…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.
Try reading Camille’s comments again a couple times =) She is repeatedly expressing that she feels a Sikh is one who is on a path .. someone who believes in the faith and is trying to become a better Sikh. She never says that if you don’t wear a turban, you’re not a Sikh.
If someone does not wear any of the 5 K’s but is at Gurdwara every weekend volunteering, praying on a regular basis and trying to understand Sikhism better, then he/she is a Sikh. If someone is wearing a turban but getting high every night and engaging in criminal activities, then I wouldn’t really consider him/her a Sikh. Of course, this is just my opinion on a couple extreme cases. I don’t do the judging, but I’m allowed to make assumptions based on first glance.
Red, people can call themselves whatever they want, but truth is in action. Alot of my relatives have the whole turban and kirpan act down, but they are some horrible mean people. Are they sikh? Not in my mind. On the other hand I know some very smart people who read Sikh scriptures and try to be good people, but dont have any of the 5K’s on, but in my mind they are more SIkh then alot of people who do put on the 5K’s
Sure ShallowThinker, I hear you. It’s complex for sure.
I’m in the same boat as you. I have simply never heard from anyone Sikh I know of Sikhism being so exclusive. It does sound very rigid…all or nothing. I’d be curious to hear thoughts from more people.
And I don’t want to harp on the same point but expecting a child who has only known one religion his whole life and how he identifies himself and his relationship with his family to have the understanding, maturity or for that matter the ability to wake up one day and disconnect from his religion is too extreme.
It’s like someone accusing me of “pretending” to be Hindu. I don’t follow any of the so called principles of hinduism but that is my identity and how I was raised and how I identify myself. I’m sure there will be plenty of Hindus out here that wouldn’t want to consider me Hindu but it doesn’t change how I feel about it. Calling it a pretence is not just harsh but misplaced. I’m not willing to wake up tomorrow and say I’m an aethist much less take on another religious identity because I don’t feel 100% one with my own religion.
Actually Jane come to think of it, I have been told that I am not a proper Hindu because I’m not ‘patriotic’ enough about some things! Even by some uncles of mine. Heh.
Well Hinduism offers you a fairly loose and flexible philosophical structure to make your own decisions about how you want to live your life and the depth of spirituality you can adhere to. There are scriptures that offer plenty of guidance in the matter however the interpretation of what a “proper Hindu” is can be defined in so many different ways. Two people from the same household may not have the same worldview of it.
Actually I’m quite confused after reading this thread because it all seems so nebulous but I’m not Sikh so I can never really grasp a complete understanding of it. It is all extremely fascinating and I have several close Sikh friends who always explain anything I ask of them to the best of their knowledge so I’ve been lucky so far.
Hinduism is as much an ethno-cultural complex, or an ethnicity, as it is a “religion” and lord knows there are many paths, from idol revering to iconclasm, monistic absolutism to animism, that it would be woefully absurd in these times to tell someone he is not a Hindu because of certain behaviors.
Sikhism, as I understand from Camille’s very instructive posts, is a religion with specific modern tenets that set up standards, so it becomes intelligible to see a person as “not a Sikh” if he/she violates them.
That is how I understand it as well. I think of all religions it is perhaps one of the most specific ones and it gives you a clear path to follow to be part of Sikhi. How many other religions are there that offer this much clarity?
How many other religions are there that offer this much clarity?
All the Abrahamic religions do, however, in reality they all have incredible diversity (and differences) of thought and lifestyle, philosophy, too.
Buddhism probably has the largest body of text about the “ways of buddhism”. However, Japanese Buddhism is very different from Sri Lankan Buddhism. Since, it is a dharmic religion, all the texts in Buddhism are only guides for self-journey. Therefore, Herman Hesse’s Buddha is very different Osamu Tzueka’s Buddha.
For starter, why don’t someone (you) look into Catholism, Vatican (it ability and total inability to enforce a common order), it’s differences in Europe, North America, South America, and Africa.
Especially, South America, and the role of pagan practices deeply embedded. Or for that matter, Opus Dei and their strict rule.
I am only talking about a subset of Christianity, Catholics. We haven’t even broached Evengelicals, Baptists, Calvinists, Orthodox, etc.
Let’s not even go into fundamental differences between Shias and Sunnis.
I’m not at all familiar with Sikhism, so feel free to correct me if this question is inappropriate – but is it possible to draw a parallel between non-keshdhari Sikhs and Reform Judaism?
Yeah — I read in a book somewhere that Catholicism took such a grip on Italy because it overlaid certain folk religious impulses with the rituals and worship of Mary, they could adapt to it easily because it was in tune with these ‘pagan’ reflexes. Same with Africa and Mexico. Good point there Kush.
What is the Sikh word for god? I was doing some (very light) reading, and in a translation of a prayer, the word “Shiva” is used. Later I read that Sikhism shares some similarities with Vaishnavism. And even later, I read that during meditation Sikhs should recite(?) or focus on the name of god. I’m not sure if any of that information is accurate, but I was just wondering what a Sikh person would call god … and to a lesser degree, “who” that god is. Sorry if this is a lame question; I have very little knowledge of Sikhism.
I’m writing a book with a Sikh central character – and am not Sikh. Could someone tell me if the following scenario is unrealistic? The female central character has been raised in a village in rural Punjab to a well-to-do keshdari farmer, and has an arranged marriage with a young non-keshdari man, son of a merchant, in a nearby town.
Your help is MUCH appreciated.
Milli – the word for God is “Waheguru”. A central part of Sikhism is reciting “Naam Simran” which entails meditating on the word Waheguru.
For your answer we go to the Sikh Guru, the Guru Granth Sahib (GGS). The GGS has no specific name for God. In the GGS God is called Ram, Allah, Hari and many other appropriate names. The idea behind this is that God has many names as many as one can think of but it is how we perceive God that is important not a name. Many Sikhs use WaheGuru to refer to God this is primarily because of Bhai Gurdas Ji’s writings in which he uses the word Waheguru. The actual reference is Vaah Guru from the GGS and these two words are being used similarly to me saying “Vaah Milli” as if I were praising you. Naming God, our father/creator, is the equivalent of a Son naming his father, which as we know is not possible. It is the father that names his children.
The concept of Naam and Naam Japna in Sikhism is commonly misunderstood to mean some form of a meditative recitation of a word or a phrase. Sikhism is a path of action not meditation. Mindless repition of a word or a phrase in a certain physical position, facing a certain direction was denounced by Guru Nanak in his discussion with the Siddhas and is recorded in the GGS under the Siddh Gost. Babur was raping the Indus valley during the time of Nanak and he made it clear that only social upliftment converted into action will can save the masses not meditation in the mountains. The GGS provides us with the divine knowledge that can help change our character and make us socially responsible by first making us spiritually aware. I have attempted to say what Naam is NOT. What Naam is is a lengthy discussion for another forum.
I’ve learned so much from this discussion. Thank you!
Can’t agree with you there. One without the other would be useless and one-sided. Meditating on the word Waheguru is not always meaningless – if done correctly it can bring you a lot of peace and calmn, and even a feeling of closeness with God. I don’t think you can just quickly discount the power of that by saying that meditation is meaningless. But, of course, I agree that removing yourself from society completely and “meditating in the mountains” is not going to move us along the path.
Sonia Kaur and sarbhpreet — thanks for both of your replies. I suspected as much — that there is no “name” for God in the way that Jesus and Krishna are names for specific manifestations of godhood). This thread is prompting me to learn more about Sikhism; there is a lot I agree with and can appreciate as a visistadwaita bhakta (now there is something else for you all to look up 🙂 ).
Red, I think Sonia summed up what I was trying to say in a much more articulate way, so hopefully that’s useful 🙂 Jane, I agree, young children probably don’t know better, which is why people are supposed to make the choice when they feel ready. Sikhi is also unique from other religions in that you cannot be born into the faith, but you can be raised in the faith, if that makes sense. Also, I think the fact that people feel “cast out” when they decide that Sikhi is not for them is indicative of problems within our own community. If all religions are equal (as they are in Sikhi) and every path is valid (as it is in Sikh teachings), then children should not have to feel “orphaned” from a spiritual perspective, although I’m sure it is equally painful for their parents.
#60 abacus:
Some people would say yes, again it depends on the individual. I think the difference is that the Sikh community itself hasn’t come to that agreement. As mentioned above, one of the biggest differences is that Sikhi is not something passed through birth. For example, I have a lot of friends who are “atheist Jews” or “non-practicing Jews” — no such thing in Sikhi.
Also, for “Naam” I have to agree (mostly) with Sarbhpreet. I think one of the hardest concepts to understand (for others) in Sikhi is that the idea of God/Vaheguru is universal. This is part of the reason that many different names are used in baani, including “Shiva”, “Allah”, etc. The underlying statement is that there is one God for everyone. I don’t want to belabor this since Sarbhpreet already provided such an excellent explanation, but it’s a pretty dynamic concept.
I also have to agree that “Naam Japna” is not meant to be mindless meditation or repetition, but I don’t think it’s pure action either. This is of course much more open to interpretation and is not clearly defined, but for my family this is about constant reflection upon Vaheguru and Hukam (His Will). A lot of this is to reflect on the fact that the world, Creation, and everything that happens is not your doing but the doing of your Creator. For myself this is a constant ego-check, although it is by no means a “throw up your hands and deny agency/responsibility because it’s ‘God’s Will'” kind of thing. More like a recognition that every element of your experience is not your making, but your Maker’s doing.
I don’t know too much about Sikhism, and lookinig at all the comments above, I dont have anything new to add.
I would however, like to mention that this whole issue of identity is not something that is faced by second-generation Sikhs outside of India only. I know of at least three Sikh friends in India who have done away with ther turban. On of them however, has not cut his hair – he leaves it open. Another one had an accident and had to have an operation on his head (which needed his hair to be cut). He took advantage of the opportunity and never grew his hair back.
I would simply say (and I am not necessarily contradicting anyone here) that faith or belief is hardly something which one can expect of an entire community – those are dreams of people of the likes of Khomeini and Ahmed-in-a-box.
sarbhpreet, Camille & Sonia… Thank you so much for such a wealth of information. I actually printed this thread and read it on the way home on the train.
Due to caste differences between merchants and farmers, this is a very unlikely scenario. That could be the conflict in your story, if you choose. But it would not be an ARRANGED marriage.
This, fortunately or unfortunately, is the inevitable outcome when desis discuss things. We just can’t come to a consensus on anything. I am not picking on Sonia AT ALL, just used her quote to point out a larger tendency most of us share. But I suppose in that way we’re no different than anyone else.
But isn’t that, in a sense, what makes these discussions worth having? 🙂
Naam Japna, Kirat Karna, Vand Chhakna
In Sikhism, ‘Naam Japna’ could be as specific as reading the Granth Sahib, or as banal as remembering God (‘Waheguru’) while doing everyday tasks. The important thing to note here is that Sikhism does not promote withdrawal from everyday life; instead it mandates its followers to lead normal lives while following the tenets of Sikhism (‘Kirat Karna’). In the end, the results of work should be shared with others, especially the weaker ones (‘Vand Chhakna’).
I agree.
Like Anna, I can empathize with the kid. However, it’s a bit absurd to cast him either as a symbol of teenage rebellion spitting on the lens of an authoritarian fashion regime, or as a shameless moron who unwittingly degraded a religion which desperately needs understanding as not being adverse to societal tenets (you know, not being repressive and valuing individuality). It’s a bit much to put on the shoulders of a kid (and that’s not to say the consequences of his actions weren’t real) What I find interesting is how the specific community, from which he or his global proxies originate, choose to respond to the “mess he’s gotten himself into”. I recall that in the Vancouver incident, which was alluded to before, the teenager’s community went public with what a bad example he was, and did a nice obsequious shuffle begging there forgiveness from the authorities at large, going so far as even requesting that they prosecute. I found it weird, that for the kid in that incident, his Sikh community seemed more than willing to turn its back on him in his time of need, at least publicly. I wonder how much solace he would have subsequently been able to draw from a community that seemed so keen to sacrifice him, and which demanded so much from him for so little in return (and for teenagers, the philosophy of perfect hair is a big deal).
Thanks very much Amitabh. I guess, then, the keshdari/nonkeshdari difference would not prevent an arranged marriage in itself?
Red Snapper,
I thought I should respond to the earlier questions you were asking Camille regarding what non-strict Sikhs are called.
The official term for non-Amritdhari non-Keshdhari Sikhs who still have an affiliation to Sikhism to some extent is Sahejdhari Sikhs.
Informally the term “mona Sikh” is also often used, for the clean-shaven men at least, but this isn’t really a religious term.
And yes, you’re right that huge numbers of British Sikhs (and the greater proportion of the UK-born “younger generation”) would fall into this definition.
ShallowThinker,
I’m going to have to politely disagree with you here. I don’t (yet) “go at it 100%”, but I’ve already gained an absolutely huge amount from it. It’s obviously not an ideal situation, but God isn’t a bureaucrat and is more compassionate and understanding than one may realise.
The rest of your post #36, however, is excellent and I do agree with it.
Since I’ve mentioned Guru Gobind Singh a couple of times, I thought I should post a couple of links for the benefit of commenters who may be interested in reading more about his life and teachings. This should also serve as a sufficient response to some unanswered questions from the Martial Races thread.
Detailed biographies of Guru Gobind Singh: Here, here, here, and here.
Look out for the following terms and events in particular:
Raja Bhim Chand’s attack on Anandpur, Battle of Bhangani, Battle of Naudan, First Battle of Anandpur, Second Battle of Anandpur, Battle of Nirmoh, Third Battle of Anandpur, Fourth Battle of Anandpur, Fifth Battle of Anandpur, Battle of Chamkaur, Battle of Khidrana, Battle of Mukatsar, Battle of Jaju (where the Guru gave military assistance to the soon-to-be Emperor Bahadur Shah during the war of succession for the Mughal throne), the Guru’s subsequent visit to Agra upon the new Emperor’s request, where a royal robe of honour was conferred upon him.
Zafarnama: Guru Gobind Singh’s letter to Aurangzeb. It also triggered the deathbed letter written by the Emperor to his own son whereupon he realised the enormity of his crimes (details are included in the links above), extract: “……Whatever good or bad I have done, I am taking it as a load upon my head to the Great Unseen…………I am totally in the dark about the destiny that awaits me. But what I know is that I have committed enormous sins. Canst tell what grim punishment is in the store for me……….”
Ahkam-i-Alamgiri: Aurangzeb’s journal consisting of 72 separate articles, includes details regarding the receipt of the Zafarnama and the Emperor’s subsequent attempts to initiate a full-scale rapprochement with the Guru. Multiple English translations of the full text are available.
What was the response when the Hindu kid in New Jersey faked a racist attack on his family from ‘the community and its global proxies’? (love that phrase – global proxies! Sounds like they are missile bases or something)
Was there a generalised group hug? Fountains of public compassion? As far as I know the community in Edinburgh rallied around the kid and even issues a statement about how he was going through issues. As for the response of other people, well ‘He was a stupid idiot’ may sound harsh, but it’s not really a ‘community specific’ response to express annoyance in sharp terms. Given that turbanned Sikhs face hate crimes more conspicuously than any other Asian group regularly (more than you probably understand or symapthise with), a boy crying wolf simply does not help the situation. They probably predicted a caricatures and other things in the aftermath too.
Thanks Jai, I’m going to discuss this with my mates next time I see them.
German Shepherd
The public statement of support for the lad from the Scottish branch of the global proxies!
link
Enough said.
Acch, all this Caledonian controversy has put me in the mood for a wee dram of fine malt — it’s been years since I visited Edinburgh which is a city finest in the winter time when the castle is illuminated at night and the buzz of the crowds on the cobblestone streets and on the Royal Mile. It has an atmosphere like nowhere lelse in Europe. Everyone should visit if you get the chance.
Can’t we all just get along, and agree that it’s just Sikhs of one, half dozen of the other?
Hmm, maybe I phrased it wrong, or it came across in the wrong manner, because I don’t see anything wrong in what I wrote. I don’t agree that Naam Japna is meaningless. I think it can be for some people if all they’re doing is sitting around chanting Waheguru but not living a good life. But I think when it’s combined with other facets of practicing Sikhism, it can be very useful.
I think it would be different if I had just said “You’re wrong,” but I explained my point of view. Isn’t that what a discussion is? This blog would be pretty boring if someone stated their view and a hundred other people just chimed in to say “Yes, Yes, You’re Right, I Agree!”
So where does that leave Sikhism? From my experience, there are Sikhs who believe the gap between the -ism and those who cut their hair to be growing. I don’t think it helps the -ism to create these two groups and start the discussion from there but some do, notably some granthi’s who run youth camps. In the camps, kesh and amrit is sometimes to reduced to an end; that is, if you have one or both, you are not only a Sikh but a true Sikh or Sikhism codified. And yet, kesh and amrit is purported to be a gateway to an undefined but more desirable end, as in when the individual commits himself/herself to kesh, life takes on other meanings. In other words, kesh and amrit have more than one purpose and meaning (perhaps in conflict) and parallel the debate between what is a Sikh and what is Sikhism. For this and other reasons, I think the term ‘Sikh’ is fast becoming a floating signifier.
Nonetheless, the conversation within the community about kesh as a signal of declining reverance for the faith is an intellectual copout to the broader challenges religion (as a whole) faces as it attempts to adopt to methodological naturalism and activities that crowd religion out.
Happens all the time (among people of the same caste). There are some families who feel strongly against it of course (on both sides).
Sonia, that’s why I stated I wasn’t singling you out, just used your quote. I’m not making any comment on the substance of your specific argument. I don’t think anyone should fake agreement if they don’t mean it, and besides, you’re absolutely correct this is a discussion and we want a spectrum of viewpoints…I just find it comical (tinged with regretable) that whenever you have two desis, you’ll get three opinions.
Red Snapper — interesting . The reaction in Vancouver was quite differetn.
The RCMP (national police) said
In contrast, some in the Sikh community were pretty pissed off at the hoaxer:
NVM,
Could you explain? (not sure what you mean by “methodological naturalism and activities that crowd religion out.”
I don’t really understand what point you’re making Ikram. There was a wide range of reactions on the matter amongst global proxies. So what? They are entitled to their opinion.
Camille,
by “activities that crowd religion out” I am referring to benefits that were sought through religion that can also be had by other means. Specifically, intangibles like comfort and peace aren’t only obtained through faith and insight into conduct and social relations (once the domain of religion) can be had by reading Fromm or Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus, etc.
.
Bingo. That was the point.
IÂ’m not that apathetic to the distaste the Sikh community must feel for someone who callously uses the guise of a hate-crime for something trivial as adolescent vanity. It shows a real fecklessness on the part of the perpetrator. I just think this lack of respect for the tenets of his religion may be partially caused by a community more concerned about appearance to the mainstream, rather than the practical difficulties a youth might face in unquestioningly accepting its seemingly intractable laws. ItÂ’s not a religion if you canÂ’t reject it. Many of my friends rejected it early on (not wholeheartedly mind you), and then returned to it later when they were more mature and better able to appreciate what a strength religious belief could be in keeping a sense of individuality and identity. But in a community which is implacable, and feels the need to deal with its internal problems by fear alone, whilst supplicating at the feet of the outside world for understandingÂ…no wonder a kid could be confused. By the way, IÂ’ll limit the above comments to the Vancouver community implicated by that specific incident. IÂ’m glad red snapper enjoys my turn of phrase. Use it again and IÂ’ll take it as disrespect. And then IÂ’ll not really care and hopefully stop spending time on this blog.
‘Global Proxies’ — I liked the demented uselessness of it as a phrase Shepherd Dog.
So this is what it feels like to have an online stalker…ladies, gents, beware!
Blimey, you’re a bit paranoid, arent you? Take it easy bro. Peace and love to you.
It has an atmosphere like nowhere lelse in Europe. Everyone should visit if you get the chance.
Edinburgh is perhaps the most poetic city I have been. In 1995, I spent a week there. It was July, just a week before Edinburgh festival.
It is an amazing city, it also could be that I was touching land after being @ sea for two months without a port call so everything was precious.
Don’t know about Edinburgh, but I was in Glasgow in May 1998, and it was almost freezing outside. Beautiful city though, and you could see a decent # of desis around (but not compared to English cities). I think there a lot more desis in Scotland now than even a few years ago.
Coach and DesiShiksa,
Thank you. You were both right and it was nice of you to clarify my point when I couldn’t. While I would never pretend to know what it’s like to wear a turban and did not intend to imply that, I do know a tiny bit about looking so different that everyone stares, about wishing more than anything else that I could fit in, about the weight of “culture” on slight shoulders, about being sick of explaining reasons for my “difference” when I didn’t even comprehend them or agree to such things in the first place. <3 to both of you (and to JOAT for the confirmation from up North).
Ladies and Gentlemen
Mr friend from London University who is doing a Phd in Punjabi and works in Sikh studies reccomended the following book by e-mail for everyone interested in some of the things discussed here:
Sikh Identity: An Exploration of Groups Among Sikhs by Opinderjit Kaur Takhar
Only problem is it is very expensive! Ă‚ÂŁ40 pounds….so get your library to order it or something. I am lucky enough that my friend promised me to lend me her copy. But don’t despair! A google book search shows the first few pages can be read on that wonderful site, check it out here