Baldev Singh - Scholar or Braindead Person

The name of Sardar Baldev Singh is popular among Sikhs. He is supposed to be a scholar of Sikh history. Recently, I reached to one of his articles in which he claimed that famous writer Khushwant Singh is distorting the Sikh history. Well, I have no knowledge about Sikh history, so I would not like to comment on it.

I am only writing to talk about one of his statement about Hinduism in that article. According to him, Hindus feel shame because their role models like Chankya, Krishna, Pandvas etc., used lies and manipulations for getting the pursuit of victory. According to writer, these things were immoral. I must say it is one of the most laughable sentences I have ever read as yet.

Even a small child knows that at the time of Chankya, the condition of nation was worst and the king named Nand was looting, killing and doing many other misdeeds with the people that were under his rule. Chanakya saved them by planning to kill him. On the other hand, it was the time when India was divided, and Alexander was planning to invade. Chankya united India through his policies. Now, question arises what is morality? Should Chanakya had to let all those innocent people be destroyed from the hands of cruel king? Should Chanakya had to leave the nation disunited? If yes, then would it be morality? Perhaps yes, according to fake and self-made standards of Mr. Baldev Singh. I memorize a story which I heard once. There was a kind man who never spoke lie. But once he saw a goat running. After two minutes, he saw running a butcher with knife in his hand, who was chasing the goat in order to kill it. He asked the kind man where goat has gone. He spoke lie for the first time in his life by telling wrong way to the butcher. Now, anyone can understand what was right in that situation. Similarly, if Chanakya played some politics with bad people in order to save the innocent ones then how it was wrong? If keeping people's life in danger because of manipulation of truth or lie, is a morality according to Sikh standards, then I must have to say that God save the humanity from such Sikhism. I am not condemning Sikhism, but I am condemning self-styled Sikhism of Baldev Singh.

Similarly, in Mahabharata, Kauravas tried to make alady (Draupadi) naked, sent Pandvas to exile by hook or crook, tried to burn Pandvas in Lakshagrah, and so on. They did all these through unfair means. But perhaps, all this is right according to Mr. Baldev Singh. After facing all the cheating by Kauravas, still Pandvas and Sri Krishna tried for peace and accepted to take just five villages instead of kingdom, but Kauravas continued cruelty on them. And, in the last Pandvas fought against injustice. But, childish Mr. Baldev Singh sees immorality on the side of Pandvas and Sri Krishna.

Another laughable thing in Baldev Singh's statement is that Hindus feel shame and that's why they ridicule Sikhism and other minorities. Oh my goodness, if this is the condition of scholars of Sikhism, then I must will have to say that Sikhism is on decline. Chanakya Niti and Bhagwat Gita are still being propagated in the entire world, and there is no true Hindu who feels shame on his or her role models. Saving the innocent people and nation, may be immoral according to Baldev-styled Sikhism, but not for Hindus. Hindus don't believe in such fake moralities which stop them to fight against injustice. Hindus feel proud of the dignitaries who did work to unite India, to save people or to save Dharma. There is nothing shameful in that, but yes Baldev's Singh's self-styled Sikism is defiantly shameful.

News 24 channel distorting the facts

These days, the news about the statement of Varun Gandhi is in limitlight. There is a lot of criticism is going on that statement. Of course, there is nothing wrong in the those criticism. For instance, Varun said that an Osama is fighting against them. No doubt, that it is worrying about that statement. Saying Osama to every muslims is a gross generalisation and cannnot be justfied with any mean.

But the asepect, that made me more worried, is the approach of a few news channels in India. Let me have an instance. Today, at the when I am writing this blog, a report is being telecasted in the news 24 channels that is about Gandhi.

The channels is very clearly supporting the congress and ignored a lot of facts. At first, the aforsaid channels showed the Varun's statement where he said "agar koi hinduon par haath uthayega to main uske haath kaat doonga" (if anybody will raise hands on Hindus, I shall cut his hands). Now, the channel is saying while comparing Varun and Rahul Gandhi, that one is saying about cutting the hands and other one is saying about joining the hands. Well, talking about cutting the hands of anybody is right or wrong, that may be a subject to debate. But, here a question is bothering my mind is that, what does the channel want to say. Whatever Varun said may definately be said, if we read his statements as a whole. But if we talk, particularly about the said statement then the question arises, if someone raise hands on Hindus, should one not protect himself and keep quiet? If this is not the meaning the channels, then what is the other meaning? This is true that one should be criticised for his or her hateful speech. But intepreting the statement in its own can not be said correct.

The other aspect, on which the channel worked in that report is comparing their mothers - Meneca Gandhi and Sonia Gandhi. On comparing those, the channel made that statement that one (Sonia) renounced the chair of PM, and other (Meneca) is supporting her son blindly. Well, about Meneca Gandhi, I do not have to say anything as I do not have the knowledge about her role in this context. But still, before questioning the nature of Meneca Gandhi the channel forgot her good works. I mentioned her good work, not to mix them up with politics. I only said that, becuase channel is talking about her 'shakshiyat' (personality or in this context 'nature').

But the other main aspect, that surprised me is channels saying 'one renounced her seat of PM'. Most of the people in this nation know, that most of the decisions are not being taken by PM Manmohan Singh. Before taking his most of the suggestion, PM takes after asking Mrs. Sonia. Even in media, you will see Dr. Manmohan rarely as compared to Mrs. Sonia. In the clear launguage, most of the people are aware of the fact, that the government is still running indirectly by Mrs. Sonia?

There may be a few people who may not be agreed with me. But I want to ask a question to those who agree, will you call this act 'renouncing'? Is it greatness of cheating? What was inside Mrs. Sonia's mind when he did not accept the seat, it is difficult to say? But it is for sure, that her renouncing of the PM's seat in still under the doubt of the people.

The channels statements remember me the posters pasted on the different walls on ways, on which her act was claimed as a 'balidaan' (sacrifice). I am really unable to understand, what is the difference between those posters that were pasted for the purpose of party propoganda and the report shown on the channel. Is that channel agent of that party? If not, then why the channels is thinking the public of India fool enough, that cannot understand the facts itself?

This is true, that media has the responsibility to aware the people. But here some of the facts, that I am leaving for the readers to think about? According to channel, Varun left his family's thinking about secularism and joined BJP and accepted its communal ideology. There may be some people, who may think that BJP is communal. But who gave this authoriety to the channels in the days of elections, to declare one party secular and other communal? Some people can say it 'right to expression'. But if that right is used in such biased way, then what should be told to that, decide yourself. The channel claims repeatedly "khabar ho jaisi, hum dikhaen use vaisi". Analyse it yourself.