Indira Gandhi Bunaam Bush!

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

#246 by dost-mittar on August 21, 2004 5:59am PT

Memoirs-
Anecdotes-
Anthology of poems-

That is what all religious books are- rest is all politics and struggle for power and control over the human minds and bodies!!
And what has Khalistan to do with Guru Granth Sahib?

AlephNull #245
I agree with your post in spirit and content. If we all discuss issues in this manner, Chowk will be such a wonderful place to learn from each other.

Few comments though. Sikh identity issue has two dimensions. First one - visible symbols like turban, beard etc. I agree that those are the issues that Sikhs have to deal with just like anyone else. I have no sympathy for that concern. In fact living in India assures that the Lite Sikhs (the ones without hard stuff) can deal with the issue much better than if they had their own country.

Second concern that Sikhs discuss revolves around the fact that Buddhism did not survive in India. It did prosper outside India and could have done wonders to India if following the teachings of Gautam Buddha, ordinary folks would have focused more energy on improving daily life through concern for community than worrying about next life etc. (This is just my layman’s understanding of one of their key principles). But some how our intellectual Hindu ancestors were so arrogant that they practically wiped out Buddhism and the weak society ultimately succumbed to external invaders.

What does that have to do with Sikhs? Well, Sikhs believe that more than just a few external symbols they have some fine teachings too that revolve around community (share food so that no one goes hungry, voice for every one in community, respect folks of other religion, oppose oppression). Although some of these teachings do wind up in India’s constitution, others will slowly whither away and we will just become a footnote in the history books. I understand and sympathize with the pain but do not have foggiest idea about how anyone can avoid that.

Regards.

Ballukhan # 240
You are right sir. Getting out is escapism. Still for most ordinary folks, it’s practical and builds economic foundation with best overseas education for their children. India will not miss a few million departing souls. Arab countries have been blessed with oil to export and India with smart humans and let’s take advantage of what we have.

Regards.

Gujju # 241
I have no use for Khalistan

I am very glad that people have overcome all bad memories. Time will heal the wounds and hopefully humans will not be hounded again to be burnt alive. For you it’s a distant event, almost like reading history books, devoid of any real feelings of pain since you were probably not even born in 1984. For others who were making frantic calls to India in first 3-4 days of November 1984 to see if their loved ones were OK and they could not tell us since their kids were traveling to the affected areas, it’s not easy to forget.

I still will advise every Sikh to be like you and other smart south Indians and focus on education and improvement of your own lot, if possible by moving overseas and join army as last resort if all else fails.

You should take this as complement.

canadadryer:
``There is no comparison between the two leaders. One was smart, witty, calculating, committed, and resolute. The other one needs to be committed.``

The victim of the former think that she should have been committed, too. In fact, one of them ``executed`` her.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

AlephNull#245
Good post!
I do not think that the sikhs mind being ``lumped`` with other punjabis. In fact, the modern sikh identity is associated with being a punjabi more than any other identity - religious, caste or national - much more so than is the case of hindu or muslim punjabis. In Ottawa, it is generally the sikhs who organise functions to commemorate Bulle Shah rather than the Pakistani muslims.
This sikh association with punjab and punjabi is somewhat strange and perhaps due mostly to guru granth saheb being in the gurmukhi script. While one can go into endless arguments about whether or not the sikh gurus wanted to start a separate religion (the tenth guru definitely wanted to start a new ``panth`` which may or may not be translated into religion for which there is no word in the Indic languages), there can be no argument, I think, that they never thought of themselves as punjabis first. Guru Nanak roamed throuout India and beyond and his message was quite universal. Guru Gobind Singh, the founder of Khalsa, was born a ``poorbiya`` and his mother-tongue was perhaps bhojpuri. His compositions are mostly in bhojpuri/braj-bhasha (ex. aagya bhayee akaal ki, tabhi chalayo panth, sab sikhan ko hukam hai guru maanyo granth). He even describes his previous birth place in the Uttranchal Province, Hemkund north of Badrinath which has a famous gurudwara. While Guru Granth Saheb contains the works of many saints, the compositions of the sikh gurus in it (e.g., japji saheb, jaapji saheb, sukhmuni saheb) are mostly in the common language of bhakti movement of that period, except that the sikh gurus used a more stylised, sankritised version of that language. They certainly did not use the classic punjabi of Ghulam Farid or Bulle Shah.
Sikh gurus thought of the whole of India as their country. Two of the five seats (takhats) of sikh religious power are outside Panjab (in Bihar and Maharashtra). They would perhaps be shocked if Khalistan was associated with Punjab alone.

Pardesi #235

I do not disagree with the spirit of most of your post. You are dead right about the general issue of center-state relations, at least as far as it involves money, investment funds, etc. In the case of Punjab it unfortunately got entangled with all-or-nothing ‘identity’ issues that are very difficult to deal with on the give-or-take/barter/compromise basis that works for other kinds of politics. It was Indira’s criminal stupidity to encourage a mad violent extremist (Bhindranwale) to corner the moderate Akali leadership (Longowal and company) thus depriving them of the political space to compromise before 1984.

I did want to comment on the issue of relations between Sikhs and Hindus (or more generally, non-Sikh Indians), since it is a recurrent motif in your post and also in those of other Sikhs. Sikhs’ self-perception of themselves as a community and their view of relations with Hindus, Muslims, etc., was likely formed out of several hundred years of history of North India, of interaction with Punjabi Hindus, Punjabi Muslims, the Delhi darbar, ‘poorbiyas’ of various persuasions [I learnt this word on Chowk and gather that it has strong derogatory connotations for Punjabis], etc. So the expectations from non-Sikh Indians were based on relations, good and bad, with a relatively small subset of India’s current population. The biggest post-independence tensions seem to have been with Hindus from Punjab and Haryana, who certainly do not make up 85% of India’s population (they may be 4% or so). IMO it is a mistake (though commonly made, in similar form, by members of every community) to extrapolate from the sub-groups with which you had the greatest contact to everyone else. I very much doubt that most Indians outside a particular region of North and North-West India have or ever had any resentment or hatred or animus towards Sikhs. Sacrilegious though it might be to some Sikhs, many other Indians may not see you as very different in behaviour and outlook from Punjabi Hindus (or even a larger group of North Indians). FWIW, the stereotype of Sikhs that I, a South Indian, imbibed, was basically the general Punjabi stereotype (again, FWIW) – energetic, enterprising, aggressive, easily adapting to new environments, perhaps not overly refined, etc. The incremental Sikh component of the stereotype was that they are less concerned with caste than Hindus, have no qualms about working with their hands or in ‘humble’ occupations, which is surely a positive perception. You might want to read gujju #241 for another viewpoint.

As to the ‘martyrdom for others’ business, again this expectation/tradition was formed by history (Mughal persecution and Indian Independence movement) but I doubt that most Indians today, even while acknowledging everything that Sikhs have done for India, either expect you to fight others’ battles or want to sucker you into becoming sacrificial goats. Perhaps some change in Sikh self-perception would help, though it may be difficult after the needless loss of life in the Punjab troubles.

Finally, there is the issue of the pressures of modernization, which were apparently one of the root causes of the Punjab troubles. They may have hit Sikhs earlier than other communities because of the changes caused by the Green Revolution, but they are faced by all Indians, routinely cause discord within families, and have led to occasional violence in many parts of India. No one is forced to shed his turban, shave his beard, smoke, drink alcohol or marry out of the community – these things mostly happen out of individual choice, partly driven by influences from a surrounding culture. Modernization pressures should not be viewed as intentional victimization by people out to get you, destroy your distinct identity, etc. In the meantime, you are no more unwelcome in any part of India than any other Indians.

Apologies for the length of this post. Just my opinion, FWIW.

#241 by gujju1 on August 20, 2004 7:34am PT

Unfortunately, belligerence has become a fashionable narcisstic statement that goes in the name of contemporary show of religiousity. Some modern Sikhs think that one has to wear the Kripan all the times in order to be a pure one, some Hindus like Togadia think that Hindus must wear the Trishuls to show off their religiousity, and the Jehadis think that blowining themselves proves the superiority of their faith.
All this obsession with showman ship and one up manship shows their irreligiousity.
The fact is that these statements are political and have nothing to do with religion. What has Khalistan to do with religion? or what has mob violence to do with religion? It is just that political violence is used to settle scores in the name of religion. So let us not confuse issues.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

#23by Pardesi on August 19, 2004 3:27pm PT
The grievance is universal and holds good for all religious communities, ethnic and linguistic groups. May be the solution you prescribe for Sikhs also holds for all the groups in India. Whether muslim shia, bohra, vasihnav, shaivists, Purabi, Uttaranchali, Himanchali, Vidharba, Marathi, Haryanavi Jat, Haryanavi Gujjar etc etc. When each one counts the percentage of his group, sub-group, religion, sect, sub-sect, hindu caste, sub-caste, region, mohalla, gali then one finds in the minority situation. So, the prescription to migrate out of the country can be considered universally applicable??
I think we are looking at escapist routes !

well since we are well off topic anyway with golden showers and what not.

Could Ms Aditi (of the Oxford and St Xaviers fame) please remove her 1GB photograph from her chowk profile so that hapless dial-up users can get some chaino-sukoon.