Is there more details available on the "infamous attack of several misls on the town of Kasur despite the warnings of elder Khalsas" Was it the armed conflict between the Nakai Misl led by Hira Singh and Pakkpatan shrine's captive army?
True, running in the election may arguably be an "overcoming" of some of the more extreme Khalistanis who were diametrically opposed to fighting elections. But this was not every kharku--Gurbachan Singh Manochahal is said to have supported fighting elections, and Simranjit Mann's Akali Dal (Amritsar) had its supporters even amongst the militants. What needs to be overcome is more extreme. As I state in the last paragraph, we stand today where the Sikh youth stood in 1887--it's not simply a question of changing tactic, but reexamining what exactly Sikhism is. The different visions on this issue played a major role in damaging the Khalistan movement, and I would argue continue to chain us to practices and beliefs that would make Khalistan not even worth fighting for (even if we could). Certain Khalistan groups, for example, enforced vegetarianism, teetotaling, small weddings, etc. This led to a loss of popular support for the cause, and the thorn is that I personally don't think any of these practices are mandated by Sikhism--arguably the opposite is true. Yet often these practices and interpretations are deemed to be unassailable because of their adoption by certain kharkus. Hence what is needed is a total "overcoming."
Absolutely brilliant.
Appreciated!
This is great- thank you for this
Is there more details available on the "infamous attack of several misls on the town of Kasur despite the warnings of elder Khalsas" Was it the armed conflict between the Nakai Misl led by Hira Singh and Pakkpatan shrine's captive army?
I feel like Amritpal Singh already did this by running in the election
True, running in the election may arguably be an "overcoming" of some of the more extreme Khalistanis who were diametrically opposed to fighting elections. But this was not every kharku--Gurbachan Singh Manochahal is said to have supported fighting elections, and Simranjit Mann's Akali Dal (Amritsar) had its supporters even amongst the militants. What needs to be overcome is more extreme. As I state in the last paragraph, we stand today where the Sikh youth stood in 1887--it's not simply a question of changing tactic, but reexamining what exactly Sikhism is. The different visions on this issue played a major role in damaging the Khalistan movement, and I would argue continue to chain us to practices and beliefs that would make Khalistan not even worth fighting for (even if we could). Certain Khalistan groups, for example, enforced vegetarianism, teetotaling, small weddings, etc. This led to a loss of popular support for the cause, and the thorn is that I personally don't think any of these practices are mandated by Sikhism--arguably the opposite is true. Yet often these practices and interpretations are deemed to be unassailable because of their adoption by certain kharkus. Hence what is needed is a total "overcoming."
The Gurus themselves reformed Sikhi, I believe a main reason the Khalsa Panth was given gurgaddi was so they can reform Sikhi.
bhenchod -- the fuck this shit!
Nawab Kapur Singh really is an apt comparison. He took heat for not being an uncompromising idealist, but his actions were very successful.