I want to start off with a Sakhi I once heard from Bhai Jugraj Singh about a prostitute who lived next to a "holy" man. Every day, whilst he recited his prayers loudly through the walls, he counted her transgressions, certain she’d be punished in the hereafter whilst all his his piety would pay off. However, when the time came, the prostitute was permitted into heaven and the holy man went to hell. Why? Whilst the holy man kept his thoughts fixed on her sins, she was consumed by thoughts of God, fearing God's judgement every time she would hear the prayers through her walls. Instead, she counted the times she heard the name of God, whilst the holy man counted the sins of others. The holy man pumped his ego and built up pride about how holy he was in comparison, but when facing God, only those who truly conduct Simran internally pass through the gates of heaven.
When Bhai Joga, newly married, sets out to return to Guru Gobind Singh, he comes across a brothel. Temptation overcomes him as he tries to enter, but is stopped by the guard. Four times he tries to enter, but each time the guard (who turns out to be Guru Gobind Singh in disguise) blocks him. Later he is confronted about this at the Darbar of the Guru, where he humbly confesses and is forgiven. But why was the Guru's effort on stopping the Sikh and not the brothel? The Guru could have easily just burned it down. If there was no brothel, there would be no problem right? I don't think so. The issue here is the desire, not necessarily the stimulus. The same way how Sadhus would retreat to forests and mountains, but have they really conquered their Panj Chor internally, or only removed themselves externally from the stimuli? No wonder then why Guru Gobind Singh's Charitaropakhyaan is replete with stories of Sadhus engaging in all manners of degeneracy when they interact with society.
Next, I want to share two passages from Prem Sumarag, an early Sikh text that discusses Monarchy systems of Statecraft from a Sikh perspective, likely a product of the Anandpur Darbar, or writers directly influenced by the topics of study there. The first passage is about a test recommended to Sikh rulers for supposed holy men who enter their kingdom.
Perhaps a test we should implement today for the multitude of "Sant Babai" that have emerged and showcase their piety to amass large followings.
Secondly, consider the following:
The second is a passage is talking about the utility of having sex workers in your kingdom. Here the goal is to channel desire in a less destructive, yet still disfavoured way, preserving marriages and social order. Whilst Singhs are discouraged from visiting them, the presence of them for others comes from a sense of pragmaticism which is a common theme throughout Prem Sumarag. Whilst the ultimate goal may be for a society to become more enlightened over time and overcome the Panj Chor, simply assuming that this is the case to begin with is foolish. The Gurus never made such assumptions, otherwise what would have been the point of Sikhi? The Gurus came to guide humanity through their speech and actions. The solution to every problem is not always jumping to violence, especially not as a first resort. There must be caution in when to use physical force, and that requires wisdom. Wisdom can only come through discernment, and that is a skill built through Vichaar.
As for all Itihaas, the Khalsa today shouldn't just take stories blindly and ritualistically memorise them only to regurgitate it without understanding. These stories are designed for Khoj, where we must extract the meanings, test our interpretations with others through debate and discourse, and also cross-compare between multiple stories. For instance, the beginning of the above passage talks about how a Maharaja should enact a policy of keeping women veiled in public, however, another Sakhi you may be familiar with is how Guru Amardas rejected the purdah (veil) when some women came to meet him. Therefore, discernment is required when assessing Itihaas holistically, which again, is the point of doing Vichaar so we can extract lessons and understand how to adapt and apply them for different contexts. Prem Sumarag, for instance, is specifically advice given to rulers who operate a kingdom. Therefore, the context is different when applying such lessons today, since many Sikhs do not yet operate kingdoms.
Another thing to consider here is what constitutes a private and public space? In the modern day, is social media a private or public space? I suppose the difference may lie in consensual frameworks. In a public place, it is held in common to all, which is code for "by the State", where the Government is meant to represent the interests of the people. To moderate it general laws are given to govern such spaces. Whereas, a private domain is governed primarily by the owner of the private property, who establishes his or her own laws, independent of the wider State laws. The key difference being that the private space is voluntary to participate in, and individuals are neither compelled to enter, and if they do they can exit at any time. Social media operates very much like a private, albeit open, space, rather than a public or State controlled space.
Now this brings us on to the incident with Kanchan Kumari, a social media influencer murdered by Amritpal Mehron. Whilst I find Kanchan Kumari to be a degenerate in her own right, I do not believe that simply because I disagree with someone I should kill them. From a moral perspective, physical aggression committed against non-combatants is reprehensible. From a honour perspective, you must always match the "field of battle" your opponent is on. If they are using violence, then it is permissible to use violence back. But if they are just using speech, then using violence in return makes you the aggressor and is both dishonourable and proves their speech is superior to yours since you could not provide a stronger counter-narrative.
From a pragmatic perspective, what would killing actually do in the grand scheme of things? There are countless Kanchan Kumaris from every race, religion and background on the internet. Is he going to kill them all? Well, he can't anyway since he bottlenecked his efforts by admitting to the crime after the first one. Ironically, Mehron is perhaps Kanchan Kumaris biggest supporter. The vast majority of those coming across her case, like myself, would have likely never heard of her. Through his actions he propelled her popularity, driving even more attention to her content than she ever had before.
And why would he go after her of all people? What about the whole Punjabi movie and music industries set up to publish explicit content? What about non-Punjabi sources of Gandh? Does he think Punjabi youth only look for Punjabi models? Mehron will have a heart attack when he finds out about Pornhub.
Additionally, one would think that if someone was willing to conduct such killings, they would prioritise perpetrators of genocide, corrupt politicians, paedophile rings and rape gangs. It seriously puts into question the soundness of mind of Mehron, and it wouldn't surprise me if the real motivation turns out to be that he had personal relations with Kunchan Kumari and killed her to keep her quiet about it. But that is just speculation.
Figures like Mehron are an embarrassment. Not saying that as an insult necessarily, but more so as a statement of fact. His actions have brought shame on the Sikh image and embarrassed us all. Instead of upholding an image of warriors and royalty, who stand for liberty, even for those who live lifestyles we don't agree with, like Guru Tegh Bahdur did for the Kashmiri Pandits, we now appear like just another version of the Taliban but Sikhi-themed. It is shockingly absurd and makes it harder for the rest of us, actively trying encourage Sikhs into Statecraft, to prove to the world that the Khalsa is a competent and benevolent enough force that can uphold justice and bring prosperity. But now, when we have fools dressed up in Bana go out and do something so dumb like this, we look more like Mughals than we do Akaal Purakh Ki Fauj. Which is even more frustrating since after killing an unarmed woman, Mehron flees to the UAE. He would have fit in much better in Afghanistan though. In the 21st century, optics is more crucial now than ever, and losing a sound reputation has ripple effects that affect the whole community.
I always cautiously admired the sense of lawlessness Nihangs possess, especially when it is justified ethically, however, this Taliban-like nature expressed by modern Neo-Nihangs is unacceptable. I expected that from Neo-Taksalis and Neo-Khalistanis in particular, but not from Neo-Nihangs who I largely saw as cosplayers and pretenders. Much like how Neo-Khalistanis are fake Khalistanis, so too are these fake Nihangs. I know many actual Nihangs and real Khalistanis would agree with my sentiment on this, who are similarly frustrated by the prevalence of fools given them a bad name.
No matter how much you want to resist against another State's laws, when non-combatants are being targeted, that is too far. I wholly condemn anyone, regardless of what they may label themselves as, who engage in violence against non-combatants. I also believe it is important that more Sikhs openly condemn such actions, to help preserve our Panth's and our Guru's reputation, and deter others from supporting or engaging in such methods.
Now this is a tough task when the clown currently squatting at the Akal Takht comes out in support of Mehron, speaking on behalf of all Sikhs as a self-styled Pope. More Sikhs must wake up about the reality of so-called Akal Takht Jathedari, and recognise that we do not have nor need a Sikh Pope or engage in Sikh Catholicism. No one should be speaking on behalf of all Sikhs or positioned as an authority over the Khalsa, precisely because the Khalsa is the Guru. I encourage readers to visit our full Vichaars on this subject using the links below which exposes the lies of Akal Takht authority.
"But Indira Gandhi was a woman!"
Those who can not differentiate between combatant and non-combatant should keep far away from weapons. There is a dishonour in killing women in general, but can be mitigated if the target is a tyrant and all other means have been exhausted. But there is no excuse for non-combatants, no matter how much you may detest their way of life. This applies to men and women.
"What if they are disrespecting the Guru?"
I have written on this extensively in "The Punishment for Beadbi", and it is a nuanced discussion because standards of what constitutes disrespect are not objective. What one person considers respectful another considers disrespectful. My personal standards are probably more strict than most since I find all non-Raag formats of Kirtan to be disrespectful, plastic Palkis are disrespectful and non-Larivaar, non-handwritten Saroops being considered Sargun Saroops of the Guru is not right to me either. Yet, these things are highly prevalent and whilst I am easily offended by all those things, my solution isn't to grab my guns and start putting bullets in people. Instead, it is to do my best at sharing my perspective in a way that is convincing enough, and working to establish institutions that can contest bad ideas and offer better ideas to be adopted over time. When the problem is systemic, the solution must also be systemic. Otherwise, you risk fallaciously committing the "Mehron Effect", chopping at the branches not the roots.
Additionally, I also find it deeply disrespectful when any Sikh receives Khandai Di Pahul but then does not consciously and effectively advance the cause of Khalsa Raaj in some way shape or form. Why become Khalsa in the first place if you are not going to commit to the mission?
Which brings us on to the point about the underlying issue here. This behaviour is a result of purposelessness. I have said numerous times before, that it is my strong belief that it is the duty, or Dharam, of every member of the Khalsa to engage in Dharam Yudh (not just physically) to advance the cause of Khalsa Raaj. Which is also the basis upon which I personally delegitimise the status of Mehron as a member of the Khalsa, given how his actions have done nothing productive in this regard and instead provided a setback. Others may disagree, which is fine, but this is my opinion after assessing the net result of his actions.
Others may argue that he was progressing Khalsa Raaj by tackling the issue of degeneracy on social media. However, this would only be true if that was indeed the effect that it had. I see no evidence at all that this was in any way successful at curbing any of that. Instead, in return, we as a Panth got a reputational setback. Hence, why it is a net negative. If the intention is to really help push back, then there are other methods that could have been employed. Mehron could have formed a group to tackle social media and porn addictions through Sikhi, visiting youth and showing them a better path. There are many more productive alternatives ranging from encouraging entrepreneurship to even enlisting them to go fight actual enemy combatants as part of a Private Military Company. Read our Dharam Yudh Pipeline White Paper for more information on that.
Whatever you do, become a beacon of inspiration for others. In the Azadist Manifesto, I share a powerful framework from Kavi Santokh Singh's Suraj Parkash:
Kavi Santokh Singh mentions 3 ways in which people can persuade each other:
1. Through physical force (this is the worst way)
Historically we can look at Islamic conquests, Christian crusades or other acts by groups throughout history to enforce their ideals on others through force. However, this is an obvious violation of the NAP [Non-Aggression Principle: the right to live however you want provided it does impede the right for others to do the same].
2. Through speech (better)
Bad ideas should be fought with good ideas. The Government’s role here is to maintain an environment that allows for free speech and should never introduce state censorship in any form. Alongside this, no media outlet or ideology should be promoted by the state.
3. Through example (this is the best)
Under this method, any change someone would like to make in their society starts with themselves. This forces people to be critical of their own suggestions as well as maintain people's individual rights to be free to choose how to live their own lives. Since people are generally acting out of their own self-interest, seeing a certain lifestyle choice as providing greater results than their own should persuade them to change. There should also be a level of acceptance that no one lifestyle fits all. People may take what is best for them and leave what doesn’t work. Having the freedom to do so is of the utmost importance.
For those lifestyle choices that harm a non-consenting third party, the Khalsa’s role is to use force to protect that third party. Those who break this human right for others, they themselves forfeit their own rights to freedom. This alongside mutual contracts are the only exceptions to NAP being legal to be broken.
You may argue, "but Mehron gave her multiple warnings". You're right he did, but just because you give warnings, does not mean that you get a free pass to escalate to murder. Neo-Khalistanis gave me multiple warnings to stop exposing them too, even resorting to childish threats of violence. Yet, just because they have done that, it does not make it right for them to now kill me over it, the same way how it would be unjust for me to kill them despite my multiple cautions to them to stop spreading misinformation to Sangat. Instead, I use my speech to show Sangat an alternative viewpoint and leave it up to them to decide for themselves after hearing both sides. Additionally, as we progress our Grand Strategy for Khalsa Raaj, we'll show through example our vision for sovereignty too.
Mehron has violated both the NAP as per the Azadist understanding and Kavi Santokh Singh's ethical framework by enacting violence against a non-combatant and failing to be role model showing people a better option through example.
So how should the Khalsa lead by example? A Neo-Nihang may argue, that they already are, "we aren't social media influencers". Many indeed are though, often bigger posers than women. But that aside, it is not enough to simply abstain from modelling. Again, you have to provide an attractive alternative that people are inspired by. Not everyone is inspired by the lifestyles many Nihangs live, and that is fine, it is an exclusive and difficult way of living by design. It is not meant to for everyone. But really, the inspiration shouldn't only come from nomadic living, which really should serve as a unique snapshot of our history. It's definitely cool, but there are other expressions of the Khalsa ethos that should be promoted too. As mentioned earlier, Khalsapanthis should be proliferated amongst the upper echelons of society and State too, showcasing an elite, aristocratic image, inspiring anyone regardless of background that by becoming Khalsa, you become a king. The warrior tradition can also be expressed through PMSCs (Modern Day Misls) that can go around the world and take out real bad guys. Or invent technologies that increase liberty and prosperity for all, become entrepreneurs that solve global problems and improve people's lives. Not only would you appear much more inspirational, but would actually be fulfilling the Khalsa's duty of fighting a Dharam Yudh and advancing the cause of Khalsa Raaj.
So many Sikhs today are completely purposeless. Even those who receive Pahul and become "Amritdhari" treat it like some fancy dress up, but all they do is more Paath. If you want to just do Paath all day, you don't have to be Amritdhari for that. If you are joining the Khalsa, then you must be working towards the mission. Killing women because you didn't like what they doing on social media isn't an objective for that mission, it's a distraction. In fact, it is more than that. By doing that, you are part of the problem the Khalsa's mission aims to destroy.
Lastly, I want to give an economics perspective before concluding. A good economist is trained to think about decisions and outcomes in terms of opportunity costs. There are pros and cons to every action, the task is to find the option which maximises the upsides and minimises the downsides. Kanchan Kumari is a by-product of the rise of the internet, and in turn, social media. To truly prevent such figures from arising, you simply must ban the internet. Something which fools like Mehron may not be opposed to doing if he had the power to. North Korea has done this, and the trade off is all the usefulness that the internet provides in terms of facilitating innovation, education and even exposing tyranny. I strongly believe that access to information is the difference between a developed and undeveloped society. The more knowledge that is obtained, the more advanced and prosperous you can be, simply because you are able to work out more solutions to problems and alleviate poverty. Therefore, whilst I recognise increasing access to information as a whole means more access to both good and bad information, it is ultimately for the best. I would much prefer the set of problems that come with a society that has freedom of speech, expression and free internet access than a society that does not, and I simply do not trust a Government to regulate what the citizens can and can not be exposed to. It is not their responsibility, they are there only to uphold the NAP. Instead, it is each individual's responsibility to curate an information feed that best serves them. The community can offer suggestions on how to navigate this information space, but only as suggestions not through threats or acts of violence. The best way to persuade others is to first practice your suggested alternative yourself.
No one has a right to force anyone else if they are not physically hurting anyone. If you don't like what you are seeing on a open, yet private social media space, then by virtue of it being private, you do not have to continue participating. Simply turn it off and walk away. The maximum you can do is speak against it and the best you can do is show a better way through example. But the moment you lay hands on another, you are now the aggressor, you are the tyrant, you are the enemy.
Let us know your thoughts!
Share this post