Dear Editor,

I highly appreciate the Letter of Dr. GS. Saini in the World Sikh ‘News. He has rightly pointed out that life members should be invited to all General Assembly meetings of the WSO.

 I am of the opinion that persons in charge of various activities of WSOUSA should be at least Life Members and or founder members. If it means expanding. the General Assembly from 31 to 51, we should not hesitate to do it.

‘As director of Adm of WSOUSA, I request all the assembly members to support the idea and assure our membership of their increased participation. I assure Dr. Saini that we will place his letter in the next meeting of WSO assembly for discussion and I am sure to get back to him on this issue and also other life members because some of the aspects may require Constitutional Amendments.

Sincerely

Dr. Nau Nihal Singh, ‘New York

Dear Editor:

I would like to present the views of well-known authors as a contrast to the views expressed by Dr. Gur bakhsh Singh and S. H.S. Shergill in their articles that appeared in the World Sikh News, Vol. I, No. I of March 14, 1986. Both articles are very well written.

In his article, “The Sikhs Watchmen for Human Rights Part II” (Page 2, last paragraph), Dr. Gru bakhsh Singh writes: “Every person has the right to choose any name for God, nobody has any authority, legal or religious right to force a particular name on him. It is futile because every name is equal liked by God”.

This view expressed by S. Gur bakhsh Singh maybe all right for ‘most of the people, but may not be inagreement with the views of late Bhai Randhir Singh expressed in his book, “Satnam da Daata, Sat guru,” written in Gurmukhi. According to Bhai Randhir Singh, “All names for Akal Purkh (God) are given by us, the imperfect, are false, Akal Purkh created His own name as is clear in this Gurwak: “‘Aapee ne aap saajeo aapee ne racheo Nao” (Asa di Var, G.G. 463).

So the name that Akal Purkh created for Himself is only the True Name (Satnam) and the other names are called false and “Kirtan” as is clear in the following: “Kirtan Naam Kathe Tere Jehbd. Satnam tera preparable.” (Maru Mahla 5, G.G.P. 1083)

‘Akal Purkh with His full grace revealed Satnam as “Waheguru” only to Guru Nanak. And Guru Nanak with his full grace revealed Satnam to this world (Maat Lok) through Guru Sikhs.

Sardar HS, Shergill in his article “Remembering Bhagat Singh” (PA, paragraph 5), writes: “Lala Lajpat Rai died from the police beating”. In his book “Sachi Sakhi” Sardar Kapur Singh, LCS, writes, “I and my two companions were standing very close to Lala Lajpat Rai when Mr, Harding’s swirling stick hit Lala Ji’s umbrella. The same afternoon Lala Ji in his public speech blamed Mr. Scott for hitting his (Lala Ji’s) chest with a stick. Lala Ji died from a heart attack approximately three ‘weeks later. Bhagat Singh and his companions got incited by a lady giving speech to avenge Lala Ji’s death. After about a month Bhagat Singh’s companion killed Mr. Saunders and Bhagat Singh killed Havaldar Chanan Singh who was on duty in front of my eyes. There were other circumstances that led to Lala Ji’s heart attack and death.” These circumstances are described in “Sachi Sakhi”.

Sincerely, Surjit Singh

Dear Editor,

Your emotionally charged readers, greatly upset over events in India, have completely missed the main thrust of my letter (World Sikh News Feb. 28, 1986). The debate was not over what happened in India but rather what occurred in Los Angeles on Feb. 1, 1986. I was only trying to point out that the statements, observations and assumptions made by Mr Mohinder Singh Sandhu in his letter to Lieutenant Governor Leo McCarthy were not true.

His statement that the Dinner at the Marriott Hotel was organized by Supporters of the Indian Government is outright false, since people of diverse political personations were involved in Sponsoring that event. His contention that the presence of Leo McCarthy at that ‘occasion would only tend to endorse the repressive policies of the government, resulting in more oppression of the Sikh minority in India is not only naïve and simplistic but it has not factual basis. The policies of the Indian Government are not guided by small events taking place in this country. Sandu claimed in his letter that the dinner was financed and orchestrated by the Indian Government. Could he substantiate his claim with any evidence If he knows the Person who got paid by the Indian government, I am sure the 400 people who paid $30.00 per person would like to get their money refunded.

If our Sikh Community wishes to maintain its credibility in this country, then its leaders need to be forthright in their pronouncements.

Article extracted from this publication >> March 28, 1986