US-based Sikh rights group to rally behind Sangeeta Richard

[telugodu]

A fact which your mind can't comprehend.

lol i forgot for which post i told that...
Could you kindly please let me know which post # is it...

 

[Chronos]

Stop!! Don't cross the limits!!



That veggie will murder u.

He wants to do this of course to save animals.

Understandable. But he wants to commit violence because of it.

The irony is supreme and complete.

Looks like the trolls on each side got dumped on to this forum simultaneously.

Well time to excercise my ignore button and filter out their stupidity.

 

[Desi Guy]

I am a Sikh Living in USA, born and brought up in India. No Khalistani . I love my India .But I support US in this consular case. Those who support the consular officer should see that the maid whose rights got violated , is also an Indian citizen.
Over here everything works according to law. Unlike India, where Government often influences court decisions by giving perks to judges after retirement ,here that does not happen. That is what makes this country the front runner in the world.
Having experienced Indian official system for 20+ years , I do not find it wise to support it.
However I do agree that the consular officer should not have been arrested, It is an Insult to India as a country .

 

[telugodu]

I am a Sikh Living in USA, born and brought up in India. No Khalistani . I love my India .But I support US in this consular case. Those who support the consular officer should see that the maid whose rights got violated , is also an Indian citizen.
Over here everything works according to law. Unlike India, where Government often influences court decisions by giving perks to judges after retirement ,here that does not happen. That is what makes this country the front runner in the world.
Having experienced Indian official system for 20+ years , I do not find it wise to support it.
However I do agree that the consular officer should not have been arrested, It is an Insult to India as a country .

 

[Butchcassidy]

Even that preet bakoda is a sikh...
All sikhs are not khalistanis, but all khalistanis are sikhs...

Bhai tu hai ghaana chutiya....

 

[telugodu]

Bhai tu hai ghaana chutiya....

Lol...is it a compliment...

 

[Aka123]

He wants to do this of course to save animals.

Understandable. But he wants to commit violence because of it.

The irony is supreme and complete.

Looks like the trolls on each side got dumped on to this forum simultaneously.

Well time to excercise my ignore button and filter out their stupidity.

He will kill u to save animals!! Nice Logic indeed!!

 

[Manvantaratruti]

Your sense of history is full of half truths and out right distorted. How can you paint the Sikhs as treacherous? during the Anglo Sikh wars, the Hindu Dogras had betrayed the Sikhs and were awarded Kashmir as a result of their treachery. Going by your logic does that mean all Hindus were traitors?

That is a strawman. I have never painted the Sikhs as treacherous. Just of having split loyalties and being unreliable and untrustworthy.

After the death of Ranjith Singh, the dogra's appointed his illegitimate son Maharajah Sher Singh as king. So much for them being "hindus"

However the khalsa still killed him. So much for Sikh honor. LOL.

As for 1857, the Sikhs view that conflict is very differently than mainstream point of view. The soldiers/sepoys who had mutinied in 1857 had fought with the Sikhs just 8 years earlier during the 2nd anglo Sikh war and taken away our freedom. Secondly the sepoys had decided to make the Mughal emperor Bahadur Shah their king and Sikhs faced their worst genocides under Mughal rule and did not have an appetite to see the Mughal King again ruling over India. Furthurmore, what about all the Hindus such as Dogras, Gurkhas, Rajputs all of whom joined the British in 1857 along with the Sikhs during the mutiny? going by your logic does that mean all the Hindus of Rajasthan, Punjab, Nepal were also traitors?

No amount of jugglery with words will wash away the shameful role that emphasized Sikh loyalty to their British masters.

The only other people loyal to the British during 1857 were Punjabi Muslims, Gurkhas, Pathans (Pashtuns), Afghans and Balochis. LOL. That is your legacy. History is a harsh judge.

Sikhs also had many anti British movements and played a prominent role in the freedom struggle which was led by Baba Maharaj Singh, Kuka Movement under Baba Raam Singh, Gadhar movement, Akali movement. Even INA was 60% Sikh soldiers. Kala Pani was full of Sikh inmates.

I agree. Which is why I said their loyalties swing both ways making them unreliable and untrustworthy. Indira Gandhi learnt that the hard way.

No sir, Sikhs do not have a history of Anti India activities. Sikh religion has inspired Sikhs to fight against unjust rule of the Mughals, Afghans, British and later the anti-Indian party known as the congress party which is being ruled by the Nehru dynasty.

I am no congress fan, but the fact is the Sikh's fought against India, not congress.

As I said, no amount of jugglery with words will wash away historical facts.

 

[kurup]

Your sense of history is full of half truths and out right distorted. How can you paint the Sikhs as treacherous? during the Anglo Sikh wars, the Hindu Dogras had betrayed the Sikhs and were awarded Kashmir as a result of their treachery. Going by your logic does that mean all Hindus were traitors?

As for 1857, the Sikhs view that conflict is very differently than mainstream point of view. The soldiers/sepoys who had mutinied in 1857 had fought with the Sikhs just 8 years earlier during the 2nd anglo Sikh war and taken away our freedom. Secondly the sepoys had decided to make the Mughal emperor Bahadur Shah their king and Sikhs faced their worst genocides under Mughal rule and did not have an appetite to see the Mughal King again ruling over India. Furthurmore, what about all the Hindus such as Dogras, Gurkhas, Rajputs all of whom joined the British in 1857 along with the Sikhs during the mutiny? going by your logic does that mean all the Hindus of Rajasthan, Punjab, Nepal were also traitors?

Sikhs also had many anti British movements and played a prominent role in the freedom struggle which was led by Baba Maharaj Singh, Kuka Movement under Baba Raam Singh, Gadhar movement, Akali movement. Even INA was 60% Sikh soldiers. Kala Pani was full of Sikh inmates.

Why are you quoting me with somebody else post ??

 

[Manvantaratruti]

What a load of bull shit. 1857 was a sepoy mutiny. The same very sepoy who licked british shoes and helped them fight the maratthas, sikhs and even afghans.... So suddenly in 1857 these sepoys who had been british stooges became freedom fighters... What a logic lol.

It was more than an "sepoy mutiny", it was a freedom struggle which had massive support from the local population.

British history has conveniently downgraded it to "sepoy mutiny". Interesting that you follow the British version of history

The sepoy's were paid soldiers who did that job for a living, however their loyalties were till to their religion and culture. That is what the fight showed.

You can continue to spin the british version of 'mutiny'. LOL.

 

[Jaggu]

That is a strawman. I have never painted the Sikhs as treacherous. Just of having split loyalties and being unreliable and untrustworthy.

After the death of Ranjith Singh, the dogra's appointed his illegitimate son Maharajah Sher Singh as king. So much for them being "hindus"

However the khalsa still killed him. So much for Sikh honor. LOL

^
Your history is all wrong. After Maharaja Ranjit Singh died, the next Raja was Maharaja Kharag Singh and he was appointed not by the Dogras, he was appointed because he was Yuvraj and eldest son. After Kharag Singh, his son Nau Nihal Singh was appointed Maharaja and he along with his father was treacherously killed by the Dogras. And no, Sher Singh was not Maharaja Ranjit Singh's illegitimate son you fool. And yes Dogras were and still to this day are Hindus. But at least I am not as narrow minded as you that I will say all Hindus or all people belonging to the Dogra community are bad because of the actions of a few individuals.

No amount of jugglery with words will wash away the shameful role that emphasized Sikh loyalty to their British masters.

The only other people loyal to the British during 1857 were Punjabi Muslims, Gurkhas, Pathans (Pashtuns), Afghans and Balochis. LOL. That is your legacy. History is a harsh judge.

Sikhs played no shameful role in 1857. The mutineers got exactly what they deserved from the Sikhs after how they helped the British in destroying Sikh independence during the Anglo Sikh wars.

At least the Sikhs had a reason for crushing the mutineers, but what reason did the Hindus like Rajputs of Himachal, Rajasthans, Dogras of Jammu, Jats, Gurkhas of Nepal have for helping the British? answer me that before pointing the finger at Sikhs.

Sikhs are only 1.5% of the entire Indian population. For too long people have used us as scapegoats by putting the blame on almost everything from 1857 to 1947 violence. And it's people like you who have little or no knowledge who do this.

I agree. Which is why I said their loyalties swing both ways making them unreliable and untrustworthy. Indira Gandhi learnt that the hard way

I am no congress fan, but the fact is the Sikh's fought against India, not congress.

As I said, no amount of jugglery with words will wash away historical facts.

The only person here who is doing a jugglery of words is you by painting an entire community as traitors. You dont' say it directly, but indirectly that's exactly what you mean.

And who exactly are you? Sikhs don't need nor require a certificate of loyalty from an ignorant person like you

Why are you quoting me with somebody else post ??

Not sure how. Seems like a mistake. Sorry

 

[Manvantaratruti]

^
Your history is all wrong. After Maharaja Ranjit Singh died, the next Raja was Maharaja Kharag Singh and he was appointed not by the Dogras, he was appointed because he was Yuvraj and eldest son. After Kharag Singh, his son Nau Nihal Singh was appointed Maharaja and he along with his father was treacherously killed by the Dogras. And no, Sher Singh was not Maharaja Ranjit Singh's illegitimate son you fool. And yes Dogras were and still to this day are Hindus. But at least I am not as narrow minded as you that I will say all Hindus or all people belonging to the Dogra community are bad because of the actions of a few individuals.

LOL. Maharaja Sher Singh was the son of Maharaja Ranjit Singh.

You seem to have a problem with history. You can continue to claim to be 'broad minded' or 'heroic' etc...I have no problem with you need to blow your own trumpet.

To cut the story short, the reality is the Sikh empire was destroyed by political intrigue. The British only took advantage of the infighting to conquer them. This infighting demonstrates how trustworthy the sikhs were to their own cause.

Sikhs played no shameful role in 1857. The mutineers got exactly what they deserved from the Sikhs after how they helped the British in destroying Sikh independence during the Anglo Sikh wars.

The Sepoy's were mere foot soldiers or cannon fodder

The British were the real force who destroyed the Sikh's during the ANGLO Sikh wars

You supported the British masters and are blaming the poor foot soldiers for destroying the sikh empire. LOL. What a clown.

At least the Sikhs had a reason for crushing the mutineers, but what reason did the Hindus like Rajputs of Himachal, Rajasthans, Dogras of Jammu, Gurkhas of Nepal have for helping the British? answer me that before pointing the finger at Sikhs.

Gurkha's were mercenaries and remain one to this day.

There were always two kinds of Rajputs, one were opportunists who even sold their own women to the Mughals to hang on to their kingdom, the others fought to their death. Indians honor only those Rajputs who fought the Mughals and the British. But how is that relevant except to obfuscate the issue ?

Sikhs are only 1.5% of the entire Indian population. For too long people have used us as scapegoats by putting the blame on almost everything from 1857 to 1947 violence. And it's people like you who have little or no knowledge who do this.

LOL. You are keen to play the "hero" and also play the "victim". Make up your mind which role you want to play.

The only person here who is doing a jugglery of words is you by painting an entire community as traitors. You dont' say it directly, but indirectly that's exactly what you are saying. Your knowledge is all based on half truths and ignorance.

At least you have shown enough honesty to ADMIT that you are demolishing a Strawman. I guess that pretty much sums it up.

 

[Butchcassidy]

It was more than an "sepoy mutiny", it was a freedom struggle which had massive support from the local population.

British history has conveniently downgraded it to "sepoy mutiny". Interesting that you follow the British version of history

The sepoy's were paid soldiers who did that job for a living, however their loyalties were till to their religion and culture. That is what the fight showed.

You can continue to spin the british version of 'mutiny'. LOL.

Hehe u went full retard. Aap karo to pyar hum karein to balatkaar...
Sepoys were thugs who sold their country for money...
Atleast the british version has some credibilty unlike ur chaddi chaap version...
Only the bengal presidency mutinied, madras and bombay presidencies remained loyal so going by ur logic south indians and maharashtrians are also traitors.. Bas tu hi ek surf kha ke jamma tha...
Like ur avatar are u also trying to sweep away the history under the carpet...
Chutiya saala

 

[kaykay]

Hehe u went full retard. Aap karo to pyar hum karein to balatkaar...
Sepoys were thugs who sold their country for money...
Atleast the british version has some credibilty unlike ur chaddi chaap version...
Only the bengal presidency mutinied, madras and bombay presidencies remained loyal so going by ur logic south indians and maharashtrians are also traitors.. Bas tu hi ek surf kha ke jamma tha...
Like ur avatar are u also trying to sweep away the history under the carpet...
Chutiya saala

leave him yaara. He is proud of those slave hindu kings who helped mugals and other muslim invaders and still calling it was a 'Political allaince and not betryal' and then calling Sikhs as traitor. Atleast British left but we are still paying for helping muslim invaders. What a hypocracy!!!

 

[Jaggu]

LOL. Maharaja Sher Singh was the son of Maharaja Ranjit Singh.

You seem to have a problem with history. You can continue to claim to be 'broad minded' or 'heroic' etc...I have no problem with you need to blow your own trumpet.

Did you do a DNA test on Maharaja Sher Singh that you can claim he was not the son of Maharaja Ranjit Singh? stop trolling and wasting our time with your frivolous claims.

To cut the story short, the reality is the Sikh empire was destroyed by political intrigue. The British only took advantage of the infighting to conquer them. This infighting demonstrates how trustworthy the sikhs were to their own cause.

Yes, in your weirdo reality world. But everyone knows who betrayed the Sikhs and what they got in return for their treachery. You can try to change history all you like but you cannot change the bitter truth.

The Sepoy's were mere foot soldiers or cannon fodder


The British were the real force who destroyed the Sikh's during the ANGLO Sikh wars

Using your own logic, then Sikhs were also mere foot soldiers in 1857.

It was the British who were the real force who destroyed the rebel movement of 1857.

You supported the British masters and are blaming the poor foot soldiers for destroying the sikh empire. LOL. What a clown.

Using your own logic, you supported the British masters and are blaming the poor Sikh foot soldiers for destroying the rebellion of 1857. LOL. What an idiot.

There were always two kinds of Rajputs, one were opportunists who even sold their own women to the Mughals to hang on to their kingdom, the others fought to their death. Indians honor only those Rajputs who fought the Mughals and the British. But how is that relevant except to obfuscate the issue ?

It is relevant to this issue. You are painting the Sikh community as treacherous based on 1857 when your co religionists were just as responsible for 1857 as the Sikhs were. So you cannot escape blame for 1857. At least the Sikhs had a reason for doing what they did. What reason did others have? Internet warriors like you sitting on their comfortable chairs making ignorant and out of context statements about historical events that they have little or no understand of is the height of ignorance. PDF admins need to monitor this forum and block trolls like you from making unnecessary trouble here.