can sangat post a brief history about master tara singh and how we became the representative of sikhs at times of 1947?

also what are sangat's views on him and was he involved with rss as some may claim or just politically naive?

I think that he was basically a good man at heart but politically he was naive. Politically he was no match for scheming men like Jinnah or Nehru and Gandhi. He was a truthful man and expected others to be like him, which is why he was duped by the lies and sweet words of Nehru and Gandhi, although Mastar Tara Singh was smart enough to not trust Jinnah, which is probably the only smart thing he's ever done.

Waheguru ji ka khalsa
Waheguru ji ki fateh

inderjeet1012 jio,

ਖਿਮਾਂ ਕਰਨਾ ਏਸ ਮਾਸਖੋਰੇ ਬੰਦੇ ਬਾਰੇ ਇੰਨਾਂ ਹੀ ਕਾਫੀ ਹੈ ਕਿ ਪੰਥ ਦੇ ਇਸ ਗਦਾਰ ਕਰਕੇ ਸਿਂਖ ਕੌਮ ਨੂੰ ਸਾਕਾ 1978, ਘੱਲੂਘਾਰਾ 1984 ਅਤੇ ਇੰਦਰਾ ਨੂੰ ਜਮਪੁਰੀ ਪਹੁੰਚਾਉਣ ਬਾਅਦ ਚੱਲੀ ਸਿੱਖ ਨਸਲਕੁਸ਼ੀ ਦਾ ਘਿਨਾਉਣਾ ਸਮਾਂ ਦੇਖਣਾ ਪਿਆ ਜੋ ਅਜੇ ਤੱਕ ਕਿਸੇ ਨਾ ਕਿਸੇ ਰੂਪ ਵਿਚ ਚੱਲ ਰਿਹਾ ਹੈ ਇਹ ਸਭ ਕੁਝ ਇਸ ਪੰਥ ਗਦਾਰ ਦੀ ਹੀ ਦੇਣ ਹੈ। 19ਵੀ ਸਦੀ ਦੇ ਡੋਗਰਿਆ ਦੀ ਔਲਾਦ ਦਾ ਇਹ ਵਾਰਿਸ ਸਿਂਖ ਇਤਿਹਾਸ ਵਿਚ ਭਭੀਖਣ ਕਰਕੇ ਹੀ ਜਾਣਿਆ ਜਾਵੇਗਾ।

Guru Mehar Karay

Waheguru ji ka khalsa
Waheguru ji ki fateh

I have read extreme views about Master Tara Singh ever since the ghalughara of 1984. There are Sikhs who view him as the epitome of treachery, while others consider him to be the last truthful and honest leader of Sikhs. I forgot the name of the magazine but after 1984, this magazine whose editor was Rajinder Singh Bhatia I believe, wrote extremely negatively about Master Tara Singh jee. Then when I used to read Sant Sipahi, the magazine run by his daughter Bibi Rajinder Kaur who was later assassinated by unidentified persons, I found the views to be extremely in favour of Master jee and exonorating him of all wrongdoings he was accused of by Bhatia.

Sirdar Kapoor Singh of Sachi Sakhi has written negatively about Master jee and has blamed him and his lack of farsightedness for failing to get a sovereign state of Sikhs during 1947 partition. This view has been echoed by many militant Sikhs. On the other hand, Sadhu Singh Hamdard in his huge book Yaad Bani Itihaas has refuted many claims of Sirdar Kapoor Singh.

The truth it seems lies somewhere in the middle. I personally am of the opinion that Master Tara Singh was not a dishonest leader and was a panthik leader but was not smart enough to deal with Nehru and Jinha. Not much was done to stop the partition of Punjab which cost the Sikhs very dearly. The most well-off Sikhs were dislodged from their homes. We lost Nanakana Sahib and Punja Sahib and not to mention Lahore. Great loss.

Kulbir Singh



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/29/2008 12:37PM by admin.

'great loss'? were these things (Lahore anyway) ever porperly 'ours'. sikhs were a minority in that panjab. number of panjabi hindus and muslims overshadowed them. to make claims to own it was just stupid. further, sikhs could have lived under any of them and in some prosperity too- just like sikhs were doing under the british raj. Sikhs never lost control of Nanakana or Punja Guruduaras. Even if they had the earth and the sanctity of the place would still have remained. this petty 'owned' mindset is something learned under the deviousness of the british raj, i think its time people got over it.

people such as Tara Singh stirred up the hysteria that led to mass killing and rape (from sikhs- i knwo that hindus and muslim leaders also stirred that up in their groups). there was no need for any of that hysteria. but i think his role in this was more due to his lack of intelligence than any greed.

sikhs should have remained neutral and apart. just like the Sindhis and Parsis remained neutral. sikhs draw their strength from being practical/economically minded instead of bickering over political power and the state.

im sorry for the personal losses he had though. i once read that twenty of his family members were murdered by muslim fanatics after he gave a speech in Lahore.

Quote:

sikhs should have remained neutral and apart. just like the Sindhis and Parsis remained neutral. sikhs draw their strength from being practical/economically minded instead of bickering over political power and the state.

Sikh remaining "neutral"? Sikhs didn't even have that option. The Sikhs were the first victims of the Muslim league. Muslim league attacks on Sikhs started way back in 1946 much before they started attacking the Hindus. Please read the following book to be more well informed about the partition of India.

[www.voi.org]

you're right