• Welcome to all New Sikh Philosophy Network Forums!
    Explore Sikh Sikhi Sikhism...
    Sign up Log in

TV Interview: Giani Gurbachan Singh, Jathedar Sri Akal Takhat Sahib On Darshan Singh

Gyani Jarnail Singh

Sawa lakh se EK larraoan
Mentor
Writer
SPNer
Jul 4, 2004
7,708
14,381
75
KUALA LUMPUR MALAYSIA
Re: TV Interview: Giani Gurbachan Singh, Jathedar Sri Akal Takhat Sahib on Darshan Si

1. Technically the DG is "not mentioned" in Kanwardeep Singh Ji's post..BUT its still there !! Because the "Amrit" (Khandey batte dee Pahul, 5 K's, Nitnem Banis, the Guru Khalsa Panth is said to be in DANGER of "annihilation" IF.....IF....IF..the DG is NOT ACCEPTED IN FULL - that is the entire slant of the present campaign FOR DG by the Lambas, the Dhuma Faction of the dumdummy taksals, sant smaajis, the derawadees, the Patna and Hazoor sahib Pujarees, Nanaksaris, jawadee taksalis etc etc etc etc..
It is being said again and again and repeatedly stressed that WITHOUT 100% acceptance of the entire DG..there can be NO KHALSA !! Must it not only be accpeted in full..it must also be Paraksh at same level of SGGS in all Gurdwaras as is already done in taksal , hazoor sahib and patna sahib.

2. THIS above line of thinking is patently FALSE. It also deems to show us that the SGGS is an INCOMPLETE GURU....that the SGGS doesnt have all that is required for the Khalsa Panth !!

3.The TRUTH is the SGGS is TOTALLY COMPLETE...Sampooran GURU for all time, Universal Guru for all Humanity and it has EVERYTHING needed for the Khalsa Panth to go on forever. The SGGS has all the Instructions a Khalsa Panth needs....no other book at all necessary even for a "tiny" instruction.

4. On the other hand the DG is FULL of inconsistencies...FALSE HOOD..mistakes of the most BASIC Nature....a shame to call these Guru kirt as our GURU is ABHULL !! SGGS is TRULY ABHULL as it doesnt contain a tiniest "mistake"..falsehood..untruth...and this is solid proof of its DIVINITY as compared to the DG which doesnt even have the compactness and running thought ( same divinity whether the author is a Bhagat or the Guru..) based symettery that is so obvious in the SGGS.The SGGS is one Maala of pearls from Page One to 1429....not so the DG !! Read it and see.

5. I say it again..the Khalsa Panth was Born on the same DAY Its Founder was Born..1st Vaisakh, 1469 in Nankanna Sahib !! The very same Day the SGGS began to descend as DHUR KI BANI.....and all this was Completed in 1708...FULLY COMPLETE with SGGS installed on the Nanak Throne.... Guru Maniyo Granth and the Guru Khalsa panth in its Tabiah !!:happysingh:
 

Shrabi

SPNer
Feb 24, 2008
15
1
Re: RAGI DARSHAN SINGH - A TRAITOR AMIDST THE SIKHS

This is a sharabi kabaabi jathedar ragi darshan singh

http://www.panthic.org/articles/5193

RAGI DARSHAN SINGH - A TRAITOR AMIDST THE SIKHS
PANTHIC.ORG
Published on December 25, 2009

seems controversy is not anything new for Darshan Singh, the heretic Ragi, who was recently declared a 'Guru-Nindak' and a 'Tankhaiya' by Sri Akal Takht Sahib, for disobeying the authority of the Supreme Seat of Sikhism.

Evidence has surfaced that more than two decades ago, two major freedom fighting organizations, Bhindranwala Tigers Force, and Babbar Khalsa International were suspicious of the heretic Ragi Darshan Singh, and acknowledged that he was unfit to serve as the Jathedar of Sri Akal Takht Sahib during those turbulent times.

Many have suspected that was Ragi a mole working for the Government agencies, installed to actively derail and torpedo the Khalistan movement in the late 1980s. New evidence and suspicions raised by prominent Sikh leaders of the past seem to validate this notion.

Ragi Darshan Singh was installed by the Tohra led Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC) in late 1986. Although Baba Gurbachan Singh Manochahal was also declared Jathedar of Sri Akal Takht Sahib by a section of the Khalistan freedom fighters, he later resigned for the sake of Panthic unity. Little did he know about the treachery that was unfolding under the leadership of his successor.

The Chandigarh Tribune narrates this shifting of power at the Sikh Takhts in their July 13th, 2002 editorial interestingly titled 'Misdeeds' of stalwarts during militancy. The Tribune editor notes:

"The SGPC under Mr Tohra had sacked the head granthi of Darbara Sahib and secured and accepted the resignation of Giani Kirpal Singh and secured and accepted the resignation of Giani Kirpal Singh as Jathedar Akal Takht.

On December 31 (1986), Bhai Darshan Singh Raagi joined as jathedar. On January 23, 1987, the three head priests had also been dismissed and in their place, Giani Puran Singh, Giani Savinder Singh, Giani Jaswant Singh and Giani Kashmir Singh were appointed as high priests. The 'Sarbat khalsa' held on January 26, 1987, approved the resolution of April 29 for Khalistan and also the recent appointments of the high priests. In a recorded message of Gurbachan Singh Manochahal played to the gathering he resigned from the post of Jathedar, Akal Takht, to accommodate Bhai Darshan Singh in the larger interest of the Panth."
(July 13, 2002 , Tribune India)


Softening the Target : Ragi Darshan Singh and Shushil Muni


Furthermore, the former Joint Director of India's Intelligence Bureau, Maloy Krishna Dhar, in his memoirs, states:

"He (Rajiv Gandhi) has already played the peace card through Ragi Darshan Singh and a Jain preacher Sushil Muni…"
(Open Secrets – India's Intelligence Unveiled, Maloy Krishna Dhar, Manas Publications -2005) Perhaps, one of the strongest criticisms, and serious allegations leveled against the Ragi came from Baba Gurbachan Singh Manochahal. Baba Manochahal was the head of the Bhindranwala Tigers Force (BTF), and a key member of the Panthic Committee, at that time period.



Ragi addressing the 'Sikh Convention' on August 4th, 1987,
an event that would be the catalyst for derailing the Khalistan Movement

During a convention held at the Sri Darbar Sahib complex at the Teja Singh Samundri Hall on August 4th, 1987, a statement was read by Baba Manochahal's representative, Bhai Daya Singh Chohla, that chided the Ragi along with the rest of the 'Singh Sahibans' for backtracking on their previous pledge to lead the struggle for the liberation of the Sikh Homeland – Khalistan.

The convention was called by the Takht Jathedars under the pretext that this assembly would 'define' the goals and objectives of the Sikh cause. Baba Manochahal and others openly questioned the need to define the Panth's goals and objectives when the Sarbat Khalsa had already done so. Baba Manochahal argued that the goal for the establishment of an independent Sikh Homeland, Khalistan had already been declared in 1984 and further ratified by the Sarbat Khalsa in 1986.

The contovercial convention, organized by Ragi Darshan Singh, was attended by Takht Jathedars Giani Kashmir Singh, Giani Sawinder Singh, Giani Jaswant Singh, and many prominent Sikh politicians and personalities of that time.

Khalistan no longer a goal

At the gathering it was declared by the Ragi that the Sikh nation's goal was not an independent and separate homeland of Khalistan. Instead, the Sikhs should strive for a more more autonomy in India as promised by Pandit Nehru during the partition. The Sikhs no longer needed to fight an armed struggle declared the Ragi, self-governance and autonomy could only be gained through dialogue and votes.

Chaos prevailed throughout at the convention, but this did not distract the Ragi from his task. This was perhaps the first direct attempt to derail the Khalistan struggle at the public level, and an insult to the declarations passed by the Sarbat Khalsa in 1986.


Bhai Daya Singh of Chohla Sahib,
an associate of Baba Gurbachan Singh Manochahal (BTF)


Bhai Daya Singh of Chohla Sahib, an associate of Baba Gurbachan Singh Manochahal at that time delivered a fiery message from BTF's Jathedar, and directly alleged that the Singh Sahibans were working hand-in-hand with the Indian Government to mislead Sikh community and divide the Sikh Freedom Fighters.

In the message read by Bhai Daya Singh, Baba Manochahal warned, such underhanded tactics would not be allowed to succeed by the Sikh Nation.

Message from Shaheed Baba Gurbachan Singh Manochahal - read by BTF Deputy Bhai Daya Singh:
(click to listen)



View full text of Baba Manochahal's Warning to Ragi Darshan Singh

Some of main points and questions raised by Baba Manochahal to the Singh Sahibans were as follows:


  • Has the Panth actually been fighting without an real objective/goal for the last five years?
  • Since 1984, the struggle for Khalistan was lauched when the Indian Government attacked Sri Dabar Sahib. This is according to the words of Sant Jarnail Singh Ji Bhindranwale.
  • All Sikh Jujharoo (freedom fighting) organizations are struggling for the establishment of Khalistan. What objective are you trying to define?
  • Does this Sikh Convention want to put the Sikh Nation at the mercy of those so-called Sikh leaders who assisted the Government in the assault on Sri Darbar Sahib, Sri Akal Takht Sahib, and the destruction of hundreds of Saroops (of Guru Granth Sahib Ji), and the elimination of thousands of Singhs, Bibis, and children?
  • Singh Sahibs, we smell the stench that you have joined the Center, who is all too eager to appease the Jujharoo Singhs on the basis of Sri Anandpur Sahib Resolutions. You are now speaking of defining goals, if you still have not understood the goals of the Panth, then what else can the Panth expect from you?
  • Singh Sahibs, time will expose the truth. Is it not your intention at this program to weaken the resolve of the Sikh organizations fighting for Khalistan, and create chaos in the Sikh community?
  • Do you still have faith in the Indian Government? The same government that is actively destroying and eliminating Sikh institutions, the Sikh identity, and Sikh culture?
  • If you still have faith in such a Government, then there is no one who is in a dark pit than you, regardless of how high your current position is.
  • All Sikhs respect Sri Akal Takht Sahib, and the positions of the Singh Sahibans, but no one will be allowed to become a government stooge while holding such a respectable position. It needs to be made clear that only those Singhs can serve the Panth that are ready and willing to sacrifice everything for the sake of the Panth.
Regardless of the strong opposition by Baba Manochahal and other Jujharoo Singhs, the Ragi and the convention organizers passed resolution that would attempt to derail the Khalistan struggle by redefining it as simply a movement for further autonomy for Punjabis in the current Indian framework.

The next day Punjabi papers eagerly flashed the redefined objective by the Jathdars all over the front-pages. It seemed like the first steps of the Government planned coup to hijack the Sikh Freedom struggle from the Jujharoo organizations had been successfully accomplished – thanks to the Ragi, and his SGPC cohorts.

5193_Ajit_SikhConvention_Aug1987.jpg

Front page of Ajit on the Ragi organized 'Sikh convention'

"ਸਿੱਖ ਕਨਵੈਨਸ਼ਨ ਦੇ ਪ੍ਰਸਤਾਵ"
"ਸਿੱਖ ਪੰਥ ਭਾਰਤ 'ਚ ਅਜ਼ਾਦੀ ਨਾਲ ਰਹਿ ਸਕਣ ਵਾਲੇ ਖਿਤੇ ਦੀ ਪ੍ਰਾਪਤੀ ਲਈ ਸੰਘਰਸ਼ ਕਰੇਗਾ"
"ਖਾਲਿਸਤਾਨ ਦੇ ਮਾਮਲੇ ਤੇ ਮਤਭੇਦ - ਅਜ ਹਥਿਆਰ ਨਹੀਂ ਵਿਚਾਰ ਕਾਰਗਰ : ਸਿੰਘ ਸਾਹਿਬ"

"Resolutions of the Sikh Convention"
"Sikh Panth will struggle for the region inside India where they can have automony."
"Disagreement over the issue of Khalistan – Diplomacy more effective than Weapons: Singh Sahib"
(Translation of Ajit newspaper headlines from August 5th, 1997)

In a seperate audio, Baba Gurbachan Singh Mahochahal shared his views on the treachary by the Ragi his predecessors.

Voice of Shaheed Baba Gurbachan Singh Manochahal:
(click to listen)



"The Ragi backtracked on his promise to uphold the resolutions on Khalistan, and has walked away from his duty. The Kharkoo Singhs put their trust in him, but he failed them. The Jathedar of Sri Akal Takht Sahib not be a person controlled by the Government."
- Shaheed Baba Gurbachan Singh Manochahal Bhai Daya Singh was later killed by the Indian forces near the village Jandiala Guru. Many members of Bhai Daya Singh were also killed in the coming months. Baba Gurbachan Singh Monchahal was killed in February 1993.

5193_Ajit_BhaiDayaSinghChohla_Shahidi.jpg

News report of Bhai Daya Sinh's Shaheedee


Babbar Khalsa Deputy-Chief Dissociates from Ragi


When it became clear that the Ragi was working in the interest of the central government, activists of the Babbar Khalsa International, who like other Jujharoo organizations had originally supported the Ragi in his early days at the Jathedar, also became suspicious of his activities.

An incident narrated by Babbar Khalsa International Deputy-Chief Bhai Sulakhan Singh Babbar stands out. Bhai Sahib was the main liaison between the Jathedars and the BKI leadership. During the late 1980s, Bhai Sulakhan Singh had made a surprise visit to the residence where Ragi Darshan Singh was staying.

Shaheed_SulakhanSingh_Babbar.jpg

Babbar Khalsa Deputy Chief Sulakhan Singh Babbar
had chastised the Ragi for violating Sikh Maryada

When Bhai Sulakhan Singh entered the Ragi's residence he discovered that the Ragi was in the middle of a meal that included objectionable items, including eggs and omlet. Being a Rahitvaan Singh Bhai Sulakhan Singh immediately scolded the Ragi for being an Akal Takht Jathedar and violating the Sikh code of conduct. The Ragi defended the consumption of meat and stated they were considered Jhatka and thus allowed by the Panth. Bhai Sulakhan Singh further scolded him for making up such excuses, and for betraying the sacred position of the Takht, and stated this would be the last time he and the BKI organization would communicate with him.

Bhai Sulakhan Singh immediately left the Ragi's residence in disgust, and avowed that no members of BKI would ever keep any communications with Ragi or recognize him as a Jathedar since he had violated Sikh Rahit Maryada. Babbar Khalsa Singhs were known for their strict rahit, and would not allow anybody to enter the organization who was lax in the Sikh code of conduct. The organization believed that a Sikh who could not stay true to his Guru and His Rahit, would not stay true to the Sikh Nation and it's cause.

Interestingly, over the years further information has come out about the offensive dietary habits and shady morals of the Ragi, including the consumption of alcohol. Now he is often referred to as a "ਸ਼ਰਾਬੀ-ਕਬਾਬੀ ਜਥੇਦਾਰ" due to such transgressions.

One can only wonder how a man who had no commitment and devotion for the Panth, and lacked basic Rahit of Sikhi could hold such a position in the Sikh nation? There is no question that the Ragi was unfit to lead the Sikhs during those turbulent times. So why was a man who has no religious or Panthic loyalty installed at the Sikhs' apex Takht? Perhaps it was for a different cause - to undermine the Sikh leadership of that time, and create chaos in the masses. Isn't that what the Ragi is doing now? Undermining the Sikh leadership and creating chaos?

While determined GurSikhs sacrificed their lives for the Panth at that time, selfish individuals such as Ragi used the opportunity to gain personal wealth and fame, and continue to cause harm to the Nation. It is due to the traitorous actions of such people that the Sikhs are in this current state.

The echoes of the warnings given by the great Shaheeds Baba Gurbachan Singh Manochahal and Bhai Sulakhan Singh Babbar are as relevant as they were two decades ago. The question is - are we listening?

Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
 

Shrabi

SPNer
Feb 24, 2008
15
1
Re: RAGI DARSHAN SINGH - A TRAITOR AMIDST THE SIKHS

what do you do guys think of the above post, any comments.
 

spnadmin

1947-2014 (Archived)
SPNer
Jun 17, 2004
14,500
19,219
Re: RAGI DARSHAN SINGH - A TRAITOR AMIDST THE SIKHS

Yes,

After I spent some considerable time writing an admin note, to the article used to start a new thread, I realized that you posted this exact article on another thread,

http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/hard-...iani-gurbachan-singh-jathedar.html#post117722

The panthic.org article was posted in this thread, link given above, and it was then brought up again as the thread starter on a second thread, RAGI DARSHAN SINGH - A TRAITOR AMONG THE SIKHS. Therefore the threads have been merged.

Admin note Narayanjot Kaur

 

spnadmin

1947-2014 (Archived)
SPNer
Jun 17, 2004
14,500
19,219
Re:Ragi Darshan Singh - A Traitor Amidst the Sikhs

The panthic.org article does not surprise me. Every other sentence is crafted to manipulate emotions and instinctual reactions ranging from hatred of Indira Ghandi, to distrust of the Congress Party, to Bhindranwale, to dimmed hopes of Khalistan. This is not information; it is propaganda.

Now my suspicion is this. In the past 2 or 3 days news articles have been surfacing that suggest, but not openly report, that their may be some softening among the panj piaaree who signed the judgment against Professor Darshan Singh. The extremist positions expressed by the pro-DG adherents in the news and on the Internet does not seem to have been effective. Particularly harmful to them are articles and arguments that undermine SGGS. They are preaching to one another. And large segments of opinion both in India and in the Diaspora have not been swayed by these efforts to turn the tide against Professor Darshan Singh. The excessive emotional tone of the article tells me that this is a desperate effort to divide and conquer. Perhaps panthic.org thinks that by making Professor Darshan Singh seem like a liar about Khalistan that they can shave off some of his support among the Dal Khalsa and similar groups..
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Admin

SPNer
Jun 1, 2004
6,690
5,245
SPN
Re: TV Interview: Giani Gurbachan Singh, Jathedar Sri Akal Takhat Sahib on Darshan Si

Gurfateh!

Only an illiterate person can be influenced by deceptive and emotional propaganda like above. Bad for them is that Sikh Sangat has woken up! :ice: They are seeking accountability from Prof. Darshan, but what were these so called accusers themselves doing when all this was happening in 1984? It is utterly naive to blame others for your own shortfalls. The fact is the Khalistan as a Sikh cause was doomed from inception as there was no Gurmata (consensus) taken from Sikh Sangat...

The fact is Pathetic.org and its biased so called Sikh Forums are run by the illiterate, for the illiterate, who hide behind fake Sikhi propagated by so called fake Sants, Babas, Pooran Brahmgyanis. They hide their ignorance against personal attacks and venomous campaigns in a failed effort to keep attention from the main issues. They use deceptive methods like shamelessly editing videos to incite a negative response. I, for one, would not take their s.hit even with a pinch of salt. End of the Story!

Gurfateh!

:happysingh:
 

roab1

SPNer
Jun 30, 2009
133
229
Re: TV Interview: Giani Gurbachan Singh, Jathedar Sri Akal Takhat Sahib on Darshan Si

www(put DOT here)flickr.com/photos/ramansingh/4203367228/

Sharabiji there is a bigger and powerful group of traitors that needs more attention. Whats your opinion on this?
 

Shrabi

SPNer
Feb 24, 2008
15
1
Re: TV Interview: Giani Gurbachan Singh, Jathedar Sri Akal Takhat Sahib on Darshan Si

I dont see them as traitors as you put it. They have done nothing wrong to decive the panth. What do you make of the Message from Shaheed Baba Gurbachan Singh Manochahal. He fought for freedom and for the panth. Do you think he and along with his singhs were making up false accusations against Darshan.
 

Shrabi

SPNer
Feb 24, 2008
15
1
Re: TV Interview: Giani Gurbachan Singh, Jathedar Sri Akal Takhat Sahib on Darshan Si

Can someone prove the alogations made by pantic news are false. Instead of just saying that they are "deceptive and emotional propaganda". Can someone please put some facts up of trying to disprove Pantic news. Realy would like to see this and plus you guys would make darshan look good then.
 

spnadmin

1947-2014 (Archived)
SPNer
Jun 17, 2004
14,500
19,219
Re: TV Interview: Giani Gurbachan Singh, Jathedar Sri Akal Takhat Sahib on Darshan Si

Can someone prove the alogations made by pantic news are false. Instead of just saying that they are "deceptive and emotional propaganda". Can someone please put some facts up of trying to disprove Pantic news. Realy would like to see this and plus you guys would make darshan look good then.

Here is one of many such ridiculous statements!

When Bhai Sulakhan Singh entered the Ragi's residence he discovered that the Ragi was in the middle of a meal that included objectionable items, including eggs and omlet. Being a Rahitvaan Singh Bhai Sulakhan Singh immediately scolded the Ragi for being an Akal Takht Jathedar and violating the Sikh code of conduct. The Ragi defended the consumption of meat and stated they were considered Jhatka and thus allowed by the Panth. Bhai Sulakhan Singh further scolded him for making up such excuses, and for betraying the sacred position of the Takht, and stated this would be the last time he and the BKI organization would communicate with him.

Nothing in the Sikh Rehat Marayada forbids consumption of meat. And here we have former jathedar Darshan Singh being upbraided for eating eggs. If Sikhs were Jains this might make sense. Surely you follow this simple proposition. Not only that, but Bhai Sulakhan Singh "raided" the house of someone else. This is pure melodrama and self-promotion, probably to make himself look like a long suffering hero! Next we read the Professor Darshan Singh states that an omelet is considered Jhatka. Are we supposed to believe that Professor Darshan Singh does not know the difference between an egg and a goat? Unless of course the person who wrote this article meant "meat" for "other objectionable items" but forgot to be specific. Finally, Bhai Sulakhan Singh is depicted stalking off in a bad mood after scolding Professor Darshan Singh for making excuses.

If this qualifies as "news" then 10 year old children would qualilfy as editors and reporters


shrabi ji


  1. What are "panthic" views?
  2. Who decides what "panthic" views are (what individual or individuals)?
  3. What are their credentials or qualifications?
  4. How does one acquire the qualifications to define "panthic" views for everyone else?
  5. Is there anyway to test or evaluate whether these individuals have a correct understanding of "panthic" views?
  6. How did panthic.org rise to the level of being able to decide what "panthic" views should be?
  7. Who or What gave them this understanding?
  8. What lables should we give to those members of the panth who do not agree with the views of panthic.org and why?
  9. Is it possible that some other organization that disagrees with "panthic views" expressed in the article is more in touch with the panth and a better spokesman for the panth?
P/S Please take my use of "panthic.org" to include panthic.org and their affiliates.
 

Shrabi

SPNer
Feb 24, 2008
15
1
Re: TV Interview: Giani Gurbachan Singh, Jathedar Sri Akal Takhat Sahib on Darshan Si

I like the points you put up. Everyone can discuss those points. Everyone should have there opinions voiced. But i still need some one to disprove that news article. You can dont have to call it a news artice, you can call it lies. But i want someone to rebute those claims with Facts and evidence. Not jsut call them liers. I dont know if there telling the whole truth or jsut lying but just like any other case of defimation you must bring facts in order rebute those acusations.
 

Gyani Jarnail Singh

Sawa lakh se EK larraoan
Mentor
Writer
SPNer
Jul 4, 2004
7,708
14,381
75
KUALA LUMPUR MALAYSIA
Re: TV Interview: Giani Gurbachan Singh, Jathedar Sri Akal Takhat Sahib on Darshan Si

Just to digress a bit......btw..."Panthic" are all those who DONT OBEY the Akal Takhat MARYADA..yet want to IMPOSE their views on others by..dropping the Akal Takhat Name !! All these people NEVER ACCEPTED the Akal Takhat Maryada called the SRM published by SGPC..their "leaders" WALKED OUT of the SRM meetings in 1936-1945....all of them have their OWN VERSIONS of SRM....in a nornal situation this is called NO LOCUS STANDI ( Lamaba being an advocate shoulld \be able to explain that to these "panthics") These same Panthics NEVER ACCEPTED the Nanksahi Calendar when it was approved and releasewd by AKAL TAKHAT/SGPC - a perfectly normal thing to do since they dont obey Akal Takhat/SGPC anyway...BUT NOW these same panthics want to change the Nanaksahi Calendar !! as well as introduce things that are NOT in the SRM !! NO LOCUS STANDI !!! in all situations..from DG to Darshn Singh to Nanaksahi calendar to many other "demands" they make all the time..
 

spnadmin

1947-2014 (Archived)
SPNer
Jun 17, 2004
14,500
19,219
Re: TV Interview: Giani Gurbachan Singh, Jathedar Sri Akal Takhat Sahib on Darshan Si

I like the points you put up. Everyone can discuss those points. Everyone should have there opinions voiced. But i still need some one to disprove that news article. You can dont have to call it a news artice, you can call it lies. But i want someone to rebute those claims with Facts and evidence. Not jsut call them liers. I dont know if there telling the whole truth or jsut lying but just like any other case of defimation you must bring facts in order rebute those acusations.


Shrabi ji

What I have posted is not defamation. It is called "critical thinking." You could also call it "point/counter-point." I am questioning the factual content of what I am reading. I have not even progressed to the point where I have expressed my opinion on the anti-Gurmat standing of the article you posted.

If it will satisfy you, I will take one paragraph at a time and demonstrate why it is propaganda and not news reporting. So far one paragraph has been critiqued, the one about an omelet and a raid on the house of Professor Darshan Singh. Please tell me how we are educated or informed regarding panthic issues by that paragraph.
 

spnadmin

1947-2014 (Archived)
SPNer
Jun 17, 2004
14,500
19,219
Re: TV Interview: Giani Gurbachan Singh, Jathedar Sri Akal Takhat Sahib on Darshan Si

Previously I offered to analyze the article at the link Panthic.org. I was willing to show that the article is neither news reporting nor responsible editorial writing. Rather it is for the most part propaganda. My analysis was described as defamation. Two days ago, another forum member requested a more detailed analysis of the article. I have complied.
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
My argument earlier was, and remains, that the article in panthic.org was manipulative, melodramatic, and nothing more than propaganda.
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
First let's explore what “evidence” is normally understood to be, and what "propaganda" is normally understood to mean.
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
evidence |ˈevədəns|
noun
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid : the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination.
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
propaganda |ˌpräpəˈgandə|
noun
1 chiefly derogatory information, esp. of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view : he was charged with distributing enemy propaganda.
the dissemination of such information as a political strategy : the party's leaders believed that a long period of education and propaganda would be necessary .
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
Now, let's take a second look at the following article: RAGI DARSHAN SINGH - A TRAITOR AMIDST THE SIKHS from PANTHIC.ORG
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
Does it present evidence or is it mainly propaganda? Does it rise to the level of informed editorial opinion? Or is it an emotional exercise, which rmore like throwing a pot of spaghetti at the wall? Something against Professor Darshan Singh just might stick. Something might stick, and convince some readers sitting under a cloud of unknowing that the Professor is a traitor. Unlike spaghetti, once damage is done, no one will be required to clean the mess up.
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
The multi-part missive starts with the main article, parts of which are reproduced below. Black fonts are panthic.org and blue fonts are me. I will tackle the main article first. Then I will address several other articles tacked on at the end and offered as evidence in support of the main article.
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
Published on December 25, 2009
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
"seems controversy is not anything new for Darshan Singh, the heretic Ragi, who was recently declared a 'Guru-Nindak' and a 'Tankhaiya' by Sri Akal Takht Sahib, for disobeying the authority of the Supreme Seat of Sikhism."
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
The above is one sentence in which fact is mixed with fiction. Here is the part that is fiction. It is not an indisputable fact that Professor Darshan Singh disobeyed the authority of the Supreme Seat of Sikhism.To the contrary, the Takht may have misused its authority by not taking steps consistent with the Sikh Rehat Maryada. In other words, there is a question of fact as to whether the Akal Takht acted according to Gurmat principles. Akal Takht may have waived its authority by ignoring the Sikh Rehat Maryada.
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->


"Evidence has surfaced that more than two decades ago, two major freedom fighting organizations, Bhindranwala Tigers Force, and Babbar Khalsa International were suspicious of the heretic Ragi Darshan Singh, and acknowledged that he was unfit to serve as the Jathedar of Sri Akal Takht Sahib during those turbulent times."
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
Nothing in this paragraph is a fact. First, no evidence is presented that Bhindranwale Tigers and Babbar Khalsa are “two major freedom fighting organizations." They believe they are major freedom fighting organizations, and bill themselves as such. That is an opinion not a fact. Moreover, all the so- called “evidence” that “surfaced more than two decades ago” is evidence of their suspicions. Suspicions are opinions and not evidence.
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
Suspicions are not indisputable. Merely suspecting Professor Darshan was a heretic does not make him a heretic, no matter how many times the authors repeat their suspicions. Moreover, the authors have not proved their case. They interpret events to mean that the Professor was unfit to serve as Jathedar. Each new offer of fact turns out to be nothing more than another expression of opinion. I will make this clear later in my responses.
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
"Many have suspected that was Ragi a mole working for the Government agencies, installed to actively derail and torpedo the Khalistan movement in the late 1980s. New evidence and suspicions raised by prominent Sikh leaders of the past seem to validate this notion."
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
In this paragraph we read again about suspicions, that Professor Darshan Singh may have been a mole, and may have been installed as Jathedar to derail/torpoedo the Khalistan movement. We have no idea what the authors mean exactly by the "Khalistan movement" and this is important because the "Khalistan movement" took on many forms in the "late 1980's."
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
At this point in the article it seems the Professor is accused of having derailed some aspect of the movement. If we don't know what is meant by the "Khalistan movement" it is impossible to judge what he derailed, or whether he derailed anything at all. Later however we discover that he “derailed” Babbar Khalsa and its Khalistan agenda. This is perfect example of how propaganda works: i.e., the authors employ derogatory information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, to promote or publicize their particular political cause or point of view.
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
"Ragi Darshan Singh was installed by the Tohra led Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC) in late 1986. Although Baba Gurbachan Singh Manochahal was also declared Jathedar of Sri Akal Takht Sahib by a section of the Khalistan freedom fighters, he later resigned for the sake of Panthic unity. Little did he know about the treachery that was unfolding under the leadership of his successor."
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
The above paragraph explains who "installed" Professor Darshan Singh as Jathedar. It was none other than the controversial Gurcharan Singh Tohra. There are many strikes against Gurcharan Singh Tohra. The authors omit 2 facts. The absence of these 2 facts is not only deafening, it makes my charge of propaganda even more serious. Fact 1: Tohra was elected head of the SGPC numerous times, when he was in favor, and when he was out of favor with Badal. That is a fact. As such it does nothing to help us understand why Professor Darshan Singh is a mole working for government agencies and installed to derail the Khalistan movement. Tohra at the time of Operation Bluestar backed Bhindranwale. To say that Baba Gurbachan Singh Manocchahal was declared Jathedar by a section of Kahlistan freedom fighters simply demonstrates how confused the authors of the article are about how one becomes Jathedar. Basically they are either out of touch with the political facts under the law, or they are deliberately persisting with misleading statements. To further state that Baba Gurbachan Singh Manocchahal resigned for the sake of panthic unity is not only a statement of opinion but it is a self-promoting and self-serving statement. More evidence of propaganda.
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
Fact 2: Professor Darshan Singh spent time in jail during the post-1984 period, following Bluestar and the Delhi pograms. He was imprisoned as part of a reign of terror that took over the Punjab.
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
These facts support the opinion that he was credible choice for Jathedar, and hardly a traitor.
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
The Chandigarh Tribune narrates this shifting of power at the Sikh Takhts in their July 13th, 2002 editorial interestingly titled 'Misdeeds' of stalwarts during militancy. The Tribune editor notes:
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
Now this related article in the Chandigarh Tribune is put forth as evidence that the preceding paragraphs should be taken seriously. We are informed that have been “misdeeds.” This is only one example of inflammatory language that is peppered throughout. An editorial titled "misdeeds of stalwarts during militancy" sets the reader up. The reader thinks he/she soon will make some important discoveries. What are these "misdeeds?" The next paragraph tells us what these misdeeds are.
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
"The SGPC under Mr Tohra had sacked the head granthi of Darbara Sahib and secured and accepted the resignation of Giani Kirpal Singh and secured and accepted the resignation of Giani Kirpal Singh as Jathedar Akal Takht.”
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
Now those are indeed statements of fact. Mr Tohra indeed sacked some people and forced the resignation of others. However, are they misdeeds? Or is there a more logical reading of the article? Is it not the case that the authors disagreed with the decisions taken by Mr. Tohra. Therefore to say misdeeds were committed is again misleading.
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
Moreover, this information has no bearing whatsoever on the accusations made against Professor Darshan Singh. How does that information help us understand that he was a mole or a derailer of the Khalistan movement? And how does it contribute to the charges that Professor is a heretic today? It does not clarify anything. The article cites decisions of Mr. Tohra that transpired 2 decades ago in order to smear the reputation of Professor Darshan Singh today, as "heretic.” This is not evidence and it does not help us understand why Professor Darshan Singh should be thought of as a mole, a traitor, a derailer, or a heretic. In what way does the Professor's relationship with Mr. Tohra 2 decades ago pertain to his stand on Dasam Granth today.

More editorial opinion follows that is offered as evidence.
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
"On December 31 (1986), Bhai Darshan Singh Raagi joined as jathedar. On January 23, 1987, the three head priests had also been dismissed and in their place, Giani Puran Singh, Giani Savinder Singh, Giani Jaswant Singh and Giani Kashmir Singh were appointed as high priests. The 'Sarbat khalsa' held on January 26, 1987, approved the resolution of April 29 for Khalistan and also the recent appointments of the high priests. In a recorded message of Gurbachan Singh Manochahal played to the gathering he resigned from the post of Jathedar, Akal Takht, to accommodate Bhai Darshan Singh in the larger interest of the Panth."
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
At this point in the article some historical facts are put forth regarding the installation of Professor Darshan Singh and the appointment of 3 individuals as "high priests." It is curious to read "high priests" as Sikhi has no clergy and panthic.org purports to represent the "Sikh panth" as they define "panth." So certainly panthic.org would know that high priests is a frivolous term.

Once again I find the claims made in the article to be clueless. How can anyone take seriously the claim that Gurbachan Singh Manochahal resigned from his post as Jathedar in order to accommodate the Professor and the larger interest of Panth? Manochahal was never the Jathedar to begin with. A better explanation would be this. There was some political wrangling between SGPC and Damdami Takht. Gurbachan Singh Manochahal believed himself to be the heir of the political and spiritual legacy of Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale. This is nothing more than a presumption on the part of Mr. Manochahal and his supporters. Mr. Manochahal in my humble opinion was a strategist trying to fill a gap left by the death of Jarnail Bhindranwale. He began by casting himself in as the lead actor and obvious choice for the part. We do not know from the article where Damdami Takht stood on his self-nomination.

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
Another editorial is placed in evidence to support the arguments of the main article.
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
(July 13, 2002 , Tribune India)
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
"Softening the Target : Ragi Darshan Singh and Shushil Muni
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
Furthermore, the former Joint Director of India's Intelligence Bureau, Maloy Krishna Dhar, in his memoirs, states:
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
"He (Rajiv Gandhi) has already played the peace card through Ragi Darshan Singh and a Jain preacher Sushil Muni…"
(Open Secrets – India's Intelligence Unveiled, Maloy Krishna Dhar, Manas Publications -2005) Perhaps, one of the strongest criticisms, and serious allegations leveled against the Ragi came from Baba Gurbachan Singh Manochahal. Baba Manochahal was the head of the Bhindranwala Tigers Force (BTF), and a key member of the Panthic Committee, at that time period."
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
The persistent pattern of misleading the reader continues. Mr. Manochahal was in the habit of making strong criticisms and allegations against Professor Darshan Singh. Only this time the information is dressed up with a very dramatic statement in parentheses: "Open-Secrets - India's Intelligence Unveiled." Basically we are reading that Rajiv Gandhi played a peace card through Darshan Singh and a Jain preacher named Sushil Muni. Though it may be a fact that a peace card was played and that Professor Darshan Singh had a role to play, the authors make it sound as if it someone had to wrestle CIS to the ground to get the peace card by force. That is nothing short of hilarious. And how does a secret become an "Open Secret?"
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
Reconsider the scenario. A secret peace card was played. Darshan Singh had something to do with it. Indian intelligence knew all along. Ultimately the secret was revealed.
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
It is this kind of melodramatic and manipulative language that suggests to me that the entire article was written to serve propaganda interests of Babbar Khalsa. And even if one takes their side in this controversy of 1987 onward, all that means is that one shares the same opinion. It hardly proves that anyone was a "traitor." This is just more name-calling, and probably a reflection of their resentment that Mr. Manochalal was ignored.
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
Another editorial is offered as evidence. I have included excerpts. In the interests of not going on and on, some paragraphs were not included in my analysis here.
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
“the 'Sikh Convention' on August 4th, 1987,
an event that would be the catalyst for derailing the Khalistan Movement”
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
"The convention was called by the Takht Jathedars under the pretext that this assembly would 'define' the goals and objectives of the Sikh cause. Baba Manochahal and others openly questioned the need to define the Panth's goals and objectives when the Sarbat Khalsa had already done so. Baba Manochahal argued that the goal for the establishment of an independent Sikh Homeland, Khalistan had already been declared in 1984 and further ratified by the Sarbat Khalsa in 1986."
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
"At the gathering it was declared by the Ragi that the Sikh nation's goal was not an independent and separate homeland of Khalistan. Instead, the Sikhs should strive for a more more autonomy in India as promised by Pandit Nehru during the partition. The Sikhs no longer needed to fight an armed struggle declared the Ragi, self-governance and autonomy could only be gained through dialogue and votes."
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
"Chaos prevailed throughout at the convention, but this did not distract the Ragi from his task. This was perhaps the first direct attempt to derail the Khalistan struggle at the public level, and an insult to the declarations passed by the Sarbat Khalsa in 1986."
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
All of the above can be summed up in one short paragraph. Baba Manochahal and his associates were angry. Their Khalistan agenda was “derailed.” Their agenda was not supported. They were irked by the following developments. To press for “dialogue and votes” was in their view wrong because it was not Baba’s agenda. There was "chaos" and the convention was controversial (according to supporters of Baba Manochahal). Professor Darshan Singh was "chided" by Baba's representive Bhai Daya Singh Chohia for his backtracking on the BTF Khalistan agenda.
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
So what should we conclude from all of this? Professor Darshan Singh and the Singh Sahibans disagreed with Baba. That is it! Nothing more can be learned from this news insert. Disagreement is not treachery nor is it treason. Certainly it is not heresy. So why is this information destined to play any part in a discussion in which Professor Darshan Singh is painted as heretic and tankhiaya? It is the classic straw man argument. The reader should believe the authors: this guy Darshan Singh is a really bad guy because he disagrees with Baba. :eek:
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
Yet more editorial writing is offered as evidence against the Professor, including a “fiery” speech reproduced as an audio file in this thread. I have cast in bold the use of inflammatory language to demonstrate that we are reading propaganda.
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
"Some of main points and questions raised by Baba Manochahal to the Singh Sahibans were as follows:
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
* Has the Panth actually been fighting without an real objective/goal for the last five years?

* Since 1984, the struggle for Khalistan was lauched when the Indian Government attacked Sri Dabar Sahib. This is according to the words of Sant Jarnail Singh Ji Bhindranwale.

* All Sikh Jujharoo (freedom fighting) organizations are struggling for the establishment of Khalistan. What objective are you trying to define?

* Does this Sikh Convention want to put the Sikh Nation at the mercy of those so-called Sikh leaders who assisted the Government in the assault on Sri Darbar Sahib, Sri Akal Takht Sahib, and the destruction of hundreds of Saroops (of Guru Granth Sahib Ji), and the elimination of thousands of Singhs, Bibis, and children?

* Singh Sahibs, we smell the stench that you have joined the Center, who is all too eager to appease the Jujharoo Singhs on the basis of Sri Anandpur Sahib Resolutions. You are now speaking of defining goals, if you still have not understood the goals of the Panth, then what else can the Panth expect from you?

* Singh Sahibs, time will expose the truth. Is it not your intention at this program to weaken the resolve of the Sikh organizations fighting for Khalistan, and create chaos in the Sikh community?

* Do you still have faith in the Indian Government? The same government that is actively destroying and eliminating Sikh institutions, the Sikh identity, and Sikh culture?

* If you still have faith in such a Government, then there is no one who is in a dark pit than you, regardless of how high your current position is.

* All Sikhs respect Sri Akal Takht Sahib, and the positions of the Singh Sahibans, but no one will be allowed to become a government stooge while holding such a respectable position. It needs to be made clear that only those Singhs can serve the Panth that are ready and willing to sacrifice everything for the sake of the Panth."

More propaganda.
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
"Regardless of the strong opposition by Baba Manochahal and other Jujharoo Singhs, the Ragi and the convention organizers passed resolution that would attempt to derail the Khalistan struggle by redefining it as simply a movement for further autonomy for Punjabis in the current Indian framework."
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
"The next day Punjabi papers eagerly flashed the redefined objective by the Jathdars all over the front-pages. It seemed like the first steps of the Government planned coup to hijack the Sikh Freedom struggle from the Jujharoo organizations had been successfully accomplished – thanks to the Ragi, and his SGPC cohorts."
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
It is a fact that saroops of Sri Guru Granth Sahib were destroyed in Bluestar, and it is a fact, a horrendous fact, that scores of men, women and children became martyrs. Blood ran into the sarovar of Sri Hamindir Sahib. Blood ran in the streets in Delhi. It is also apparent that the authors are shamelessly using the suffering, martyrdom and sacrifices of these individuals to bolster their own political agenda, and they are hiding behind the reputation of these martyrs because they have no reputation of their own worthy of respect.
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
Instead of evidence we are given proclamations. The article is chest-thumping by political operatives who for some years have been marginalized. Instead of offering evidence, we read words like "at the mercy of" "smell the stench" "create chaos" "government stooge." The article also makes some assumptions of fact. For example it argues that To abandon Khalistan is to place the Sikh Nation at the mercy of Sikh leaders who assisted the Government. And that to abandon Khalistan is akin to destroying Sikh institutions. The article does make one interesting plea: that no one should become a government stooge while occupying the respectable position of jathedar. I agree with that in principle.

I share that opinion. Curiously, in our current crisis, jathedars have not so much become stooges of the government while holding positions of trust. Rather Badal, by 2003, had so strengthened his grip on SGPC that the position of jathedar had evolved into something that was clearly a post of civil servant.

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
More non-evidence offered so we will believe it.
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
Front page of Ajit on the Ragi organized 'Sikh convention'
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
"In a seperate audio, Baba Gurbachan Singh Mahochahal shared his views on the treachary by the Ragi his predecessors.
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
Voice of Shaheed Baba Gurbachan Singh Manochahal:
(click to listen)"
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
"The Ragi backtracked on his promise to uphold the resolutions on Khalistan, and has walked away from his duty. The Kharkoo Singhs put their trust in him, but he failed them. The Jathedar of Sri Akal Takht Sahib not be a person controlled by the Government.

- Shaheed Baba Gurbachan Singh Manochahal Bhai Daya Singh was later killed by the Indian forces near the village Jandiala Guru. Many members of Bhai Daya Singh were also killed in the coming months. Baba Gurbachan Singh Monchahal was killed in February 1993."
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
Exactly what was the hand that Professor Darshan Singh played as far as these deaths at the hands of Indian Forces is concerned? We are left with suggestions and there is nothing solid in the way of evidence to demonstrate that the above is true.
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
Another “news report” without any facts follows.
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
News report of Bhai Daya Sinh's Shaheedee
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]-->
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->Babbar Khalsa Deputy-Chief Dissociates from Ragi
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
"When it became clear that the Ragi was working in the interest of the central government, activists of the Babbar Khalsa International, who like other Jujharoo organizations had originally supported the Ragi in his early days at the Jathedar, also became suspicious of his activities."
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
The following voluntary admission of a home invasion is considered by the authors to be an act justified by religious faith, fervor and devotion.
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
"An incident narrated by Babbar Khalsa International Deputy-Chief Bhai Sulakhan Singh Babbar stands out. Bhai Sahib was the main liaison between the Jathedars and the BKI leadership. During the late 1980s, Bhai Sulakhan Singh had made a surprise visit to the residence where Ragi Darshan Singh was staying."

The description of a home invation – or if you like, breaking and entering. Certainly this is a crime in India. Or if BTF is behind it does that make it an OK thing to do?
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
"When Bhai Sulakhan Singh entered the Ragi's residence he discovered that the Ragi was in the middle of a meal that included objectionable items, including eggs and omlet. Being a Rahitvaan Singh Bhai Sulakhan Singh immediately scolded the Ragi for being an Akal Takht Jathedar and violating the Sikh code of conduct. The Ragi defended the consumption of meat and stated they were considered Jhatka and thus allowed by the Panth. Bhai Sulakhan Singh further scolded him for making up such excuses, and for betraying the sacred position of the Takht, and stated this would be the last time he and the BKI organization would communicate with him."
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
From this article all I can glean is that Professor Darshan Singh had a meeting at his house. That various of his political opponents had suspicions. That Bahi Sulakhan Singh assumed he had the right to conduct a raid, but this in most other contexts this "raid" would be considered a felony.
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
The article reports that Professor was eating an omelet and possibly some other items, described as "offensive dietary habits" and "shady morals." To give them the benefit of the doubt, the individuals conducting the raid did not appear to know that the SRM does not forbid eating eggs or meat. The Professor stands accused of consuming alcohol, although it is not clear that alcohol was discovered during the raid. Those conducting the raid do not seem to view breaking and entering a home as evidence of their own shady morals.
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
"Interestingly, over the years further information has come out about the offensive dietary habits and shady morals of the Ragi, including the consumption of alcohol. Now he is often referred to as a "ਸ਼ਰਾਬੀ-ਕਬਾਬੀਜਥੇਦਾਰ" due to such transgressions."
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->

"There is no question that the Ragi was unfit to lead the Sikhs during those turbulent times. So why was a man who has no religious or Panthic loyalty installed at the Sikhs' apex Takht? Perhaps it was for a different cause - to undermine the Sikh leadership of that time, and create chaos in the masses. Isn't that what the Ragi is doing now? Undermining the Sikh leadership and creating chaos?"
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
"The echoes of the warnings given by the great Shaheeds Baba Gurbachan Singh Manochahal and Bhai Sulakhan Singh Babbar are as relevant as they were two decades ago. The question is - are we listening?"
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
The authors pose this question: Are we listening? What are we supposed to listen to? Here is their bottom line. If you disagreed two decades ago with Baba Gurbachan Singh and Bahi Sulakhan Singh, and you were legally appointed to a high religious office, ate eggs or meat, attempted to explain what the SRM has to say about meat and jatka, had dietary habits that are less rigorous than the strict habits of Babbar Khalsa, abandoned Khalistan as a primary political goal, andhttp://www.sikhphilosophy.net/#_Hlk123993780 1,800,1164,0,,1 chief favored dialog and votes, and if you take issue with home-invasions, obviously then you are guilty of creating chaos in the past and undermining the panth today. :eek:
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
Sangat ji – Let’s go back to the definition of propaganda.

1 chiefly derogatory information, esp. of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view
the dissemination of such information as a political strategy



That is all from me for now. I may come back to this later.
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
<!--EndFragment-->
 
Last edited by a moderator:
📌 For all latest updates, follow the Official Sikh Philosophy Network Whatsapp Channel:
Top