The Shrinking Boundaries of Sikhism

I am not looking for endorsements from you.
Get lost.

Sehajdhari is the one who becomes a sikh with Sehaj - slowly. That is how I always understood it(even before SGPC came into news for it's definition)

delhiwala you come across as an immensely paranoid and bitter man. Go to any Gurudwara and you will see Punjabi Sikh children running around making noise. But you want to vilify 'Sindhis' and 'Madrassis' it's pathetic. You have a higly paranoid mentality and mindset.

Last week I was in a Gurudwara in NJ and there were these Sindhi family.

their kids did not cover their hair during the Parkash, they were all running around and elders were talking loudly like crazy.

Later on a group of Madrasis from local Temple came(it was very clear that they came for Free Food Langar), they were not interested in the service but disruptive.

when I mentioned the Granthi(Amritdhari) to ask these people to maintain dignity, he said that we dont bother them because of orders from the Manager(Parbhandak), who happens to have strong connections with Congress Party.

These are the people who are ruining Sikhi, and they are the ones who have Kesh.

Pooran Keshdhari Sikhs(strving ones like me too) have to deal with two fronts, one fako Amritdharis and the other with Monas who do not believe in anything about 5Ks.

Sad.

But like Guru Gobind Singh Jee had said...
Panth chaley es jagat mai jab tum hott sahai...



OTOH, Once I was having a long discussion with a Hindu convert to Sikhi in Hyerdabad. He said something about Dasam Granth that I could not forget.

"10th Guru wanted to inspire all Hindus to be the Khalsa, that is why Dasam Granth was meant to inspire Hindus all over the Madar Desh. Hindus who would read Dasam Granth should even more so strive to take Amrit...."

Now RSS/BJP and Akalis do not want that to happen, because they lose their hegegomy.

Dost,

My own undertanding of sikhism as most of the hindus outside punjab has been as follows -A) Happy folks, b)Hard working, c) Can do attitude, d) die hard patriots. This has been succinctly covered by BJ2 in #34.

Within Rajasthan, various rajput families have had one leg on Sikhism and the other on Hinduism. I noticed them to stay with the Hindu fold during the Punjab millitancy and the lack of an outcry by sikh organisations on the murder of thousands of innocents by Bhindranwale thugs. Like most Hindus, I am saddened by those events and feel a wonderful community (sardars) have forever been defined by what Bhindranwale and the Congress did (the aftermath in 1984). Unfortunately as always, the misdeeds of a political party (congress in this case) is construed as the act of Hindus de facto by the minorities. Did you delibrately leave out the martyrdom of bhindranwale from your article? For me at least the sardar spirit and community has been waylaid to a different destination since the support of bhindranwale and a lack of opposition to him by other sikhs.
At the same time I have become a die hard opponent of congress for their mischieves in destroying what had a wonderful potential. Many hindus go overboard in trying to claim that sikhs are part of hindus today as they fear that the congress has driven a schism between them forever. They knew well before that sikhs just like jains are indeed different from hindus and yet comfortable with the majority. The sikhs (rightly so after 1984) feel a severed connection with this comfortable equation and want a delibrate identity. As minority, they being indegineously grown spiritualism felt a natural trust and kinship with the other native paths. That trust has been broken and I'm afraid will be next to impossible to repair.

Adios

DM: Are you in Ottawa or India?
would you be around this week or weekend?

delhiwala:

Jeenday raho :)

I think that there are a number of issues here. First one is who is a Sikh: Here I believe that a person is a sikh if he or she believes that he/she is a sikh. Of course, one assumes certain basic characteristics for doing so and that basic characteristic is a faith in the teachings of the Sikh gurus and SGGS. In practice, however, it generally means born in a "Singh" family, even when the person is an agnostic or an atheist.

The second is a legal issue and pertains only to India. The Sikhs have been accorded a minority status and, therefore, enjoy a degree of control over their educational institutions even when they are supported mostly by state grants. Here, the issue of who is a Sikh to get a priority for the scarce seats in these institutions does come up; it seems that the courts have in deciding against a girl who plucked her eyebrows, decided in favour of strict keshadharis while I would have preferred a broader definition.
The third issue is that of Khalistanis. This is a strictly political issue and many of the non-keshadharis seem to be more enthusiastic about it than keshadharis. This only goes to show that unshorn hair are not the only indicator of a strong political identity.

"If you ever go to the Gurudwaras in Canada Majority of the people wearing Khalistani T-Shirts are those who have cut their hair....why?"

+++++

Those are Hip Hop gangster Sikhs....they don't have the commitment or the guts to follow Gursikh or amritdhari principles and codes so they follow a narrow tribalism with 'cool' t-shirts and badges to make them feel like gang members with a definable ethnic pride badge.....these same guys drink, smoke and deal weed in the real world too. It's amazing you can't see that....people who have gold and diamond encrusted Khada medallions to show their 'Sikh pride' but are too scared to keep kesh because it means they wouldn't be able to have white girlfriends with dastaar....that is the phase those kids are going through delhiwala.....identity crisis and confusion.

DM Sir:
Pairi Penda ha...

I never-ever in my life could say that only Sikhs are Amritdhari-Sikhs, that would be foolish.(needless to say).

Issue here is that when Sehajdhari Sikhs (with strong Political backing) are redefining the Sikhi. such as admission to colleges, Rehat Maryada etc.

If they had it their way they would install Ram, Krishna and Geeta in Harimandir Sahib. In fact this was already done in last century.

Es Sikhi de peechay bahut Khoon dullya hai, te oho khoon kevel tau keval Amritdhariya hi si.
With passive backing of Sehajdhari Sikhs.

If you ever go to the Gurudwaras in Canada Majority of the people wearing Khalistani T-Shirts are those who have cut their hair....why?

"Your are at fault here"

+++++

Get a grip, I don't belittle keshdaris anywhere. I just defended them against the idiotic ranting of laddu.

delhiwala#various:

I was going to respond to your various posts, but then I just read this sentence from you:

"Once again, Non Kesh Dharis do not become bad people, they are all part of Sikh Sangat "

This is really the point I am trying to make if Sangat means the same thing as the Sikh community. I do not question the fact that being a keshadhari requires a greater commitment to the faith than being a Sehjadhari [btw, the meaning of Sehjadhari seems to have undergone a change. In the old days anyone with a faith in the Gurus and GGS was called a Sehjadhari; now one has to have a Singh in one's name to qualify as such]; similarly, partaking of Amrit shows a greater commitment than merely having kesh. But as long as they can all call themselves Sikh without opposition from anyone, it's all good.

I have not denigraded any non-Keshdhari Sikh. Majority of my own family is like that.

In fact I find more posts on Chowk that belittle or ridicule Keshdharis.

Your are at fault here.

delhiwala....you constantly downgrade, belittle and denigrate non keshdari Sikhs.....and then say that Sikhi is not an exclucivist faith.

Ahmadmadani#36:

Madani saheb, could you summarise the point that you are trying to make. As for the Hindu-Sikh marriages are concerned, they do not seem to have created too many problems yet. Here at chowk, Pardesi, Pablo, myself and even delhiwala are all the results of such unions.

Pablo,
you are reaching at incorrect conclusions.

I am not making Sikhi to exclusive at all. Everyone is welcome to be a Sikh. Issue here is when the definition of Sikhi itself is challenged.

BTW, on April 13th, 1699- 80,000 people took Amrit(almost all of the congregation), according to Mughal historians.

Afterwards, Guru Gobind Singh defined "Khalsa Mahima" and clearly defined who is a Khalsa.

Yes, it is very clear and I cannot dispute that he did not say anything about those who had not taken Amrit.

Sikh tradition has always been to not force their ideas on others but rather show to them the right thing by examples.

Much before Harvard has Lead by Example courses, Sikh Gurus were already demonstrating it.

Guru Arjan, Guru Tegh Bahadur, Guru Gobind Singh Jee.

Except on cyber space, Mona-Sikhs lack courage, devotion to stand for anything this is related to Sikhi.

If there was any Mona Sikh who could take a stand on any matter pertaining to Sikhi please point me.

Once again, Non Kesh Dharis do not become bad people, they are all part of Sikh Sangat but they cannot say that Kesh Dharis are excluvism(crux here).

Salim#35:

Thanks. I think that the "wahabism" is affecting all religions. Among the Hindus, too, Arya Samajis try to think of themselves as the "true" Hindus; however, they have not been very successful.