…unless the crime was self-hate. In a story that keeps getting sent my way, it turns out that a Sikh teenager in Scotland lied about having his hair cut during a racist attack (via the BBC):
The boy from Edinburgh reported the alleged racist attack in November and the case was widely publicised.
The cutting of his hair was an act which was seen as deeply insulting to the Sikh faith.
Lothian and Borders Police confirmed the attack had not taken place and said the boy had expressed remorse. They said no further action would be taken.
The Sikh community in the United Kingdom rallied around the child:
More than 200 Sikhs from around the UK gathered in Edinburgh to hold a two-hour prayer vigil following the boy’s claims.
It turns out that the boy cut his own hair and injured himself to simulate a crime:
The teenager is believed to have had personal problems and was also having cultural identity issues brought about by differences between his Sikh upbringing and Western society…
Police officers sent a report on the incident to the procurator fiscal but it is understood the teenager will not face charges for wasting police time because a prosecution is not felt to be in the public interest.
One thing I have a question about is the phrasing of this line from the BBC article I quoted throughout this post:
Hair is a religious symbol for Sikhs and it is strictly against their faith to have it shorn.
If it’s strictly against Sikhism to cut your hair, what does that make all the Sikhs who have done so? I’m not satisfied with some of the answers I’ve read online, so I’m going to more reliable sources, i.e. you. 🙂 Is it a question of only needing to keep your hair if you were baptized? I always thought it was an “ideally, you’re not supposed to cut it” situation, not a “strictly against Sikhism” one. I know I will be edified in oh, approximately four minutes. Such is the power of the Mutiny.
While I wait for that inevitable development, I’ll state that I’m really sad for this kid. As is the case for most of us, being a teenager sucked for me– and I feel compassion for him because I, too, so wanted to cut the hair that fell to my KNEES, which I wasn’t allowed to leave loose, let alone get rid of– but I still can’t imagine a moment when I’d feel compelled to do similar. My heart goes out to him and everyone else who was affected by his actions.
Amitabh
Glasgow’s a good place, very industrial though, although it has re-invented itself somewhat. Edinburgh is a different kind of city — it reeks of atmosphere and history and romantic granite culture and has a strange gothic aura as well as being a city of art and enjoyment. It all radiates down and out from the castle which is built on an extinct volcano — what other city has as cool a setting as that? A volcano!
Interesting comments and posts. I went to a Sikh conference called Jakara this summer and it was really worthwhile and I felt very inclusive, unlike some of the comments I have seen here. For an beginner’s understanding of Sikhism I would definitely recommend the Jakara conference. Check it out for more information. They deal with issues like sex-selective abortion and other issues. I helped with a woman’s focused children’s camp last month. http://www.jakara.org — they are planning some more functions in the new year.
Red Snapper,
Thanks for the recommendation. Unfortunately, its a scandalous $89.95 in the US! Using the Amazon reader, I discovered she is a second-generation non-Khalsa Sikh who is advocating a “federal identity” for Sikhism in which disparate communities would be united based upon the acceptance of one or two tenets – especially gurmukh(?). There is a very interesting discussion of the untouchable Ad Dharm movement which rejected both Hinduism and Sikhism because of the discrimination they encountered in the communities.
Also the role izzat (honor?) plays in the British Sikh community, and how it (along with caste) constrains marriage choices of the second generation (females in particular). It also discusses why gora sikhs will never be fully embraced in the community.
Actually risible, go to the google book link I give above and you can read a fair amount of the introduction and subsequent chapters. I think that she asserts that plurality is central to the khalsa tradition because the different types of Sikh (sehajdhari, keshdari, amritdhari) are all enshrined within the ‘Rehat Maryada’ code that practising Sikhs follow in the first place, as she explains in the introduction. She therefore says that this is central to Sikh identity and allowances are made for different levels of observation whilst still being allowed to be called Sikh, although this is overlooked by those who cling to a more exclusivist interpretation. It is a matter of misplaced emphasis therefore. As for the issue of caste and marriage restrictions, well that basically affects Hindus and Muslims as much as Sikhs in Britain — and British Sikhs do marry out often, I see it all the time.
I don’t think you can say that gora Sikhs will never be embraced by the community, that seems too absolute a prediction to make — they are basically placed within the context of different schools including the Nishkam Sewak Jatha which originated in Kenya and is most vibrant in England. Which is the most interesting aspect for me, as it shows how these different paths of Sikhism originated outside India in the diaspora, the Nishkam Sewak Jatha as far back as the 1920’s!
Get your library to order a copy of the book risible, $89 is steep.
interested ~ thanks for mentioning that. The first Sikh conference I went to was the the Sikh Renaissance Conference which Jakara stemmed from, and it was one of the best experiences I’ve had. I went to a few Jakara conferences and defintiely think their team is doing great things. It’s a great way to interact with other Sikhs and walk out with a lot of fresh ideas (if you’re open to them) – http://www.jakara.org
i realized that much of this discussion is centered around what Sikh MEN “should” do — the 5 Ks, for example. are there similar sorts of expecations for Sikh women? if not, why? it seems odd that in a religion that promotes gender equality, there would be different expectations or responsibilities placed on men and women. again — my question is admittedly based on very limited knowledge of Sikhism.
Milli,
The expectations are identical. No differentiation is made between men and women in this regard, except for the fact that men are named Singh and women are named Kaur.
I don’t think there are similar expectations for women to follow the 5Ks. Not at all.
Six of one, half dozen of the other, its easier for women to flow across boundaries but also they have less of the power that comes from fulfilling the most important responsiblities?
There is a movement by women to wear dastaar though, and that’s quite significant. Things are changing.
I think this could parrallel the feminist movement in the “Vestern” world; as women’s gender roles become less constricting, so do mens. Its win win
As an implicit corrolary, Sikh men would then have the ability to participate in religion in a different way.
Sikhism is quite an interesting religion in this regard, as well as the bakhti movement. its not at all a rigid tradition, but one where the quest is to experience fully the divine. Take the issues brought up by ghalib, and go many, many, many steps deeper in complexity and introspection.
Guru Gobind Singh Ji knew quite a few languages and he conversed in the Zafarnama in the idiom that the Mughals would understand, even while speaking to his Sikhs in a way that was at home to them
Non von Mises,
“Culturally”, No. But from a strict religious perspective, Yes there are. Women are supposed to wear the 5Ks and not remove any of their body hair or cut the hair on their head. Especially Amritdhari women.