I am a very patient man. Still, even I sometimes get tired of explaining to people who I am, what I am, where I come from, and what I am not. I found this on flickr, and think it would be perfect for those days when I just don’t want to go through the song and dance. It would make a great t-shirt:
ok, i’m not wanting to start a flame war, but i am curious:
1) what % of sikhs consider themselves non-hindus (ie, sikhism is a wholly new religion, rather than a subset of hinduism) would you estimate? 2) what % of punjabi hindus consider sikhs a subset of hinduism? (and i mean a genuine subset, not the all-religions-are-hindu stuff).
i’m just curious, as debates on this issue have flared up and i am curious as to the state of the consensus (the ‘world religions’ books i always read as a kid listed sikhism as a separate religion, but i guess that is ‘eurocentric,’ what do browns think?).
Sikhs have, at various points in their history, very strongly emphasized their differences with Hindus. Guru Nanak declared that he was neither a Hindu or a Muslim, so there is a strong theological basis of this, going back to the very inception of Sikhism. The first line in that image is a reference to that famous statement.
More recently, under the Akali / Gurudwara reform movement of the 1920s, the point was made again, very strongly. I would say that virtually all religious Sikhs think of themselves as belonging to a separate religion from Hinduism.
As to your second point, there are many Hindus who think of Sikhism as being one of many Hindu sects, including Jainism and Buddhism. Sikhs see this as a hegemonic move, although it does have some social basis. During Maharaja Ranjit Singh’s time, Sikhs were privileged, so Hindu families began to raise their first son as a Sikh. Such mixed families reduced the social distance between Sikhs and Hindus. The gap widened, however, with the Sikh and Hindu reform movements of the 1920s (Akali movement and Arya Samaj movement) which emphasized the distinctiveness of the two faiths. Currently, with the exception of Sindhis and a few very old Hindus, you rarely see Hindus in gurdwaras any more.
To summarize, most Sikhs see themselves as distinct. Some Hindus see Sikhs as a subset, but don’t act accordingly.
On a different note, the image contains the letters “MIA” as all good Sepia Mutiny posts should 😉
Ennis – With all due respect, you are a tad off on the hindus not going to the gurudwara’s bit. If you visit the Bangla Sahib Gurudwara in Delhi on any given day, you will notice a large number of hindus of all ages.
I have, and I didn’t, but I could be mistaken. Neither Bangla Sahib, nor Sis Ganj Sahib, nor Harmandir Sahib, nor any of the other large gurdwaras.
Do you think Sikhs would mind if Hindus did visit noted Gurudwaras in India. I particularly want to visit Amritsar this summer as part of my India tour and I had the Harmandir Sahib on my list. I’m Hindu but I didn’t really think it would be a problem.
Excellent picture. thank you so much for the post. I see that somebody named Ennis is being a Pennis. Dude stop being a dick. You will find sufficient number of Hindus in Harmandir Sahib, Bangla Sahib, Rikabganj etc. The same way that you’ll find enough Sikhs in Mata Vaishno Devi’s Darbar. I am a Hindu and I am a Punjabi and I have had the honor of visiting gurudwaras in Delhi, chennai and the USA. Never have I felt out of place. And I have seen enough Sikhs in temples to be able to say the same of the Hindu attitude towards Sikhs.Stop making a bloody issue out of a non-issue. The Sikhs and the Hindus have been played once and never again will it happen. So keep your crap to yourself. It was exactly this kind of bull-shit that avalanched into the ’84 pogroms. Please write responsibly.
Dude Ennis, sorry for calling you a pennis, you seem like a sensible chap/chappy, after all you did post that excellent picture; honestly man that comment sucks, not only is it untrue, it does no good. I wonder why you wrote what you did. I am sorry, I didn’t mean to call you a dick, but I still maintain that you sounded like one in your comment.
What exactly did Ennis say that was controversial? He didn’t say Hindu could or should visit Gurdwarss, he seems to note that in the Punjab in is more rare that it has been in the past. Everyone is welcome in the Gurdwara. The point is accurate though, Sikhs have considered themselves distict from the inception of Sikhism, but the line have faded and reasserted over the centuries. Sikhism asserts its seperateness from its canon, the Guru Granth Sahib, and not from our European friends 🙂
As to the pic, what is a Hindun? “The first sentence says I am not a Hindun, I am not a Muslim.”
Sorry for all the errors! I shoulda looked it over, sorry!
As for when I said the lines sometimes fade, that seems to hold more true in other parts of india (not Punjab). Here is an example:
When you don’t want to go through the song and dance, just play that Punjabi MC song and say ‘dat’s my people.’
razib, sikhs define their faith as singular and unique from hinduism. i have never come across a sikh who believes otherwise, though i have come across many hindus who are confused about the distinctness of the sikh faith.
bose, all are welcome to any sikh gurdwara. the majority of people who do visit gurdwaras are sikhs, but in the more historical gurdwaras in india you will see plenty of visitors from other faiths. definitely do visit harmandir sahib, aka the golden temple, during your summer visit to amritsar. the egalitarian message of welcome to all is enshrined in the four doors of the sanctom santorum opening to the north, south, east, west of the harmandir sahib building.
ennis, i came across this picture today on the net too. but when i saw it, i cringed. i can understand the frustration many young sikh men have of everyone confusing the image of a sikh with the other demonized images they have been forcefed by the media, but i don’t find the “i am not X” argument as persuasive or clear as the “i AM X” arguments. i was having this discussion with my younger brother yesterday, who’s a turbaned university student, and he’s having to have his beginning-of-the-semester “don’t worry i am not osama bin ladin” discussions with the students in his new classes. it is such a frustrating way to have to introduce yourself and i think that is what you were conveying. i wish it were so easy as having a tshirt or a pamphlet to explain everything, the myths/superstitions/stereotypes, away. anyways, cheers to all of the sojourners who are taking on the responsibility of breaking it down everytime they say hello and open up new conversation with a stranger.
As to the image itself… I looked at a few of this guy’s other images… apparently this pic was only one form of what eventually may have become a pro-Khalisthan statement … ending with ‘I am not Indian nor Pakistani… I am not free nor do I have sovereignity’ What is the deal with all the young Sikhs being Khalisthani?
Quite frankly, I’m not sure how one would visually differentiate between a Hindu, and a Sikh who’s cut his hair (and there are alot of Sikh men who have cut their hair and shave)… which would certainly make any comment about how many of each were seen in any Gurudwara extremely arbitrary.
Bose:
It is certainly not a problem… while the two religions are certainly different, and I’m not aware of any Sikhs that consider themselves members of a sect of Hinduism… there never have been any restrictions on who can and cannot enter or pray at a Gurudwara… I mean, to say otherwise would contradict the very teachings of Guru Nanak (the founder of the Sikhism). You shouldn’t change your plans at all… or feel the least bit uncomfortable… Harmandir Sahib is quite the site and shouldn’t be missed. (and if you gathered otherwise… they’re rather welcoming there too)
As to the comments regarding Hindus and Sikhs being similar to one another… Ennis seems to have covered most points… though I’d add that, if I remember correctly, according to Cunningham’s The History of the Sikhs, (before everything became romanticised)Guru Gobind Singhji had selected the kada(iron bracelet) as one of the ‘k’s of the Khalsa, because Brahmins weren’t allowed to let the base metals touch their bodies, thus forcing newly converted Sikhs to truly separate from their Hindu past. I think the kesh(long hair) was also a direct result of Brahmins shaving their heads. There’s more to this… but it’s nearly three thirty in the morning…
Razib
You seem like an intelligent guy. Why do you have to ask a stupid question?
Ennis
In the UK, quite a lot of Hindus go to gurdwara. On a social level, no problem. In fact Sikhs and Hindus stick close together. The friction comes from RSS chaddiwallahs, the type who sit in their bedrooms planning the next Narendra Modi trip to London. But it is internet flame wars.
I think part of the reason Sikhs and Hindus stick together in the UK is partially because of the need to in the face of Islamic extremism, racism, stuff like that.
I really do not understand why this issue keeps coming up and am genuinely perplexed by the impulse to ask it.
It is like asking is Islam a religion or just a sub-set of Judaism and Christianity?
Well, you might be able to show that there are pagan and Jewish roots in Islam, but so what? You can deconstruct every religion like that, take it here, take it there.
Amazing. What a waste of intellectual effort.
Ditto for Jains, though many seem to have lost their way, and the public at large has no idea. But the philosophy (and history) of Jainism precludes it from being a sect of Hinduism. I like the Christianity and Judaism example – those two religions are so closely linked, but I haven’t heard anyone call Christianity a sect of Judaism.
It would be great if explanations could be made in the “i am X” argument but that’s just not practical. You can spend your time talking about how you’re a Sikh, and why you keep your hair, and why you have a turban, etc., but at the end it will still come down to “So why do you look like Osama?”, “So Sikhs are Muslim then?” – unless you’re dealing with open, educated people, the “I am not X” argument unfortunately is still needed.
Razib,
I have no idea about the exact percentage but, as I’ve mentioned a few times previously on SM, there are some Indian soaps on the desi satellite/cable channels where the producers are Hindu Punjabi, and there is a deliberate, persistent effort to project Sikhs as “Hindus with beards & turbans”. Some of the religious practices portrayed are quite a gross distortion of reality; also, Guru Nanak is not necessarily ridiculed in the mode of those cartoons of Mohammad, but both his identity and his teachings are sometimes extremely misrepresented. It’s irritating at the least and provocative at worst, considering the high profile of the channels concerned and the sheer numbers of the target audience. Anybody with access to these channels should watch a programme called “Kesar” on the Star Plus channel in order to see a prime example of what I’m referring to.
This is just a general comment in response to your question, and is not an attempt to start some kind of Hindu vs Sikh “flame war” (before anyone else here misinterprets it as such).
Pareshaan:
You’re the one who’s acting like a genital organ. Punjabi Hindus over the past 100 years (ever since Arya Samaj) have consistently undermined the Sikh religion and identity, and your attitude is no different. It is true that Hindus do go to gurdwaras, that’s your only statement I agreed with. If Sikhs go to Hindu temples TO WORSHIP (as opposed to just visiting as a cultural experience or something), they are not really following the tenets of Sikhism. Now, as for Punjabi Hindus…the 20th century has been one long saga of Punjabi Hindus attacking Sikh identity…especially through the arrogance of the Arya Samaj movement. That movement even encouraged them (the Punjabi Hindus) to abandon their own language in favor of Hindi. It’s no accident that in New Delhi today, most of the young Punjabi Hindu kids (under age 25-30 or so) can not speak proper Punjabi, whereas their Sikh counterparts often still can (both are descendents of people who migrated from Pakistani Punjab in 1947).
Is Razib just a shit-stirrer?
These issues are dead – there are millions of Muslims who go around saying that all Jews and Christians are actually Muslims, in fact the whole world is Muslim they just dont realise it, because they are all ‘reverts’ – but that don’t make it so!!
As if Sikhs and Hindus in India and the diaspora don’t have enough issues to deal with, except to get involved in these kinds of debates that always cause generalities and statements to be made that deflect from the important things.
What a waste of intellectual energy.
I am not very knowledgeable about the Sikh religion apart from basics like Sikhs are monotheists, the role of Guru Nanak etc.
I also know that the Sikhs are supposed to wear/carry 5 Ks.
I am also well aware of the discrimination faced by Sikhs in America (the turbaned sikhs) and the discrimination/harassment they face is well beyond the harassment faced by other ethnic minorities (which is not much in most parts of the country anyway).
I have mad respect for Sikhs who still wear a turban in post 9-11 America.
I do question (with utmost respect) the logic in continuing to wear a turban and/or with a beard when putting them on leads to harassment. For example, I do know that most Sikhs do not carry the Kirpan (Sword) with them even though it is one of the 5 Ks and I am presuming not anymore important than the Turban.
I have posed the same question to Muslims who wear hijab. I have some close family members who wear hijab. I think the harassment the hijabi women face is however not at the same level as the harassment faced by turbaned/bearded men.
The hijaban answer is usually about ‘mandatory nature of hijab’ ‘mark of indentity’ ‘not wearing it would be surrendering to the haters’ ‘today you cant wear hijab, tomorrow it will be something else’ ‘god wants them to’.
I am of course not trivializing their reasons but these are the kind of things I hear from them. Some of them do seem meritorious even to a non religion person like me.
I do wonder whether God would want some innocent hijabban/turban sikh to get in trouble solely for the reason that they put on a hijab/turban. Now some would say, the harassment, hate crimes, can also happen to people who dont wear the above, but that is missing the point that putting on a turban exponentially increases the chances of such harassment.
I apologize in advance if this comment comes out as offensive. I genuinely care about Sikhs in America and I was especially saddened by the fact that a turbaned Sikh has to worry about shit which a person like me will never even think about.
I was especially blown away by this comment from
Ennis:I wont even walk by bars because the likelihood of being hassled out here is so high. And I have curtailed my movements, precisely to avoid ugly confrontations.
I am sure a lot of other turbaned Sikhs will echo the above sentiment.
I
Historically, there are many sages who have made similar statements. Kabir is one famous example. Buddha urged people not to identify with caste or creed. As a matter of fact the Upanishads are full of this same sentiment. So what does it mean when a saint says I am neither X nor Y? I doubt they mean to say I am Z instead. I think Guru Nanak was just echoing the age-old sentiment that we find re-echoed through history and continue on on blogs such as this. Our identity does not come from labels and it is wise to reject labels.
That said, in the beginning of Sikh history the identity between Sikhism and Hinduism was very close. It was a movement that sought to distinguish itself primarily from Islam. Post-independence and specially since the 80’s there is a stronger drive to distinguish between Sikh and Hindu identity. Hindus include every god as their own and in that spirit they include Sikhism as their own too. For this they are maligned. If they went about distinguishing themselves instead they would be called communal or some such thing. As someone put it rather well – hindus are damned if they do and damned if they dont. I personally feel an affinity with Sikhism and do not care to distinguish between Sikhism and Hinduism. If this bothers people, so be it.
Many Hindu Punjabis do consider Sikhism at least akin to Hinduism or don’t think too much about it, especially when they’ve married Sikh ppl. Shaven Sikhs, after all, dont look different from Hindus. Perhaps the shaven Sikhs only distinctive marker would be the kara dangling from the wrist, which many Hindus might wear for style too. I think ppl should be what they want to be (after the last thread I discovered how emotional this all is) but it is undeniably true that what we call Sikhism and Hinduism in the Punjabi context came into being during colonial times, and is partially the work of the Tat Khalsa which sought to “purify” Sikhism, define Sikh tenets and prescribe normative conduct (“Hindu” organizations like the Arya Samaj did the same). In the 19th century, the Sikh intellectual elite followed what one scholar called the Sanatan Sikh tradition–which clearly included many Hindu practices, a reverence for the Puranas,and respected ascetical practices (like those of the Nirmalas) got married according to Brahmin wedding rituals etc. Popular “Sikhism” was hardly different from popular “Hinduism” or Islam—everyone went to the same faith healers, excorists, shrines, etc. Harjot Oberoi ( a prof at University of British Columbia) wrote__The Construction of Religious Boundaries__ ( easily available on Amazon.com)and explains the process quite well.
Divya
You can respect Sikhi without saying it is one and the same as Hinduism – I really cannot understand the psychology of those who do otherwise. It is amazing.
People should read rage’s post from his blog about Jainism – very very interesting indeed.
The whole point of the 5 K’s was to set Sikhs apart from all others. The harassment Sikhs faced earlier in history was much more gruesome and intense than the harassment they face in America now. Countless numbers of Sikhs died in order for their faith to survive and for us to give it up now would be an insult to God. We’ve been battling since day one to be recognized as a separate religion and we’ll keep doing it – even if people like Divya refuse to wake up and accept it.
Divya
Do you consider Mohammad and Jesus to be your Gods too? LoL
Good golly this is like centuries of history played out in the comments section. Most points made here are echoes of points that have been debated and thought for quite some time. Its really interesting how certain things continue to pop up. Also its funny in a way that the comments here have all been said like five million trillion times by so many other people
that being said, I’d like to add commment five million trillion and one. I’m in no way in a million years qualified to be an expert, and these are my opinions as someone who has just barely been able to glimpse the strength of people who are truly Sikhs in the Guru. For one thing, theologic Sikhi is quite an awesome thing. If you want to know the heart of the thing, read the Guru Granth Sahib. Learn Gurumuhki to do it, because the Guru Granth Sahib is poetry and its amazing. I have read poetry of different kinds, and what you find in the Guru Granth Sahib is pretty amazing. Passages hold together with logic, and they hold together with meter, rhyme, and with an uneffable quality that simply makes one think. I think there is probably a reason that many people who have read the Guru Granth Sahib can repeat whole passages word for word. You will see this often among Sikhs with Gyan (knowledge). They will have a session of learning in which they speak with each other, and people will qoute whole passages of Gurubani (guru’s words). This is a big feat because in Sikhi, its really important to try to speak the truth especially when trying to talk about religion, so to attempt to repeat GuruBani, its really not a good idea to try to repeat a passage and not say the right words. But yet, time and again, people can recall the words in the Guru Granth Sahib that touch them most deeply. Its because the langauge is such
On another point, everything good about Sikhi I feel flows from Gurubani. In the past people guided by Gurubani have done amazing and loving things that make people weep to remember them.
The whole point of the 5 K’s was to set Sikhs apart from all others. The harassment Sikhs faced earlier in history was much more gruesome and intense than the harassment they face in America now.
Is there a hierarchy in the 5Ks or are they all the same?
I know most turban Sikhs dont carry a sword (maybe because it can be illegal, though a person can always move to a region where it is not illegal)
If there is no hierarchy in the Ks, is it more of a question of ‘identity’ or maybe because its socially less acceptable to stop wearing a turban.
A baptised Sikh (Khalsa) wears all of the 5 K’s.
As a baptised Sikh you have to abstain from meat, intoxicants, pray every day.
Fully baptised Sikhs are a minority within Sikhi.
But the turban and kaara are most widely worn.
It boils down to individual choice and family tradition etc.
Prem – I did not say that I felt an affinity with Islam or Christianity. But as a matter of fact I do have a little idol of Mary. I got it simply because it glows in the dark and I love stuff that glows in the dark.
Religion is many things. It is a historical movement. It is a political movement. It is a legal financial entity. It is a landowner. It is a cultural phenomenon. It is a social phenomenon. It is a sense of community. I grant the distinction in all of these matters. Philosophically, however, I do not see a difference between hinduism and sikhism. Hinduism very much includes the concept of no god. It includes the concept of formless worship. The vedas themselves say that true knowledge is not to be found by study of the vedas or any other book.
Of course people feel an affinity for their own traditions and want to preserve them. In this respect only a Sikh will have a vested interst in preserving Sikh culture and tradition. Hindus cannot have a say in this. But this has nothing to do with religion.
Actually, neither hindusim nor sikhism are religions but that’s a whole other can of worms.
I’ve done a lot of work to try to educate people. I helped to co-found SALDEF, years before 9/11 for precisely that reason, when there was no other Sikh organization trying to reach out to our neighbors to educate them and correct their misperceptions.
However, you’re mistaken about the shirt. The reasonw why I posted it was the “hidden” message. Look at it again.
Pareshaan – be careful about the words you use. Name calling of that sort is the sort of thing that will get you banned and your comments deleted, apology or no. It wasn’t necessary for the point you were making.
I was making an empirical point about how often I’ve seen Hindus in Gurdwaras, not saying that they were unwelcome there (they’re most definitely not).
I looked for karas, although perhaps that led me to underestimate since wearing a kara seems to be a “fashion” these days for non-Sikh men. It’s also possible that the number of Hindus going to gurdwaras has increased in the last 10 years, but for a while the number had dwindled. In my parents time there were more, but after all of the events of 1984, there was a clear pulling back. It was logical, in part, seeing as gurdwaras (like the ones my parents were married in) had been attacked and burned by mobs.
Honestly, I’ve never been craven enough to conform to pressures. If I had wanted to do that, I would have ditched the turban and beard when I was a youth, and wanted to “fit in.” As for harassment in the US, it’s less than the dangers Sikhs faced in the pogroms of 1984, or partition, or during Mughal attempts to forcibly convert.
Besides which, my identity as an American is grounded in first Amendment freedoms, not looking like whitey. If I lost the turban and beard, I’d feel less American, not more.
You’re right that practices in the 1800s were very similar. The question is, where they always like this? Most Sikhs believe not. For example, Anand Karaj marriage dates back to Guru Ram Das, so Sikhs were returning to an earlier distinct identity in the 1900s rather than imposing one. Similarly, while culturally Sikhs respected ascetic practices in the 1800s, Guru Nanak clearly states a different position in the 1400s, even though this leads to a separation between himself and his son (who was a Udasi). Sikhs believe that the two faiths converged on a cultural level because of the incentives given by Maharaja Ranjit Singh, and also because they had relinquished control of their gurdwaras to Hindu religious men when they were forced to hide in the jungles during Muslim persecution. However, they see this as a dilution of a doctrinally affirmed separate identity instead of seeing Sikhs and Hindus as always having been the same.
actually, I think a sociologic and historic discussion on the Singh Sabha movement (the movement in the 1900’s being referred to here) is valid on some level. Do I want to be part of it? Heck no.
That’s kind of the point. One of the reasons (not the only one) that Guru Gobind Singh decided to implement the 5K symbols — at least amongst ‘baptised’, ie. Amritdhari Sikhs, who are supposed to be the most committed in their practice of the faith — was because when his father — Guru Tegh Bahadur — was publicly executed in what is now Old Delhi, the Mughal authorities challened any Sikhs present in the crowd to claim his body (a potentially suicidal move for any Sikhs who were brave enough to step forward). Some Sikhs who were there managed to hide amongst the rest of the crowd and thus escaped detection.
Therefore, one of the reasons Guru Gobind Singh later went ahead with the 5K’s concept was to prevent a recurrence of this and to instil an outstanding level of courage within his followers; if you can be easily identifiable as a Sikh, then you cannot (metaphorically) “hide behind a bush” if facing any threatening or antagonistic situation, ie. your religious affiliation, and everything it represents, can be easily seen, even if you’re in a crowd of a million. This is especially pertinent when you bear in mind the fact that, at several points in Mughal and post-Mughal Indian history, being a Sikh was a capital offence and Sikhs actually had a bounty on their heads.
Another reason is that Sikhs are supposed to be readily available to assist those in need, so anyone in need of help would be able to easily spot any Sikhs around.
There are other reasons — the 5K’s represent various tenents of Sikhism, and they are regarded as having certain psychological benefits for the wearer too — but we don’t need to go into that here.
This statement is both factually and historically false. The movement also sought to differentiate itself from mainstream Hinduism and indeed from orthodox organised religion as a whole.
Yes, and these were all erroneous practices which were in direct violation of Sikh teachings and historical precedents. There are specific verses in the Guru Granth Sahib which state that Sikhs are not to have any reverence for the Puranas, Vedas, or indeed any Hindu (or Islamic) holy books, and Guru Gobind Singh also specifically instructed Sikhs to stay away from any Brahminical practices (“Beepran Ki Reet” etc — Sahej, Sonia: You’ll know what I’m referring to here).
They’re all the same, although many clean-shaven Sikhs wear the “kara” (if none of the other symbols) because it’s the most obvious and easily-identifiable symbol of being a Sikh. Non-Sikh Indians outside of India tend not to wear karas.
But not I? 😉 But seriously, thanks Jai for such a lucid exposition. I haven’t had to do this for years. I’ve just gotten used to giving people a URL and telling them to get educated.
I have a Shia Pakistani friend and some Shias from Pakistan wear a steel bracelet on their wrist to represent the chains and handcuffs of Ali. It looks quite different from a normal Sikh-style kaara but nonetheless, he told me, that he has sometimes been mistaken for a Sikh because of it.
I could be wrong, but I think this is slightly innaccurate. We’re supposed to have deep reverence for the truth as its believed God is the ultimate font of truth. So to the extent a holy book displays the truth, or to say another way provides a basis for letting a person reading it come closer to understanding God, we can hold that as holy
Ennis,
Sorry for leaving your name out, bro — you hadn’t posted your most recent messages while I was typing mine (which I started immediately after reading post no. 30), so I’d only seen Sahej and Sonia’s posts.
Interesting — and slightly dismaying — how this whole issue periodically crops up on SM (remember Diwali ?), at least with regards to some people who have a preconceived, distorted idea of Sikh history and tenets, and refuse to listen when one tries to educate them…..
I agree. I think this was clumsy wording. Sikhs are supposed to have respect for all Holy Books and symbols – but not to follow them. So we respect essential truths of Bhagvad Gita, Quran etc
Sahej,
Sikhs are supposed to have a reverence for “the truth” (as you’ve correctly stated), regardless of the source, but we are not supposed to regard non-Sikh scriptures as sacred or exalted in their entirety, or use them as a source of spiritual guidance. That was the point I was trying to make, apologies for not being clearer.
its pretty interesting what peoples thoughts are. alot well alot of punjabi hindus are taking offense to the first line.. that “IAMNOTHINDUIAMNOTMUSLIM” and it just made me think NOW Isn’t this a bunch of Irony…. that well when a Guru Gobind Singh Ji made the tenets of the Khalsa, he made the 5 Kakkars he made it so that would the first thing people would think when they saw a sikh, that they aren’t a hindu or a muslim, just a sikh…
now here is for the ironical part, when a sikh wears these things its not a prob,or these thoughts dont even incur, but when a sikh wears something that boldly states it.. people have a problem haha you gotta laugh at that…i guess i’d explain further why i did that… well about that first line. The only reason why i wrote it off like that in the first place is b/c right off the bat people automatically think that Sikhi is a branch of Hinduism or a branch of Islam. that’s all i mean.
<
p>For example… I’m taking an senior seminar on Hinduism. and the professor never mentions sikhi as a separate religion in India… he only states “Christianity, Islam, Jains, Buddhist”. ( this is in a 400 level class on Hinduism at a college) and well about the Islam part. i have a muslim friend and she wears a hijab and when we sit together in class she says you know GP when we hang out people will think you are Muslim.
<
p>
so ok alot of people are think that i caused alot of offense to you all.. but do you all remember what happ at Bhangra Blowout 11, there was that Punjabi Eye for the white Guy… decide to make a skit on the Kakkars, a sacred part of the sikh faith… its not even punjabi… and it was highly offensive to Sikhs… highly, yet the board still decided to do it..
also sorry if i caused offense.. i tend to do that alot…. take it for what ever you want… but i am not blaming 9-11 on my fellow South Asian Brothers and Sisters…. nor am i encouraging violence against them… i’m just tell the world that i am distinct and i have my own beliefs and roots….
won’t speak for other Sikhs but if I come across something spiritually wonderful in, say, a Lokota prayer, its my understanding i can go ahead and get spiritual guidance from the fact maybe Waheguru is speaking to me through that avenue. But yeah, the font of our basis as Sikhs is Guru Granth Sahib. I get what you are saying, but I’m bringing out a slightly different though similiar issue
prem, thanks for the shout.
I have to echo one sentiment from above: I have a lot of respect for men and women of Sikhism, Islam, Judaism, and other faiths who wear/keep physical indicators of their faith, especially in the face of terrible bias and misconception. Strict vegetarianism, dogmatic worship at home or temple, and meditation are all private. But walking outside with something that says “I’m different” would really be a test of faith for me personally, and I respect folks who do it every day as a matter of course.
Thanks Gurvinderpal for making this and letting us know your thoughts behind it. People will always take offense to strong statements but it shouldn’t stop you from making them if they’re true.
hey sonia how come you didn’t go to surat.. also thanks again for that ride from the Vigil last 2 nov ago =) i hope the bidness is goin in chardi kala =)
lol well were they really offensive hah
Gurvinderpal I went to your web site and my request is please post more podcasts if you get a chance. or if you know a web site where to get more, let me know on here. thanks
thx for refresh jai- so i hope you can understand my annoyance at all this crap…look at me .. i’m different… i’m not like you… sounds more like an angst ridden teen than a way of life… and to me religion is not dogma… it’s a way to live… grow hair, cut it off… all that is symbolic… and if all the guy’s fighting for is his own affectations… no respect
what’s that they say, “jo lade deen kay het soora sohi”… i interpret that as the deeds validating the faith… in 2001 I lived near a major intersection in T.O… every morning, rain or shine or snow, there’d be an elderly sikh gentleman who’d guide pedestrrian crossings… you know, hold up a stop sign, guide people across… on 09/12 offices were closed in TO.. on 09/13 I went by and the guy was there doing his thing… yes.. there was palpable hate in the air those days… him being there…said more for him and his faith than gratiutous chest thumping. respect.
point i am making… you wear a pug as a matter of pride… i am proud of you… this t-shirt is borne of ennui… no respect…
Nobody answered what a Hindun is.
And why is Paki spelt ‘PAKKI’?
Why does it say ‘I am not coward’ with no indefinite article?
Spelling, punctuation and grammar – the cornerstone to any protest. Take the Muslims protesting in London, I was shocked and disturbed by their woeful grasp of written English.
Oh yeah and the treason and incitement to murder wasn’t that nice either. But poor grammar is worse.
It is ironic that in the face of extreme fanaticism and violence stemming from that, the prime reaction of humanity would be to assert “We are different than you” more strongly than say… “We are all the same”. I am pretty sure that all religions assert “we are all the same”. I believe being religious would mean holding this “essence” of one’s religion closest to one’s heart, closer than other adornments like wearing a turban or hijab or applying tilak on his forehead. But it seems to me that “being religious” has somehow come to mean… “assert your identity, and show how different you are”.
Hinduism is not a religion! There was no “Hindu” until Islam invaded India. Even in the writings of Shankaracharya there is no mention of “Hinduism”. He mentions the differnt “maat” (opinion) (e-g Sankhya maat or Shaiva maat or bauddha maat etc.) but I don’t think any so called “hindu” at that time called himself that. So essentially the “Hindu” identity is no more than a few centuries old. Although the philosophy and culture is much much older. Hindu is a construct created to distinguish all those people who stuck to whatever their traditions/philosophy was and didn’t join movements which distinctly tried to identify themselves from those traditions. Most important of these traditions are Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism. Under the current “definition” of religion, all these traditions are distinct religions in themselves. Their origin though is in their break-up with the traditional “religion” (which later came to be termed as Hinduism).
I am not against having a religious identity (be it Sikh or Muslim or any other). I am surprised when establishing that identity trumps breaking barriers between religions OR that for so many people their religious identity trumps their “human” identity.