# Is Sikhism Succumbing To Fundamentalism?



## Admin (Jun 10, 2009)

There were riots across northern India last week after a shooting at a Sikh temple in Austria resulted in the death of a sect leader and, given that Punjabi culture is something I bang on about on occasion, it wasn't surprising, I suppose, that a couple of news producers rang, asking me to put the disturbances into context.

I declined because: (a) as a community we are only just learning to talk about ourselves, and too often any kind of commentary is taken as criticism; (b) commenting about religion is a dangerous business when people are being killed and one has absolutely no theological authority; (c) I feel about broadcasting the way many feel about general anaesthetic (you should do it only when you absolutely need to); but mainly because (d) it's quite hard to explain what Sikhism actually stands for.

You see, one of the founding principles of the monotheistic religion, established in the late 15th century by Guru Nanak, was opposition to Hinduism's oppressive caste system. Yet the world's fifth largest organised religion has a caste system of its own, with differences between Jat Sikhs (a group that I belong to and which makes up about two thirds of Sikh society) and non-Jat castes, such as the Ramgarhias, remaining a source of political, social and religious tension.

Even in Britain you'll find different Sikh temples belonging to different groups on the same road, and - according to some media reports last week, many of them disputed by the groups involved - the violence in Austria was sparked after orthodox Sikhs from one caste objected to preachers from another caste being disrespectful towards the Sikh Holy Book.

Also, officially, Sikhs don't worship human beings, since Guru Gobind Singh, the tenth Sikh guru, named Guru Granth Sahib, the Holy Book, as his successor. But certain Sikh sects do believe in living human gurus, some mainstream Sikh families revere spiritual figures and ancestors, and - according to some media reports, again disputed by the groups involved - the violence in Austria was sparked when members of a certain sect gave the Guru Granth Sahib pride of place next to photographs and idols of their own human "gurus".

Then there's the issue of booze. Officially, Sikhs don't drink, and some families don't even allow alcohol to be kept in their houses.

But as the academics Gurharpal Singh and Darshan Singh Tatla point out in Sikhs in Britain: The Making of a Community: "Consumption of alcohol has always been high among Sikhs, with the per capita rate among Sikhs of Punjab among the highest in the world" and "a particularly distinctive feature of British Sikh society today" being "the high rate of alcoholism among males . . . Consumption rates are higher than in any other ethnic minority and in the white community."

There are other contradictions. Sikhs are meant to adopt the name "Singh", meaning "lion", as a way of encouraging equality (one's caste can often be identified by a surname), but many of us use it only as a middle name. The Gurus declared men and women to be equal, but Punjabi culture is highly patriarchal. Sikhism is the only major world religion that acknowledges that other religions are a valid way of reaching God, but some believers risk being disowned for marrying outside of their religion.

Also, Sikhs, partly as a result of having no clergy (the idea is that everyone can be directly in touch with God without priests) and partly as a result of factionalism, have never been very good at building institutions to represent them, and yet have had great success campaigning on issues such as the right to wear the turban, so much so that Sikhs can legally ride a motorbike with a turban instead of a helmet. When, the other week, the police announced that they were developing a bulletproof turban, apart from a few tiresome jokes about the "turbanator", there were almost no objections from any quarters. Imagine the fuss there would have been if the religious headwear in question had been a burka.

And if there is anything that epitomises the fluidity of Sikhism, it is the turban. Long hair, beards and colourful headwear are synonymous with the religion - I kept my own hair unshorn until the age of 14 - but if you ask any Sikh why they keep their hair uncut, they will give you a different answer.

Some say that it's a way of showing respect for the God-given form; some that it is a way of expressing love for God (like a married person would wear a wedding ring); some link it to intelligence, health and spirituality; some say that Guru Gobind Singh made the keeping of unshorn hair mandatory to give Sikhs a binding identity. There are others who will argue that long hair isn't actually necessary to be a that Sikh.

In fact, a great many Sikhs, if not the majority, don't have long hair and don't sport turbans. And those with turbans are not necessarily hugely religious: I know one turbaned man who runs that most un-Sikh of things, an English pub; another who started wearing a turban simply because he had developed a bald patch; another who is actually an atheist.

As it happens, I don't think that these ambiguities are necessarily a problem. Such issues crop up with all organised religions, and for me, and I am a believer, the massive variation in observance is appealing, as you're basically left to define your own religiosity. Not least, it's an expression of another of Sikhism's fundamental teachings, that empty ritual is meaningless, and it ensures that believers concentrate on the things that really matter, namely "Nam simran" (meditation on and awareness of God) and "Sewa" (community service).

But the concerning thing about last week's events is that we seem to have another contradiction developing. This most modern and liberal of world religions, which allows its believers to develop their own relationship with God, is developing a fundamentalist streak, with certain people determined to tell others what to believe and how to believe it, under pain of death if necessary.


*About the Autor: Sathnam Sanghera*
Sathnam Sanghera writes for The Times. After graduating from Cambridge University in 1998, he joined the Financial Times, where he worked as its chief feature writer and a weekly columnist. His first book, The Boy With The Topknot: A Memoir of Love, Secrets and Lies in Wolverhampton, is published by Penguin


----------



## Archived_Member_19 (Jun 10, 2009)

:}{}{}:


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Jun 10, 2009)

The Pendulum is definitely swinging...way OUT...One side the Fundamentals...Matt Bhitteh ve matt bhittehs...and the other side...no hair, no turban..no gurbani..no punjabi...NOTHING
Very little Middle Ground..Moderation...


----------



## spnadmin (Jun 10, 2009)

Gyani ji

The article is very refreshing. But your comments also mark some truth. Oh my! Where does that leave me in the scheme of things? Are there any pals out there? Help!!!!  Or is Waheguru the one who will throw the lifeline .....


----------



## AdsKhalsa (Jun 10, 2009)

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa..Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh...

even my friends comment "being as a Sikh you don't drink alcohol and eat meat".... I tell them I am a veg..and Alcohol is not a part of Sikhism...

But thats true...we Sikhs are number 1 in consumption of Alcohol............its bitter...but true.............

Chardi Kala..........


----------



## lotus lion (Jun 10, 2009)

Hi,

With regards to the question in hand, No, I do not believe that Sikhi is succumbing to Fundamentalism. 

btw, for me Fundamentalism means something like Hizb-ut-Tahrir and The Sikhs are nowhere near that, as far as i can tell anyway.

wrt to the article, i can only say that i read it with interest. 

For me there was nothing in there that pointed to Fundamentalism. If anything, it spoke of the variety that life has to offer and i would say had tone of dissapointed naivity.

It is a shame that the Brother who wrote this article is not here to engage in some dialog regarding the issues raised. 

My first concern would be that we, including the Brother, are frankly quite judgemental and have no room for manouver. Generally speaking of course. 

There is diversity in life and different people value different things. I for example hold Ethics over Money, but another person may not. Would it be right of me to argue with this person or visa-versa?

We are ridge and like the Tree in the Wind will crack when the Pressure picks up as we have no flexability in us if we continue down this path.

I have never really understood why Sikhs are so concerned that every single individual subscribe to their version, understanding and level of comfort with Sikhi.

Answering some points raised:

_...Yet the world's fifth largest organised religion has a caste system of its own_

The Caste system has been established for over 1000 years and is part of the very psyche of every single Person who is of Asian origin. It is practiced in other Dharmas also, such as Islam, even though they do not allow it either. 
The Followers have simply reached an equilibrium that they were comfortable with so that they could operate in their society. Clearly, depending on their upbringing and Dharma, this will have different effects on the person.

To drive the point home, if i were to ask weather the Author or the Article was of Working ,Middle or Upper class origin, i feel that he would be able to answer within a heart beat as this is part of the British psyche.

Please note I am not defending the caste system, but simply explaining that something that has/is been practiced for over 1000 years is not going to vanish over night.

As we all know, Sikhi teaches that one should not follow the caste system:

*"Recognize the Lord's Light within all, and do not consider social class or status; there are no classes or castes in the world hereafter. ||1||Pause||"*

*SGGS Ang 349*

_Even in Britain you'll find different Sikh temples belonging to different groups on the same road._

And the same is found in other Dharma's. Let us take Christianity as an example now. There is a church down the road from my Gurdwara where there are the followers are of Black origin and move up the road and only White people go there. Ofcourse they do intermingle, but by and large, Black people stick together as do the white people.

This can be found up and down the streets of Britain also, but i have never seen an issue raised about this in the same way.

_But certain Sikh sects do believe in living human gurus, some mainstream Sikh families revere spiritual figures and ancestors_

Certain Muslims beleive that divine revelation will continue until the end of time even though according to Islamic belief Mohammed was apparently the last prophet.

Source: Ahmadiyya Sect, Islam

And Chinese Worship Ancestors also.

Source: In the Middle Kingdom - Religion

Dharma is 'pure' but is mixed with the local understanding and it comes out in a particular way. These things will happen. 

I for example do Buddhist Meditation and everytime i enter the building, i touch the floor and then touch my Pugh. This is not a Buddhist practice, but something that has come over from my Sikh and Punjabi upbringing which i am incredibly proud of. 
I do not think it would be right if someone stopped me doing that just beucase it does not fit with the Buddhists view of how i should conduct myself. 

_Then there's the issue of booze. Officially, Sikhs don't drink...[But] "Consumption of alcohol has always been high among Sikhs, with the per capita rate among Sikhs of Punjab among the highest in the world" _

This is strange topic as i am of the belief that this has infact been engineered by others who wish to see our destruction. 

Having spoken to many elders i did ask if Sikhs always drunk like we known to today and the overwhelming response is always no. Yes, we are known to have the ability to hold our drink, but never to such ridiculous excesses.

There were never as many Alcohol shops per square metre as there are today in Punjab, and Amritsar alone generates Rs1 Crore for the goverment alone a day. 
Also when Organisations are setup no support is given by the goverment.

Source: Drug Addiction in Punjab - 3HO SuperHealth | MrSikhNet 

In the same way that the Sikhs have the ability to laugh at themselves, this too has been taken to such extremes by others that we are now having to fight for our respect and dignity. 

_There are other contradictions. Sikhs are meant to adopt the name "Singh", meaning "lion", as a way of encouraging equality (one's caste can often be identified by a surname), but many of us use it only as a middle name._

This is the manisfestation of the psyche coming out again and one has to understand that people will do these things, me included.

_The Gurus declared men and women to be equal, but Punjabi culture is highly patriarchal._

There is currently a vacum for teaching the Dharma in a meaningful way and add to this that women have not really been treated fairly by men all over the world. Sikhs of Punjab have to learn like everyone else. Rome was not built in a Day as the saying goes.

I could go on, but i believe that the point has been made.

My best regards,

Lotus


----------



## dalsingh (Jun 10, 2009)

The author comes from a poor background in Wolverhampton. He father was a Paranoid Schiziophrenic. He has done very well for himself but in his own account of his life (a good read btw), he describes himself as a coconut. He had kesh growing up but cut it as a teenager. 


> To drive the point home, if i were to ask weather the Author or the Article was of Working ,Middle or Upper class origin, i feel that he would be able to answer within a heart beat as this is part of the British psyche.


 
Actually, given his background I was quite shocked to read how he has no friends from a working class background (he says as much). He seemed almost proud of it? Seeing as the vast majority of his own family will be from this background, it is surprising. I guess we can call him a snob. Probably trying to hard to get away from his past now that he has moved from grim Wolverhampton to London.


Good luck to him anyway.


----------



## Archived_Member_19 (Jun 10, 2009)

:d


----------



## dalsingh (Jun 11, 2009)

amarsanghera said:


> :d


 
Kee tera ristadaar lug da Amar?  lol


----------



## Archived_Member_19 (Jun 11, 2009)

ant his eyenlis sound fumiliar aye?


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Jun 11, 2009)

Rishtedaar nahin lagdaa..taan kee hogiya..bana lao ji...rishtedari paunni ki aukhi hai ??


----------



## Archived_Member_19 (Jun 12, 2009)

:rofl!!:

Gyani ji

Truth is  not always that meets the eye , or is in the newspaper..esp Sun :rofl!!:


----------



## dalbirk (Jun 12, 2009)

Dear All , 
It is a grave misunderstanding that the recent voilence in Punjab ( the worst in my memory even compared to 80s & 90s in Punjab ) was a result of caste differences . Most of the perpretators of voilence were Hindus ( the so-called low castes ones ) supported by local Congress leaders . In Khanna SS Dullo was leading the mob while in Jalandhar Mohinder Singh Kaypee was leading the mob . In Darvesh Pind a village on the outskirts of Phagwara ( I have personally visited the village & talked to local Granthi ) some youth came to the Gurudwara , told Granthi that they'll be returning in an hour to burn the BIR OF SRI GURU GRANTH SAHIB . This made the Granthi raise the alarm , as a result  villagers gathered in huge numbers 250-300 with firearms . As a result no one returned . But everywhere it was almost the same story .


----------



## dalsingh (Jun 12, 2009)

Thing is Dalbir, what happens with stories like this, is that the issue of casteism in Panjabis never gets addressed and is yet again buried in the sand. 

We have an opportunity to differentiate ourselves, we should take it.


----------



## BaljeetSingh (Jun 12, 2009)

The word "fundamentalist" has been misused many times and so much that it has become synonymous with terrorism and atrocity. I, for one, object the use of the word "fundamentalist" in the way it is used now a days. I mean what is wrong in being a fundamentalist? The term "Khalsa" means pure and if one is trying to stay pure by being a fundamentalist - or sticking to one's principles, what is wrong with that? All great philosophers and scientists have been fundamentalists. Guru Arjan Dev was a fundamentalist - He stuck to his principles till his last breath. Guru Teg Bahadur was a fundamentalist - He never gave up his prinicples. Albert Einstein and Newton were fundamentalists as well.

I definitely do not condone the use of violence for supporting any cause, but at the same time, I do not agree with the use of the word fundamentalist in the way the respected author has used. 

As already confessed by the respected author, he has not kept his hair unshorn. I, for one, can not believe the words of a man who is not honest to his own religion. He also confessed to be afraid of commenting because of criticism. His lack of understanding of Sikh religion is obvious in his comments throughout the article. If most sikhs do not keep long hair, then it is ok to cut hair, if many sikhs around him drink, then it is ok to drink.....Just because he is in a bad company, it does not mean all sikhs drink or cut hair....During one of my performance appraisals at my old job, I told my supervisor about the problems I had with the people in my team. My supervisor's response was that it was not possible to change all the people around me. My reply was - Yes it is possible to change all people around - by switching job - I can have whole new set of people around me and I would have changed the people around me...Perhaps, the author should consider changing his company and look around for true Sikhs...as mentioned in the Gurbani - Pokhar neer viroleeye, maakhan nahin reese - One can not churn butter out of water.

Regarding some "Sikhs" following a human, we all know that following any human as a Guru is prohibited in Sikhism - Period. Call it fundamentalism or whatever. What you see around as Gurus and Followers are actually Hindus are trying to redefine Sikhism. 

Regards


----------



## spnadmin (Jun 12, 2009)

Baljeet ji

Although I read part of your comments to misunderstand some ideas put forward by Sathnam Sanghera, you have struck a cord with me about the use of the word "fundamentalist" when speaking of Sikhs and Sikhi.

So far no one has been able to define fundamentalist Sikh for me in a way that is logical or even connected to my perceptions of the realities of Sikh belief and practice. Who are the fundamentalists? When looking around it is hard to say. The missionaries  the Nirmalas  the Akaalis  the Tat Khalsa , the SinghSaba   AKJ , various other puratan sangats  Damdami Takht   proponents of Kala Afghana  advocates of Dasam Granth as Guruji's Bani  Namdhari Sikhs  and the list could be longer. Apologies to anyone who feels left out. All make a claim to have grasped the "fundamental" essence of Guruji's teaching. Very often there is enough overlap  among some of these groups to make the label "fundamentalist" a meaningless distinction. In other cases, the core teachings of a group change over a period of years and a group re-discovers it fundamentals. In other cases, a group will re-define itself and its "fundamentals" in response to a current and raging controversy, and will incorporate beliefs and rules in order to make itself distinct from its philosophical adversaries. 

It is easy to define a fundamentalist Christian or Muslim. Very simply it is one who subscribes to a literal meaning for the canonical scriptures of the faith. For a fundamentalist Christian - literal meaning for the Old and New Testaments, no questions, no ambiguities, no desire to explore contradictions between the two scriptures. Pure and simple -- take it a face value wherever it leads you in terms of how you live your life. For fundamentalist Muslims, literal understanding of the Quran, and unquestioning application of Sharia. Again no questions, no ambiguities. Follow the text wherever it leads you.

In Sikhism there is an astounding absence of such mindlessness. Questions and dialog have persisted since Guru Nanak said ਨਾਨਕ ਪੁਛਿਆ ਦੇਇ ਪੁਜਾਇ ॥ naanak pushhiaa dhaee pujaae ||
  O Nanak, when questioned, the answer is given.

I can tell you -- as a convert -- when someone I hold dear and trust asks me, What is a Sikh? What do Sikhs believe? It is hard to get beyond a few core statements and in doing  the complete richness of the panth and its story is lost. So much is so detailed and mired in controversy that it is impossible to give more than a very misleading answer.  Who is the panth?  Can we agree on fundamentals? :welcome: If we cannot, then there is no such thing as a fundamentalist Sikh. If wew can agree on the fundamentals, then we will have the answer.


----------



## BaljeetSingh (Jun 12, 2009)

Dear Aad Ji - Please note that each religion has two aspects - the spiritual aspect and the social aspect. One can not ignore one aspect of the religion while following the other. For example, in Hindu religion, the spiritual aspect is to worpship God and the social aspect is clearly defined in Manu Smriti. Similarly, in Islam, the spiritual guidance is provided by Quraan and the social aspect is defined clearly by the Sharia. In Sikhism, the spiritual guidance is provided by Guru Granth Sahib and the social aspect including the physical appearance - like unshorn hair, kada, kirpan and other Ks is clearly defined in the Rehatnaama. 

I am not sure what you meant by 





> So far no one has been able to define fundamentalist Sikh for me in a way that is logical or even connected to my perceptions of the realities of Sikh belief and practice."


 when the definition is clearly present in the Rehatnaama.

Regards


----------



## spnadmin (Jun 12, 2009)

BaljeetSingh said:


> Dear Aad Ji - Please note that each religion has two aspects - the spiritual aspect and the social aspect. One can not ignore one aspect of the religion while following the other. For example, in Hindu religion, the spiritual aspect is to worpship God and the social aspect is clearly defined in Manu Smriti. Similarly, in Islam, the spiritual guidance is provided by Quraan and the social aspect is defined clearly by the Sharia. In Sikhism, the spiritual guidance is provided by Guru Granth Sahib and the social aspect including the physical appearance - like unshorn hair, kada, kirpan and other Ks is clearly defined in the Rehatnaama.
> 
> I am not sure what you meant by  when the definition is clearly present in the Rehatnaama.
> 
> Regards



Baljeet Singh ji

Thank you. Now we have made a start. Why does SGPC change the rehit? Why now is there a proposal before the committee in which the belief in "one God" has disappeared? Fortunately the amendment has been tabled because of internal dissent. But ....

You know my questions are not coming from being uninformed. They are honest responses to the obvious factionalism and fragmentation of the panth. If we restrict our observations to the course of history in India, it is somewhat understandable because of the history of local cultures gathering around babas and dera culture. Now however we are looking at a worldwide phenomenon of fragmentation. 

Anyone of the groups mentioned by you or by me would argue that your/my definition of rehit is an outright expressions of narrow-mindedness and oppression. We realize that. 

Panth? Who? What?


----------



## BaljeetSingh (Jun 12, 2009)

Well, in my humble opinion, SGPC is a management committee to run gurudwaras and not to define Sikhi. What they are doing is unfortunate and should be stopped. Since SGPC is an elected body, people like you should go and participate in the election process and stop all this non sense....which bye the way, is another important topic which should be discussed in another thread separately.

I do not want to deviate from the original topic of branding practicing Khalsa Sikhs as fundamentalists. They are just following the spritual guidance from SGGS and keeping the social aspect by following rehatnaama. Anyone else is just trying to redefine sikhi to his/her advantage or easiness. Trust me, it is not easy to be a Sikh. It is one of the most difficult religions to practice (when followed strictly).

Regards


----------



## spnadmin (Jun 12, 2009)

BaljeetSingh said:


> Well, in my humble opinion, SGPC is a management committee to run gurudwaras and not to define Sikhi. What they are doing is unfortunate and should be stopped. Since SGPC is an elected body, people like you should go and participate in the election process and stop all this non sense....which bye the way, is another important topic which should be discussed in another thread separately.
> 
> I do not want to deviate from the original topic of branding practicing Khalsa Sikhs as fundamentalists. They are just following the spritual guidance from SGGS and keeping the social aspect by following rehatnaama. Anyone else is just trying to redefine sikhi to his/her advantage or easiness. Trust me, it is not easy to be a Sikh. It is one of the most difficult religions to practice (when followed strictly).
> 
> Regards




What nonsense? If you point out my deficiencies, then I and others will be able to consider and possibly reform ourselves.

The topic of  "branding practicing Khalsa Sikhs as fundamentalists" cannot be discussed intelligently without knowing two things. Who are these practicing Khalsa Sikhs? In other words, what makes their practice consistent with Khalsa? What is a fundamentalist? I am sure that members of 3HO consider themselves Khalsa. They subscribe to the rehit Maryada -- but there are differences in their practices also. I am not going to say that the Western Dharma is not Khalsa.

Here are two links to read and think about. We can discuss them if you like. 

Redefining the Sikh community

Do we need an All India Gurdwara Act? | SikhNet


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Jun 12, 2009)

Personally, I think the more appropriate name used should be *Pragmatic Sikh* rather than *Fundamentalist Sikh.*

Tejwant Singh


----------



## BaljeetSingh (Jun 12, 2009)

That's exactly my point....people call practicing Sikhs as Fundamentalist without knowing the meaning of the word "Fundamentalist". 

And instead of asking who are these practicing Khalsa Sikhs, I would ask Who are these deras and their followers what are their true motives....They clearly are not Sikhs.


----------



## spnadmin (Jun 12, 2009)

Baljeet ji

Thanks -- good because I do not want to be at odds with you. My earlier comments about fragmentation however still apply. There is more than one rehitnama and more than one group who follows a specific rehit considers himself/herself to be khalsa. 

This article would illustrate my point -- because it looks at differences within the panth without the context of deras or babas. But then again, maybe not!

*Vedanti for one rehat maryada for all takhts - Chandigarh - Cities - The Times of India*


----------



## BaljeetSingh (Jun 12, 2009)

Oh...and by the way, talking about deficiencies and improving....I am not sure if I am open to discuss the deficiencies of Sikhism at all. For me, the Guru's word is the utmost and clearly guides me spiritually and the Rehatnaama tells me how to live life socially.....I am not ready to listen any mortal to tell me there are deficiencies in SGGS or Rehatnaama. It will make me no different than the Dera followers


----------



## spnadmin (Jun 12, 2009)

BaljeetSingh said:


> Oh...and by the way, talking about deficiencies and improving....I am not sure if I am open to discuss the deficiencies of Sikhism at all. For me, the Guru's word is the utmost and clearly guides me spiritually and the Rehatnaama tells me how to live life socially.....I am not ready to listen any mortal to tell me there are deficiencies in SGGS or Rehatnaama. It will make me no different than the Dera followers



Baljeet ji

You were referring to my deficiencies. Or so it seemed. :}8-:


----------



## BaljeetSingh (Jun 12, 2009)

Hmmm...more than one rehat....I am not sure if I came across more than one rehat....and I am not ready to promote others even by reading about them.


----------



## BaljeetSingh (Jun 12, 2009)

> You were referring to my deficiencies. Or so it seemed.



No, not at all....I apologize if I meant that in any way.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Jun 12, 2009)

Baljeet Singh ji,

Guru Fateh.

I apologise for piggyback riding on the interaction between yourself and Antonia but I could not resist to offer my 2 cent worth. So, please bear with me.

You write:




> Well, in my humble opinion, SGPC is a management committee to run gurudwaras and not to define Sikhi. What they are doing is unfortunate and should be stopped.


 
I totally agree with you and it is connected by the political umbilical cord with Badal which makes it even worse.




> Since SGPC is an elected body, people like you should go and participate in the election process and stop all this non sense....which bye the way, is another important topic which should be discussed in another thread separately.


 
How about people like you? Why do you refuse to join the same as you have asked Antonia ji to do?



> I do not want to deviate from the original topic of branding practicing Khalsa Sikhs as fundamentalists.


 
I hope you are aware that after 9-11, the defintion of Fundamentalist and its perception have been changed towards the derrogatory side. You may also be aware that a fundamentalist right wing White person shot a guard at the Holocaust Center in Washington D.C. a couple of days ago. Lots of fundamentalist Christians, Muslims and Hindus have destructive agendas. Al- Queda, Talibans and Right Wing Nazi Christians and the Hindus that created the carnage of 1984 are a few examples.

As the definition has been changed then a Sikh should be openminded NOT to create the same impression and perception as those hate groups mentioned above. That is what SGGS teaches us, to be openminded.

So, your insistance of using the word fundamentalist in its literal sense for a Sikh makes no sense in today's day and age in my opinion.



> They are just following the spritual guidance from SGGS and keeping the social aspect by following rehatnaama. Anyone else is just trying to redefine sikhi to his/her advantage or easiness. Trust me, it is not easy to be a Sikh. It is one of the most difficult religions to practice (when followed strictly).


 
Who are *THEY* ? You mean you are not part of us Sikhs? No one is redefining Sikhi. I have no idea where you got that from. Please elaborate a little bit on that. Just stating something without giving references makes little sense. It is very EASY to be a SIKH. I am sorry to know that you find it tough and difficult to be a Sikh. Can you share with us why it is not easy for you to be a Sikh?

Thanks and looking forward to interacting with you in a constructive Sikhi manner.

Regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## spnadmin (Jun 12, 2009)

BaljeetSingh said:


> I do not want to deviate from the original topic of branding practicing Khalsa Sikhs as fundamentalists. They are just following the spritual guidance from SGGS and keeping the social aspect by following rehatnaama. Anyone else is just trying to redefine sikhi to his/her advantage or easiness. Trust me, it is not easy to be a Sikh. It is one of the most difficult religions to practice (when followed strictly).
> 
> Regards



Bajeet ji

Forgive me -- I have a tendency to be obsessional at times. I just compared  the Damdami rehit and the rehi maryada in several places. There are major differences between the two. The sections on marriage for example deviate not just in content but also in terms of spiritual orientation. Both rehits could be considered a total blueprint for living a Sikh life, and a follower of one or the other to the letter might want to be considered a fundamentalist in the best sense of the word. But they would be following two very different blueprints.


----------



## BaljeetSingh (Jun 12, 2009)

Dear Vaheguru Seekern Ji - Here are my responses:



> How about people like you? Why do you refuse to join the same as you have asked Antonia ji to do?


Well, I am doing my bit by staying outside SGPC...and then there are geographical distances that prevent me from serving the community in India. 



> So, your insistance of using the word fundamentalist in its literal sense for a Sikh makes no sense in today's day and age in my opinion.


The term fundamentalist means the same as it meant when this term was coined perhaps hundreds of years ago. What I object to is to use this word to describe practicing Sikhs....as many news reports did. They reported the recent violence in Punjab as between fundamentalist Sikhs and Dalit Sikhs...I was just objecting to the term "Fundamentalist" to describe practicing Sikhs.




> Who are *THEY* ? You mean you are not part of us Sikhs? No one is redefining Sikhi. I have no idea where you got that from. Please elaborate a little bit on that. Just stating something without giving references makes little sense.


I referred Fundamentalist Sikhs as "They". Please read the entire para to resolve the context of "They" 



> It is very EASY to be a Sikh. I am sorry to know that you find it tough and difficult to be a Sikh. Can you share with us  why it is not easy for you to be a Sikh?


Come on...I am a practicing (some people might call me Fundamentalist ) Sikh and I know it is not easy being one.....Especially, growing up as a Sikh boy in Hindu dominated area...Ohh...I was bullied and beaten by my hindu classmates....because I am a Sikh...I am not going into the details, but it is not easy....What I meant was that you have to be brave to be a true sikh. It is easy to shave off beard and cut the hair and roam around in the public, but to sport a turban and beard and walk around with your chin up....only braves can do it.


----------



## BaljeetSingh (Jun 12, 2009)

aad0002 said:


> Bajeet ji
> 
> Forgive me -- I have a tendency to be obsessional at times. I just compared  the Damdami rehit and the rehi maryada in several places. There are major differences between the two. The sections on marriage for example deviate not just in content but also in terms of spiritual orientation. Both rehits could be considered a total blueprint for living a Sikh life, and a follower of one or the other to the letter might want to be considered a fundamentalist in the best sense of the word. But they would be following two very different blueprints.



Forgive my ignorance, but I have no idea about the other rehits....perhaps I never needed to look around for "other" rehits.


----------



## spnadmin (Jun 12, 2009)

BaljeetSingh said:


> Forgive my ignorance, but I have no idea about the other rehits....perhaps I never needed to look around for "other" rehits.



Baljeet ji

I acknowledge your focus on one rehitnama. Others are focused on their rehitnamas. Damdami Takht has a rehitnama, and they stick to their guns. Is there a fool-proof way to find the one and only true rehit? 

My question is serious and not intended to be a joke or a challenge. Charges and counter-charges of "fundamentalist" when intended in a negative way rise from the lack of calm and dispassionate discussions of why there are various rehits?


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Jun 12, 2009)

Baljeet Singh ji,

Guru Fateh.

Thanks for your response. 

You write:



> Well, I am doing my bit by staying outside SGPC...and then there are geographical distances that prevent me from serving the community in India.


 
Well, if you are staying outside SGPC then why are you asking others to go and join the election? How do you know the same geographical distances do not prevent Antonia ji from serving the same community as you can not? It seems you are jumping to conclusion without having the facts in hand. As you know you can not participate in the SGPC elections, you also do not know if others can. So, it is better for a person especially for a Sikh to ask others if they can what you can not for the same reasons.




> The term fundamentalist means the same as it meant when this term was coined perhaps hundreds of years ago. What I object to is to use this word to describe practicing Sikhs....as many news reports did. They reported the recent violence in Punjab as between fundamentalist Sikhs and Dalit Sikhs.
> ...I was just objecting to the term "Fundamentalist" to describe practicing Sikhs.


 
I think, either you did not read my response or you did not understand what I said. I have no idea why you are taking out the events of 9-11 out of the picture. I am sure you are aware that a Sikh was killed in Arizona because someone thought he was a fundamentalist Muslim.

And then you are contradicting yourself. In your initial post given below you liked the word Fundamentlist for a practicing Sikh and also explained it what it means and now you say you object to it. What is it? Would you have been happy if they had used the word practicing Sikhs instead? I really do not understand what you true objection is.



> The word "fundamentalist" has been misused many times and so much that it has become synonymous with terrorism and atrocity. I, for one, object the use of the word "fundamentalist" in the way it is used now a days. I mean what is wrong in being a fundamentalist? The term "Khalsa" means pure and if one is trying to stay pure by being a fundamentalist - or sticking to one's principles, what is wrong with that? All great philosophers and scientists have been fundamentalists. Guru Arjan Dev was a fundamentalist - He stuck to his principles till his last breath. Guru Teg Bahadur was a fundamentalist - He never gave up his prinicples. Albert Einstein and Newton were fundamentalists as well.


 


> I referred Fundamentalist Sikhs as "They". Please read the entire para to resolve the context of "They"


 
So you meant "I or We" as you were talking about yourself as well ?



> Come on...I am a practicing (some people might call me Fundamentalist ) Sikh and I know it is not easy being one.....Especially, growing up as a Sikh boy in Hindu dominated area...Ohh...I was bullied and beaten by my hindu classmates....because I am a Sikh...I am not going into the details, but it is not easy....What I meant was that you have to be brave to be a true sikh. It is easy to shave off beard and cut the hair and roam around in the public, but to sport a turban and beard and walk around with your chin up....only braves can do it.


 
So, you mean it is your personal opinion. For you it is difficult to be a Sikh.I have no idea why you made this a blanket statment which inculded all Sikhs in general because in my personal experience and in my family's it is not difficult. My son Trimaan who is 13 has been the only Sikh with a Patka in our town since his kindergarten and next fall he is going to High school where there is no other Sikh either. And also he is going to participate in the National debate competition in San Antonio, Tx at the end of this month after having won the state competition.

Let me borrow my favourite slogan from Mai ji, our Mentor in this forum:

WHY TRY TO FIT IN? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


*YOU WERE BORN TO STAND OUT!*



 

Tejwant Singh


----------



## Ajmer singh Randhawa (Jun 13, 2009)

Veer jio Guru fateh !!
I don't agree with what you have written. This is the agony and the pain you have successfully shaped in words because your hairs were cut when you were only 14 but don't regret. Even than you connect your lost threads of Sikhism in you.You write that(a)whether any commentary is taken as criticism- Criticism in ignorance provokes the readers and results in unnecessary arguments (b)- Of course commenting about religion is a dangerous business without theological authority but you have the authority to suggest and to do the needful,(c)&(d)- It is difficult for you what Sikhism stands for. It is just because your roots are not connected to Sikh culture, you are totally unaware. There are many books available to know about Sikhism and its explanations on Rahat Maryada(Disciplined life).
I also totally disagree with you that the caste system creates any tension. I am going to be sixty very soon but throughout my life i have never seen any such tension. There are the societies of certain castes responsible for giving the names to their Gurudwaras and it is not very much liked in India. Indian Sikhs visit any Gurudwara without bothering which society is maintaining and controlling. Only thing in the mind of a Sikh is always that,:Jithe jaye bahe mera satguru So thaan suhaava ram raje !!So where the Guru Sahab ji is, that place is to be worshipped by a Sikh(a true follower).
The violence which sparked in Austria is not the result of community clashes but of disrespect given to Guru Granth Sahab ji by Sant Ramanand who was not a Sikh (His name clearly indicates-not singh but das), His entry was banned in Bermingham. See the press report:--
 > Tensions had been building up within the Ravidass community for a
> number of years, concerning the Sach Khand Dera (Monestary) and there
> anti Guru Granth Sahib practices. A few years ago, Sant Rama Nand,
> leader of the Sach Khand Monestary came to the Guru Ravidass Gurdwara
> on Union Road in Handsworth, Birmingham, UK. He was forced to leave by
> the majority of the congregation and management committee because the
> majority of the Ravidass community took objection to the presence of
> any Dera leader, sitting parallel to the Guru Granth Sahib, the
> present and perpetual Sikh Guru.
> 
> After this incident the Guru Ravidass Gurdwara in Handsworth mounted a
> plaque within the Gurdwara, banning any cult leaders from undermining
> the Guru Granth Sahib, with there ritual worshipping practices.
> 
> At this time Sant Rama Nand leader of the Sach Khand Monestary hired
> the hall at the Holyhead High School on Holyhead Road, Handsworth to
> hold a gathering for his followers because the Guru Ravidass Gurdwara
> congregation and management committee, would not allow the gathering
> to take place there.
Now all the doubts are cleared that Sant Ramanand was practising anti panthac activities and provoking his followers to disrespect Guru Granth Sahab ji.
 Use of booze is cindemned in Guru Granth Sahab ji, it is the ignorance of the Sikhs that they are unaware of it.See:--"Amrit ka waapari hovey kiaa mad choochey bhao tarey !! " (Ang 360), and Kabirji says,"Kabir bhaang maachli sura paan jo jo prani khahen !! Tirath barat nem tin ke kiye Sabey rasaatal jaahen !! '' (Salok Kabir 232). There are one or two instances are more to be quoted.But it is very high in use among Sikhs, reason -ignorance already stated.Marrying in other castes but within Sikhs is getting common now a days. People are generally coming out of this phenomena of marrying within community.
You should also be aware that the Sikh soldiers had written freely to their officers during world wars that if they die of a bullet injury in head , there may not be any claim given to their families but they shall not wear helmets. Now bullet proof head gear are being introduces, they are made of fine fabric like clothings and easily can be used. Wait some time it will not be alike helmets.
The people who argue that the long hairs are not actually part of Sikhism. They may be from other religions but can't be Sikhs. Five Kakaars are essentially to dress a Sikh. It is the uniform of a Sikh soldier. Without these signs he can't be called a Sikh.
 In the last i would like to say that as you fear under pain of death to the preachers of the religion because certain people determind to tell others what to believe and how to believe is not for all but it is necessity of the time as Sikh youths are attracted to wear caps and cut their hairs and trim beards need a stick to prevent this malpractice. Guru Gobind Singh says, "Raaj bina nahin dharam chalai hai !! Dharam bina sab daley maley hai !!
Waheguru ji ka Khalsa Waheguru Ji ki Fateh !!
Ajmer Singh Randhawa.


[/FONT]


----------



## dalbirk (Jun 13, 2009)

dalsingh said:


> Thing is Dalbir, what happens with stories like this, is that the issue of casteism in Panjabis never gets addressed and is yet again buried in the sand.
> 
> We have an opportunity to differentiate ourselves, we should take it.


 
Dear Dal Singh Ji ,
                         I'm not denying that Castism does not exist in Sikhs in Punjab . Infact many times I've raised this issue , there r separate Abadis ( Vehras ) outside villages for these so-called low castes , separate Gurudwaras in many villages , even separate cremation grounds . This Jatt-Dalit divide is quite recent about 20-25 years old . But the other Jatt-Bhappa was there in 60s & 70s . It is just that I was trying to make some facts known which came to my notice regardaing these incidents .


----------

