Article on Operation Bluestar - Rebuttal !
From: Mukhtiar Singh <singh_m@hotmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2013 5:26 PM
Subject: RE: Article on Operation Bluestar - Rebuttal !
Respected S Gurmit Singh Ji,
Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa, Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh !
Thank you very much for your comments and appreciate your sharing of the facts around 1984.
I respect your wish to close the thread of this debate but would like to clarify my position before we close off.
As the subject is 'Rebuttal', the main purpose of my email was to rebut the theory of any Russians being involved in the 1984 Darbar Sahib attack and that is what should be considered as the focus. The source of knowledge and motives of the debaters are always questioned in debates if we ever call them "debates".
When we watch debates (whether in schools, universities, parliaments, etc), we question the reasons for the opponent raising their theory and that often involves questioning the motives and points others are making. I do not know Dr I S Dhillon as a person. What I was questioning was his source of information and his motives which led to his conclusion of Russians being involved.
As for S Verpal Singh's opinion, I respect Dr I S Dhillon's freedom to speak his mind. So, in turn, please respect my freedom to speak my mind too. The nature of 'Ad hominem" is part of debating issues and that includes parliaments world-wide. So, why would it be different in a sovereign Sikh State (if ever established) ? Do we expect dumbparliamentarians in the sovereign Sikh State ? Comparison with Pol Pot for just by debating an issue is just stretching the imagination thus far. Does this not happen in what we call "advanced" countries like US, UK, Australia or NZ ? Are they considered as Pol Pots ?
As for comments relating to individual 'Khalistanis' being involved in illegal activities, I would like to say:
a) Does one bad apple make a tree worthy of condemnation ? Do we chop it down just because it produced one bad apple ?
b) Do we forget the numerous load of good apples and consider them worthy of condemnation just by calling it the word "apple" ? In this case, just this case, "Khalistani".
c) As compared to this one individual so-called "Khalistani" Sikh, how many more "non-Khalistani" Sikhs does similar things ? DO we just wash our eyes over them ?
It is absolutely wrong to classify the illegal act of an individual based on his/her meanings in regards to a sovereign Sikh State (Khalistan or whatever one may call it). It is similar to our cries around the world that when a Sikh or commits a crime they use the word 'Sikh' or a 'Muslim' - why not 'Christian'. In the same way, labelling someone as 'Khalistani' for his act is not right.
As for Ph D holders, I have no issue with that as there are many others who you call 'Khalistani' choosing not to use the title 'Dr' which they are entitled to. The simple call themselves so-and-so Singh. Holding a Ph D degree does not matter.
Sorry if my words are scathing but an rotten apple is a 'rotten apple' not all 'apples are rotten'.
Mukhtiar Singh
From: Verpal Singh [mailto:verpalsingh@yahoo.com]
Sent: Saturday, 10 August 2013 7:25 PM
Subject: Re: Article on Operation Bluestar - Rebuttal !
Dear S Mukhtiar Singh jio,
Waheguru ji ka Khalsa; Waheguru ji ki Fateh.
1. If one seeks to defend "argumentum ad hominem", (or in other words, a fallacy) then I have nothing more to say on this matter except that one is free to do so but one cannot expect respect for resorting to or defending a fallacy.
2. I must be really stupid to not be able to word my Pol Pot reference in a way that would easily connect with the statement "we will need to hold Nuremberg Like Trials in which criminals will be Sikh PhD holders".
3. Ad hominem attacks happen in every country, including NZ - but every time such an attack happens, it is derided by everyone. Example of this is PM John Key's recent statement about "muppet" sitting next to him (leader of opposition).
4. Regarding my reference to "Khalistanis" - again please excuse my stupidity for assuming that by putting the word Khalistanis in quote marks I would be able to communicate that these are the pretenders who shout "Khalistan Zindabad" when need be, sit at Badal's feet for selfish ends, or even collude with RSS by setting up "NZ Sikh Society (South Island)" in which at least three founder members are Hindu RSS-wallahs.
5. Sovereignty is our right and is given us by the Guru. Sooner we are able to identify these "Khalistanis" (reasons for shunting them are listed in my previous email, in case you missed these, along with a need for a resolution for a sovereign Sikh State on the lines of Muslim League res of 1940) and shunt them out of our Gurdwaras, sooner we will be able to actually build support for a sovereign Sikh State (even one as small as the Vatican) which all of us may proudly expect to work on our behalf for our rights (and to begin with, make the Rs 800 Crore per year work for us as a Kaum).
Please feel free to engage with me in private if there are still references that my stupidity has not been able to clearly convey.
Kind regards,
Verpal Singh
Auckland
RE: Sikh Sovereign State: Where and By whom ?
Respected Sikh Cyber Members,
Waheguru jee ka Khalsa Waheguru jee kee Fateh
In accordance with Resolution passed by SGPC on 9th March 1946, it was declared that:
(a) Sikhs are an independent nation.
(b) In the opinion of this meeting, it is strongly felt that a separate Sikh state is a must for prosperity, progress, esteem, protection of culture, Sikh traditions and religious shrines of Sikhs. Therefore this meeting appeals to the Sikh Sangat to make maximum efforts for the establishment of such a state.
// Its text in Punjabi could be seen at pages 236-237 of Book: Shiromani Gurduara Parbandhak Committee Daa Panjah Sals Itihaas (1926 to 1976) by Author S. Shamsher Singh Ashok, published by Sikh Itihaas Research Board (Shiromani Gurduara Parbandhak Committee, Sri Amritsar, Edition April 1998 //
After adoption of the Anandpur Sahib Resolution, SGPC declared Sikhs a Nation vide Resolution No. 67: “Resolved that this General Meeting of the S.G.P.C. in view of the religious, political, historical and cultural background of the Sikhs, declares that the Sikhs are a separate and distinct Nation.” (History of Sikh Struggles by Dr. Gurmit Singh)
Did SAD or SGPC pursue its Resolution of 1946 well before 15th August 1947 ? Even after 1947, the Sikh Nation continues to be the slaves of the majority Hindus. At the same time, let us look at the efforts, if any, made by certain vocal Leaders: Dr. Gurmit Singh Aulakh, Khalastani Atinder Pal Singh, Didar Singh Bains, Parkash Singh Badal, Gen. Jaswant Singh Bhullar, Dr. Jagjit Singh Chauhan, Dr. Amarjit Singh, Ganga Singh Dhillon, Gurbachan Singh Manochahal, Simranjit Singh Mann, Dr. Sohan Singh, Master Tara Singh, Wassan Singh Zaffarwal, etc. etc.
Gurmit Singh (Sydney)