please visit the site
Constituent Assembly DEBATES (PROCEEDINGS)
you might be able to find the relevant documents
as a proof of the signatories, i suggest you visit the parliament exhibitory hall and see the replica copy of the signatories of the constitution
you can see aforementioned signatures
<<[Whether Mr. P.S .Kairon was a member or Hukum singh was a member of a DRAFTING COMMITTEE becomes irrelevant. They would have been just GLORIFIED CLERKS only if they could not get the document drafted as per what they thought they wanted to say i.e mention of a
Sikh State. >>
double standards, you are making personal comments on character of two distinguished gentlemen, one of whom the majoriy of punjab even elected their chief minister.
in debates this is called negation of exact by generalization, how can you prove that they were "mere clerks" ?
and WHY do you think a
Sikh state is needed?
<<Any comments on this, Sir.
Mr. Kairon was and has been ‘stated to be’ a personal servants of Nehrus. Both joined hands with congress and lived their lives peacefully. We do not need such kinds of Sikhs and
the entire community is paying for the mistakes of some traitors>>>
dear SIKH80 ji
just your statement of Mr. Kairon as a "traitor" and "servant" of Nehru doesnot make him one.
just as you "might" be miserable being cheated out into being born as an Indian, i am proud to be one and this doesnot make YOU a better person , nor it makes me a worse.
i request you to abstain from mud slinging on deceased persons without FACTS,
i am still waiting for the "sources" to prove your quoted article's contents - <<<<Nehru is reported to have said: "I shut my ears when someone speaks to me about honoring promises made to Sikhs during the independence movement". >>>>>
<<They would be equally guilty of misrepresenting the Sikhs if in the final document there was no mention of Independent and autonomous state of Sikhs.>>>
Please provide me any CENSUS source/opinion poll stating that SIKHS wanted a seperate independent nation.
please just donot make assumptions that sikhs were fighting for khalistan/whatever
there might be people here on the board whose fore fathers sacrificed lives and spilled their blood for getting India's freedom. please donot demean them by saying that they were fighing for "Sikh nation" SIKHS were not mercenaries in the WAR for independence. They fought with others shoulder to shoulder.
<<Yes, if anyone is a Government Servant in any country, one would be able to serve as per the terms of appointment only. If one has to take an oath to protect the Constitution one has to be on oath else people shall not get any appointment. This applies to all the caste and communities or do you think that there should be some concessions for Sikhs.
Hence any person calling him an Indian shall have to take an oath. It is not only for sikhs. It is for INDIANS. There is no logic in statement of yours in view of the context and the thrust of the topic.>>>
i am confused here, please donot side step from the point
if you say that all indians take oath of constitution , then it means ALL indians and it includes SIKHS
i only provided the fact to prove it wrong that SIKHS donot accept the constitution. please enlighten me how this is not in line with the "thrust" of the article?
<<Yes, about three years back a
Sikh Chief Secy. of UP had to resign 3 days before/prior to retirement due to corrupt practices in Taj corridor case.
It is the reputation that Sikhs in IAS are earning for the community.
Now pl. do not tell me that you do not know and it cannot happen.>>
once again, you use the second fallacy of debate, giving an example and generalizing.
one
Sikh IAS bad = all
Sikh IAS bad
i admire the ingenuity of your logic
i donot consider this statement of any relevance to the points of discussion.
<<
Things do not change if you are not a fan of Nehru.
I shall request that kindly check the statements that you author so that we can process it peacefully. Although I did not have any intention of entering into controversy but if it is let it be. Please reply only after checking facts.
It shall be meaningless to proceed on so called presumptions.>>. instead of asking me to check facts , you can help me by pointing out mistakes like i did. i am not of a closed mind Sikh80 ji, i am absolutely open to criticism of my statements, but only through facts and not vague statements. Also i hope that before you call some deceased as "clerks", "traitors" or else, do post DATA to substantiate your claims. also i did not understand that what are "non peaceful" discussions ---------------------------------------- as a piece of advice to Mr. Choor Singh - he seems like a learned man, he should keep his hands in his pockets and stop meddling with other country's internal affairs. The moment he became an Singaprean citizen, he lost all right to yak yak on things concerning us Indians. i would love to see him working more productively in his free time, rather than fanning khalistani/divisive ideologies by making baseless allegations.