I was mindlessly watching the m
ind-numbing local news of Los Angeles (it’s usually either a shooting or a car chase), and I did a double take. On my TV, there was a group of Sikhs parading on the streets in front of the Staple Center and a shot of Mayor Villaraigosa in a blue turban.[Google image has not been able to help me on this one, but trust.]
“What makes L.A. so special is that we come here from every corner of the Earth to participate in the American dream,” [Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa] said during a prayer service at the Los Angeles Convention Center, part of a celebration for Baisakhi Day, the India-based religion’s annual holiday of renewal and rebirth…Organizers said that as many as 15,000 Sikhs from throughout Southern California attended the daylong event, which included music, free food and a colorful parade through downtown.[link]
Busy weekend. Not only was it Sri Lankan New Year, Bangladeshi Bengali New Year, Thai New Year (with water fights), Easter, the Los Angeles SM Meetup, but it was Baisakhi Day as well.
 |
|
L.A.’s Blue Turbaned Mayor |
Baisakhi Day, which historically marks the year’s first harvest, commemorates a principal guru’s directive in 1699 that Sikhs “become protectors of the human spirit.” [link]The Sadh Sangat of Sikh Dharma held its first celebration of Baisakhi in Los Angeles in April, 1970…Since the late 1980s, the Sikh Dharma Baisakhi Celebration has been held at the vast Los Angeles Convention Center, in collaboration with a network of Southern California Gurdwaras…This year’s Baisakhi theme is “We are the Khalsa – A Legacy of Service.”… To highlight that standard, this year Golden Temple Cereals, a socially and environmentally responsible company founded by Yogi Bhajan, will be making a presentation to the Los Angeles Mayor’s office on behalf of the entire Sikh Community of Southern California, and donating a truckload of Peace Cereals to the Los Angeles Food Bank. [link]
<
p>Yum, Peace Cereal. And a peaceful post 9/11 message at the parade to go with it…
“In the post-9/11 environment, the turban has gotten a lot of negative associations because of the images we’ve seen,” said Ek Ong Kaar Kaur Khalsa, a spokeswoman for Sikh Dharma International, one of the event’s sponsors… “The Sikh turban, from a values perspective, is synonymous with the core Bill of Rights.” [link]
Whatever your holiday of choice was this weekend, I hope it went well-!
Well I think there is a huge Punjab/Mexican population in Nor Cal…read the Book, Punjab/Mexican I think is the name…so seeing a mexican in this light isn’t a surprise…but what up with the conservative Desi folk? In any case, glad my girl found your site so now I can be in the loop and not by watching that corney stuff on Zee T.V.
Joaquin:
Are you Punjabi-Mexican?
So many issues, so little time
First of all, repeatedly calling someone depressed is a despicable thing to do, especially given the nonconfrontational posts by PJF in this thread. Have some remorse Sandy Kaur.
Now, on to the gangs.. As has been posted above, there is no doubt that there are ALL kinds of Indian gangs. This problem is not limited to Sikhs in Surrey, BC by any means. But come on, is it that hard to admit that the most seriously violent Desi gangs in the US/Canada are predominantly Sikh?? Surely someone you know, knows someone who has been involved at some time in a Desi gang (no, not a party crew lol). I know the article linked by PJF (www.indocommunity.us/news7.html) is old, but isn’t it interesting that both Gujurati’s and Punjabi’s each made up 25% of the Indo population in the Bay Area in 2000, yet none of the gangs mentioned in that article are Guju (I know, and if you don’t, ask someone from the Bay). Once the Sikh community accepts and acknowledges that they have some problems that are more serious than those of other communities, then only can steps be taken to ameliorate the situation.
Jai, thanks for making the distinction between the Sikh religion and Punjabi culture. However, I contend that a Sikh culture separate from Punjabi culture DOES exist.
One example is the subculture of Sikh youths in America (as that is all I have experience with). I’m talking about Sikh youths who think that wearing a karra (screw the turban, that’s not cool) makes you Sikh. I’m talking about Sikh youths who have a lot of hatred towards their Hindu classmates (remember what they did to us in 1984, sure it was 10 years before you were born and I don’t even understand all the issues, but make sure you hate those Hindus). Sikh youths who don’t give a damn about what the Guru’s have written. Sikh youths who think that there are only 2 kinds of Indians: Sikhs and Hindus. Sikh youths who think all Sikhs are Jat and that all Jats are Sikh. I’m not just talking about 10 year olds; some of these people have been in their 20s and 30s. Now thankfully, the people that fall into these groups represent a minority of the Sikh community. But this minority DOES exist and the Sikh community needs to denounce their activities.
(rant) When Muslim terrorists hijack planes and crash them into the WTC, the Islamic community in the US obviously denounced that act. But when there is video footage of the Islamic community overseas celebrating that horrible act, the Islamic community in the US needs to DENOUNCE THEM (those who would celebrate such a thing). In the same way, when the fringe Khalistani Sikhs in Canada have pictures of dead people on their float and are stopped by police, the Sikh community should DENOUNCE THEM. When they fly planes with horrible banners at an India Independance Day, DENOUNCE THEM. Don’t allow the fringe elements to use your religion (Islam, Sikhism) for their own agenda. Don’t ignore that these things happen. It is said best in The Boondock Saints, “Now, we must all fear evil men. But there is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men.” (/rant)
One last comment for now.. Sikhism is a religion. And that there are good and bad aspects of EVERY religion. Remember that. If you believe in your religion, good for you. But don’t be fooled into thinking your religion is without problems.
I’ve got to run, I’m late for my appointment to go fight Dalip Singh!!
Ranadhi Savage,
This is an issue of semantics. If behavioural traits specifically deriving from — and in line with — religious tenets occur then that can nominally be defined as “Sikh culture”. However, the negative behaviour you have been describing occurs amongst individuals who happen to be of Sikh origin but has nothing to do with the religion itself (and in many cases directly contravenes the ideals of the faith). Again, one has to make the distinction clear here.
Perhaps you should explain, for our benefit, what you believe to be “bad aspects” of Sikhism. I am not referring to the misguided behaviour of some people who can loosely be termed its adherents. I am referring to the actual religion itself, the principles and teachings it enshrines, and the actions of the Sikh Gurus during their earthly lifetimes.
I will refrain from responding to your comments about the (to use your words) “fringe elements” as I do not wish to see this thread turned into some kind of flame war about the hypothetical merits and demerits of Khalistan, although people who claim to act in the name of a particular religion but act in direct violation of its humanitarian ideals should certainly be unequivocally condemned.
Jai,
I am in complete agreement with this statement. Unfortunately, I haven’t read any posts in this thread condemning, let alone discussing, the
which is what PJF brought up in posts 10 and 97. Why haven’t any Sikh’s posted ‘That’s just wrong of those groups to promote their own agenda on Baisakhi’?
I see your point about what you believe can be defined as “Sikh culture”. Does “Sikh culture” necessarily have to be limited to behavioural traits specifically deriving from — and in line with — (Sikh) religious tenets? I sincerely ask, what label would be appropriate to accord to the subculture I described? The culture of Sikh American youths?
In regards to my comment that all religions have good and bad aspects, let me clarify that I think everyone should question what their religion ‘tells’ them instead of blindly following what they’ve been ‘told’.
In regards to the religion of Sikhism, I do not think there are any bad aspects of the philosophy as stated here: http://www.sikhs.org/philos.htm Actually, I very much agree with many of them. Now an anecdote and a question.. A Sikh friend once told me that the religion says ‘if you get slapped, you don’t turn the other cheek, you fight back’. I’m not sure if the religion even says something like this, let alone what the context may be. Perhaps you can enlighten me?
Khalistan idealogues will never be fringe elements, but the majority have simmered down the rhetoric over the years but it is unwise to think that the memory of 1984 will slowly fade away, indeed in the united kingdom many noble edifices have been erected to honour those who made great sacrifices. – Just thought I should mention.
Last year I went to my cousins wedding in Stockton, Califronia. The only gurdwara there was pro-khalistan. The entire langar hall was covered with pictures of men with machine guns. They were a few non-sikh’s at the wedding, and they were confused for the reason about those pictures. How do you non skih’s are gonna feel when they see picutres like that at sikh’s temple.
The wedding was during the summer, so it was a very hot day. And the baba had promised my uncle that they would not spread there views. Yet the baba went off on pro-khalistan rant that had nothing to do with a wedding. I can’t recall how many he said the word khalistan during the wedding. By this time everybody was getting anoyed and also getting very hot since the air conditing did not work[ I guess they rather spend there money on other things].
I just don’t understand why people would want to hear about this at a wedding.
I think the issue of Khalistan is complicated, misrepresented, and volatile. That said, I personally don’t want to get into it because I think that people come with a lot of baggage and preconceptions with this discussion, and I don’t think that the questions or issues being raised are meant to inspire dialogue, but rather, are being used as a proxy for extrapolating gross generalizations about Sikhi, Sikhs in general, and Sikh politics. For me, it is not worth the time to explain why 1% of a population is not indicative of the whole; I would hope that this would be self-evident.
With respect to Stockton gurdwara, the oldest and first gurdwara in the U.S., many of the pictures on the wall are not of Khalistanis. For those who are Sikh, the idea of commemoration and remembrance is something we’ve cultivated over time. In my opinion, this is due in part to gross oppression, and also due to the fact that we have very little recorded history. Why, you might ask? Because it keeps getting burned (literally)! I don’t know who said it, but there’s a quote that says the easiest way to destroy a people is to destroy their history. I think Sikhs are cognizant of this idea and are trying to hold onto whatever history possible to help themselves remember the real and painful things their community endures daily.
And I won’t even entertain the comment about Sikh gangs vs. Gujuratis. If you had substituted the word “African American” for Sikh, your comment would have been called racist and ignorant. I would challenge you to think critically about the many factors that contribute to gang violence before resorting to an unsophisticated argument labelling Sikhs as inherently violent. And that’s where I will leave that.
This is probably a misrepresentation/oversimplification of some of the beliefs around justice in Sikhi. Sikhi is not a violent religion, despite having a history that includes a lot of armed conflict. Contrary to popular belief, Sikhs don’t go around trying to pick a fight or be ridiculous. However, after the martyrdom of the Fifth Guruji, we were told that we could not go on allowing ourselves to be tortured and killed. In extreme circumstances, when there is no other option, self-defense is allowed to protect those who would be killed injustly, or to protect oneself. Note that self-defense does not necessarily mean armed defense, although this is permitted in extreme, extreme circumstances. This is probably what this gentleman meant by “you don’t just turn the other cheek.” Sometimes the machismo of PUNJABI culture interprets this loosely, but I have never met an amritdhari Sikh who acted or promoted violence as a response to being insulted/injured or otherwise.
camille,
you did true seva right there. much respect
The part of sikh gangs vs gurjat should really be punjabi vs gurjati people. Punjabi and gurjati’s are the 2 main ethnic groups in the Bay Area. Yet the kids from punjabi background are getting into gangs anf gurjati’s are not.
Some has to explain why that is. I think there reason that might upset some people
In every race there are some people more violent the other. For the white race or people from Europe. People from Italy and Ireland are gonna be more quick to use violence then people from Norway or Switerzland.
In the East Asian or Oriental People. Flipino people or people from Vietnam are more likely to be violent then people from Japan or South Korea.
And of the 1 billion people of Indian background, Punjabi are more likely to be violent then people from Kerala or people of parsee backgrounf
Camille
Of course this is self-evident. What I’d like to see is either a denouncement of the activities of this 1%, or an ownership of these problems. ie “The African American community has to accept that our kids are going to prison in disproportionate numbers to the rest of the population. We need to educate, etc” or “What the Khalistani groups did on Baisakhi was in poor taste. We understand they have their beliefs, but we also need to recognize that they ALSO represent our community.” or “Too many of our kids are joining gangs compared to other Desi communities. We need to educate them, etc”
If there is a disproportionate number of African Americans in prison relative to their population in the US, it should be very clear that this needs to be acknowledged (and it definitely is). There is nothing racist about it. The community needs to accept/acknowledge there is a problem and then work to resolve the underlying issues. Why can’t you or anyone else on this thread acknowledge that the Sikh community has a more serious issue with their youth participating in gangs than other Desi communities?
From what I’ve read, it seems that Sikhs are doing a great job of holding onto their history. The community is very tight, strong, and organized. Since this thread has been OT for a while, I’d like to know why most all of the Sikhs in India are Punjabi? Were other ethnic groups/castes not allowed? Was there a process whereby the eldest son in a Punjabi Hindu family became Sikh? I ask because I’ve heard this, yet have a hard time finding any information on it.
Perhaps this is one of the underlying problems affecting the Sikh community. When so much pride is taken in being Sikh warrior women as in post 1, it should come as no surprise that the popular belief (as you put it) that some hold regarding Sikhs exists.
After further reading of the Sikh philosophy as I posted at the link above (http://www.sikhs.org/philos.htm) I have to say that the things I agree with in general are actually the interpretations? presented (the items in bold). Some of the translated quotes are written in a very (for my lack of vocabulary) condescending tone. This outlook may have been necessary when the religion began but it certainly isn’t anymore. Some of the translations look down on the practices of other religions and maybe this is another explanation for the activities of many Sikh youths.
I’m not saying we should deny that there are Sikh youth in gangs. That’s a fact. But is there any evidence, other than anecdotal, that in the aggregate Sikhs are in gangs more often? And further, when you compound for the varying sizes of different desi demographics, can you really argue on sheer numbers instead of population percentages? I bring this up not because I’m trying to obscure an issue, but because it’s relevant to any intelligent conversation.
Further, my argument is that there are UNDERLYING FACTORS that contribute to gang violence that are unrelated to one’s “race.” Examples of underlying factors include, poverty, unemployment, and alienation. Instead of blaming this on the “pathology of Sikhs,” I would challenge folks to examine why social issues disproportionately affect Punjabi populations in California (and I say Punjabi since a good number of people who are affected are from many different religions). This would be a conversation that I might find interesting and possibly engaging, not a diatribe on Sikhs.
I would say that the Sikh community in the US is generally tight-knit, but this has nothing to do with retention of history, per se. Is there an effort to rebuild everything? Yes. However, historically, Sikh texts (and I’m talking really really old and really really recent) have been burned down, by the Mughals, by the British, and by the Indian government in 1984 (Harmandar Sahib, aside from being a place of worship, also holds a library with a number of rare archives that were burned down and pretty much lost forever).
The question about Punjabis being Sikh is complicated, because the Punjabi community is diverse. While we’re all from the land of five rivers, or whatnot, there are definitely regional differences. Sikhi is distinctly anti-caste system, which means that there was no exclusion of people by caste in entering the faith. If you’d like to learn more about some of the philosophy behind langar and sangat and its effort to be anti-caste, I can address that later. Further, there was (and is) no exclusion by ethnicity. Sikhi started in what is now NW India and SE Pakistan, and this is a probable explanation for why so many Punjabis are also Sikh. Why are there so many Buddhists in Northeast India? Because the Buddha started out there. I have a hunch that geopolitics also played a strong role since Sikhi really took off around the same time as the Mughal empire. You see adherents from all over those areas that were under Mughal control.
With respect to the eldest son question, I don’t have a concrete source for you, but I was told that this was common among SOME Hindu Punjabi families, particularly out in Patiala. At any rate, the tradition was that you sent your eldest son for spiritual training, and for many Hindu families this included a life of asceticism for their child. In Sikhi, it is considered important for people to engage in the world around them, and consequently, we technically have no clergy, and asceticism is not seen as an acceptable way to live your life. So, for families who wanted to send a son away for religious training, but maybe only had one son or were worried for him, one of the appealing factors of Sikhi is that it allows for everyone to have a family and a life in addition to a religious education. This actually causes a lot of tension when some people get into the “Is Sikhism a sect of Hinduism” argument, because many of these eldest sons were nominally Sikh but continued practicing Hinduism, which is of course not allowed in Sikhi. Others really embraced Sikhi and practiced only Sikhi.
I doubt that the writings in the Guru Granth Sahib Ji are the cause for Sikh youth feeling alienated from people of other religious backgrounds. Many cultural theorists argue that identities are reified and polarized through violence. Being a practicing Sikh youth, particularly a male Sikh youth, in the United States, or anywhere for that matter, is really really hard and generally violent. On a daily basis you are subjected to the worst aspects of racism for your skin color, and xenophobia for your faith. I actually don’t know a single practicing Sikh boy in the Bay Area (or Central Valley, excluding Yuba City) who was not beaten up by non-Sikhs specifically because of his dastar or patka. And even when there isn’t physical violence against your person, there’s a lot of latent violence against Sikhs. We are perpetually labelled “foreign,” and we are degraded in popular media. Take a look at the Bollywood films or desi TV sitcoms from the 1980s-1990s. If you can find a moment in a movie where a Sikh man is not either a) a drunk buffoon/clown (super offensive since consumption of alcohol, etc is forbidden), or b) the villain, I would appreciate an extended list. This is further exacerbated when people blend cultural stereotypes about Punjabis (I’m sure you all know these stereotypes) with Sikhs. These auxiliary factors contribute directly, in my opinion, to the alienation that Sikh youth experience. I think this is a societal issue, not an issue of the religion, per se.
Further, Sikhi does not degrade other religions. I don’t find the bolded text condescending, but rather explanatory. Perhaps this is simply a difference in interpretation because we are starting out with different preconceived ideas about Sikhi and Sikhs. The Guru Granth Sahib Ji is explicit in its acceptance (not just tolerance) of other faiths; however, it does say, “If you are a Hindu, be a good Hindu. If you’re a Muslim, be a good Muslim.” The thrust behind this is that ritual and ostentation in the name of religion is false (and these behaviors are criticized in GGSJ), and a person has to internalize the teachings of their faith and try to live a virtuous life. The basic gist is focus on yourself, not on showing everyone else how holy you are.
The example Sikhs will probably always cite in explaining our acceptance of other faiths is that of the ninth Guru, Guru Teg Bahadur Ji. The fact that Sikhs went to battle over the rights of Hindus to live and practice their faith freely, without taxation or threat of violent conversion from the Mughal emperor, is indicative of our commitment to justice. Our religion does not simply expouse freedom for Sikhs, it expouses the commitment to freedom and justice for humanity.
The analogy I was told by my nanaji was this: Religions are simply road maps to Vaheguru. Like water moving towards the ocean, there are many ways you can get there. You could be a rain drop and fall in directly, you could work your way there slowly through the ground, you might sit in the ground for ages and move through some kind of evapotranspiration cycle, or you could come in through a river. Religion is like a river; it is simply a direct source to the ocean. Of course, in Sikhi we don’t conceive of Vaheguru as an ocean, but this was a useful image for for me as a little kid.
The critiques in scripture are not of religions, but rather, of the cooptation of faith through ritual and through the creation of power hierarchies that disenfranchise common people from their spirituality. Here is a parallel example: Many say that the Protestant Reformation was a response to corruption w/in the Catholic Church and an overemphasis on ritual. Sikhi is not a reform movement, it is an entirely unique and different faith, but the critiques in the Guru Granth Sahib Ji are critiques of the “corruption” of religious institutions by HUMANS, not an intrinsic issue of the religion itself. These are the critiques in the GGSJ; there are not evidence of an anti-anyone-who-isn’t-Sikh outlook. And of course, I have to say it, but we also include a number of writings and comments by people of other faiths in the text of the GGSJ, the most notable being Bhagat Kabir.
I hope some of this was helpful, although it’s a bit disjointed.
If you can find a moment in a movie where a Sikh man is not either a) a drunk buffoon/clown (super offensive since consumption of alcohol, etc is forbidden), or b) the villain, I would appreciate an extended list.
Govind Nihalini’s Vijeta where Shashi Kapoor’s son Kunal Kapoor played a turbaned-sikh airforce pilot as an absolute stand-up hero. The movie was 100% shot in NDA (National Defence Academy, Khadakvasla, Pune) and was released in 1983.
It was not a mega-hit beacuse Kunal’s acting skills were limited but was appreciated in art house cinema. Govind Nihalini is a top-notch film maker.
Here in Vancouver area there have been some links between Khalistan sikh’s and indo-canadian gangs.
Example include the murder of Tera Singh Hayer who was the editor of the indo-canadian times.[the only journalist ever killed in canada because of his job]. He was killed by indo-canadian gangesters who were hired by the group Babba Khalsa.
Just couple of weeks ago a top indo-canadian gangester named Roman Nerwal get 17 years in jail for 3 seperate kidnappings. He was the son of man who had links to the air-india bombers. At his trial several children of top khalistan leaders in canada came to support him in court. Also sikh leaders of khalistan sikh temple’s here wrote letters about how he was a changed man, but the judge didn’t fall for that.
The air-india bombers were able to be found not guility, thanks to help of indo-canadian gangesters who were able to scare several key witness off.
Also back when the moderate and khalistan sikh temples were fighting over chairs and tables. Several of the khalistan leaders used gangesters on there side to help with them scare the other side
Ranadhi Savage,
As Camille stated, the issue of Khalistan is complicated. Perhaps one of the reasons why Sikhs here have not necessarily objected to the above is because they do not believe there is anything wrong in the concept of a state founded on, and governed according to, Sikh principles and ideals.
However, the precise location of such a hypothetical state (whether in India or anywhere else) and the methods used to achieve the founding of such a nation, are of course entirely different matters.
Yes. The term “Sikh” is a religiously-derived term.
Exactly.
This is exactly what Sikhism says, with regards to the religion’s own adherents and also followers of other organised faiths.
Camille has already answered this eloquently. However, to expand on her response, the Sikh concept of these matters is that if someone physically attacks you (and you are an innocent party in this situation), you defend yourself to prevent them from continuing to attack you. You also ask them what their problem is and attempt to initiate a dialogue in order to defuse the situation. If they continue to attack you, you continue to defend yourself until the only methods to remedy the situation are to incapacitate them or walk away. The latter option should not be exercised out of cowardice but if the fight “isn’t worth it”.
Historically this was not the case. It happened due to the Mughal onslaught and the necessity for Sikhs to unify into a more organised group. Sikhs were originally from all over the Indian subcontinent — even during the time of Guru Gobind Singh — although of course a greater number were from the Punjab region due to the localised presence of the Gurus there.
I suggest you do a search on the events of the first Vaisakhi in 1699 in order to see for yourself that the reality was actually the polar opposite of this assertion.
Beyond a warrior — literally or figuratively — is integral to the Sikh ethos. However, Guru Gobind Singh basically said “Try to be a saint first before you try to be a warrior”. The warrior aspect is secondary to the high ideals, behaviour, and spirituality that a Sikh should possess (or be aiming for). There are also certain ethical constraints and injunctions regarding the manifestation of the warrior attitude and the situations in which it is acceptable. As Camille said, Sikhism is not actually a warlike religion — as embodied by the contents and tone of Gurbani kirtan (and Guru Gobind Singh himself stated that the Guru Granth Sahib — from which Gurbani kirtan is derived — embodies his message).
Ranadhi Savage
Do you believe Hindus in America, England, Canada etc have to take responsibility for funding the extreme right wing fascists who give money and support to RSS Muslim killers in Gujarat? I have a whole stack of links and reports detailing the deep roots of support for Babri demolishers and Gujarat genocidalists from deep within the heart of American and British Hindu communities. What lessons can we learn about the weaknesses of Hinduism and why are Hindus not doing more to deal with this and ‘take ownership’ of the problem? Do you look inside yourself and try and understand where this hate mongering atavism comes from? Or do you only believe it is Sikhs and Muslims and others who have scum amongst them? In short, are you a Hindu chauvinist by default or active in this hypocrisy? Looking forward to your reply.
Ranadhi Savage
Can you explain the propensity for intermittent genocides to take place by castrated Hindus in India against minorities and the support and funding the organisers of such events receive from Hindus in the diaspora? As a Hindu, what does this tell you about the derived values of Hinduism? Is there a link between the values of Hinduism and these occurences? What do you think? Are there other factors involved?
Please be honest, do some soul searching, and make the connections to explain this please. Take ownership of this issue. The time has come for you to introspect. What values intrinsic to Hinduism cause this Hindu sub-culture? Please dont go into denial, face up to the hard questions. It is imperative that you do.
Camille,
I echo the comment by “Props” in post #109 😉
With regards to what you said about the disrespectful depiction of Sikhs in Indian films, I know what you mean. However, one relatively recent, and very positive example, was the Sikh (and Keshdhari) Captain in Lakshya (who starred alongside Hrithik Roshan). He was a very major character in the movie.
I have also previously commented on the dubious depiction of turbaned Sikhs in many Indian television serials, although I am wary of broaching the topic here again because last time it all degenerated into a totally out-of-control flame war, with verbal abuse and ranting extending across multiple SM threads 😉
Camille and Jai, kudos to both of you for taking this on so well. I’m generally considered a patient person myself, but I wouldn’t have the patience you both have shown in this discussion thread. As I’ve followed it, it amazes me how the comments have diverged from the topic and tone of Taz’s original post.
Doesn’t it seem like, more often than not, that’s what happens on Sikh-related threads? And more often than not, it’s those who associate themselves with “open-mindedness” and “fighting the radical extremist Sikh machine” (my paraphrasing) who spur on the abuse and ranting.
Camille,
I am unaware of any study that has been dedicated to this. I have not researched this and I am going off anecdotal experience; my own experience of living in the Bay and knowing people involved in these groups. It is very clear to me that based on population percentages in the Bay in 2000 (as given in that article) and my own experiences that there is a much greater percentage of Sikh youths involved in Desi gangs when compared to other Desi youths (in the Bay). I don’t see how anyone familiar with the Bay could disagree.
I really am not trying to blame anything on the “pathology of Sikhs” nor voice a diatribe on Sikhs. I really agree with you regarding this paragraph (the bold is my emphasis).
Alienation is a huge concern. But the Sikh youth that are in the gangs, they typically don’t wear turbans. I don’t see why these youth should feel anymore alienated than other Desis. But perhaps alienation they suffered when they were younger is what led them down the road to join the gang.
I actually said that the bolded text is what I find myself agreeing with. I find some of the italicized text (translations) condescending. For example, I find myself agreeing with “Rejection of all forms of blind rituals such as fasting, religious vegetarianism, pilgrimages, superstions, yoga, as well as any form of idol worship.” What I find condescending are some of the translations like “Only fools argue whether to eat meat or not. …” and “They go to holy places for a bath, Their minds are impure and bodies are like thieves; If by bath their dirt drops down, they got on themselves twice as much dirt and ego.” Like I said above, I think this outlook may have been necessary when the religion began but it isn’t now. I find some of those translations (italicized) are disparaging to Jains or Hindus. Isn’t that how some of those translations (italicized) come across? The explanation (bold) comes across in a much more neutral tone. If children are taught the translation as shown (italicized) as opposed to the explanation (bold), then I think that could definitely affect the way Sikh youths view those of other religions.
I am really glad that there is some acknowledgement to this and I wish I could find some more information on it. Thank you for that information.
Jai,
Does this mean that none of Sikhs who have posted on this thread believe that there is nothing wrong in the concept of a state founded on, and governed according to, Sikh principles and ideals? Also, can it be that no one other than PJF took issue with the methods used ‘pictures of dead people’? I find that a bit scary.
I don’t think this is a good thing. I think the ‘warrior attitude’ manifests itself in a variety of ways and not necessarily noble.
Camille and Jai Thank you for the excellent explanations and discussion. Unfortunately, all the Sikhs I’ve been friends with have not been as educated as you two in regards to the Sikh religion. They have been really misinformed (by who???) about their religion. They do not practice Sikhism although they do wear karras, take pride in being ‘warriors’ , have khandas on their cars, and are proud to be Sikh. I really am glad to have learned more from the two of you.
Awaazi The trolling.. AFAIK, the Hindu community is enormous and there are many, many different groups that do not necessarily belong to one organization. I don’t understand or pretend to understand what the various groups and their agendas are. If there is a Hindu Community of the US (I really have no idea), then they should definitely denounce any such acts that are done in the name of Hinduism. I, myself, am not a practicing Hindu and I really don’t know what values Hinduism entails and I do not identify with the Hindu Community. I do not go to temples, mosques, or gurdwaras. I eat meat (beef and pork too!) and I drink liquor. I go to parties and dance and listen to music and have sex. It upsets me when ANYTHING atrocious is done in the name of ANY religion. I think religion and state should be kept separate. I don’t believe in organized religion.
I think the ‘hate mongering atavism’ is present everywhere, including but not limited to those that are Hindus. ‘Hate mongering atavism’ transcends more than simply religion. I believe there are scumbags of all religions. The hate mongering atavism and scumbags are typically found in the extreme right and I believe these people need to be kept in check (whether they are Muslim, Sikh, Hindu, Jews, or whatever). Senseless violence, murder, and rape is absolutely atrocious regardless of religion, race, caste, sex, whatever.
TheKingSingh,
Every single damn time.
Hell, last time I even remember accusations such as “communists” and “mafia” being hurled at myself and some of the founder-member Mutineers. Surreal stuff — it actually makes me laugh now 😉
Ranadhi Savage ,
Really ? There are huge numbers of people in multiple religions who engage in blind, ritualistic religious practices. This is what the verses you have quoted refer to. Do you seriously think that there is no-one in 2006 who thinks that merely bathing in a river will “purify them of all their sins” ? Do you personally think that undertaking such an action has any genuine spiritual benefit ? If not — and based on your own post, I don’t think you do, and I also suspect that you have logical reasons for not doing so — then you should understand what is meant by these verses.
As Divya once said here on SM (and this is one of the rare occasions on which I completely agree with her), the point is to be “correct”, not politically-correct. The translations are in reference to anyone who participates in blind ritualistic religious actions but is a hypocrite in terms of their level of egotism and morality. They are not specifically condemning Jains or Hindus en masse.
Making assumptions about other people’s behaviour is one of the biggest mistakes on can make in life. I’m therefore not going to say that “all” the Sikhs who have posted on this thread believe the above. However, it is logical that a number may well do. If you really do have a grasp of Sikh religious tenets and Sikh history (especially the lives of the 10 Gurus), I don’t understand why you would object to the notion of a hypothetical state founded on these ideals. In many aspects, there is little difference between Sikh concepts of human rights and the US Bill of Rights, many aspects of the Declaration of Independence, and the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Bear in mind also that there is no concept of “Shariah Law” or totalitarian theocratic rule in Sikhism, and neither are their any historical precedents for this during the past 500 years. None at all.
Again, I’m not going to comment on the perceived motivations of other people. However, there is a lot of misinformation, second-hand knowledge and propaganda on both sides regarding the supposed actions of the “dead people in the pictures”. I have no interest in triggering any kind of argument here on SM on this issue, although if you want to learn more about it then I suggest you do a ‘search’ on the Sikhnet Discussion Forum, as the topic has already been extensively discussed and analysed there on multiple occasions.
…..Which is why the warrior aspect is not supposed to be de-coupled from the saintly ideals. The latter acts as a restraint on the former and disciplines the person in terms of the extent, context, and motivations for manifesting & acting on the warrior aspect. Simultaneously, the warrior angle is basically to give the person “some backbone” so that they have the guts to defend themselves from unwarranted attacks (either physical or psychological), to “stand up for what’s right”, and to defend those who are unable to defend themselves.
Possibly they haven’t necessarily been misinformed by someone else, but have not educated themselves on the matter.
No problem, I’m glad I could help and I’m sure Camille is too.
Since you’ve already discovered the Sikh.org website (and I strongly suggest you read through all of the section detailing “Biographies of the Gurus” if you really want to gain a proper understanding of what Sikhism is all about), I recommend you also check out Sikhnet. They have a very good discussion forum, with large numbers of good-natured and well-informed people (and they also frequently have very heated debates a la Sepia Mutiny), and the website also has various other resources detailing Sikhism, its history & principles, along with other sections such as an excellent Gurbani archive. You will not understand the genuine message of Sikhism unless you listen to the music — which will make things significantly clearer, even if you don’t understand all the words (my personal recommendations are kirtans by Dya Singh {Australiawale} and Nirmal Singh).
Apologies, my comment above was supposed to be in response to “I really am glad to have learned more from the two of you.”
(Copy & Paste error on my part).
Jai (121#),
Please do not take offense when I say that I find idea of dividing India again on basis of religion abhorrent. Again I do not know about what is the current opinion in expat Sikh community but I doubt you will find many supporters among Indian Sikhs.When terrorism in Punjab was at its peak at that time not only Hindus but also many Sikhs had to bear the brunt. I desisted from commenting on this thread because for some reason, I have found that similar threads in past were closed, however I have always found you reasonable and so had to comment.
Regards
Again,
I do not regularly follow the issue, so I am not aware of the back story, but I think PJF was reasonable and ad hominem attacks on him (her ?) were uncalled for.
Regards
Gaurav,
I understand your point of view, but please note something I said in my post #115:
“However, the precise location of such a hypothetical state (whether in India or anywhere else) and the methods used to achieve the founding of such a nation, are of course entirely different matters.”
As you can see from my comment above, I do not necessarily believe in the viability of locating the country within the Indian subcontinent, at least due to the land-locked location it would exist in and its small size (not to mention the fact that it would possibly be surrounded by semi-hostile neighbours). These factors would also hardly be condusive to enabling the nation to act internationally on a humanitarian and military level (the latter with regards to situations such as Rwanda, Darfur, and other cases of genocide, persecution, human rights abuses etc worldwide) as per the core principles of Sikhism.
There is also a difference between a state governed by Sikh principles and one exclusively for Sikhs. The latter is incompatible with Sikhism — it is not an “exclusivist” faith in the religious sense, and in any case Sikhs (whilst maintaining their unique identity) are supposed to live peacefully amongst the rest of mankind and are not supposed to regard themselves as literally “separate” or “superior”. Indeed, Sikhs are supposed to live, work and exist for the wellbeing of the entire human race, not just for their fellow Sikhs.
This is embodied by the last verse of a well-known “Ardas”, which basically translates as “Wishing goodwill to all mankind” (“Sarbat da bhala”). Please note that it does not request divine blessings just for Sikhs.
In any case, we are just doing some independent “armchair strategic theorising” here and none of this necessarily has anything to do with past or present secessionist groups, who may not be motivated by intentions actually in line with Sikh ideals and, indeed, may not be using Sikhism-compatible methods either.
Jai:
Very well put. Just a word on Sikhnet…it’s really gone downhill the past several months…far fewer posts, fewer responses, basically a small handful of regular posters (although the readership may still be large). I wonder if this was a consequence of over-regulation by the moderators. Anytime a discussion got interesting they would start shutting it down. About two years ago it was a pleasure to read Sikhnet discussion forum. I still check it every 1-2 days, but far less than I read this blog now.
Amitabh,
I’ve dropped by Sikhnet as a “lurker” once or twice recently but am no longer a “regular”. I agree about the change in overall tone there (especially compared to how it used to be), but I don’t know if the reason is over-moderation. As you know, one of the major reasons for my own exit from the forum was the fact that it was being repeatedly hijacked by some excessively conservative types who, I felt, were very good at arguing in intricate, convoluted (or plain stubborn) ways but did not have a grasp of the “spirit” of the faith, despite the fact that some of them have an excellent academic knowledge of scriptural quotes etc.
I think that the forum used to be much better — and certainly more broadminded — during the days of Dr Yuktanand Singh and Ek Ong Kaar Kaur Khalsa, although I do recall individuals such as Harpreet Singh Sandhu (an amazingly intelligent and insightful gentleman in his mid-60s from the US) valiantly attempting to counteract the efforts of his obstinately-conservative older-generation counterparts during the past year or two (with varying degrees of success).
I guess anyone interested in finding out what Sikhnet used to be like could do a ‘search’ there and read some of the older posts from more enlightened times 😉
However, it is still an excellent resource for gurbani kirtan, summaries of Sikh history and religious tenets etc.
This is the first time that I went to this website and notice serious arguments, almost about everything (khalistan, gangs, mayor wearing turbun, and millions of other issues)some good and a lot of them without much of an outcome. You will never ever resolve some of these issues, except that it is entertaining and amusing. If you all honestly follow Guru’s advice and follow with self control on the 5 Super Evils (Kaam, Krodh, Lobh, Moh, Hankaar) only by 5-10 percent, you all will be very happy being and there will be no fights, arguments. Look inward and control the forces rather than trying to control external forces-of which you have no chance. You do not need to read the whole GGS, but if you can, then it will certainly do you good. Religion is to be practiced within self, its very personal way of life.
Wow I forget about this post. I posted as PearlJamFan at the time and I was attacked again and again for my views about punjabi culture.
It’s a year and half later and to my fellow punjabi I’m sorry. I’ve have seen the light, and that we punjabi’s are the master race. All hail our culture and race.
lol@clueless!!! :))
does the malayalee hit squad still exist? what is the history of the malayalee hit squad? are the malayalee hit squad bloods or crips?