were down to Tari and some of his boys. they knocked a singhs turban off and beat him up. the singh went back and told some of the BOSS and Babbar Singhs. these were already rivals with SP and were against SP taking over the smethwick gurdwara. all the singhs got together and all of the SP boys got together. Dippa Kandola who is meant to be the new leader of SP, so called Gangsta, RAN OFF and left his father to be beaten and stabbed. what kind of sikh does that? SP and the kandola family are only it in for the money and to use the gurdwara as a cover for their dodgy deals, such as drugs, weapons and other illegal stuff they are involed it. only thing i am not pleased about is the guy who got stabbed is still ALIVE!!!!!!!!!!!

  45. sixsix — on 30th April, 2007 at 10:09 pm  

    The british did not colonise the subcontinent in one afternoon . It took the british alot longer to defeat the sikh empire. Punjab was conquered in 1849. The british rule was for less than 100 years

  46. Crystal — on 1st May, 2007 at 10:55 am  

    Don B69,

    Tari Kandola claims no turban was knocked off and has even made a statement that the man you claims his turban was knocked off should come forward and take on oath in the Gurdwara that this happened.

    Also, in advance of that why did groups of Babber Khalsa lads start leaving Coventry Nagar Kirtan well before the alleged turban was knocked off. It was a planned attack with only 10 SPs and almost 50 BK or Boss boys. What were the BKs and Boss lads doing at the bhangra mela when they were so against it on grounds that it is anti-sikh to be dancing in the name of sikhism.

  47. ?? — on 2nd May, 2007 at 7:59 pm  

    Not gonna get into a discussion on this as a police enquiry is underway, but crystal ji.

    it was not a bhangra mela.

    it was always a vasakhi mela event, with the Darbar Sahib where Guru Granth Sahib is kept beign the main focal point of the mela.

    Both nagar kirtans went to the park

  48. Charanjit — on 3rd May, 2007 at 9:45 am  

    At last a forum thats allowing some true facts to be discussed with no para militant sikh censorship

  49. B — on 3rd May, 2007 at 10:28 am  

    Hi all,

    Thoroughly interesting discussion. Would be good if we could still all be polite to each other and not descend into name calling though even if some of us may be Khalistanis or die-hard liberals!

    I think Naxal makes some interesting points and I hope Naxal doesn’t stop posting because the forum would be rather dull without him!

    B

  50. Crystal — on 3rd May, 2007 at 3:12 pm  

    Dear ??

    I hope you are helping the police with their enquiries. Instead of hiding in your bedroom at mummy and dadday ji’s house.

  51. Sunny — on 3rd May, 2007 at 3:33 pm  

    I have an update on this story in a day or two folks…

  52. Zindagi — on 3rd May, 2007 at 7:09 pm  

    Re: Sikh stabbing – from what i’ve heard the wrong guys have been arrested for the attack and the REAL culprits are still on the loose. They know who they are but are framing innocent Sikhs who are doing good (to rid gurudwaras of corruption) so that they can continue to pursue ill gotten gains.

  53. Naxal 1849 — on 3rd May, 2007 at 11:49 pm  

    Kulvinder

    ‘How would the institutions of the country function?’

    What institutions are you referring to?

    ‘What exactly are you proposing a socialist country?’

    It will run on a capitalist premise but regulated by a socialist structure.

    ‘Why should the rich in Khalistan take care of the poor?’

    Why not? Do you believe in ‘fat-cat’ culture? Are you a neo-con?

    ‘If you’re against the wealth of Punjab being taxed onto the poor of India, why should the rich of khalistan be taxed to accommodate the poor of khalistan?’

    Because the money will have a visibly positive knock-on effect – they will be paying to support their brothers and sisters make better lives for themselves, rather than subsidising some foreigners.

    ‘You want generational debt’

    Call it whatever you want, but whichever way you look at it, the facts are inescapable: a sovereign people were twice robbed (1849 and 1947), it is only right that we reclaim what is rightfully ours.

    Yes, this does mean taking parts of Pakistan too but, let’s be honest, Muslims don’t belong on the sub-continent anyway. They are foreigners; their allegiance and blood belongs to their Arab Islamic Imperialist masters.

  54. Naxal 1849 — on 3rd May, 2007 at 11:52 pm  

    Twining or Black in Blue

    What planet are you on and do you need pharmaceutical help to get there?

  55. Crystal — on 4th May, 2007 at 11:44 am  

    Looks like the right people are getting picked up now (i.e the 59 year old man from Oldbbury). I do feel sorry for the 3 lads that have landed themselves in the shit over the elders political agendas.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/6621203.stm

    Fourth man charged over stabbing

    The 44-year-old was stabbed four times during Vaisakhi celebrations
    A 59-year-old man has been charged in connection with the attempted murder of a man during a Sikh festival.
    The 44-year-old was stabbed four times when about 75,000 people were celebrating Vaisakhi in Handsworth Park in Birmingham on 22 April.

    West Midlands Police said the man, from Oldbury, is charged with attempted murder and violent disorder and will appear before magistrates on Friday.

    Three other men have already been charged over the incident.

    Amandeep Singh, 31, of Walsall, Avtar Singh Thandi, 28, from Birmingham, and a 17-year-old from Smethwick are also accused of violent disorder and attempted murder.

    The victim remains in hospital.

  56. Kulvinder — on 4th May, 2007 at 1:17 pm  

    It will run on a capitalist premise but regulated by a socialist structure…

    And that would mean ?!!?

    Why not? Do you believe in ‘fat-cat’ culture? Are you a neo-con?

    No darling im just consistent, i see no reason to avoid giving the poor (A) in a particular country less money because the equally poor (B) happen to live in a certain area.

    Because the money will have a visibly positive knock-on effect – they will be paying to support their brothers and sisters make better lives for themselves, rather than subsidising some foreigners.

    OH I SEE. Thats what the glorious Khalistani movement about is then eh? Not helping those that you consider ‘foreign’ or ‘different’ Obviously thats entirely in keeping with the ethos of the Langar hall.

    Call it whatever you want, but whichever way you look at it, the facts are inescapable: a sovereign people were twice robbed (1849 and 1947), it is only right that we reclaim what is rightfully ours.

    It isn’t ‘rightfully’ anyones but the person who owns it at this moment in time. There was a Sikh Empire there before the British Empire came, and rightous indignation about what land is yours are pretty hollow unless you’re willing to give that land up to whoever owned it before then.

    Yes, this does mean taking parts of Pakistan too but, let’s be honest, Muslims don’t belong on the sub-continent anyway. They are foreigners; their allegiance and blood belongs to their Arab Islamic Imperialist masters.

    Yes but sikhs are foreigners to a land that had been Hindu for millenia but then having an internally consistent argument doesn’t matter amirite

  57. Naxal 1849 — on 4th May, 2007 at 1:46 pm  

    Kulvinder

    ‘And that would mean ?!!?’

    That would mean a more equal distribution of capitalist wealth, rather than a pure Socialist model where everyone gets the same money for different jobs (like in Cuba). It would essentially rule out fat-cat culture.

    What the Langar hall has to do with fiscal policy I don’t know. So why you are bringing it up is equally as much of a mystery to me. As I have previously stated, it would not be a theocracy.

    Punjab is of course rightfully ours; our blood is in the soil and we were the last owners before the foreign British imperialists came. The previous owners were also foreign imperialists (Islamic ones).

    Sikhs aren’t foreigners son; our faith, philosophy and blood is rooted in the Punjab. Unlike Muslims, whose allegiance is to their Arab masters.

    Hindus are welcome to stay and participate in the new nation but their reputation as rulers has been catastrophic over the past 2000 years or so.
    First they sold their souls (and their women) to the Muslim marauders and they have abused power when they have consequently had it. They haven’t ruled Punjab for a long time and when they did, they let the imperialists take control.

  58. Kulvinder — on 4th May, 2007 at 3:12 pm  

    That would mean a more equal distribution of capitalist wealth, rather than a pure Socialist model where everyone gets the same money for different jobs (like in Cuba). It would essentially rule out fat-cat culture.

    Thats very nice, but you didn’t answer my question. What does ‘regulated by a socialist structure’ mean? The countries that have their economy arificially controlled against the markets are essentially communist. Are you suggesting the setting up of Soviets to represent the proletariat’s needs at a meta-level? Who will decide how and where the ‘socialist regulation’ will occur?

    What the Langar hall has to do with fiscal policy I don’t know. So why you are bringing it up is equally as much of a mystery to me. As I have previously stated, it would not be a theocracy.

    Well you’ve said you don’t support a theocracy but do support Khalistan and haven’t elaborated what that means, regardless some ‘aspects’ of sikhism would have to be taken into consideration else the whole discussion is meaningless. The rationale you’re giving for setting up Khalistan, keeping wealth amongst sikhs, not sharing to those that are different etc is literally against the teachings of Guru Nanak. A communal Langar hall wasn’t set up as a privileged area where only sikhs would be allowed, but as somewhere where those who needed food could go regardless of their background. If you’re taking the reasoning for the langar hall as being only about food (which would be odd) then you’d make more sense.

    As it is the arguments you’re using for the setting up of a ‘sikh state’ is essentially blasphemous wrt sikhism.

    Punjab is of course rightfully ours; our blood is in the soil and we were the last owners before the foreign British imperialists came. The previous owners were also foreign imperialists (Islamic ones).

    Unless you want to bastardise the english language you’ll also have to refer to the Sikh empire as being the work of imperialists. Irrespective of how you want to view the hindus who lived on that land before sikhism or islam existed, you can’t deny they lived there, and therefore consistant with your thought process its their land

  59. Sunny — on 4th May, 2007 at 3:44 pm  

    Hindus are welcome to stay and participate in the new nation but their reputation as rulers has been catastrophic over the past 2000 years or so.
    First they sold their souls (and their women) to the Muslim marauders and they have abused power when they have consequently had it. They haven’t ruled Punjab for a long time and when they did, they let the imperialists take control.

    It looks like your brain has been left behind in a village in Punjab too. But that goes for most Khalistanis.

    Given that the Sikh kingdoms were fighting with each other incessantly until Maharaja Ranjit Singh annexed them, and even then he still faced immense internal dissension, the idea that Sikhs are great as rulers while everything is the fault of Hindus and Muslims is typical of Khalistani revisionism.

    The so-called Sikh leaders screwed up royally during the parition and have since screwed up Punjab.

    In fact I can’t think of one useful or intelligent Sikh politician, apart from Manmohan Singh, and he is part of a Hindu party (shock horror!)

    Your supremacism towards Hindus and Muslims is dripping with every word… another reason why Khalistanis should never be allowed near any power. They’re not interested in following through the Gurujis ideals, only in naked power grabs justified by some bizarre version of history.

  60. Naxal 1849 — on 4th May, 2007 at 4:02 pm  

    Kulvinder

    What this means is a healthy blend of capitalism and socialism. You should have as much capitalism as you need to drive the market and use what is left for socialism to reinvest in your work force.

    There is a lot of wasted capital that desperately needs to be reigned in and streamlined rather than just looking for new sources of money.

    It’s interesting that YOU are the one who keeps bringing it back to religion all the time.

    My idea of the re-establishment of the Sikh State is similar to that of the re-establishment of the Jewish one at the beginning of the 20th century: a place where Sikhs can go and practice their faith in peace and have a small corner of the globe where they can truly call home.

    As for your constant references to SikhISM, I have already said on another thread that Sikh philosophy is essentially a socialist one (forget about the whole God thing): absolute egalitarianism; within the borders of the new nation this would be attempted to be adhered to as much as is humanly and economically possible.

    But to suggest that the Langar hall model should be thrust on a country’s fiscal policy is a thoroughly pathetic idea.

    Your knowledge of the Sikh State is poor, and that is being extremely generous. The Sikh Empire was built on the ruins of the previous despotic one (and it should be said, foreign one) – it wasn’t imperialist in the sense of sailing half way across the world in order to steal land (British); or march across Asia to murder, pillage, rape and plunder (Islamic); or fly across the world to rape, napalm and carpet bomb (America in Vietnam and Iraq).

    It was organic in that its army was made up of Punjabis, and the broad area the State ruled was Punjabi – yes, I know it ruled other places too but it only did so to stop further incursions onto the subcontinent and seal the Khyber Pass from foreign marauders forever.

  61. Naxal 1849 — on 4th May, 2007 at 4:14 pm  

    Sunny

    Finally, you have decided to stop sulking and have engaged your minuscule brain in debate. Welcome.

    ‘Given that the Sikh kingdoms were fighting with each other incessantly until Maharaja Ranjit Singh annexed them, and even then he still faced immense internal dissension, the idea that Sikhs are great as rulers while everything is the fault of Hindus and Muslims is typical of Khalistani revisionism.’

    What are you blabbering about? There were no Sikh Kingdoms before Ranjit’s. Or perhaps are you referring to the Sikh Confederacy (Misls). These were not kingdoms, they were feudal fiefdoms at best.

    I don’t remember blaming Hindus and Muslims for anything.

    ‘The so-called Sikh leaders screwed up royally during the partition and have since screwed up Punjab.’

    Couldn’t agree with you more. The question now is, as Lenin put it, ‘What is to be done?’

    Do we simply accept our shitty lot and plod on like cogs in the capitalist machine? Or do we re-group and reclaim our land, respectability and destinies? (Don’t worry, I know what your answer is Sunny).

    ‘In fact I can’t think of one useful or intelligent Sikh politician, apart from Manmohan Singh, and he is part of a Hindu party (shock horror!)’

    Indeed, Manmohan Singh is very much an intellectual giant and he would be welcome in my cabinet any day of the week. But, sadly, you are again mistaken regarding his political party. Manmohan belongs to the Congress Party, which claims to be secular, so it’s not ‘Hindu’.

  62. Sunny — on 4th May, 2007 at 4:38 pm  

    Or perhaps are you referring to the Sikh Confederacy (Misls). These were not kingdoms, they were feudal fiefdoms at best.

    They were territories ruled by Sikhs. Maharaja Ranjit Singh’s was simply bigger and more powerful. And his wasn’t a “Sikh empire or kingdom” as such as since he was secular. He had Hindu and Muslims as close advisors, while your whole argument seems to be that they are incapable or governance and only Sikhs can.

    Or do we re-group and reclaim our land, respectability and destinies?

    Who is we? I wouldn’t want to support any govt based on your absurd ideas. Please don’t be under the delusion all Sikhs think like you.

    Manmohan belongs to the Congress Party, which claims to be secular, so it’s not ‘Hindu’.

    In practice, not theory.

    you have decided to stop sulking and have engaged your minuscule brain in debate. Welcome.

    No, I just wanted to show your badly developed supremascist ideas for what they are.

    You should have as much capitalism as you need to drive the market and use what is left for socialism to reinvest in your work force.

    This doesn’t make any economic sense. There is no fixed amount of capital that can be allocated by the state for ‘capitalism’ so the rest can be devoted to ‘socialism’.

  63. Kulvinder — on 4th May, 2007 at 4:46 pm  

    What this means is a healthy blend of capitalism and socialism. You should have as much capitalism as you need to drive the market and use what is left for socialism to reinvest in your work force.

    And that means…what?!!?

    …a place where Sikhs can go and practice their faith in peace and have a small corner of the globe where they can truly call home.

    …I have already said on another thread that Sikh philosophy is essentially a socialist one (forget about the whole God thing)

    Can you make your mind up whether it is about god or not? I’ve said previously that any attempt to forcibly adhere to arbitrary philosophies irrespective of what the population things is essentially apartheid – irrespective of whether the country in question is the UK, Israel, Pakistan or India.

    Egalitarianism and authoritarianism aren’t mutually exclusive, if the demographics of Khalistan changed so the non-sikh population was in the majority and wanted to ‘join’ Pakistan or India i assume you’d object, in which case alluding to anything but fascism is pointless.

    Your knowledge of the Sikh State is poor, and that is being extremely generous.

    My knowledge of a non-existent state that has undefined borders is indeed poor. You don’t need to be generous, i haven’t the first fucking clue what the sikh state is about which is why i keep asking what you mean. Its a religious state without being a theocracy. I have no idea what its legislature will function as, it may be a Unicameral system it may be Bicameral. Its judiciary apparently has to ensure egalitarianism against a non-existent constitution – this is obviously assuming we’re taking about a codified constitution. The economic policy is apparently something along the lines of ‘capitalism is bad if its too much or too little therefore we’ll regulate the capitalism with socialism‘, but i haven’t got the faintest idea what that actually means. Does that mean a floating currency or not – i haven’t a clue my knowledge is poor, and you know why? Because Khalistan is a fantasy.

    It was organic in that its army was made up of Punjabis, and the broad area the State ruled was Punjabi – yes, I know it ruled other places too but it only did so to stop further incursions onto the subcontinent and seal the Khyber Pass from foreign marauders forever.

    Yeah because quite clearly every one of the other empires did things out of sheer malice rather than self-interest. America only got involved to prevent the domino theory from becoming a reality. T

  64. raz — on 4th May, 2007 at 4:48 pm  

    “Muslims don’t belong on the sub-continent anyway”

    HAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAH. You do know Islam has been in the subcontinent for hundreds of years prior to Sikhism. You really are making a fool of yourself.

  65. Arif — on 4th May, 2007 at 5:12 pm  

    You lot are harsh! Every new State starts out as a kind of fantasy, Kulvinder. The important thing for me is whether it is a fantasy I can share. And then, how people sharing the fantasy treat people who don’t share the fantasy.

    Anyway, this is like getting the HuT thread. Believers in Khalistan or Khalifa will all have different preoccupations and hopes for their States. And one of the things that would make me trust their intentions is by the justice and kindness they show in trying to achieve and persuade others of their goals.

  66. Naxal 1849 — on 4th May, 2007 at 5:17 pm  

    Sunny

    ‘your whole argument seems to be that they are incapable or governance and only Sikhs can’

    Not really. My argument is for the re-establishment of the Sikh State. Hindu and Muslim governance don’t really come into it.

    ‘In practice, not theory.’

    I think you mean ‘in theory, not practice.’

    Kulvinder

    Post by post, your stupidity is shining through. What is this absurd notion of forcing people to adhere to arbitrary theories? What are you banging on about?

    Egalitarianism and authoritarianism, as concrete ideological structures, have nothing to do with what I was talking about.

    I wouldn’t call it fascism but if you really want to label it, as is invariably the case with westerners, then you could call it organic-pseudo-religious-national-secularism.

    Who said there wouldn’t be a constitution?

    Yes, there would be a currency and yes there would be a constitution.

    At this stage I prefer to call Khalistan an idea in its infancy, rather than a fantasy.

    Raz

    Muslims on the subcontinent ARE an alien people – their blood belongs to the Arabs, their Imperial masters.

    Muslims on the sub-continent have, by accepting Islam, not only sworn allegiance to a foreign entity, but have bowed down at the feet of the oppressors of their forefathers in the most shameful manner.

    They embraced the ideology of the foreign, imperialist, outsider; as such, they should go and live alongside the same foreign, imperialist outsider.

    Ideologically they are slaves to Arab Islamic Imperialism. For example, Bengali peasants use their life savings to go on Hajj and fill the coffers of their Arab masters; the number of sub-continental Muslims who get pent up and constipated about Israel, something which has absolutely nothing to do with them, is immense; the number of sub-continental Muslims who join ‘resistance’ movements in the Arab world is extremely large; when the Ottoman Khaliphate fell, sub-continental Muslims wept like babies.

    Their allegiance, blood and bodies belong to Arab imperialism. Subcontinental Muslims still bow down to Mecca 5 times a day – why? Because their allegiance is to Islam and the Arabs.

    Nothing wrong with that, nothing at all. Why don’t they go and live there, if they love it so much?

    Imagine if Sikhs or Hindus in Pakistan or Bangladesh bowed down to Washington 5 times a day in a show of spiritual and ideological affinity.

    You would, rightly, laugh at them and tell them to go and live in the US of A.

  67. Sunny — on 4th May, 2007 at 5:23 pm  

    You lot are harsh! Every new State starts out as a kind of fantasy, Kulvinder.

    Arif, if that fantasy was based on a genuine desire to remove oppression and to build something that is egalitarian and for everyone, I’d share that view.

    But building a state on religious principles, in my view, by nature a problem. People who want to build Sikh states or a Khilafah cannot follow through unless they are totalitarian in their methods. They just try and pretend it isn’t the case.

  68. Kulvinder — on 4th May, 2007 at 5:23 pm  

    You lot are harsh! Every new State starts out as a kind of fantasy, Kulvinder.

    But they have a level of intellectual input that defines what you’re trying to achieve, if the political philosophy that you aspire for a new nation is in itself experimental or different (re: this socialism regulating capitalism in a religious nation) then at the very least there has to be some attempt at philosophical theory beforehand. The Soviet Union wasn’t formed overnight but followed decades of thought and analysis. I can’t find any of that with respect to Khalistan, the people who shout most vociferously for its creation are the least likely to articulate their ideas. I’m hardly being overly critical of a movement thats essentially ad-hoc.

  69. Sunny — on 4th May, 2007 at 5:30 pm  

    My argument is for the re-establishment of the Sikh State.

    you don’t have an argument as opposed to a desire. You’ve chucked in words like socialism, capitalism, constitution etc to pretend as if you’ve thought this through… but like most Khalistanis the desire is outweighed by the intellectual argument. You’re not getting anywhere.

    Muslims on the subcontinent ARE an alien people – their blood belongs to the Arabs, their Imperial masters.

    That must be why Guru Nanak travelled to Mecca, invited Sufi pirs to write for the Adi Granth etc. Muslims converted to Sikhism too in many cases.

    And in any case, no one cares about your view of the blood of others. You can denigrate other people’s faiths as much as you want… too bad you haven’t learnt properly from the Gurus before you bother arguing for a Sikh state.

    Your arguments aren’t intellectual, they’re just supremacism couched in big words. It may make you feel important but you’ve convinced no one. Take your pro-Khalistani rubbish where someone cares.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
With the help of PHP and Wordpress.