# The Narcissism Of Small Differences



## IJSingh (Mar 13, 2019)

While waiting in the anteroom of my Retirement Investment Advisor, I caught the headline of an editorial in The Wall Street Journal.  It was as many OP-EDs are these days – mostly lamenting or celebrating President Donald Trump. His relationship with truth remains problematic but there is never a dull moment with Trump and his tweets.

The title fascinated me and I am plagiarizing it today, but I’ll recreate a new narrative around it about Sikhs and Sikhi.   The fragmented reality of our Sikh community in North America is not as complex as it is maddeningly complicated.  The body politic of Sikhi in India largely, and to a slightly lesser extent in the diaspora, is shredded, troublesome and mind boggling.  Every Sikh organization, no matter how minuscule, touts an endless list of enemies that they detest and will not deal with. (I, too, have a place on some such lists, but I carry it as a badge of honor.) It is as if each Sikh outfit has its own easily transmissible highly contagious viral infection.  




Should each _minisect_ be isolated in solitary confinement? For fund-raising each organization comes to us as if it is unmatched in dedication and service – with an aura of the super-pure. Each flaunts its own purity of purpose.  I wonder if a pea{censored} would be quite that vain and arrogant.

I have lost count, but with so many organizations (tribal clans!) it is difficult, if not impossible, to identify the singular agenda of each.  Their borders defy clear and unique domains.  Their activities overlap, as does their clientele.

But listen to their shtick.  Humility never touched them.  They cut each other down like crabs preventing other crabs from climbing any higher.  They swell but they do not grow.  Their prominent activities reinforce a newly minted adage: _“Most people talk of people; some talk of things; a precious few talks of ideas.”_ They want to save the world for Sikhi but I wonder how – by destroying each other?

Some want to ban the English language within gurduara premises; such edicts are increasingly raising their ugly heads in the diaspora.   Others sell bottled water that they claim to have brought from India from some holy(?) river or well. Some also sell packets of dust from a historical gurduara site for distribution!  And there is a growing market in manufactured “dry” _parshaad_ to transport across the world!  Isn’t that lovely?  And we preach that this is holier than what you can make in your own kitchen.

My simple mind is baffled!  Why and how does the dust (dirt) and water from 10,000 miles away become holier than that from my local backyard and tap here in New York? And then, we ban chairs within the gurduara hall, lest the old and handicapped find some comfort. Didn’t the Gurus reject such pointless ritualism? Among such newly acquired habits to showcase our dedication are many that blow my mind.

We often shun real interfaith understanding and communication when the Guru Granth could well be the textbook for such initiatives for the world around us.  Some newly invented behavioral models rate a critical look!  Booing & heckling within the gurduara during the service, disorderly meetings, if any.  Voting by blocks based on origin -- village, caste, Jat or non-Jat, Ramgarhia, Sodhi, Bhalla, Lubhana, and God alone knows how many more criteria.  Or banning elections in gurduaras.  Worse yet, when an election term is over to refuse to allow new elections and passing the baton to new, freely chosen/elected officers. And forget not the physical fights within the gurduaras.

_Is this not best labeled as “Tribalism?”_

Women remain unequal, despite our teachings that we proudly repeat in most gurduaras every day.  About 40 years ago, in New York, I remember being publicly excoriated because I asked a woman to lead the Ardaas.  Why a woman? I was asked by the management.  Female infanticide and dowry are never talked about within gurduara premises.

I recall a Sikh leader recently addressing the _sangat; _he emphasized that the first rule of Sikhi is to obey your parents.  I had to wonder if Guru Nanak himself would be disqualified by this criterion.

Our first principle seems to have morphed into vilification and dehumanizing of others with whom we do not agree.

*Many are the things we fight about that make an endlessly fascinating list of trivia, don’t they? Too many chiefs hardly any Indians, as an American saying goes, tongue in cheek.  Or, is this denial of others ego run amok?  Is this narcissism a level above and beyond simple ego?  Aren’t they really small issues in the larger context?*

A couple of more revealing habits:  We often recruit volunteers for an endless recitation of specific hymns or passages of gurbani – a thousand times or an unbroken chain of perhaps a million recitations worldwide. Forget not some who come to the gurduara but instead of attending the program – keertan or kathaa -- they open a gutka (_breviary_) to continue their reading of something else – something they could have done at home. Then there is a group of young and not so young Sikh women. They religiously awaken at 3 AM – Amrit vela, you know – get on a group telephone call and repeat just one word – _Vaheguru_ – for the next two hours.  Then, satisfied with the demonstration of their devotion, they go back to sleep. 

Their reward?  World peace or a place in heaven and enlightenment?  I don’t really know.

We seem to look at a position in gurduara management as a birth right, not an opportunity for _seva_.  To be looking for a position of pride and never letting go.

The attitude shouts: “Surely, I should be the leader of the gurduara.  See how marvelous is my car, or how expensive my house – like a castle.  And the price of my jewelry.  Surely, I deserve the honor.  Look at me.  Ain’t I great?”

_Look at me_ is the never-ending refrain. There is an intensity and passion to our debates, but not much purpose on the Internet by these guardians of our faith.   You would call it ego, I would dub it narcissism resting atop a pile of trivia.

If my column today reads like a rant or _controversy on steroids_ so be it.  Perhaps I should have labeled it:  _The Tyranny of Small Differences?  Or Pulverized by Trivia._


----------



## gjsingh (Apr 9, 2019)

Would winning converts amongst the Gore and Kale make Sikhi more cosmopolitan and less tribalistic? For example, didn't some Bhajanist Singhni demand (and were granted) sevadar duties at Harmandir sahib back in the 1980s? Or would that just make things worse?


----------



## Harry Haller (Apr 10, 2019)

gjsingh said:


> Would winning converts amongst the Gore and Kale make Sikhi more cosmopolitan and less tribalistic? For example, didn't some Bhajanist Singhni demand (and were granted) sevadar duties at Harmandir sahib back in the 1980s? Or would that just make things worse?



brilliant, sexism and racism in one quote!


----------



## gjsingh (Apr 10, 2019)

I do have my prejudices like any other person, but I can also be a bit thick at times. What in particular made my statement brilliant and/or offensive?


----------



## Sikhilove1 (Aug 13, 2019)

Harry Haller said:


> brilliant, sexism and racism in one quote!



Haha


----------



## Sikhilove1 (Aug 13, 2019)

IJSingh said:


> While waiting in the anteroom of my Retirement Investment Advisor, I caught the headline of an editorial in The Wall Street Journal.  It was as many OP-EDs are these days – mostly lamenting or celebrating President Donald Trump. His relationship with truth remains problematic but there is never a dull moment with Trump and his tweets.
> 
> The title fascinated me and I am plagiarizing it today, but I’ll recreate a new narrative around it about Sikhs and Sikhi.   The fragmented reality of our Sikh community in North America is not as complex as it is maddeningly complicated.  The body politic of Sikhi in India largely, and to a slightly lesser extent in the diaspora, is shredded, troublesome and mind boggling.  Every Sikh organization, no matter how minuscule, touts an endless list of enemies that they detest and will not deal with. (I, too, have a place on some such lists, but I carry it as a badge of honor.) It is as if each Sikh outfit has its own easily transmissible highly contagious viral infection.
> 
> ...



Haha, I loved your post

I’m glad someone’s addressing the issue of sexism, it’s absolutely ridiculous and unacceptable that this should be an issue at all today, it’s a mere question of human equality. Women are treated as inferior and not everyone sees it because of the sexist Punjabi brown culture.

One point I don’t agree on is the part about people reading their own excerpts of gurbani from a gutka and Naam simran. We are free to practice spirituality how we want so if people feel happy doing that then fine.

The rest, is right. I actually attended a ‘selective’ board meeting in London once with local government ministers present, and the heads of gurdwarras and ministers started trying to beat each other up on gurdwarra premises. I found the clash of their egos hilarious.

Not allowing people to marry in gurdwarras when it’s their choice to is ridiculous aswell obviously.

Thanks for the good read.


----------



## Loveisthereason (Aug 18, 2019)

I agree with alot of issues you've raised in the article but again this is not the real lay of the land. 

On the other hand you have a group of people who want to escape to a sp{censored} winterland in a log cabin overlooking an icy lake, and write a long list of wrongdoings in isolation so that they never really have to get involved or come back with any viable alternatives. When will we deal with them? 

These issues exist in all organisations religious and non-religious and they will not be going away anytime soon. There is actual good work being done in some quarters nobody seems to mention these. Sometimes one can live in a bubble of ones own making and be committed to the art of complaint. 

Clean your own backyard I don't see any of us going around and shooting a place up without any consequences, that's great governance isn't it. Our biggest failure as a community is not understanding that you cannot model one system onto another. This is exactly what the current Indian government is doing, it thinks it can model its society on the Israeli project, it will fail because people have to find their own way home. They struggle to do this when their own people confuse the situation with comparison cum interference.


----------



## Sikhilove1 (Aug 27, 2019)

Loveisthereason said:


> I agree with alot of issues you've raised in the article but again this is not the real lay of the land.
> 
> On the other hand you have a group of people who want to escape to a sp{censored} winterland in a log cabin overlooking an icy lake, and write a long list of wrongdoings in isolation so that they never really have to get involved or come back with any viable alternatives. When will we deal with them?
> 
> ...



Who’s living in an sp winter land. 

Many have tried to reason with these nutters and they become defensive to the point of violence. 

The issue lays with the heads of the seats of so called authority. Sikhism has been taken over by sexist patriarchs at the very highest levels, an insult to the 10th Guru who never propagated any of unequal rubbish. 

A sexist man who does good work cancels his efforts out with his stance of inequality.

A corrupt man gave Nanak a roti, an act of kindness. And it dripped with blood. 

There is surely work to be done if good people can stand up and band together. So let’s make a start if you are willing.


----------



## Loveisthereason (Aug 28, 2019)

Baru Sahib is an exclusive school for females how does that make the man who did this sexist? Are you doing the same level of research? 

There are definitely anti women views in the panth I disagree with the belief of women not being able to do seva in the sanctum sanctorum of harimandar and not recognising female panj piare. This is why I don't believe Bhindranwale was a sant he advocated those views. However I still respect him because he went out of his way to guage the views of female members of the panth especially days before the attack. I don't believe he was stuck in his views and was willing to bend if a strong case was made. He was the right person for the times in spite of his views. We rarely find a person who encompasses every one of our ideals. 

Bibi Jagir Kaur was head of the SGPC she left the office steeped in contraversey, if you watch her while she led she behaved like a man, she was abrasive and in your face. We have the same situation in other organisations where women think they have to be macho to get ahead, why is this? All men are not macho, this is about projection of power. 

I don't believe our leaders are mysoginistic, I think we are frightened to lead.


----------



## Sikhilove1 (Aug 31, 2019)

Loveisthereason said:


> Baru Sahib is an exclusive school for females how does that make the man who did this sexist? Are you doing the same level of research?
> 
> There are definitely anti women views in the panth I disagree with the belief of women not being able to do seva in the sanctum sanctorum of harimandar and not recognising female panj piare. This is why I don't believe Bhindranwale was a sant he advocated those views. However I still respect him because he went out of his way to guage the views of female members of the panth especially days before the attack. I don't believe he was stuck in his views and was willing to bend if a strong case was made. He was the right person for the times in spite of his views. We rarely find a person who encompasses every one of our ideals.
> 
> ...



Your female macho comments are actually sexist. If a woman has certain characteristics, then let her. Maybe she isn’t your cup of tea but I’m sure she’ll be someone else’s. Women rarely walk around criticizing men and calling them feminine, because it’s bad etiquette and it’s nasty. 

 I have female family members who were beaten half to death by their waster husbands and had to pick up the pieces and be the sole breadwinner in the family while their husbands lazed around getting drunk.

You would probably call them macho as they are strong, independent women who don’t need a man to support them, and have been forced to take control.

I didn’t look up the school because it’s irrelevant. The point I’m trying to make is that if an organization does good deeds but is still sexist, then what’s the point. Good deeds start with recognizing beings as equal.. that’s the whole point that Nanak propagated.

No Hindu, no Muslim, only One.

If Sikhs cannot accept one of his first and greatest teachings, then how can they deem themselves to be Sikhs.

A Sikh is a Bhagat, walking on the path of Truth.


----------



## Loveisthereason (Sep 1, 2019)

My comments about macho women was an observation about the state of affairs around female participation, sexism is where you use a prejudice about a particular sex to discriminate, I didn't do that. In fact I will go further and say women don't really care about these issues it's just a fringe who pick up on unequal representation and aim to speak on behalf of all women. This happens more in western society with topics such as abortion, contraception etc. The majority of women do not care about these issues and studies have proven this. 

I have very strong women in my life too, they are strong because they could stand their ground and plan forward for their families. They knew how to clear a path for their children so that they never had to confront any obstacles growing up. That is leadership. 

Sikh society will become the same as every other nation if we adopt the "follow my beliefs or else" mentality. I must be living in a bubble because I have not seen or experienced the level of discrimination you are claiming. Growing up I saw extreme domestic violence, this violence was not one-sided. Furthermore I have also seen situations where women folk have spoiled the male and masculine identity of their loved ones to the point where their confidence has been destroyed and they turn on their parents and live with bitterness together where nothing is accomplished to the point of no return. 

So it is important to cover all sides of the story. We should never safeguard a group of people based upon their individual differences but safeguard their merits, you have a seat at the table because of what you bring to the table not because your different. It is in that sentiment that our Guru's selected men and women for missionary purposes and called them manjis, they didn't see difference.


----------



## Sikhilove1 (Sep 1, 2019)

Loveisthereason said:


> My comments about macho women was an observation about the state of affairs around female participation, sexism is where you use a prejudice about a particular sex to discriminate, I didn't do that. In fact I will go further and say women don't really care about these issues it's just a fringe who pick up on unequal representation and aim to speak on behalf of all women. This happens more in western society with topics such as abortion, contraception etc. The majority of women do not care about these issues and studies have proven this.
> 
> I have very strong women in my life too, they are strong because they could stand their ground and plan forward for their families. They knew how to clear a path for their children so that they never had to confront any obstacles growing up. That is leadership.
> 
> ...



It was a sexist comment, and instead of trying to downplay it, you should just admit it. Any human who is interested in or who propagates the rights of women would agree that it was a sexist comment. 

No one is asking for everyone to become saintly over night. But the very core of Sikhism is equality.

Equality of the sexes, of races, of castes etc. as much as Nanak and the Gurus propagated equality of castes, they propagated the equality of women.

It is only chauvinist males, as well as females who are willing to sit back and allow themselves to be treated like inferior beings, that have twisted the meaning of Sikhi so that women are not given an equal seat at the table of Sikhi and humanity itself.

Women like me who stand up and address these issues are propagating the core element of Nanaks teachings, and a very basic human right which should Least of all be an issue within the Sikh fold.

This core human right is the Reason that these Sikh institutions exist..to root out inequality.

So the hypocrisy is pretty difficult to sit back and watch without standing up.


----------



## Loveisthereason (Sep 1, 2019)

No it wasn't a sexist comment and I stand by every word I have said. Your argument is crooked by design if you don't understand this then you shouldn't be representing any form of equality let alone a seat at the table. 

Let me make myself very clear, men, women and third gender people have every right to be involved in all levels of SIKHI. I have been involved in the propagation of rights for third gender or lgbtq+ people in SIKHI for a very long time. I have not focused my efforts on female equality because I do not believe that they are underrepresented, we can agree to disagree on this and that's okay. I believe lgbtq+ discrimination needs my attention more and I don't make any apology for this. 

My Guru is here today and has never advocated for any protected class, my Guru instead does not introduce any discrimination in their teachings, and is not labelled as a result of this by default which is exactly what you have done. Can you present me with actual evidence of female inequality, I will agree with you on a case by case basis, I can present you with actual evidence of Lgbtq+ discrimination at the highest levels of Sikh leadership, I just don't see this overt discrimination with women and that matters . 

Our leadership respect women alot to the point where they are moddycoddled, cross reference the attitude towards Charitropakhyaan and the argument that these verses can't be read in front of our sisters and mothers. How often do we hear this ridiculous notion? Women are not fragile they don't need protecting, they do not need care, and that is what this shows "care" for females which is misplaced, feminists would have us believe its because men don't want women to learn. 

An attitudinal shift in thinking is what's required not the lament of inequality.


----------



## Sikhilove1 (Sep 2, 2019)

Loveisthereason said:


> No it wasn't a sexist comment and I stand by every word I have said. Your argument is crooked by design if you don't understand this then you shouldn't be representing any form of equality let alone a seat at the table.
> 
> Let me make myself very clear, men, women and third gender people have every right to be involved in all levels of SIKHI. I have been involved in the propagation of rights for third gender or lgbtq+ people in SIKHI for a very long time. I have not focused my efforts on female equality because I do not believe that they are underrepresented, we can agree to disagree on this and that's okay. I believe lgbtq+ discrimination needs my attention more and I don't make any apology for this.
> 
> ...



I’m not lamenting about inequality, I’m stating what is and I’m most Certainly not asking for protection. 

Let’s agree to disagree, I see your words as sheer and utter sexism.


Actual evidence is not needed, it’s out there already in plain sight for all to see. 

Women not being allowed to be part of the panj pyare, on boards of various Sikh committees. Women being perved on blatantly and in plain sight in gurdwarras by gyanis no less, women being beaten, abused and treated as an inferior species by their ‘Sikh’ husbands (a regular occurrence) including husbands that are on gurdwarra committees, brothers, uncles. Sexual abuse within the Sikh fold including on gurdwarra premises. Women who stand up for women’s rights being ridiculed by men, due to the boys club culture that presides over most gurwarras. 

 The list goes on. Everyone can see it, many fear speaking up about it, I have tried to spread awareness of these issues many times only to be hushed and ridiculed by men belonging to Sikh committees and Sikh men in general.

Punjabi sexist culture has infiltrated Sikhi and it’s so obvious that your request for me to provide evidence is pretty ridiculous.


----------



## Loveisthereason (Sep 3, 2019)

Movie forward, what are the prejudices underpinning the belief that men are more superior to women. There are several prejudices which are all countered by Gurbani but it is important that we identify these else we commit intellectual dishonesty, as can be seen in the previous post, whereby terms such as sexist or racist etc become insignificant labels and fail to reach those concerned with this malaise. These prejudices are mostly unconscious biases justifying the exclusionary practice of women in sikhism or even their disrespect.

The first prejudice is inherited from Muslim belief surrounding the idea of "Najaiyez", don't know if that is an accurate spelling, this is a derogatory term for bodily fluid or filth. The idea is that women excrete this during menstruation and that this can come into contact with the sacred and therefore destroy the sanctity of a place. This argument is used against sikhs in general by Muslims who argue God cannot be everywhere because God does not abide with or in filth. Men are therefore superior because women are dirty.

The second reason is pollution and is inherited from brahmanism. Again concerning menstruation, a woman unlike a man is unable to control her seed, this is therefore a weakness of females. A woman during her period is unable to exercise and execute cognitive function due to hormonal imbalance. She has an involuntary nature and is discharged from sacred duties. Religious protocol is not even reorganised, instead a women is seen as something that needs to be managed, and that by a man. So in this situation a man is superior because a woman is volatile.

The next prejudice is suspicion. This is the wilful ignorance of the intellectual argument for blind faith. For example the intellectual argument that no woman stood up to offer her head when the Khalsa was inaugurated. Despite the fact that this argument exploits an historical event solely on the basis of gender isn't bad enough, followers who are male will take no interest in uncovering this reasoning but will just go along with the sentiment that this is due to tradition. Female angst and opposition to this is then viewed with suspicious.

I will end with another prejudice but there are plenty more. This is what I call cultural chardi kalaa, whereby men are not content to rejoice in the welfare of humanity, instead they will infringe on another human being all the while thinking that they are being positive. I went on a yatra and whilst at a large gathering noticed that I was in receipt of alot of advances, I am male, at first thought that this was brotherly love but then I got my buttocks pinched. It goes from being overly friendly to "you want this to". This is a cultural problem which is confused further with the concept of chardi kala. It is a prejudice because chardi kala does not mean we all want the same thing, chardi kala is an enthused state of mind with contentment.


----------



## Sikhilove1 (Sep 3, 2019)

Loveisthereason said:


> Movie forward, what are the prejudices underpinning the belief that men are more superior to women. There are several prejudices which are all countered by Gurbani but it is important that we identify these else we commit intellectual dishonesty, as can be seen in the previous post, whereby terms such as sexist or racist etc become insignificant labels and fail to reach those concerned with this malaise. These prejudices are mostly unconscious biases justifying the exclusionary practice of women in sikhism or even their disrespect.
> 
> The first prejudice is inherited from Muslim belief surrounding the idea of "Najaiyez", don't know if that is an accurate spelling, this is a derogatory term for bodily fluid or filth. The idea is that women excrete this during menstruation and that this can come into contact with the sacred and therefore destroy the sanctity of a place. This argument is used against sikhs in general by Muslims who argue God cannot be everywhere because God does not abide with or in filth. Men are therefore superior because women are dirty.
> 
> ...



Intellectualism only takes you so far. Everyone knows what sexism is, stop trying to over complicate its meaning with show of intellectual prowess.

I am a woman and have been dealing with sexism from my family, community, at school, at work and university. All of my life. I am currently working in a backwards and sexist Middle Eastern country. 

I know darn well what sexism is first hand from experience and many women and men on this forum know the same.


----------



## Loveisthereason (Sep 3, 2019)

My post was an attempt to move the conversation forward from just you and me. I get it you've got an axe to grind sadly I'm not your man, find another target. I am happy that others agree with you, that doesn't change anything for me. Feel free to contribute to the conversation with a level of maturity, otherwise feel free to ignore. I care about these subjects I'm not here for personal reasons. Intellectualism only gets you so far? And where may I ask are you going?


----------



## Loveisthereason (Sep 3, 2019)

This forum when it first started was not like this, people disagreed with one another and moved on, I don't know whether it's a generational thing but we no longer believe that it may be possible that the other person may know something you don't. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Back to the subject of sexism. I had a discussion today at work with my colleagues some of them Sikh and some of them non-sikh. One of my colleagues said she was reading a blog online about the verse in the SGGS where it states "do not call her bad through whom great King's are born", this discussion came up because I had said I was shocked by the claims of rampant sexism in Sikhism on this forum. She stated that she too was shocked when she read the comments people had put under the article on this blog. Some women were arguing that the SGGS was a sexist scripture because this verse devalues women as baby making machines. Me and my colleague both disagreed with this interpretation as the way we both understood the verse was that the Guru was saying that without a women those great men would not exist, I argued that there is a fringe group of people, mostly women, who will read into something which isn't there. The verse according to their interpretation should have been written to say "don't say bad of her who can get pregnant" but it does not translate to that, so here begs the question, how does one get there? 

I believe that there is an unattainable feminist position which keeps evolving and destroys the legitimacy and a sincere regard for women. I believe this is almost always the case where certain individuals life conditions were not met. Many of my colleagues disagreed with me and argued that there are some people you can never please.


----------



## gjsingh (Sep 8, 2019)

Sikhilove1 said:


> Haha



I still don't understand my thought crime...


----------

