Wednesday, August 10, 2005

Dream

Last night I had an interesting dream:
I was hanging out with Balwinder. We were walking down some street in some city, when I saw inside a restaraunt Manmohan Singh (The prime minister of India) and his wife eating. I said to Balwinder we have to go talk to them. Dreams don't usually make sense, but I thought I was in D.C. and that Manmohan was still there. So I just sat down right in front of him and started asking him tough questions. I asked him first thing, why the Nanavati commission still hasn't brought justice. He said I already told everybody that I was going to aggressively pursue the points made by the commission. I then said, but not when it comes to members of Congress that have committed atrocities. I then mentioned Sajjan Kumar, Jagdish Tytler, and H.K.L Bhagat and said they are getting away with everything. He then was annoyed and said you're just somebody off the streets I don't need to answer your questions. I then started with the real tough questions, why hasn't he done anything for the Sikhs, why can't they even marry without registering as Hindus. Why can't they sell grain to anybody other than the Indian government, since the government doesn't give them a fair price. I was really laying into him, and he just looked flustered and didn't want to answer my questions. Then I woke up.
Anyway it was a wierd dream. I think it was because I was talking to Balwinder about Khalistan last night. Also just before going to sleep I was telling him that I want to meet Manmohan and give him a piece of my mind. Well if I ever did meet him, you can believe I'd give him a piece of my mind. He seems like a nice enough man, but he doesn't wear a kirpan (metaphor for not having the guts to stand up for Sikhs).

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

bhaji, i gotta rate you, u smacked it! u really do keep a good understanding of the situation of Sikhs in Punjab. thats wicked!!!

i wish i too could meet Manmohan and give him a piece of my mind.

When i was working in my summer holidays last yr, an english man was talking to a Hindu about how so many Indians dies for India (sarcastically),

The Hindu replied well we don't fight our battles either, we got the Sikhs to die for us (Sarcastically)

Sad but so true and the worst part, we are still the butt of the jokes, yet it is our blood that was spilt in-order to gain Independence, not that we Sikhs has seen much Independence

Anonymous said...

*so many Indians died for the Raj in WW1 & WW2

Hareet Singh said...

Dear Prabhu,

Although I agree with most of your thoughts on Manmohan Singh. I have a few questions to ask of people that are such harsh critics of the PM.

Why is that we hold him to ideals as if we elected him the leader of "The Sikhs?"
I do recall he is the prime minister of India, a secular state. We have never elected him to lead our people, so why do we expect such a thing? Just because he's a Sikh...well then let's attack all the athletes/entertainers/people in the media, or people of power that are Sikhs (most of whom cut their hair) , but yet never help us? What makes him such a "king" of all the others that we should expect it, he wears a turban, but doesnt wear a kirpan. Sadly to say, at the age he is at, if he hasn't taken amrit now, he probably never will.

I still agree that he should attack Tytler and other congressmen that were present in the riots, but what if his hands are tied, and he knows this? Should he just resign because he can not show Sikhs his favor always? And I' m not saying we should just accept this, but why we do we feel the need to rely on someone who we never even elected to be there, and who clearly would not fit the role of Leadership of Sikhs?

He was elected/or is the Prime Minister of India, not the Sikhs. He can not show favoritism to us, just becaues he is one. It is not his sole decision in this matter, there are plenty of other things behind the scenes, and he most likely just does not want to risk his neck. We must continue to put pressure on ALL of congress, I am sure when it comes down to vote or make an action, PM Singh will take our side, but in a way that doesnt show it was favoritism.

People act as if they want the PM to lead us against Tytler, and show India that one Sardar just favors all others.

Historically in ANY country, the President/Prime Minister does not *lead* the movement that creates actions against other Congressmen, maybe on his side or not. They will remain silent, but usually vote correctly or speak when enough pressure is put.

As a proud American, people used to ask me why I never dreamt to become the president. All I can say is, I would never be able to do the job. I would not be able to make rational decisions for the better of the country if the enemy happened to be Sikhs, or the "precieved enemy". My first, and foremost priority is always Sikhi and the Sikhs. This is not how PM Singh feels, he is the leader of a secular state, and will not give "hand-me-downs" to "his people".

We must paint Congress as still tainted individuals, and attack Sonia Gandhi for favoring an administration that has people that were actively involved in the riots -- for it is her name that is still linked to them. The pressure on Gandhi will cause her to speak, PM Singh will appease, and action will begin. I do not know if this will work, but we need a different plan than to expect PM Singh to give us a hand-me-down.

Sad to say, the sentiments in most of India are still that "Sikhs deserved the riots, they got too arrogant". This is partly due because we believe we can not accept any blame for the cause of Operation Blue-Star, hence that event is always tied in with the riots, when it shouldn't be. This is a different topic altogether, but this is just how I feel.

Enough of attacking PM Singh for not favoring us, we need a different action plan. I guess maybe I've learned not to expect anything from people in power of secular offices?

Anonymous said...

Hareet Singh,
I agree Manmohan Singh is an Indian PM not a spokes person for the sikhs.
However we can still ask him why he would keep tainted people (Tytler) in the cabinet? Its like Bush including Edgar Ray Killen in his cabinet.
Also as a leader of a secular nation that does business with France does he not have the responsibility to pressure France into letting French minorities practice their religion, regardless of whether he agrees with the French or not?

Prabhu Singh said...

I never said Manmohan should give hand-me-downs to Sikhs. If it were another minority that had been killed in the thousands he should help them as well. If not the Indian PM then who? Nobody is asking for favoritism, Sikhs are asking for justice. It seems like a Sikh should finally be able to stand for justice, but he does nothing. The rest of Congress slammed the BJP for the riots in Gujrat, but nobody has done anything for the Sikhs. I have respect for Manmohan Singh, but he is the most powerful person in India and still he cannot get justice or even address such serious issues as those affecting the Sikhs. Manmohan has made strides towards helping Tsunami victims and monsoon victims, but he's done nothing for Sikh victims. The Sikhs are part of India! Why does he seem to favor everybody else except Sikhs?
I find it refreshing to find a man of character and integrity in Indian politics (or politics in general), but he needs to be asked these tough questions and address these serious issues relating to his citizens. Any PM of India needs to address these issues, whether Sikh or not.

hareet singh said...

As far as the first anonymous to reply to my post :
I said I agreed that Tytler should NOT be in the cabinet, and those questions should be presented to Manmohan Singh, but we can not EXPECT him to take the lead of the movement and react. Also if you remember when the Terri Schiavo case exploded in Florida and DeLay made some outrageous remarks, and people asked for his resignation, Bush never led the movement. On another note, there was a recent Republican congressmen who stated, "We should bomb Mecca", and there is a public outcry over the statements, and many people ask for his resignation, but Bush once again, is not the leader of this movement although when time comes, Bush will clearly choose his side against him. Was it not Strom Thurmond who remained in Congress for many years, yet when he ran for President ran on the "segregation" ticket? Did the President at those times, or times afterwards lead the movement for his resignation? No. As for your second statement on dealing with France...I ask you why other leaders do not pressure France into letting go of the ban on religious symbols, and why it is only the other congressmen? Bush or Blair have not said much or put alot of pressure on France to let go of the ban, but many American congressman have sent letters and such. The point to express is that most often, leaders do not interfere on topics like this, unless the event is very recent and/or in the time of their reign. Hence, we should not EXPECT PM Singh to lead our movement against Tytler. Leaders do not get involved, so by waiting for PM Singh to take action, we are wasting our time, and only feeling worse about what a Sikh PM is not accomplishing.

To Prabhu:
Although you make correct statements, I still do not think PM Singh has as much power as you make it seem, and that we should rely on him. Yes, he did help the Tsunami and Monsoon victims, but you have to realize those events happened WHILE he was IN power, they did not occur 20+ years ago when he held no significant power to contribute. Gujrat riots were FAIRLY recent, and the sentiments that went across India were much more modern in that they thought India had made a mistake. I do not see him favoring anyone else except Sikhs? It is much easier to relieve the Gujrati riot victims than the Sikh victims, 1) much more recent events, so they know exactly what happened and who did it, 2) Country-wide sentiments for the victims. But, I still agree, that he needs to DO something for us, and to help us out, but he should not be the forefront of the movement...instead I think we should just put his vote in the bank, and think we already have it when it comes for him to vote on the issues. There are may factors to why justice has not been achieved and PM Singh can not relieve all those. The cases of the Gujrati riots and Sikh riots are much different in aspects. PM Singh needs to take more of an initiative, I agree, but so do we. While we sit here and argue about what he DOESNT do for us, we should be attempting to do that by ourselves.

Also as far as the other concerns of tough questions that were initially present in your post that he should help out the Sikh farmers because they can only deal with the Indian government...again, why is that an issue for him? Is that not a more "state-bound" political issue. Should we not campaign Cpt. Arminder Singh, and the Jathedar of Akal Takht over such issues?

I feel both sides have presented equal points, and hope you understand my views.

We can keep this discussion going =)

Anonymous said...

Hareet Singh,
Tom DeLay and the other kook who wanted to bomb Mecca are elected officials and the president cannot just force them from the office. And so was Storm Thurman. What would be comperable to what PM Singh did would be for pres Bush to include Delay or the other kook
congressman in his cabinet. That would taint his cabinet and question his decision making ability.
The least PM Singh can do is to ask Tytler to resign.

hareet singh said...

Tytler resigned! I just read his official letters of resignation right now, and quotes from PM Singh saying he will re-open 1984 cases! rejoice =)

Jagwinder Singh Sidhu said...

Oh Man!
Be careful about politics. I enjoyed your comments but others might put you on a list. Please be careful. We haev lost 250000 people already to those who who make lists of gutsy people.
I enjoyed your blog. I am a principal of a school in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada and I love Dharma Sikhs so much that I want y kids marrying into Dharma Sikhs!
You guys are great!
Love
jss