This morning, while I was tying my turban, I was thinking about All Mixed Up’s postcard from a few weeks back. In particular, I was trying to figure out why I didn’t understand the basic conundrum that people were wrestling with… that is, why I couldn’t imagine that being white would make me like everybody else.
Let me explain with a Gedankenexperiment. Imagine that I, as a teenager, had awoken one morning to find that myself a person of pallor. I was now pink rather than brown. Who would I be?
I would like to think that I would be the guy on the left. To be honest, I was never as cool as he was. I never dressed like a Nihang, nor did I travel around India at that age. Still, I’d like to think that’s who my white doppleganger in an alternate universe would have been, even if I had been dorkier.
Now imagine that a decade later, the machine that had transformed me reversed polarity, flooding me with extra melanin. Perhaps this is my melanin plus a decade of interest. Or perhaps it is sucked from somewhere else – from some other poor soul who wakes up paler than when they slept. It doesn’t matter.
Now, all of a sudden, I’m not white but black. In this case, I’d like to think that I would be like Sri Chand Singh on the right. Sri Chand is not a convert – he (and his twin brother) have been Sikhs their whole lives. Again, I doubt I’d ever be as cool as either of them [Look at the photo of Laxmi Chand beating the Nagara drum below the fold for a photo of a supercool Sikh], but I hope I would try.
The point is, I’m at a double remove from white society, separated not just by race/ethnicity, but also by religion as well. If I had to choose to abandon one or the other, I think I would probably lose the race before I lost the religion, although both would be wrenching.
The reason is that I’m multicultural but monoreligious. I have little affinity for white mainstream society – I just don’t grok it. I can’t imagine having my parents be Ozzie and Harriet (nor Ozzie and Sharon for that matter). And I really don’t have a desire to “fit in.”
I didn’t grow up in middle America, and even living here now I find it all fairly alien. The closest I could come would be to imagine being Jewish (I grew up in a Jewish neighborhood), but you see how, even in my wildest thoughts of being a white American, I still imagine being an immigrant, an ethnic and an outsider.
p.s. If you read this far, you deserve to know the truth. This was all just an excuse to use these three photos in a post, together. They’re just great images.
But his references to drinking in mosques and unorthodox approach to Islam – in light of todays climates, could a Muslim poet or writer play with those symbols and iconography in the same way today without being criticised? Or is that a misunderstanding of the trigger points for the offensive?
Yeah I don’t know, my thinking is it would be harder for him now, as back then Sufism was more accepted, but I’m not sure either
Ennis, I agree with you those are great pics, powerful, kind of noble warrior-ish Very impressive.
Tony,
Thank you for your response and for your kind words.
Hmmm. In my view, not absolutely necessary to be a Sikh per se, but definitely necessary to be an ideal Sikh 😉
It’s a question of degree. The second option is definitely superior to the former, of course, even though I am not Keshdhari myself (long story). I have complete respect for those who really do keep Kesh and the other 5Ks, and I certainly regard them as better Sikhs than me, assuming that they live up to the ideals these symbols represent.
Not “outdated” by any means. These things are eternal for those who really have the fortitude and commitment to be true sons and daughters of Guru Gobind Singh in the real sense of the term.
However, it is correct that “the inside” counts more than the outside. There is no point in wearing the outside symbols if one isn’t going to live up to the values and ideals they represent, especially as such a person is a visible “flagbearer” for the faith. Conversely, someone who does not wear the outer symbols but has a better grasp of the faith’s humanitarian ideals (and practices them accordingly) will be more of a Sikh than the former example.
Ideally, of course, someone who really is a Sikh in the true sense will have the outer symbols and also practice the ideals regarding humanitarian values and internal self-discipline, and in that sense will be more in line with the tenets of the faith than both a Keshdhari who has the style but not the substance and a non-Keshdhari who has the substance but not the style 🙂
Kritic
Konraad Elst is a Belgian Hindu nationalist, an inverse hagiographer, who deconstructs other religions whilst studiously ‘constructing’ the Hindu nationalist paradigm. He has an agenda which does not really include conducting sceptical inquiry into the myths and paradigms of his own ‘religion’, ‘politics’ and ‘theology’. If you want alternative takes on mainstream Sikh theology and history I suggest reading writers like Harjot Oberoi , WH McLeod, Puneet Singh Lamba , Doris Jakobsh, or Opinderjit Kaur Takhar
It is worth noting that all of these writers have produced work that has caused objection and controversy amongst the orthodox and generally conservative Sikh establishment, examining as they do such issues as history, the formation of identity, politics, gender – all of which are hot topics in Sikhism as much as in any South Asian religious field, and it goes without saying that for alternative and counter-intuitive readings on Sikh history and theology, they are the resources to turn to, rather than Mr Elst.
AlMfD,
Re: post #96
No problem, bro 😉
Re: Mirza Ghalib
Agreed about the modern-day difficulties in such matters. From what I understand, the Sufi influence was much stronger in the Mughal court at that time, especially due to the beliefs of the then-Emperor Bahadur Shah Zafar II, who was a renowned Urdu poet himself. Wikipedia has an interesting page on him here. The writer William Dalrymple has also just released a new book about his life called The Last Mughal; along with discussing the events of 1857, it also includes numerous references to Ghalib, who was indeed a slightly rakish type. There was a superb Indian TV serial about him starring Naseeruddin Shah, and I strongly recommend the double-album soundtrack by Jagjit Singh for fans of ghazals and Ghalib’s work. It’s excellent.
Al Mujahid & others,
True. Ghalib was mystical as far as poetry is concerned. In real life, he had his share of fun. He was perenially in debt, was a compulsive gambler and drank every day. He used to go to the Meerut cantonment to get his bottles. But he was never hypocritical. Everyone knew about his habits. His wife was often flabbargasted by his drinking habits especially during festivals. Muslim courtiers in Bahadur Shah’s court were aghast that he would celebrate Diwali with his “Kaffir” friends. He never married a second time (as was wont in those days), when child after child passed away from his first & only wife. He was very arrogant though. He felt that only (the long gone) Mir could match his work. 🙂
It is indeed tragic that the draconian Macaulay code [and the ones enforced by his illegitimate children :-)] do not teach Indian literature and poetry (well, apart from the nominal crap in the regional languages that no one cares about) in schools. Sadly, most people in India learn more about Wordsworth than about Indian poets. [Wordworth is fine, btw, but it should be balanced by an appreciation of other great works; why not teach Persian, Greek, Turkish, Japanese poetry? Why only English?]. [That this ignorance results in self-loathing is evident in the writings of some so-called intellectuals in the public sphere.]
Enough ranting so early in the morning. 🙂
Kalsi – I couldn’t agree more. Elst, as a reference, was lazy on my part.
Kritic
Harjot Oberoi’s book The Construction of Religious Boundaries: Culture, Identity, and Diversity in the Sikh Tradition is a particularly worthwhile read, should you ever be interested. I don’t agree with all he concludes but it is a valuable work, and set the cat amongst the pigeons of certain Sikh ideologues when it was published a decade or so ago.
wow! these are extraordinary pictures, taken quite beautifully. Being an Indian, I have never heard or seen or even imagined a non sikh, adopting the religion, specially the westerners. Its a religion, which requires a lot of discipline and strength. My male sikh friends, dont wear turban, because they want to look hip. And those who do, wear it with a lot of pride and affection. I have only seen once in India where a little girl was wearing turban….Nevertheless, the pics were really wonderful and it said a lot about religion, that it all depends upon faith, choose which ever religion..
Kalsi,
Thanks for the link to the Oberoi book. Looks interesting. Just the book I have been looking for ever since I bumped into this intriguing paragraph from Nicholas Dirks’ Castes of Mind.
“[George] MacMunn believed that the army had actually played a role in strengthening the Sikh faith and community; by not admitting “unbaptized” Sikhs for example, “it is the British officer who has kept Sikhism up its old standard.” In fact, British recruiting had insisted on taking only those Sikhs who looked (to the British) like Sikhs, selecting, only unshorn Khalsa Sikhs for army service. And as Bernard Cohn has demonstrated, the almost canonic status of the Sikh turban owes its current importance to the development of special Sikh codes of regimental dress; the marker of an ethnic regiment became the sign of a modern religious community across the world.”
If one reads the Bhagavat Purana, otherwise known as the Srimad Bhagavatam, an essential text for many of the Vaishnava sects of India and worldwide, one finds a harmonious balance of the two concepts nirguna/saguna brahm.
The Gaudiya Vaishnavas consider the Bhagavat Purana to be a commentary of Vyas’s Vedanta Sutra – wherein nirguna concept is elaborated.
Anyway, as far as westerners taking up eastern religions, we do have to sort out almost on a daily basis what is essential to the actual practice (sadhana) and what is just cultural baggage parading as essential to the sadhana.
Sadhana is meant to rid one of samskaras (cultural conditionings), but often we see westerners trying to shed one cultural conditioning only to take up another, in the name of sadhana itself, erroneously thinking that the eastern cultural conditionings will somehow benefit them spiritually, whereas they do not.
I’ve seen the same phenomena but in the opposite direction amongst some Desi christians in India who are very much influenced by American style christianity.
I guess culture and religion are interlinked until one reaches the higher levels of spiritual attainment, like the avadhutas.
Then you have the cases of babies who were born to parents who spend alot of time in India as a result of their affiliation with and “Indian religion”, or if not spending alot of time in India, they spend alot of time around people and things of an Indian origin, all the while not being Indian but not fitting into the mainstream of American (or whatever country’s) life.
It can be difficult for them to adjust in either direction.
Just talk to any ISKCON or OSHO or Pondicherry Ashram kid.
OMG I just now noticed the photo of Laxmichand Singh beating that drum in the shade of autumnal tree.
Oooooooooooooh he’s handsome!
I’ll be your Laxmi if you be my Chand! (rhymes with lund – hee hee hee)
Ek chandani raat Sardarji ke sath
Sheetal chaya ke neeche Bahut sundar kala paccha ke peeche!
I think the twins went to school in India as well.
I need their contact info a.s.a.p.
Ha! What, and risk Abhi’s wrath ? 🙂