ok, i'm not wanting to start a flame war, but i am curious:

1) what % of sikhs consider themselves non-hindus (ie, sikhism is a wholly new religion, rather than a subset of hinduism) would you estimate?
2) what % of punjabi hindus consider sikhs a subset of hinduism? (and i mean a genuine subset, not the all-religions-are-hindu stuff).

i'm just curious, as debates on this issue have flared up and i am curious as to the state of the consensus (the 'world religions' books i always read as a kid listed sikhism as a separate religion, but i guess that is 'eurocentric,' what do browns think?).

Sikhs have, at various points in their history, very strongly emphasized their differences with Hindus. Guru Nanak declared that he was neither a Hindu or a Muslim, so there is a strong theological basis of this, going back to the very inception of Sikhism. The first line in that image is a reference to that famous statement.

More recently, under the Akali / Gurudwara reform movement of the 1920s, the point was made again, very strongly. I would say that virtually all religious Sikhs think of themselves as belonging to a separate religion from Hinduism.

As to your second point, there are many Hindus who think of Sikhism as being one of many Hindu sects, including Jainism and Buddhism. Sikhs see this as a hegemonic move, although it does have some social basis. During Maharaja Ranjit Singh's time, Sikhs were privileged, so Hindu families began to raise their first son as a Sikh. Such mixed families reduced the social distance between Sikhs and Hindus. The gap widened, however, with the Sikh and Hindu reform movements of the 1920s (Akali movement and Arya Samaj movement) which emphasized the distinctiveness of the two faiths. Currently, with the exception of Sindhis and a few very old Hindus, you rarely see Hindus in gurdwaras any more.

To summarize, most Sikhs see themselves as distinct. Some Hindus see Sikhs as a subset, but don't act accordingly.

On a different note, the image contains the letters "MIA" as all good Sepia Mutiny posts should ;)

Ennis -
With all due respect, you are a tad off on the hindus not going to the gurudwara's bit.
If you visit the Bangla Sahib Gurudwara in Delhi on any given day, you will notice a large number of hindus of all ages.

I have, and I didn't, but I could be mistaken. Neither Bangla Sahib, nor Sis Ganj Sahib, nor Harmandir Sahib, nor any of the other large gurdwaras.

Do you think Sikhs would mind if Hindus did visit noted Gurudwaras in India. I particularly want to visit Amritsar this summer as part of my India tour and I had the Harmandir Sahib on my list. I'm Hindu but I didn't really think it would be a problem.

Excellent picture. thank you so much for the post. I see that somebody named Ennis is being a Pennis. Dude stop being a dick. You will find sufficient number of Hindus in Harmandir Sahib, Bangla Sahib, Rikabganj etc. The same way that you'll find enough Sikhs in Mata Vaishno Devi's Darbar. I am a Hindu and I am a Punjabi and I have had the honor of visiting gurudwaras in Delhi, chennai and the USA. Never have I felt out of place. And I have seen enough Sikhs in temples to be able to say the same of the Hindu attitude towards Sikhs.Stop making a bloody issue out of a non-issue. The Sikhs and the Hindus have been played once and never again will it happen. So keep your crap to yourself. It was exactly this kind of bull-shit that avalanched into the '84 pogroms. Please write responsibly.

Dude Ennis, sorry for calling you a pennis, you seem like a sensible chap/chappy, after all you did post that excellent picture; honestly man that comment sucks, not only is it untrue, it does no good. I wonder why you wrote what you did. I am sorry, I didn't mean to call you a dick, but I still maintain that you sounded like one in your comment.

What exactly did Ennis say that was controversial? He didn't say Hindu could or should visit Gurdwarss, he seems to note that in the Punjab in is more rare that it has been in the past. Everyone is welcome in the Gurdwara. The point is accurate though, Sikhs have considered themselves distict from the inception of Sikhism, but the line have faded and reasserted over the centuries. Sikhism asserts its seperateness from its canon, the Guru Granth Sahib, and not from our European friends :)

As to the pic, what is a Hindun? "The first sentence says I am not a Hindun, I am not a Muslim."

Sorry for all the errors! I shoulda looked it over, sorry!

As for when I said the lines sometimes fade, that seems to hold more true in other parts of india (not Punjab). Here is an example:

"While one just can't miss the langar or community meals served in tradition, it's the Hindu rituals of aarti, ghanti and chandan tikaa practised for centuries, that remains yet another draw for devotees.
"It's a different feeling to see aarti, tikaa and ghanti at a gurdwara. It's just like we are at a temple," Samita Sethi, a devotee, says.

I found this on flickr, and think it would be perfect for those days when I just don’t want to go through the song and dance.

When you don't want to go through the song and dance, just play that Punjabi MC song and say 'dat's my people.'

razib, sikhs define their faith as singular and unique from hinduism. i have never come across a sikh who believes otherwise, though i have come across many hindus who are confused about the distinctness of the sikh faith.

bose, all are welcome to any sikh gurdwara. the majority of people who do visit gurdwaras are sikhs, but in the more historical gurdwaras in india you will see plenty of visitors from other faiths. definitely do visit harmandir sahib, aka the golden temple, during your summer visit to amritsar. the egalitarian message of welcome to all is enshrined in the four doors of the sanctom santorum opening to the north, south, east, west of the harmandir sahib building.

ennis, i came across this picture today on the net too. but when i saw it, i cringed. i can understand the frustration many young sikh men have of everyone confusing the image of a sikh with the other demonized images they have been forcefed by the media, but i don't find the "i am not X" argument as persuasive or clear as the "i AM X" arguments. i was having this discussion with my younger brother yesterday, who's a turbaned university student, and he's having to have his beginning-of-the-semester "don't worry i am not osama bin ladin" discussions with the students in his new classes. it is such a frustrating way to have to introduce yourself and i think that is what you were conveying. i wish it were so easy as having a tshirt or a pamphlet to explain everything, the myths/superstitions/stereotypes, away. anyways, cheers to all of the sojourners who are taking on the responsibility of breaking it down everytime they say hello and open up new conversation with a stranger.

As to the image itself... I looked at a few of this guy's other images... apparently this pic was only one form of what eventually may have become a pro-Khalisthan statement ... ending with 'I am not Indian nor Pakistani... I am not free nor do I have sovereignity'
What is the deal with all the young Sikhs being Khalisthani?

Currently, with the exception of Sindhis and a few very old Hindus, you rarely see Hindus in gurdwaras any more.

Quite frankly, I'm not sure how one would visually differentiate between a Hindu, and a Sikh who's cut his hair (and there are alot of Sikh men who have cut their hair and shave)... which would certainly make any comment about how many of each were seen in any Gurudwara extremely arbitrary.

Bose:

Do you think Sikhs would mind if Hindus did visit noted Gurudwaras in India. I particularly want to visit Amritsar this summer as part of my India tour and I had the Harmandir Sahib on my list. I'm Hindu but I didn't really think it would be a problem.

It is certainly not a problem... while the two religions are certainly different, and I'm not aware of any Sikhs that consider themselves members of a sect of Hinduism... there never have been any restrictions on who can and cannot enter or pray at a Gurudwara... I mean, to say otherwise would contradict the very teachings of Guru Nanak (the founder of the Sikhism). You shouldn't change your plans at all... or feel the least bit uncomfortable... Harmandir Sahib is quite the site and shouldn't be missed. (and if you gathered otherwise... they're rather welcoming there too)

As to the comments regarding Hindus and Sikhs being similar to one another... Ennis seems to have covered most points... though I'd add that, if I remember correctly, according to Cunningham's The History of the Sikhs, (before everything became romanticised)Guru Gobind Singhji had selected the kada(iron bracelet) as one of the 'k's of the Khalsa, because Brahmins weren't allowed to let the base metals touch their bodies, thus forcing newly converted Sikhs to truly separate from their Hindu past. I think the kesh(long hair) was also a direct result of Brahmins shaving their heads. There's more to this... but it's nearly three thirty in the morning...

Razib

You seem like an intelligent guy. Why do you have to ask a stupid question?

Ennis

In the UK, quite a lot of Hindus go to gurdwara. On a social level, no problem. In fact Sikhs and Hindus stick close together. The friction comes from RSS chaddiwallahs, the type who sit in their bedrooms planning the next Narendra Modi trip to London. But it is internet flame wars.

I think part of the reason Sikhs and Hindus stick together in the UK is partially because of the need to in the face of Islamic extremism, racism, stuff like that.

I really do not understand why this issue keeps coming up and am genuinely perplexed by the impulse to ask it.

It is like asking is Islam a religion or just a sub-set of Judaism and Christianity?

Well, you might be able to show that there are pagan and Jewish roots in Islam, but so what? You can deconstruct every religion like that, take it here, take it there.

Amazing. What a waste of intellectual effort.

As to your second point, there are many Hindus who think of Sikhism as being one of many Hindu sects, including Jainism and Buddhism. Sikhs see this as a hegemonic move

Ditto for Jains, though many seem to have lost their way, and the public at large has no idea. But the philosophy (and history) of Jainism precludes it from being a sect of Hinduism. I like the Christianity and Judaism example - those two religions are so closely linked, but I haven't heard anyone call Christianity a sect of Judaism.

but i don't find the "i am not X" argument as persuasive or clear as the "i AM X" arguments.

It would be great if explanations could be made in the "i am X" argument but that's just not practical. You can spend your time talking about how you're a Sikh, and why you keep your hair, and why you have a turban, etc., but at the end it will still come down to "So why do you look like Osama?", "So Sikhs are Muslim then?" - unless you're dealing with open, educated people, the "I am not X" argument unfortunately is still needed.

Razib,

2) what % of punjabi hindus consider sikhs a subset of hinduism? (and i mean a genuine subset, not the all-religions-are-hindu stuff).

I have no idea about the exact percentage but, as I've mentioned a few times previously on SM, there are some Indian soaps on the desi satellite/cable channels where the producers are Hindu Punjabi, and there is a deliberate, persistent effort to project Sikhs as "Hindus with beards & turbans". Some of the religious practices portrayed are quite a gross distortion of reality; also, Guru Nanak is not necessarily ridiculed in the mode of those cartoons of Mohammad, but both his identity and his teachings are sometimes extremely misrepresented. It's irritating at the least and provocative at worst, considering the high profile of the channels concerned and the sheer numbers of the target audience. Anybody with access to these channels should watch a programme called "Kesar" on the Star Plus channel in order to see a prime example of what I'm referring to.

This is just a general comment in response to your question, and is not an attempt to start some kind of Hindu vs Sikh "flame war" (before anyone else here misinterprets it as such).

Pareshaan:

You're the one who's acting like a genital organ. Punjabi Hindus over the past 100 years (ever since Arya Samaj) have consistently undermined the Sikh religion and identity, and your attitude is no different. It is true that Hindus do go to gurdwaras, that's your only statement I agreed with. If Sikhs go to Hindu temples TO WORSHIP (as opposed to just visiting as a cultural experience or something), they are not really following the tenets of Sikhism. Now, as for Punjabi Hindus...the 20th century has been one long saga of Punjabi Hindus attacking Sikh identity...especially through the arrogance of the Arya Samaj movement. That movement even encouraged them (the Punjabi Hindus) to abandon their own language in favor of Hindi. It's no accident that in New Delhi today, most of the young Punjabi Hindu kids (under age 25-30 or so) can not speak proper Punjabi, whereas their Sikh counterparts often still can (both are descendents of people who migrated from Pakistani Punjab in 1947).

Is Razib just a shit-stirrer?

These issues are dead - there are millions of Muslims who go around saying that all Jews and Christians are actually Muslims, in fact the whole world is Muslim they just dont realise it, because they are all 'reverts' - but that don't make it so!!

As if Sikhs and Hindus in India and the diaspora don't have enough issues to deal with, except to get involved in these kinds of debates that always cause generalities and statements to be made that deflect from the important things.

What a waste of intellectual energy.

I am not very knowledgeable about the Sikh religion apart from basics like Sikhs are monotheists, the role of Guru Nanak etc.

I also know that the Sikhs are supposed to wear/carry 5 Ks.

I am also well aware of the discrimination faced by Sikhs in America (the turbaned sikhs) and the discrimination/harassment they face is well beyond the harassment faced by other ethnic minorities (which is not much in most parts of the country anyway).

I have mad respect for Sikhs who still wear a turban in post 9-11 America.

I do question (with utmost respect) the logic in continuing to wear a turban and/or with a beard when putting them on leads to harassment. For example, I do know that most Sikhs do not carry the Kirpan (Sword) with them even though it is one of the 5 Ks and I am presuming not anymore important than the Turban.

I have posed the same question to Muslims who wear hijab. I have some close family members who wear hijab. I think the harassment the hijabi women face is however not at the same level as the harassment faced by turbaned/bearded men.

The hijaban answer is usually about 'mandatory nature of hijab' 'mark of indentity' 'not wearing it would be surrendering to the haters' 'today you cant wear hijab, tomorrow it will be something else' 'god wants them to'.

I am of course not trivializing their reasons but these are the kind of things I hear from them. Some of them do seem meritorious even to a non religion person like me.

I do wonder whether God would want some innocent hijabban/turban sikh to get in trouble solely for the reason that they put on a hijab/turban. Now some would say, the harassment, hate crimes, can also happen to people who dont wear the above, but that is missing the point that putting on a turban exponentially increases the chances of such harassment.

I apologize in advance if this comment comes out as offensive. I genuinely care about Sikhs in America and I was especially saddened by the fact that a turbaned Sikh has to worry about shit which a person like me will never even think about.

I was especially blown away by this comment from

Ennis:I wont even walk by bars because the likelihood of being hassled out here is so high. And I have curtailed my movements, precisely to avoid ugly confrontations.

I am sure a lot of other turbaned Sikhs will echo the above sentiment.

I

Guru Nanak declared that he was neither a Hindu or a Muslim, so there is a strong theological basis of this, going back to the very inception of Sikhism.

Historically, there are many sages who have made similar statements. Kabir is one famous example. Buddha urged people not to identify with caste or creed. As a matter of fact the Upanishads are full of this same sentiment. So what does it mean when a saint says I am neither X nor Y? I doubt they mean to say I am Z instead. I think Guru Nanak was just echoing the age-old sentiment that we find re-echoed through history and continue on on blogs such as this. Our identity does not come from labels and it is wise to reject labels.

That said, in the beginning of Sikh history the identity between Sikhism and Hinduism was very close. It was a movement that sought to distinguish itself primarily from Islam. Post-independence and specially since the 80's there is a stronger drive to distinguish between Sikh and Hindu identity. Hindus include every god as their own and in that spirit they include Sikhism as their own too. For this they are maligned. If they went about distinguishing themselves instead they would be called communal or some such thing. As someone put it rather well - hindus are damned if they do and damned if they dont. I personally feel an affinity with Sikhism and do not care to distinguish between Sikhism and Hinduism. If this bothers people, so be it.

Many Hindu Punjabis do consider Sikhism at least akin to Hinduism or don't think too much about it, especially when they've married Sikh ppl. Shaven Sikhs, after all, dont look different from Hindus. Perhaps the shaven Sikhs only distinctive marker would be the kara dangling from the wrist, which many Hindus might wear for style too. I think ppl should be what they want to be (after the last thread I discovered how emotional this all is) but it is undeniably true that what we call Sikhism and Hinduism in the Punjabi context came into being during colonial times, and is partially the work of the Tat Khalsa which sought to "purify" Sikhism, define Sikh tenets and prescribe normative conduct ("Hindu" organizations like the Arya Samaj did the same). In the 19th century, the Sikh intellectual elite followed what one scholar called the Sanatan Sikh tradition--which clearly included many Hindu practices, a reverence for the Puranas,and respected ascetical practices (like those of the Nirmalas) got married according to Brahmin wedding rituals etc. Popular "Sikhism" was hardly different from popular "Hinduism" or Islam---everyone went to the same faith healers, excorists, shrines, etc. Harjot Oberoi ( a prof at University of British Columbia) wrote__The Construction of Religious Boundaries__ ( easily available on Amazon.com)and explains the process quite well.

Divya

You can respect Sikhi without saying it is one and the same as Hinduism - I really cannot understand the psychology of those who do otherwise. It is amazing.

People should read rage's post from his blog about Jainism - very very interesting indeed.

I do wonder whether God would want some innocent hijabban/turban sikh to get in trouble solely for the reason that they put on a hijab/turban.

The whole point of the 5 K's was to set Sikhs apart from all others. The harassment Sikhs faced earlier in history was much more gruesome and intense than the harassment they face in America now. Countless numbers of Sikhs died in order for their faith to survive and for us to give it up now would be an insult to God. We've been battling since day one to be recognized as a separate religion and we'll keep doing it - even if people like Divya refuse to wake up and accept it.

Divya

Do you consider Mohammad and Jesus to be your Gods too? LoL

Good golly this is like centuries of history played out in the comments section. Most points made here are echoes of points that have been debated and thought for quite some time. Its really interesting how certain things continue to pop up. Also its funny in a way that the comments here have all been said like five million trillion times by so many other people

that being said, I'd like to add commment five million trillion and one. I'm in no way in a million years qualified to be an expert, and these are my opinions as someone who has just barely been able to glimpse the strength of people who are truly Sikhs in the Guru. For one thing, theologic Sikhi is quite an awesome thing. If you want to know the heart of the thing, read the Guru Granth Sahib. Learn Gurumuhki to do it, because the Guru Granth Sahib is poetry and its amazing. I have read poetry of different kinds, and what you find in the Guru Granth Sahib is pretty amazing. Passages hold together with logic, and they hold together with meter, rhyme, and with an uneffable quality that simply makes one think. I think there is probably a reason that many people who have read the Guru Granth Sahib can repeat whole passages word for word. You will see this often among Sikhs with Gyan (knowledge). They will have a session of learning in which they speak with each other, and people will qoute whole passages of Gurubani (guru's words). This is a big feat because in Sikhi, its really important to try to speak the truth especially when trying to talk about religion, so to attempt to repeat GuruBani, its really not a good idea to try to repeat a passage and not say the right words. But yet, time and again, people can recall the words in the Guru Granth Sahib that touch them most deeply. Its because the langauge is such

On another point, everything good about Sikhi I feel flows from Gurubani. In the past people guided by Gurubani have done amazing and loving things that make people weep to remember them.

The whole point of the 5 K's was to set Sikhs apart from all others. The harassment Sikhs faced earlier in history was much more gruesome and intense than the harassment they face in America now.

Is there a hierarchy in the 5Ks or are they all the same?

I know most turban Sikhs dont carry a sword (maybe because it can be illegal, though a person can always move to a region where it is not illegal)

If there is no hierarchy in the Ks, is it more of a question of 'identity' or maybe because its socially less acceptable to stop wearing a turban.

Is there a hierarchy in the 5Ks or are they all the same?

A baptised Sikh (Khalsa) wears all of the 5 K's.

As a baptised Sikh you have to abstain from meat, intoxicants, pray every day.

Fully baptised Sikhs are a minority within Sikhi.

But the turban and kaara are most widely worn.

It boils down to individual choice and family tradition etc.

Prem - I did not say that I felt an affinity with Islam or Christianity. But as a matter of fact I do have a little idol of Mary. I got it simply because it glows in the dark and I love stuff that glows in the dark.

Religion is many things. It is a historical movement. It is a political movement. It is a legal financial entity. It is a landowner. It is a cultural phenomenon. It is a social phenomenon. It is a sense of community. I grant the distinction in all of these matters. Philosophically, however, I do not see a difference between hinduism and sikhism. Hinduism very much includes the concept of no god. It includes the concept of formless worship. The vedas themselves say that true knowledge is not to be found by study of the vedas or any other book.

Of course people feel an affinity for their own traditions and want to preserve them. In this respect only a Sikh will have a vested interst in preserving Sikh culture and tradition. Hindus cannot have a say in this. But this has nothing to do with religion.

Actually, neither hindusim nor sikhism are religions but that's a whole other can of worms.

ennis, i came across this picture today on the net too. but when i saw it, i cringed. i can understand the frustration many young sikh men have of everyone confusing the image of a sikh with the other demonized images they have been forcefed by the media, but i don't find the "i am not X" argument as persuasive or clear as the "i AM X" arguments.

I've done a lot of work to try to educate people. I helped to co-found SALDEF, years before 9/11 for precisely that reason, when there was no other Sikh organization trying to reach out to our neighbors to educate them and correct their misperceptions.

However, you're mistaken about the shirt. The reasonw why I posted it was the "hidden" message. Look at it again.

Pareshaan - be careful about the words you use. Name calling of that sort is the sort of thing that will get you banned and your comments deleted, apology or no. It wasn't necessary for the point you were making.

I was making an empirical point about how often I've seen Hindus in Gurdwaras, not saying that they were unwelcome there (they're most definitely not).

Quite frankly, I'm not sure how one would visually differentiate between a Hindu, and a Sikh who's cut his hair (and there are alot of Sikh men who have cut their hair and shave)... which would certainly make any comment about how many of each were seen in any Gurudwara extremely arbitrary.

I looked for karas, although perhaps that led me to underestimate since wearing a kara seems to be a "fashion" these days for non-Sikh men. It's also possible that the number of Hindus going to gurdwaras has increased in the last 10 years, but for a while the number had dwindled. In my parents time there were more, but after all of the events of 1984, there was a clear pulling back. It was logical, in part, seeing as gurdwaras (like the ones my parents were married in) had been attacked and burned by mobs.

I do question (with utmost respect) the logic in continuing to wear a turban and/or with a beard when putting them on leads to harassment. For example, I do know that most Sikhs do not carry the Kirpan (Sword) with them even though it is one of the 5 Ks and I am presuming not anymore important than the Turban.

Honestly, I've never been craven enough to conform to pressures. If I had wanted to do that, I would have ditched the turban and beard when I was a youth, and wanted to "fit in." As for harassment in the US, it's less than the dangers Sikhs faced in the pogroms of 1984, or partition, or during Mughal attempts to forcibly convert.

Besides which, my identity as an American is grounded in first Amendment freedoms, not looking like whitey. If I lost the turban and beard, I'd feel less American, not more.

but it is undeniably true that what we call Sikhism and Hinduism in the Punjabi context came into being during colonial times, and is partially the work of the Tat Khalsa which sought to "purify" Sikhism, define Sikh tenets and prescribe normative conduct ("Hindu" organizations like the Arya Samaj did the same). In the 19th century, the Sikh intellectual elite followed what one scholar called the Sanatan Sikh tradition--which clearly included many Hindu practices, a reverence for the Puranas,and respected ascetical practices (like those of the Nirmalas) got married according to Brahmin wedding rituals etc.

You're right that practices in the 1800s were very similar. The question is, where they always like this? Most Sikhs believe not. For example, Anand Karaj marriage dates back to Guru Ram Das, so Sikhs were returning to an earlier distinct identity in the 1900s rather than imposing one. Similarly, while culturally Sikhs respected ascetic practices in the 1800s, Guru Nanak clearly states a different position in the 1400s, even though this leads to a separation between himself and his son (who was a Udasi). Sikhs believe that the two faiths converged on a cultural level because of the incentives given by Maharaja Ranjit Singh, and also because they had relinquished control of their gurdwaras to Hindu religious men when they were forced to hide in the jungles during Muslim persecution. However, they see this as a dilution of a doctrinally affirmed separate identity instead of seeing Sikhs and Hindus as always having been the same.

actually, I think a sociologic and historic discussion on the Singh Sabha movement (the movement in the 1900's being referred to here) is valid on some level. Do I want to be part of it? Heck no.

Now some would say, the harassment, hate crimes, can also happen to people who dont wear the above, but that is missing the point that putting on a turban exponentially increases the chances of such harassment.

That's kind of the point. One of the reasons (not the only one) that Guru Gobind Singh decided to implement the 5K symbols -- at least amongst 'baptised', ie. Amritdhari Sikhs, who are supposed to be the most committed in their practice of the faith -- was because when his father -- Guru Tegh Bahadur -- was publicly executed in what is now Old Delhi, the Mughal authorities challened any Sikhs present in the crowd to claim his body (a potentially suicidal move for any Sikhs who were brave enough to step forward). Some Sikhs who were there managed to hide amongst the rest of the crowd and thus escaped detection.

Therefore, one of the reasons Guru Gobind Singh later went ahead with the 5K's concept was to prevent a recurrence of this and to instil an outstanding level of courage within his followers; if you can be easily identifiable as a Sikh, then you cannot (metaphorically) "hide behind a bush" if facing any threatening or antagonistic situation, ie. your religious affiliation, and everything it represents, can be easily seen, even if you're in a crowd of a million. This is especially pertinent when you bear in mind the fact that, at several points in Mughal and post-Mughal Indian history, being a Sikh was a capital offence and Sikhs actually had a bounty on their heads.

Another reason is that Sikhs are supposed to be readily available to assist those in need, so anyone in need of help would be able to easily spot any Sikhs around.

There are other reasons -- the 5K's represent various tenents of Sikhism, and they are regarded as having certain psychological benefits for the wearer too -- but we don't need to go into that here.

It was a movement that sought to distinguish itself primarily from Islam.

This statement is both factually and historically false. The movement also sought to differentiate itself from mainstream Hinduism and indeed from orthodox organised religion as a whole.

In the 19th century, the Sikh intellectual elite followed what one scholar called the Sanatan Sikh tradition--which clearly included many Hindu practices, a reverence for the Puranas,and respected ascetical practices (like those of the Nirmalas) got married according to Brahmin wedding rituals etc. "Sikhism" was hardly different from popular "Hinduism" or Islam---everyone went to the same faith healers, excorists, shrines,

Yes, and these were all erroneous practices which were in direct violation of Sikh teachings and historical precedents. There are specific verses in the Guru Granth Sahib which state that Sikhs are not to have any reverence for the Puranas, Vedas, or indeed any Hindu (or Islamic) holy books, and Guru Gobind Singh also specifically instructed Sikhs to stay away from any Brahminical practices ("Beepran Ki Reet" etc -- Sahej, Sonia: You'll know what I'm referring to here).

Is there a hierarchy in the 5Ks or are they all the same?

They're all the same, although many clean-shaven Sikhs wear the "kara" (if none of the other symbols) because it's the most obvious and easily-identifiable symbol of being a Sikh. Non-Sikh Indians outside of India tend not to wear karas.

("Beepran Ki Reet" etc -- Sahej, Sonia: You'll know what I'm referring to here).

But not I? ;)
But seriously, thanks Jai for such a lucid exposition. I haven't had to do this for years. I've just gotten used to giving people a URL and telling them to get educated.

They're all the same, although many clean-shaven Sikhs wear the "kara" (if none of the other symbols) because it's the most obvious and easily-identifiable symbol of being a Sikh. Non-Sikh Indians outside of India tend not to wear karas.

I have a Shia Pakistani friend and some Shias from Pakistan wear a steel bracelet on their wrist to represent the chains and handcuffs of Ali. It looks quite different from a normal Sikh-style kaara but nonetheless, he told me, that he has sometimes been mistaken for a Sikh because of it.

Sikhs are not to have any reverence for the Puranas, Vedas, or indeed any Hindu (or Islamic) holy books

I could be wrong, but I think this is slightly innaccurate. We're supposed to have deep reverence for the truth as its believed God is the ultimate font of truth. So to the extent a holy book displays the truth, or to say another way provides a basis for letting a person reading it come closer to understanding God, we can hold that as holy

Ennis,

But not I? ;) But seriously, thanks Jai for such a lucid exposition. I haven't had to do this for years. I've just gotten used to giving people a URL and telling them to get educated

Sorry for leaving your name out, bro -- you hadn't posted your most recent messages while I was typing mine (which I started immediately after reading post no. 30), so I'd only seen Sahej and Sonia's posts.

Interesting -- and slightly dismaying -- how this whole issue periodically crops up on SM (remember Diwali ?), at least with regards to some people who have a preconceived, distorted idea of Sikh history and tenets, and refuse to listen when one tries to educate them.....

I could be wrong, but I think this is slightly innaccurate. We're supposed to have deep reverence for the truth as its believed God is the ultimate font of truth.

I agree. I think this was clumsy wording. Sikhs are supposed to have respect for all Holy Books and symbols - but not to follow them. So we respect essential truths of Bhagvad Gita, Quran etc

Sahej,

Sikhs are supposed to have a reverence for "the truth" (as you've correctly stated), regardless of the source, but we are not supposed to regard non-Sikh scriptures as sacred or exalted in their entirety, or use them as a source of spiritual guidance. That was the point I was trying to make, apologies for not being clearer.

its pretty interesting what peoples thoughts are. alot well alot of punjabi hindus are taking offense to the first line.. that "IAMNOTHINDUIAMNOTMUSLIM" and it just made me think NOW Isn't this a bunch of Irony.... that well when a Guru Gobind Singh Ji made the tenets of the Khalsa, he made the 5 Kakkars he made it so that would the first thing people would think when they saw a sikh, that they aren't a hindu or a muslim, just a sikh...

i guess i'd explain further why i did that... well about that first line. The only reason why i wrote it off like that in the first place is b/c right off the bat people automatically think that Sikhi is a branch of Hinduism or a branch of Islam. that's all i mean.

For example... I'm taking an senior seminar on Hinduism. and the professor never mentions sikhi as a separate religion in India... he only states "Christianity, Islam, Jains, Buddhist". ( this is in a 400 level class on Hinduism at a college) and well about the Islam part. i have a muslim friend and she wears a hijab and when we sit together in class she says you know GP when we hang out people will think you are Muslim.

so ok alot of people are think that i caused alot of offense to you all.. but do you all remember what happ at Bhangra Blowout 11, there was that Punjabi Eye for the white Guy... decide to make a skit on the Kakkars, a sacred part of the sikh faith... its not even punjabi... and it was highly offensive to Sikhs... highly, yet the board still decided to do it..

also sorry if i caused offense.. i tend to do that alot.... take it for what ever you want... but i am not blaming 9-11 on my fellow South Asian Brothers and Sisters.... nor am i encouraging violence against them... i'm just tell the world that i am distinct and i have my own beliefs and roots....

use them as a source of spiritual guidance

won't speak for other Sikhs but if I come across something spiritually wonderful in, say, a Lokota prayer, its my understanding i can go ahead and get spiritual guidance from the fact maybe Waheguru is speaking to me through that avenue. But yeah, the font of our basis as Sikhs is Guru Granth Sahib. I get what you are saying, but I'm bringing out a slightly different though similiar issue

prem, thanks for the shout.

I have to echo one sentiment from above: I have a lot of respect for men and women of Sikhism, Islam, Judaism, and other faiths who wear/keep physical indicators of their faith, especially in the face of terrible bias and misconception. Strict vegetarianism, dogmatic worship at home or temple, and meditation are all private. But walking outside with something that says "I'm different" would really be a test of faith for me personally, and I respect folks who do it every day as a matter of course.

Thanks Gurvinderpal for making this and letting us know your thoughts behind it. People will always take offense to strong statements but it shouldn't stop you from making them if they're true.

hey sonia how come you didn't go to surat.. also thanks again for that ride from the Vigil last 2 nov ago =)
i hope the bidness is goin in chardi kala =)

lol well were they really offensive hah

Gurvinderpal I went to your web site and my request is please post more podcasts if you get a chance. or if you know a web site where to get more, let me know on here. thanks

you can be easily identifiable as a Sikh, then you cannot (metaphorically) "hide behind a bush" if facing any threatening or antagonistic situation, ie. your religious affiliation, and everything it represents, can be easily seen, even if you're in a crowd of a million. This is especially pertinent when you bear in mind the fact that, at several points in Mughal and post-Mughal Indian history, being a Sikh was a capital offence and Sikhs actually had a bounty on their heads. Another reason is that Sikhs are supposed to be readily available to assist those in need, so anyone in need of help would be able to easily spot any Sikhs around.

Nobody answered what a Hindun is.

And why is Paki spelt 'PAKKI'?

Why does it say 'I am not coward' with no indefinite article?

Spelling, punctuation and grammar - the cornerstone to any protest. Take the Muslims protesting in London, I was shocked and disturbed by their woeful grasp of written English.

Oh yeah and the treason and incitement to murder wasn't that nice either. But poor grammar is worse.

It is ironic that in the face of extreme fanaticism and violence stemming from that, the prime reaction of humanity would be to assert "We are different than you" more strongly than say... "We are all the same". I am pretty sure that all religions assert "we are all the same". I believe being religious would mean holding this "essence" of one's religion closest to one's heart, closer than other adornments like wearing a turban or hijab or applying tilak on his forehead. But it seems to me that "being religious" has somehow come to mean... "assert your identity, and show how different you are".

Hinduism is not a religion! There was no "Hindu" until Islam invaded India. Even in the writings of Shankaracharya there is no mention of "Hinduism". He mentions the differnt "maat" (opinion) (e-g Sankhya maat or Shaiva maat or bauddha maat etc.) but I don't think any so called "hindu" at that time called himself that. So essentially the "Hindu" identity is no more than a few centuries old. Although the philosophy and culture is much much older. Hindu is a construct created to distinguish all those people who stuck to whatever their traditions/philosophy was and didn't join movements which distinctly tried to identify themselves from those traditions. Most important of these traditions are Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism. Under the current "definition" of religion, all these traditions are distinct religions in themselves. Their origin though is in their break-up with the traditional "religion" (which later came to be termed as Hinduism).

I am not against having a religious identity (be it Sikh or Muslim or any other). I am surprised when establishing that identity trumps breaking barriers between religions OR that for so many people their religious identity trumps their "human" identity.

ok so like here is the thing i changed the entire out look of the shirt... and i also change the bad grammar...
secondly ok since everyone was having a superhard time tryin to figure out the whole area of grey. . the shirt is supposed to just be black on black.. so thus i chose dark dark blue that way you could get the entire jist of the shirt design

thirdly you all maybe flipping out at the last line.. so here it is... to me i'm not reffering to seperate state... i'm referring to justice that is long over due.. i speak of soverignity of mind body and soul....
thats what i mean by this and still if i offend.. oops

take what ever you want from it

ok apparently they dissabled the IMG SRC html.. so here is the link

Sameer - respectfully, I think that this is more a question of being sucked into a larger group for the sake of being "counted" as part of that group, and at the cost of losing your right to self-determination as a people. Someone saying strongly that "I am a Sikh, not a Hindu" doesn't mean that they aren't looking at commonalities and bridges between differences. But if you don't respect me for who I am, and cast my beliefs, traditions, ancestors as a step-child of the majority, well, then we're no longer on equal footing, and we can't truly see eye to eye as people. Respecting difference doesn't mean ignoring it. That's part of the problem with American multiculturalism, as Vijay Prasad wrote somewhere. "Tolerance" isn't enough for a heterogeneous society to grow together. We have to move to a place where we are recognizing and respecting that difference, and not just trying to bolster our own numbers for political purpose.

I get annoyed when I hear "Hinduism isn't a religion," and therefore all traditions that evolved from it are part of it. Tell that to the outspoken Hindutva crowd, or to the butchers of 1984, 2002, etc. I think that we've moved far from the roots of that philosophy, and refusing to recognize the self-determination of groups with centuries of their own traditions isn't helping anything. Not to mention the way that Hindutva folks co-opt the more than 300 million tribals, animists, and non-Vedic believers in India as "Hindu" to bolster the nation's total count of Hindus to the 800 - 900 million range. That practice is questionable at best, and probably far more egregious than what the more easily identified faiths can complain about.

yo - what's up with the "i am not an illegal immigrant"? that's wack.

yo - what's up with the "i am not an illegal immigrant"? that's wack.

b/c pple tell me to GO BACK TO MY COUNTRY.... you guys fail to realize that all these things that i wrote that i am NOT.. people have told me to my face and all other sikhs, that THEY ARE with hate and violence in their voices

TYPO

you guys fail to realize that all these things that i wrote that i am NOT.. people have told me to my face and all other sikhs, that THEY ARE with hate and violence in their voices

i meant to write...
you guys fail to realize that all these things that i wrote that i am NOT.. people have told me to my face and all other sikhs, that I am (and we (Sikhs are) with hate and violence in their voices

Dude - I don't think that it's about some arbitrary legal status conferred by the government on its whim. It's about xenophobia and racism, which have less to do with your status than they have to do with the nuts speaking to you. Weird way to show solidarity with other Sikhs by bringing up immigration status. Seems like you have other issues to deal with than just being mistaken for being something other than Sikh. Or are you saying that undocumented Sikhs aren't really Sikhs?

here's the thing, or one of them. far too often the Sikh community gets swept up in other communities concerns. Sometimes peeps need to just kind of get it that whatever else you might think, this Sikh community has been around for quite some time and it has a substantial history and present of its own. the community is continually getting marginalized and put into different categories by the whims of other concerns. Ok, man, you don't like someone being called "illegal". good thought. But, try to stick to the point here, the Sikh community and what its particular situation is. If you want to help, it occurs to me, there's quite a bit one could do to help the Sikh community deal with the issues before it, without always saying; yeah but...

the community is continually getting marginalized and put into different categories by the whims of other concerns. Ok, man, you don't like someone being called "illegal". good thought. But, try to stick to the point here, the Sikh community and what its particular situation is.

Uh, so you're saying that immigration status and bias in the West isn't a "Sikh issue?" I think that's pretty ill-informed. Not to mention that I think that the Sikh community seems to have done a pretty good job of watching out for its own, and it seems weird to try to distinguish that the community "has been around for quite some time and it has a substantial history and present of its own" and that it is "continually getting marginalized and put into different categories by the whims of other concerns" and then turning around and based on what I presume is status privilege, just marginalizing other members of that same community.

That's the point. We can debate whether groups should form coalitions some other time. But what about your own backyard?

It is amusing to see the horror that this has caused in some people like dhavaak - I think it says more about their prejudices than anything else.

Given that Gurvinderpal has stated the prejudice that he has to face day in day out ranging from misidentification to outright violence and being told to return to his 'own country' simply because he follows his religion by wearing a turban, I am astonished at the heartburn and sullen psychosis this seems to cause in some people. I am amazed that something produced in the spirit of proclaiming and educating has caused a nervous breakdown and offence in people. You don't have to respect the choices and trials Gurvinderpal faces day to day - fine. But don't go mouthing off and whining about what he should do or not do about what is a fairly harmless and t-shirt about an individuals experience.

It becomes hard to see where the borders between arrogant fecklessness, and intolerance begin and end in such people.

rage

No problem, I should thank you. Your post is really enlightening.

I agree with the anti-RSS statements and to some degree advocate the same stance for the Shiv Sena party. To the Hindus and the Muslims this picture means nothing nor should it. To the Sikhs, especially the Male sikhs with visible turban, the visible difference leads to the ignorant people pointing their finger - whether with curiosity or hatred is a different matter.

The question "what religion are you" or the more demeaning "what are you" arises with the unaware Western societies. To which it should be perfectly acceptable for a Sikh to claim that he or she is a Sikh, neither Hindu nor Muslim but a Sikh. Despite similarities or differences between the three religions, there is a word that exists called Sikh (n) - a follower/believer in Sikhism. Similarily there are surprising similarities between the People fo the Book religions - Judaism, Christianity, and Islam; yet, all three faiths claim to be unique and profess superiority over the other two.

The picture and the t-shirt should not be grounds for any argument as claiming yourself to be a Sikh is a personal matter. RELIGION IS A PERSONAL MATTER. When further asked by a ignorant Westerner about "who" or "what" you are after explaining to them you are Sikh, simply tell them "grab a book on Sikhism, a dictionary, and read up. Call me when you wanna discuss it."

The truth of the matter is that Sikhs living in America or England and the USA are very diverse in their observance - ranging of course from Panjabi MC style cool dudes to fully practising Amritdharis.

Some people stop wearing the turban for any number of reasons. Maybe they no longer believe in Sikhi. Maybe they do it to escape from some of the pressures they face in society. Whatever - people are free to do what they want.

However, despite all this, if there is a Sikh who decides to maintain his customs in the face of all the low level pressure and prejudice, in fact if he is emboldened not to cave into that in the light of his experience, and he decides to make a t-shirt as a statement of his experience, rather than slander and slur him or call him as 'pushing it in people face', I salute that man for sticking to his beliefs in the face of those difficulties. I admire him. I support him. The sullen bigots who weep and moan and call him this and that - well, they can go and pick their nose and grumble in the dark.

sphy versus sphy those are good points

they can go and pick their nose and grumble in the dark

That's a classic line if ever I read one.

Sahej: thanks.

Amitabh in # 21 -

You couldn't be more wrong.
An overwhelming majority of Sikhs who visit Hindu temples do it for the sole purpose of worship and not for any cultural experience - whatever that means? I urge you to visit Vaishno Devi and interview any turbaned Sikh you encounter. Short of that you could agree with me.
And if you are ever in the San-Fernando Valley in Socal, do visit the Lancashire Gurudwara and chat up some of the younger Delhi Sikhs - You may be pleasantly surprised to find out, how little punjabi they speak.
And in any case, I don't get what being fluent in punjabi has to to do with being a Sikh?

well, perhaps i am a shit stirrer. but, to elaborate

1) the shirt said 'i am not a hindu.'

2) i had assumed sikhs were not hindu based on my reading.

3) but i have seen comments here by people who talk as if sikhs are hindu.

4) sometimes what is written and what is practiced differs.

5) also, there was an article years ago i read by a girl from jersey city whose father was sikh and mother hindu and what she wrote implied that there was barely any difference between the two (obviously biased by her personal experience in a mixed family). i also know that sikhs left pakistan for india during partition, so they had an affinity for hindus vs. muslims, i assumed.

6) as a non-religious person living in a world where most people are religious i make sure i know what religious people think about their own religion so i can engage them in their own terms.

7) of course, this gets complicated, because religious people disagree about what it means to be "X."

8) but, i got what i wanted out of this thread insofar as all the sikhs seem to be reaffirmed that their religion might have affinities, both fundamental and cultural, with hindus and hinduism, but they are a separate faith. some hindus seem to want to disagree, but oh well, my general heuristic is to follow the assessment of those who avow a particular ideology/religion over those who don't. ultimately, when it comes to religion i'm a nominalist. so, in practice, this thread simply means that if someone asked me if a "sikh was a hindu," i'd say, "no."

that is all.

as for my intelligence, once reason i know what i know is because i ask rather than assume :)

To the creator of the T Shirt -
"I am not a Afghani" ?
Afghani is the Afghan currency. I am assuming you meant to say, I am not Afghan.
In that case, what about Sikhs who are from Afghanistan? They are Afghan.Right?

“Sikh are kesadhari-Hindus. Their religious source is Hinduism. Sikhism is a tradition developed within Hinduism. Guru Granth Sahib reflects Vedantic philosophy and Japji is based on the Upanishads. Unity of God and casteless society etc. was also preached by other Vaisnava Bhagats.” -- Khushwant Singh, in an interview.

khushwant singh is a writer, not a religious scholar or religious authority.

i won't even get into his adherence to the sikh faith...

here's a page which uses sikh scripture to delineate how exactly the sikh faith is distinct in the totality of its basic philosophy from the hindu faith: http://www.sikhs.org/relig_h.htm

hope this helps some of you out.

Guess, Khuhswant was ok when he stood up to Indira Gandhi for the Sikhs during the "Khalistan" era. And when he condemned operation bluestar [rightfuly so].

Wow - just click on Dissent's name and see where the link takes you. Disgusting. I am sure we can all guess what fetid pit and political creed he belongs to.

These are the real shit-stirrers. Razib has shown he has credibility and sensititivity and understanding.

This topic seems to touch on Sikh sensibilities.
A number of respondents are Sikhs.
So, it is perhaps, not out of place to ask this question.
What is the attitude of Sikhs towards "Sardarji jokes", especially after 1984?

khushwant singh spoke out after 84. good. that still doesn't mean he is a sikh religious authority.

Prem - I clicked on Dissent and do not see the "shit stirring".
It is childish, I give you. But "fetid pool" it is not.

I guess the main motivation for this T shirt was to explain to westerners that Sikhs are NOT Muslims/arabs because thats what they are often confused for (I dont think people might look at a Sikh and confuse him for a hindu). In that respect I guess for some white boy who is reading this slogan, you might even have to explain what Hindu is, since most of them are as blissfully ignorant about hinduism as they are about sikhism and all the other expressions (terrorist, camel jockey etc.) are self explanatory

68 · Expose on February 11, 2006 03:06 PM · Direct link

To the creator of the T Shirt -
"I am not a Afghani" ?
Afghani is the Afghan currency. I am assuming you meant to say, I am not Afghan.
In that case, what about Sikhs who are from Afghanistan? They are Afghan.Right?

well my mom's side of the family is from Afghanistan. so i'm techincally half afghan. Also my dad is hindu so tech i'm half hindu too... but well with God's Grace i've become a Baptized Sikh, thus by taking amrit i've burned away all types of proir labels... thus just being a sikh.

Prem, when you visited my link why did you assume that I endorse it?

I am not an authority of Sikhism, but I've heard that there is no mention of the prophet Mohammed in the Guru Granth Sahib. Read this article for some interesting facts.

... nowhere in the voluminous Guru Granth, the name of the Moslem Prophet occurs, directly or indirectly, though Koran is mentioned by name more than once... In so far as the Guru perceived excellence in Mohammed, he attributed it exclusively to the grace of God, and whatever was contingent, unenduring in the words and deeds of Mohammed he deemed as merely human and impermanent trait.

It is very funny and strange to me that a thread I started to talk about how I sometimes get frustrated explaining to people what I am and what I am not turns into precisely the sort of tiresome discussion where people keep insisting that you are not what you say you are.

Dissent, you seem to be arguing in bad faith. The article you link to has the following purpose:

Every now and then claims and counter-claims are made about Guru Nanak professing Hinduism or Islam. Vishva Hindu Parishad is the protogonist of the first proposition: the Ahmadiya Sect of Muslims advance the second theory. For enlightment of our readers, we reprint the late Bhai Sahib Sirdar Kapur Singh's response to an enquiry from the Haji of Mosul (Iraq) first published in the Missionary, January-March, 1963.

Editors, The Sikh Review. [Link]

That is, it is designed to explain that Sikhs are neither Hindus nor Muslims. You are using it to argue that Sikhs are not like Muslims, therefore they must be like Hindus, which is baffling.

Honestly guys, this is getting quite tiresome. While I'm happy that we've been able to have this discussion without much name calling, I think we've covered all of the basic points here, and no one group is going to convince the other that Sikhs are or are not really Hindus or Muslims.

well this is a hymn By teh 5th prophet of the Sikhs....

ਕੋਈ ਬੋਲੈ ਰਾਮ ਰਾਮ ਕੋਈ ਖੁਦਾਇ ॥

ਕੋਈ ਸੇਵੈ ਗੁਸਈਆ ਕੋਈ ਅਲਾਹਿ ॥

Raamkalee, Fifth Mehl:



Some call Him, 'Raam, Raam', and some call Him, 'Khudaa-i'.

Some serve Him as 'Gusain', others as 'Allaah'. ||1||

He is the Cause of causes, the Generous Lord.

He showers His Grace and Mercy upon us. ||1||Pause||

Some bathe at sacred shrines of pilgrimage, and some make the pilgrimage to Mecca.|

Some perform devotional worship services, and some bow their heads in prayer. ||2||

Some read the Vedas, and some the Koran.

Some wear blue robes, and some wear white. ||3||

Some call themselves Muslim, and some call themselves Hindu.

Some yearn for paradise, and others long for heaven. ||4||

Says Nanak, one who realizes the Hukam of God's Will,

knows the secrets of his Lord and Master. ||5||9||

hopefully it be a goodwayto finish off this thread

As a baptised Sikh you have to abstain from meat, intoxicants, pray every day

OKK...someone help pattie out here, pplleaase. i am confoooosed! i know a few very faithful, baptised sikhs who do eat meat. i also know some who are NOT baptised who don't eat meat. i had also read that what IS avoided is meat ceremonially prepared. so i know for when i take amrit, wether or not i have to give up meat. thanks folks.

ok so like about sikhs and the issuse of meat.. i'll the simple noncontroversial verison. For a sikh there are many rehats one can follow the bare minimum is the Rehat Mariyada, which was drafted in the early 1900's by the SGPC. now there are stricter rehats like the Damdami Taksaal Rehat you can look at Sikhnet's where Yogi Harbhajan Explains it is really one's sikh's personal choice how they wanna go at it.

I get annoyed when I hear "Hinduism isn't a religion," and therefore all traditions that evolved from it are part of it. Tell that to the outspoken Hindutva crowd, or to the butchers of 1984, 2002, etc. I think that we've moved far from the roots of that philosophy, and refusing to recognize the self-determination of groups with centuries of their own traditions isn't helping anything. Not to mention the way that Hindutva folks co-opt the more than 300 million tribals, animists, and non-Vedic believers in India as "Hindu" to bolster the nation's total count of Hindus to the 800 - 900 million range. That practice is questionable at best, and probably far more egregious than what the more easily identified faiths can complain about.

Well, my comment about Hinduism not being a religion was not to argue that "all traditions evolving from it are a part of it". In fact my argument is communities who have evolved out of Hinduism have asserted themselves as "Religion" (organized or otherwise). So in the "counting how many of you are there" or about "labeling" context, all the rest who hadn't joined any of these traditions (mainly Bauddha, Jain and Sikh) have been labeled Hindus. My point was at no point in the past before Islamic invasion was there an identity called "Hindu". There were only different sect. In his treatise on Bramhasutras, Shankaracharya (probably the greatest authority on Hindu philosophy) analyzes several prevalant opinions including some which didn't accept authority of vedas (like paarivrajiks) or some who were pure materialist (chaarvak) etc. So "Hindu" as it is used today is only a convenient label. I agree that Sikhs are not Hindus, neither are Buddhists or Jains. The origins of these religions are in their break-up with the traditional religion.

What RSS is doing is simply (and unfortunately) an extension of what Islamic invaders did. They are perpetrating and reinforcing a label, that we didn't give ourselves in the first place. It is outsiders who gave me my label has a Hindu. In the viewpoint of traditional religion I can only belong to one of the many stream of philosoply (vedic, non-vedic, vedantic, sanhya, yogic etc).

I guess another point I wanted to make was that we should try more to remove the labels. But instead all we are doing (even if we are tolerant towards other labels) is simply reinforcing and protecting our own label as it were.

gurvinderpal,

thank you sooo much for sorting that out for me! you basically confirmed for me what i was thinking, but i'm glad to know that i was on the right track. btw, was checking out your flicker album...very cool indeed. i'll have to stop by again.

I guess another point I wanted to make was that we should try more to remove the labels. But instead all we are doing (even if we are tolerant towards other labels) is simply reinforcing and protecting our own label as it were.

Hmm. It's hard to take you seriously as you pontificate about "removing the labels" when you repeatedly write "Islamic invaders" in reference to a significant piece of Indian history. Seems like you have your own issues to work out there, skippy.

Expose

It is a childish fetid pool.

You are using it to argue that Sikhs are not like Muslims, therefore they must be like Hindus, which is baffling.

Huh? You are finding contradictions based on your own assumptions.

... no one group is going to convince the other that Sikhs are or are not really Hindus or Muslims.

I still dont see what you are working up a sweat about. Desis already know that Sikhs are a unique culture. I thought this whole thread was about letting westerners know that. If you let them know that the Guru Granth Sahib does not mention the prophet Mohammed, they'll appreciate your difference with Islam better, dont you think?

It is a childish fetid pool.

Prem, on closer scrutiny, you will notice that the book does seem to be reporting just what is written in the Koran and the hadiths. Nevertheless, a whole book with caricatures of the prophet would still be considered blasphemy. But I am guessing most mutineers would support it, since it is factually sound. My only objection to it is that the facts are taken out of context.

It's hard to take you seriously as you pontificate about "removing the labels" when you repeatedly write "Islamic invaders" in reference to a significant piece of Indian history. Seems like you have your own issues to work out there, skippy.

I don't see how reference to historical event(s) undermines my opinion/desire to remove religious labels. By that logic, simply refering to Colonial British govt. would mean antipathy towards British people as whole. So yes, Islamic Invaders (take it literally, people who were followers of Islam and who invaded India).

Sameer - even so, you've postulated the creation of Hinduism (through contact with an other - that of Islam) long before the start of Sikhism.

Yaar this thread will never finish

What do Sikhs think of Sardaji jokes? What do you think? Its an ugly thing, and thats simply obvious. People who do such things are not displaying manners or respect

I don't think it would make a good t-shirt. Too complicated and takes too long to read. Perhaps you should go for something more succinct like:

I am NOT a muslim terrorist
I AM A SHIKH YOU IGNORANT MOFO
(http://www.sikhs.org/)

I am NOT a muslim terrorist
I AM A SHIKH YOU IGNORANT MOFO

i prefer

" I'm not the mirror who casts a broken reflection. Do refrain from your jealousy of my crown."

Nice, Pattie! As for Bengali and others, you misunderstand my meaning. This isn't about distinguishing myself from Muslims, it's about not wanting to explain who or what I am to everybody who asks. Believe it or not, I get Hindu far more often than I get Muslim. And given some of the responses here, it seems that I need to wear this shirt around desis as much as I do around goras.

... nowhere in the voluminous Guru Granth, the name of the Moslem Prophet occurs, directly or indirectly, though Koran is mentioned by name more than once... In so far as the Guru perceived excellence in Mohammed, he attributed it exclusively to the grace of God, and whatever was contingent, unenduring in the words and deeds of Mohammed he deemed as merely human and impermanent trait.

You will read the writings of (not 'about', however) Kabir, Farid, etc., and you'll read references made to Allah. The scripture is focused on God, and one's connection with God, or developing one. The Sri Guru Granth Sahib praises those who have been so lucky to reach enlightenment - but to specifically focus on certain people would limit how those reading might interpret the paths available to them. In my opinion at least.

Nice, Pattie! As for Bengali and others, you misunderstand my meaning. This isn't about distinguishing myself from Muslims, it's about not wanting to explain who or what I am to everybody who asks. Believe it or not, I get Hindu far more often than I get Muslim. And given some of the responses here, it seems that I need to wear this shirt around desis as much as I do around goras.

ahh, thanks dear, that one came to me whilst making supper last night. lol. also, it sounds less agressive! ;)

that reminds me, i've been aching to put up new shirt designs, so i'll add that to my group, after i get a decent image to match it.

Ennis - dude, you wear that t-shirt around and, like bong breaker, I will diss your spelling and bad grammar. That's worse than being a terrorist.

Thanks ;) I'll be sure to clean it up first. I wouldn't want my friends to start drawing red and green squigly lines on my shirt while I'm wearing it ;)

Ennis:
once again my apologies, I should not have said what I said, please forgive and forget.
My thing is that I don't undertsand these charges of Hegemony, and this feeling of we are Sikhs and you are Hindus. Coming from a family where a clan amongst us is Sikh, while the others are Hindu, I could never make sense of this. All the Hindus I know have a healthy respect for Sikhs, many a times that borders on great affection. The same is true of the Sikh people I know. I liked the picture you posted since it seemed capable of dispelling American ignorance.
I guess I was wrong to think of it in only that way. Your comment section makes it abundantly clear, that Sikhs feel that their own identity is under threat, and that somehow Hindus are to blame. I am sorry that so many people feel this way.After reading all these comments, I realize that I may have lacked sensitivity, but my intention was honest. I sincerely hope that both the Sikhs and the Hindus feel a natural kinship and not be threatened by each other's existence.I see no reason for things to be otherwise.

Nothing to add here. Just wanted to take advantage of being Comment 101.

sigh. pasadena...alan wilder...the 101st show...never let me down, indeed.

amritdhari Sikhs aren't "baptised" the same way gurdwaray aren't churches. Don't let orientalism get in the way of maintaining a sovereign Sikh identity.

wait what?

Sikhs are amritdhari, not baptised. Christians are baptised.

wait i thought a Amritdhaari was a baptized Sikh.. i though once guru ji gave you khanda de phul all ur bad kaarms are washed away... thats what the panj piyaree told us..

dude, I hate you call you dense, but how many different ways can I say it?

baptised is a word used for initiated Christians. Initiated Sikhs should not be called baptised, for they are amritdhari.

ohh thnx

I am going to have no sympathy for any Sikh who gets attacked for his turban. All this cave man chest beating over what some Guru said about the turban and trying to become a warrior for God is silly. So if you want to have your little crusade and refuse to cut your hair, then be prepared for the consequences. I actually used to think that Sikhs were reasonable people.

Mutiny Reader,

I have no respect for people who invoke the name of some Guru to dress like a clown

I am assuming that your statement is genuine and you are not here just as a way to "get attention".

Let me get this straight. Are you saying that you think people who wear one or more of the 5Ks in the mode of Guru Gobind Singh are "dressing like clowns" ?

So you think Guru Gobind Singh looked like a "clown". Is this correct ?

Jai -

Trolls? What troll? I don't see any troll, do you ?
Nah, I don't hear anything either.
;)

-- E

I have no respect for people who invoke the name of some Guru to dress like a clown and then play the victim card.

Ennis,

Good move, buddy. It must have been my imagination *wink*

Jai

I am going to have no sympathy for any Sikh who gets attacked for his turban. All this cave man chest beating over what some Guru said about the turban and trying to become a warrior for God is silly. So if you want to have your little crusade and refuse to cut your hair, then be prepared for the consequences. I actually used to think that Sikhs were reasonable people.

I have no respect for people who invoke the name of some Guru to dress like a clown and then play the victim card.

shame, shame. such ignorance. the issue is about harrassment and disrespect, which happen to be targeted at sikhs right now. who ever posted that truly needs to learn respect for others and alot of maturity. Sikhs are much more worthy of resepct than you give credit for...such blind eyes. or mirror with broken refeflection.

besides, the turbans protect some mighty brains. case in point - you don't see sikhs coming and flaming/trolling your blogs!

koi gall nee, you think seva lahk can't handle a few flames?

haha i love the ignorance....... just inspires me more... you know you can thank us Clowns... for it wasn't the Clown's 9th Guru that gave up his life.. and the 10th clown's Guru that gave to us this clown uniform. instead of saying "namanskaar", you'd be saying "As-Salaam-Alaikum".... (no offense, just stating the truth)

and the 10th clown's Guru that gave to us this clown uniform. instead of saying "namanskaar", you'd be saying "As-Salaam-Alaikum".... (no offense, just stating the truth)

Excellent point!
I feel so bad for the 100 million plus Muslims in India. I wish the 10th Guru had come a few hundred years earlier, so everybody could have been non-Muslim.

haha i love the ignorance....... just inspires me more

yeah, we love laughing at you too. and that's not inspiration. misnomer.....that's ' Mała pamięć (umysł) z zbyt wiele (zbyt wielka ilość; za dużo) obliczają i komputer '.

I feel so bad for the 100 million plus Muslims in India. I wish the 10th Guru had come a few hundred years earlier, so everybody could have been non-Muslim.

"Another Reader" is referring to the fact that Aurangzeb was on a campaign of forcible conversion of Hindus (and Sikhs) to Islam. Guru Tegh Bahadur and, subsequently, Guru Gobind Singh initiated major events to prevent this from occurring en masse. It was not necessarily Islam per se which was the issue, but the fact that a) the conversion was forced, and b) the interpretation of Islam being promoted was the 17th & 18th Century version of what is currently called hard-line Wahabbism, not the more liberal Sufi interpretation.

Buy that shirt now on www.rootsgear.com a lil edit to it..

The T-shirt should have simply said: "I am not a Muslim, I am a Sikh" since that is the confusion in the west on seeing bearded turban-wearing men.