buddasingh

Guru Ji would absolutely not turn away someone who wants to be a Sikh or be part in their congregation who doesn't have facial hair, or hair on thier heads. You asked and I answered your question. Now answer my question to you which you, perhaps inadvertently, skirted around. Are saying that to be Sikh, kesh is optional? Yes or no?

Cool Water You skirt around your piont at some length. Perhaps I can assist. Are saying that to be Sikh, kesh is optional? Yes or no?

Are the last two posts for real? Sorry I know that isn't addressing the content, but: 1. Something needs to be said, and 2. Still too dumbfounded to respond meaningfully. If the above is any indication, apparently the serious problem clearly lies with men. And stop suggesting there is a general disinterest in dastars. Maybe there is if you live in a bollywood screen and with certain girls. Respectful non sikh women constantly pursue fully bearded turbanned sikhs all over the world, usually respectfully declined. Yet some of us let bollywood tell us who we are. Societal issues, yes perhaps, do discuss respectfully. Keep in mind the topic can be challenging for any young person regardless of background. But on an individual level an iota true Sikh personality and the end result is an abundance of interest from higher quality more confident women. The dastar makes a Sikh aim higher and keeps us from settling for mediocre in every aspect of life. The only challenge a Sikh man should have is being respectful in his response to abundant interest. Don't chase. Live the simple life of a graceful, true to yourself, open minded, poet warrior and the problem will be the opposite.

Gabriel You are only 15 and such an independent thinker. That will serve you well throughout your life regardless of your path. As you may know if you’ve read about ‘Sikhi’ (Sikhism), the faith respects all paths and does not believe in a need to “convert”. At the same time, Sikhi is a path that is open to anyone to own for themselves. For the above reasons it is only honorable as per Sikhi to first care for you as a young person ahead of caring for you as a potential Sikh. I note that you are only 15 years old. At this age as you are open to so many ideas. You are also potentially influenced by so much good, bad, and fleeting. Although Sikhi may be amazing for those on the path, ensure that it is the complete picture of Sikhi that is suitable to you. Take the time you need to explore. Sikh men and women do wear “swords”, but you should understand the origin and history of that to know precisely how sacred and meaningful that “kirpan” is. The uncut hair/beard and turban is all part of the required identity and part of living the faith. There is a deep history and spiritual tie in to Sikh living. Do it right and you become a radiant, benevolent, fearless, lion/lioness. Most religions anxiously “love you” to increase numbers. Sikhi is not insecure. It is one of the few that at it’s very core and origin teaches to love, respect, and fight for all religions/paths (sarbat da balla). At the same time Sikhi says come on board here and you should commit to being saint soldier for all of humanity and a student (‘Sikh’) always. Don’t get me wrong regarding your interest in Sikhi. Sikhs admire and even look up to a person who starts completely outside the faith to take an interest. That person’s commitment usually is the most akin to the commitment of the panj pyare. A caution I will throw your way is that many who identify as Sikhs today, despite being good people are slaves to mediocre yawns of success. They have lost the plot and lack the subtle sophistication to live the symphony of Sikhi. They prefer the comfort of anonymity amongst the crowd. In addition there are also those who identify with Sikhi that insult Sikhi with asinine backwoods ethics and mere caste-like familial claims to the identity. By definition, there is no such thing as a familial claim to Sikhi. Regardless, when you meet a person who actually endeavors to live as a Sikh, whether they are from a village or city in Punjab, London, or L.A., you will admire their powerful radiance for life. Looking forward to seeing more of your posts. I'm sure you will teach us through your questions and curious mind.

One source of assistance for you may be your martial arts instructor. True teachers of martial arts should be amongst the most spiritually wise. Can you confide in them and get input? They also know your schedule and training options as well If not a teacher consider seeking out the best humble senior student. I will hazard a guess that person might also offer helpful insight.

You are insulting all Sikhs who gave their head rather than their faith. In 1984 Hindu government mobs did not celebrate taking wallets from Sikhs. They celebrated forcibly cutting Sikh hair. Those mobs have better knowledge of the faith and history to which some of you lay claim. ‘Nowhere it is writen’ that you can’t put a tire around yourself and set it on fire. Let us know if you will contemplate that also.

It sounds like you wish to have your family on side. Start with advising them you would like to try dhumalla for a day or half a day sometime. This may help them see their son/grandson as simply a radiant Sikh and help dispel hold ups they have. No matter which dastar you wear, do so along with being in great physical, mental, and spiritual shape. First a Sikh should expect that of herself/himself. Secondly it will help your parents (and others) appreciate any dastar.

Nothing new and utterly despicable bullying of children and a faith; displaying the heads in their asses mentality of an entire nation. Can you imagine Hollywood's repeated comedy theme be a similar caricature of Jewish children with Kippah/Yarmukle or a caricature of Black children with frizzy hair? The Indian entertainment industry generates billions of dollars meaning the nation has a massive appetite for this as entertainment. Maybe it's time they declare the entire country 'backward class'. In the mind of any intelligent person, the hosts, producers, audience and nation end up being the butt of the joke. How can the country claim that it has a fighting chance for respect for women on the streets when it bullies children and mocks a minority faith for mainstream family entertainment. Feel free to spread the above or your own view on social media.

Fair point perhaps... However, it also needs to be said that for a Sikh, when you live in a corrupt, backward system, the only way to function is to topple the backward ways, either with quiet dignity, or loudly, but never become corrupt. There are indeed Sikhs who carry on, in India and around the world, living quietly with spectacular dignity, yet surrounded by humans who ape the dysfunctional society around them.

CS-First, my point was not about Reyat specifically or his innocence. The victims were the most innocent and your clichéd distortion takes us further from justice for those victims. But you want an answer. Start with facts available to you, rather than relying on false and disrespectful “investigative reporting” around a massive tragedy. You help propagate those falsehoods. Here is one very short ‘answer’. Keep reading. Since you raise it, Reyat very well may be innocent at law. Exploring that properly may lead closer to some justice for those most innocent, being the families that died. Reyat was without a doubt prosecuted improperly at just about every stage. (Edward Greenspan the one of the leading criminal law scholars in Canada says this: “ Instead of engaging in "Enron accounting," the Crown should inform the public that this man is not getting away with murder, because he didn't commit murder.” & Read articles below). You need to do no more than read each of his cases and very few other facts that have arisen to to conclude there is a very likely miscarriage of justice. People decades from now will be talking about how Canada repeatedly through it’s actions and inaction disowned the “foreign” looking victims and their families while improperly participating in a witch hunt against Reyat. You ask who Reyat made the bombs for. How crass of you to opine at length on a tragedy of this magnitude and not be bothered to read very basic facts. He did not make bombs according to Crown. The Agreed Statement of Facts with Crown that formed part of the plea says as follows: In May and June, 1985, in the province of British Columbia, Mr. Reyat acquired various materials for the purpose of aiding others in the making of explosive devices. Mr. Reyat was told and believed that the explosive devices would be transported to India in order to blow up property such as a car, a bridge or something "heavy". Although Mr. Reyat acquired materials for this purpose, he did not make or arm an explosive device, nor did he place an explosive device on an airplane, nor does he know who did or did not do so. Read the articles below then reread hte following 3 paragraphs. Even the bare bones in the 2003 plea bargain is in question given the 1991 trial and ultimate lack of evidence in 2003. After reading the below articles one must ask where is the re-trial of the 1991 sham prosecution of Reyat if the truth around AI is so important? Not only was there a blatant non-disclosure of critical evidence that would have resulted in an acquittal, but incredibly an RCMP officer testified at the 2003 AI trial that sealed evidence itself was later tampered with at RCMP headquarters after the 1991 trial. This is about respect for those who were killed. The political layers of spin re Reyat, Parmar has not helped. Reyat’s case and an endless list of other uninvestigated issues should be of concern to anyone who is concerned about the truth re AI. Where is the investigation to determine whether this was an abuse of process, malicious prosecution, or criminal negligence? Where are those fearless leaders and media columnists who purport to care so much? Hiding behind you and your ilk, that’s where. Shame! ---- Reyat lawyers argued first trial unfair: transcript Blatchford, Christie. National Post [Don Mills, Ont] 18 Feb 2003: Crown says failure to tell defence about witness statement in '91 trial not an issue Disclosure problems over critical evidence from a key witness may have been a driving force behind the controversial plea bargain concluded in British Columbia Supreme Court this week with Inderjit Singh Reyat. That evidence, the National Post has learned, was first discovered by Reyat's current defence team only late last December and only began to be fully fleshed out last month. On Monday, the 51-year-old Reyat pleaded guilty to manslaughter for his role in gathering the ingredients used to make the terrorist bomb that blasted Air-India Flight 182 out of the skies on June 23, 1985, and killed 329 people, most of them Canadians. Anguished relatives of the victims immediately reacted with outrage and bewilderment to the sudden deal that saw Reyat given a five-year sentence. But the answer to their collective question -- why, after almost two decades of painstaking and multi-million-dollar investigation, would prosecutors agree to a deal less than two months before jury selection in the trial proper was set to begin? -- appears to be connected to Reyat's conviction almost 12 years ago in another bombing. That June day almost 18 years ago, two lethal bombs exploded within an hour of one another. The second was the one that caused the Air-India jet to be blown apart over the North Atlantic Ocean off Ireland. The first, contained in luggage that was destined for transfer to another Air-India flight, exploded in the New Tokyo International Airport in Narita, Japan. Two baggage handlers were killed. Reyat was charged with manslaughter in the Narita bombing and on May 10, 1991, was convicted after a judge-alone trial before Mr. Justice Raymond Paris of the B.C. Supreme Court, and later sentenced to 10 years in prison. Though there was a wealth of damning evidence against Reyat in that case -- cardboard and tape and other materials that matched fragments meticulously recovered from the blast and testimony from several witnesses who said Reyat had been trying to acquire dynamite that spring and was openly voicing his hatred for the Indian authorities over its army's bloody assault the year before on the Golden Temple in Amritsar, the holiest of Sikh sites -- arguably the most important single piece was a receipt for a Sanyo tuner bearing a rare stencil. That receipt, discovered at his Duncan, B.C., home, bore Reyat's name and appeared to show that he had personally purchased the tuner -- which sophisticated tests determined had housed the Narita bomb - - less than three weeks before the blast. Judge Paris referred at least seven times in his judgment to the supposed purchase by Reyat, and clearly accepted it as fact. In one such reference, for instance, the judge wrote that "records from a Woolworth's store in Duncan disclosed that the accused had purchased such a tuner on June 5, 1985." But, as Reyat's defence lawyers discovered recently, the Woolworth's clerk who had sold the tuner to two East Indian men had originally told police and later said in the presence of a prosecutor that Reyat was not one of them. The clerk's description of the buyer never matched Reyat's appearance, either in 1985 or now. Nor did composite sketches of the two men drawn from her description fit Reyat. Post sources independent of the courtroom -- where until about two weeks ago the Air-India trial judge, Mr. Justice Ian Bruce Josephson, was presiding over pre-trial motions involving Reyat's defence -- say this witness, Karen Smith, always maintained Reyat looked nothing like the two East Indian men in her store. At some point, Mrs. Smith apparently went to Reyat's workplace, Auto Marine Electrical, where she confirmed that the bearded, turbaned man was not one of the pair who had bought the tuner. A prosecutor, the Post has learned, was present with a police officer when Mrs. Smith was interviewed before the start of the 1991 trial, as is commonly done to prepare witnesses for court. In that interview, she reiterated her evidence that Reyat was not the man who bought the tuner. Geoff Gaul, a spokesman for the Crown's office, said late yesterday he couldn't confirm the prosecutor knew this information had not been disclosed to the defence, but said that regardless, "the Crown is confident that any non-disclosure of this sort in the previous trial would not have impacted" the Air-India proceedings. But the information was allegedly never disclosed to Reyat's lawyers, either those who represented him at trial in 1991 or at his subsequent unsuccessful appeal of his conviction at the B.C. Court of Appeal. In fact, the Post has learned from sources outside the courtroom, the first inkling the defence team had of Mrs. Smith's statements came almost accidentally just before the court break at the Air- India pre-trial last December, when the Reyat team was arguing a motion before Judge Josephson. During the holidays, the lawyers apparently did more digging, and by late last month, their allegations over improper prosecutorial disclosure had become the focus of another complex motion. It was, sources say, shortly after three police officers had testified that court broke again, and the first discussions between the prosecutors and Reyat's lawyers began. These were in the beginning geared at coming to what's called an "agreed statement of fact" surrounding Mrs. Smith's evidence and the disclosure issues, the aim to obviate the necessity of perhaps having to call the involved prosecutor as a witness. But the talks soon turned into full-blown plea resolutions and the deal that was formalized this week. Mr. Gaul, however, said the timing was "absolutely coincidental" and the disclosure issue "played no role whatsoever" in the plea discussions or eventual deal. The Post has obtained a transcript of Mrs. Smith's testimony at the first trial, where she was carefully questioned by prosecutor Richard Cairns. Mr. Cairns is a member of the team now prosecuting Ajaib Singh Bagri, who, with Ripudaman Singh Malik, still faces an array of charges, including murder, in both the Narita bombing and the Air- India one. It is their trial that is slated to begin March 31. Mrs. Smith's examination-in-chief was brief, and is contained on fewer than six pages. Much of it revolved around the actual bill and the customer receipt and the meaning of various numbers such as the store and product codes. Reading from the bill, Mr. Cairns then asked, "Then it says deliver to, and it's got, R-E-Y-A-T." Mrs. Smith replied, "That would be the name the customer gave me." "So that information was supplied by the customer?" Mr. Cairns asked. "Yes," said Mrs. Smith. A little later, Mr. Cairns asked her, 'Now, the individual that made this purchase, Mrs. Smith, can you describe him to the best of your ability?" "It was an East Indian customer," she said. "Is that the best you can do?" Mr. Cairns asked. "That's about it," she said. "And was he accompanied by anybody?" Mr. Cairns asked. "He was accompanied by another East Indian," she said. She was never asked what many lawyers consider the natural follow- up question -- that is, if she saw either of those East Indian men in the courtroom. A little later still, after some questions about another tuner that was used by prosecutors as a sort of control for comparison purposes, Mr. Cairns told Judge Paris, "No further questions, my Lord." One of Reyat's defence lawyers at the time, Mark Hilford, unaware of her earlier statements to police, conducted an even briefer cross- examination, and pressed Mrs. Smith only once for a better description of the two men. All she could say, she told him, was that one man was taller than the other, and that she had dealt mostly with the taller man. The alleged disclosure problem with Reyat's first trial, Post sources say, served both to weaken the case against him in the Air- India trial and arguably even to bolster the defence contention that he was only ever a low-level player who was, by Mrs. Smith's evidence, perhaps even set up to the degree that he was identified by the two mysterious East Indian men -- they have never been found or identified -- who were actually in the Woolworth's store and who provided the clerk with Reyat's name and phone number. Poignantly, after Reyat learned that he was being fingered as the purchaser of the tuner, he actually returned to the Woolworth's store in Duncan in an effort to confront the clerk and say it hadn't been him. This was apparently held out at the 1991 trial as evidence of what in law is called "consciousness of guilt." Judge Paris referred to it obliquely in his decision, saying Reyat "apparently attempted to persuade some Crown witnesses that their recollections and records of what he had done during the period leading up to the explosion were inaccurate." The judge noted that these actions were "consistent with those of a guilty person," but then added, presciently, "I hesitate to infer too much from them because in certain instances they could be consistent by themselves (though not in the context of this case) with the actions of an innocent person who was imprudently denying facts which he thought might wrongly inculpate him." Reyat didn't buy tuner used in Narita bombing, testimony reveals ROBERT MATAS Vancouver — From Wednesday's Globe and Mail Published Wednesday, Feb. 26 2003, 1:54 AM EST Testimony about a possible cover-up of crucial evidence in the Air-India case and about unexplained tampering with sealed information in a police file was heard shortly before a controversial plea-bargain deal was struck with Inderjit Singh Reyat.as struck with Inderjit Singh Reyat. The evidence, presented at the pretrial hearing last month, dealt with the purchase of a $129 Sanyo tuner that police believed contained the bomb that exploded on June 23, 1985, at Japan's Narita Airport, killing two baggage handlers. One hour later, a bomb explosion aboard an Air-India flight killed 329 people. Police allege the two bombs were placed on the aircraft in Vancouver by Sikh militants seeking revenge against the government of India. Karen Smith, the salesclerk who sold the tuner used in the Narita bomb, told police that Mr. Reyat was not the man who bought it, Edward Ross Drozda testified in B.C. Supreme Court on Jan. 29. Mr. Drozda, a retired RCMP officer who worked on the Air-India case from 1985 to 1992, also said that the clerk's statement to police may not have been disclosed to Mr. Reyat's defence lawyers when he was tried and convicted in 1991 of helping to make the bomb that killed the baggage handlers. The court prohibited the media from reporting Mr. Drozda's testimony until Tuesday. Mr. Justice Ian Bruce Josephson of the B.C. Supreme Court lifted the publication ban in response to an application from The Globe and Mail. Mr. Reyat was convicted in 1991 in part because of police evidence that indicated he had bought the tuner at a Woolworth store on June 5, 1985. The B.C. Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's decision, accepting that "the evidence established that [Mr. Reyat]purchased ... one of only five tuners which could have housed the bomb." Police linked the tuner to Mr. Reyat after tracing a fragment found at Narita Airport to a stock of tuners at a Woolworth store in Duncan, B.C., the town where Mr. Reyat lived. In August, 1985, police found an unsigned invoice at the store with "R-E-Y-A-T" written in the "deliver to" area. Under intense police questioning in November, 1985, Mr. Reyat said he bought the tuner and told police where they could find a copy of the receipt. However, Mr. Reyat has also contradicted himself, saying that a man staying at his home bought the tuner and took it with him when he left. Mr. Reyat has said he did not know the man's name. On the final day of testimony before prosecutors negotiated a plea bargain with Mr. Reyat, Mr. Drozda testified that the salesclerk gave a statement to police on Aug. 19, 1985, about selling the tuner to two South Asian men. About a month later, she informed police that she happened to see Mr. Reyat, and he was not the person who bought the tuner, Mr. Drozda said. Two days later, Ms. Smith described the purchaser while giving a statement to police while under hypnosis. Her description did not fit Mr. Reyat, the court was told. However, at Mr. Reyat's trial, neither Mr. Reyat's defence lawyers nor the prosecutors asked Ms. Smith whether the purchaser was in the court room.Although the pretrial hearing was stopped before Judge Josephson ruled on the significance of failing to disclose Ms. Smith's statements to police, the issue came up in court earlier on another matter. Mr. Reyat's lawyers had previously argued that evidence collected by police in his home in November, 1985, subject to a search warrant, should be excluded because his constitutional rights had been violated, in part, by the failure to include Ms. Smith's statements in the application for the warrant. Judge Josephson dismissed defence arguments about the importance of the failure to disclose the information, ruling on Dec. 13, 2002, that it "appears to have been through inadvertence." In his plea-bargain deal, Mr. Reyat admitted that he acquired material that was used for the Air-India bomb, but said he did not make the bomb or know who placed it on the airplane. He did not identify the bomb-making items he bought. During Mr. Drozda's testimony, the court also heard that an unidentified person had tampered with two boxes of sealed documents from the Narita trial. The boxes, stored at Vancouver RCMP headquarters, contained copies of documents setting out information disclosed to Mr. Reyat's defence lawyers during the Narita trial. Mr. Drozda testified that the boxes were sealed in 1992 after the trial. But on the day before he testified in the Air-India pretrial hearing, Mr. Drozda discovered the seal was broken. Some material had been removed and other material had been inserted, he said. Mr. Reyat has spent 10 years in jail for his role in making the bomb that exploded in Japan. Earlier this month, he pleaded guilty to manslaughter in the Air-India deaths, admitting he acquired materials that were used in that bomb.

However, quoting directly from the concluding sentence in Josephson’s judgment: .... ”the evidence has fallen markedly short...”. 329 people died. Do you think this is the context in which you should be practicing your story writing? Did you read the case? It reads like a textbook example of a witchhunt. It is stunning that almost every prosecution witness did not get investigated and charged, and there wasn’t further accountability for whomever approved the charges for the case to proceed. But who needs to read when we have journalistic voodoo and cheerleaders like you to continue the storyline. The following applies not only to you, but the masses that think like you. Your post is replete with tired fictional analysis, clichés, and void of any context. This arises partly from your own garbled thinking and partly from you surrendering your thought process to the decades long media and political indoctrination around this case. The most sickening part of masses sharing your limited spin is that 329 people were killed. Those like you claim to be their defenders. However, due to the lack of critical thought on your part, you become masses supporting political distortion that ensures there is no justice. Whoever is responsible for this mass murder, you and your ilk are unwitting protectors. Shame!

You state: You are concerned about what your future wife will think with respect to marriage. A future wife should be far more concerned about what you think and understand about yourself and commitment. You must back up a 100 steps. You believe you are ready for marriage. But you don’t understand basics of the spiritual connection to the faith you claim. How can a wife expect you to understand what it means to connect to her spiritually in a marriage? What if she gains a few pounds, loses hair, or has a wrinkle or ten, one day? Will you 'cut her off' too? Marriage is not an eharmony commercial. If your judgment is that clouded and weak with respect to accepting yourself, how will you know what it means to love someone else? Broaden your understanding of the faith you proclaim. It is not fair to a future wife that a husband lacks basic comprehension of his own world. So before you tell her, tell yourself again. You have not accepted yourself yet. If you wish to represent yourself as a Sikh to your future wife, she will experience far more shock and dismay at your week knees/ week understanding of your faith. That my dear bro is precisely where the massive turn off will hinder the rest of your life.

In a nutshell, to some degree it applies to every type of Sikh. Most importantly, any analogies are for each Sikh at any stage to take upon themselves. Keshdhari Sikhs should humbly defer and say that Khalsa are the only true Sikhs and they are lacking. Yet, I would expect Khalsa in humility to be the most inclusive of all Sikhs. However, there is a particular difference with trimming. With trimming there is a public perversion of Sikh identity. It is one thing to not adorn articles of faith. But it is completely bizarre to display ‘sikh’ kes, yet desecrate kes. It would be like claiming sikh identity in a dera while replacing the dastar with a stetson or carrying pepper spray in a sling instead of a kirpan. The trimming practice is akin to dera leaders making a mockery by deforming Sikh practices and confusing the masses. Sikhs get outraged over the latter. However, when a flagrant perversion such as a trimmed beard arises amongst Sikhs, we rationalize tolerance due to a critical mass. It is easier to become part of the insanity than stick our neck out and say this is a perversion. We require self-determination. Yet some of us voluntarily enslave ourselves. Please keep in mind that this is OUR collective issue created and facilitated by US. It is not a mere finger pointing exercise, otherwise we have missed the point.

Random guy you say you are a ‘boy’ 20 years old. You sound younger in your analysis and indeed somewhat boyish. The following is largely directed at those “trimmers” older than you who’ve let you down as an example. However, at you as well within a very short time. You can’t stay a boy long. It is also a critique in context of one lone voice speaking against a thousand trimmers. They have plenty of dysfunctional company to survive the critique. Keep in mind trimming is one dimension of the person. I will not write-off a brother from any walk. I consider them my family, some possibly very dear to me, albeit dysfunctional. The below can also apply to those claiming Sikhi roop yet drinking. You speak about desires and choices. But you must consider consequences and responsibilities. You claim to be a Sikh. You claim that legacy from Guruji’s who sacrificed everything to provide the gift of Sikhi. There is no trimmed bearded Sikhi. By displaying that as an identity in public you are directly challenging and insulting Guru Gobind Singh Ji regardless of your superficial motives. You are a walking talking fraud, clown, mockery of Sikhi and at the same time making a claim to it. You claim the badges of honor and courage, yet a lifeless mirror makes you quiver. A critical mass of people does not legitimize something. For example, a nation of Nazis congratulating each other does not make hate OK. Just like Nazi hate is not diversity, you are not diversity. You are a psychological-self-hate portrait of our Guruji’s gift. You are a walking boorish joke. A self-hate group does more damage insidiously than a hate group. STOP MOCKING SIKHI. You are also my bro and like me human in your failures and successes. Get battle ready, humanity needs the Sikhi within you.

Your friends are obviously far too immature to be in relationships. You may have to consider that she may have a pretty good idea and choosing to let it go, so may not be as 'wise' or 'innocent' as you think. Putting all that aside for a moment, tell him something along the lines of the following: I consider you a friend and you have a responsibility to not hurt and abuse the trust of another person. You are also hurting yourself, but not aware of that at this time. The only proper thing for you to do is tell her yourself and move forward with consequences. I tell you this as a friend. I know this is not easy for you so you have a deadline of one week to tell her. If you want me to tell her for you, I will. Regardless, everyone has a positive duty to protect innocent people from harm, so if you don't tell her in one week, I will tell her on my own initiative. I will support you but if you choose to break our friendship over this, that is your choice, not mine. --- At 17 years old, either you must ensure you are well rooted in excellent value system to surround yourself with friends like this and influence them, or find better company. It usually does not mean you have to entirely abandon others. Frankly your friends behavior sounds like that of an immature *** who has much to learn.

Further to this comment, Sukhi you are not simply respecting the person but you are also giving regard to the position. It does not mean you can't be critical, but you have to be decent in your criticism. Ironically, we will respect when it comes to a courtroom for example or some western institution. There too you may disagree with the judge but you are upholding the and authority of the process and position. If you are critical, it is with deference and decorum for the position and institution.

You have hit the nail on the head with a rot within the community. Punjabi's are no different than Indians with respect to fraud, lying and cheating. Those of them who identify with Sikhi are a disease to Sikhi. However, we are part of the problem when we think to say nothing is somehow honorable. We are also far too desensitized. Sikhs have duties to act. We MUST firmly, gently point out this behavior when we see it. It IS our business. It is a skill to do it with confidence and love and command, but we must learn that skill. The vast majority of so-called Sikhs have decimated the pride of Sikhs by have the intelligence of buffoons when it comes to truth, ethics, grace, courtesy and class. It is not a strength to first size up the situation and then decide if you are going to cower like a mouse or push your weight around like an ape. That is not a lion. With respect to chairs specifically do keep in mind knee replacements are far more common and for most it's not possible to sit on the floor. I agree that most however don't have health issues but are arrogant, boorish and lazy.

Isn't it the case that by definition one can not be born a Sikh? Therefore it follows that one lives the identity with dastar/dhari, otherwise they are part of the Hindu fold. They might be punjabi hindu's or sikh oriented hindus but how can they claim Sikhi when that means associating oneself with kesh in the manner that Bhai Taru Singh did?

Big T. Let Borat answer the question. He claims mixed race are sub humans. That too on a Sikh forum! Let him respond as to his pure race. If you wish to explain something you can elaborate on your initial example of a "white bald guy". Your comment isn't despicable in the way Borat's comment is. But Is it OK if it was a brown bald guy, eg. no dastar/dhari? Did you get hung up on race as well when you were trying to communicate something different? The vast majority 95% of so-called 'Sikhs' are cowards who should hang their heads in shame as they don't have even a rudimentary understanding of the legacy of identity to which they stake a claim. They consider themselves modern, integrated and sophisticated. They are well to do slaves, nothing more.

Borat, You state that you care about the truth regardless of how "offensive" your views may seem. Please speak the truth and advise as to what is the proper name of the pure race to which you belong. The question remains unanswered from October 6, 2013, despite you being active here since.

Borat, What is proper name of the pure race to which you belong?

Are you able to tell us more about your medical problems? What country/city are you posting from?

Anti-gurmat or not, a visor is tacky and embarrassing, unless your name is Har Nar Singh. It looks no different than a ball cap of a punjabi ‘sikh’ who is fashion illiterate and like the rest of India claims to be proud of India/punjab while playing his part in an Indian culture that so badly wishes it was the caste of the gora. To try to define and distinguish the visor from a topi and arrive at saying a visor is OK… is like saying a man should not go to a business meeting with torn shirt. But a torn pants is not a torn shirt, therefore it is OK to go to a business meeting with torn pants. Nobody needs to be educated on that point and the continuum of proper attire. Sikhs should not have to be educated on anything that resembles a topi.

This is not a personal comment directed at the kids in the picture rather to an entire society of 'sikhs' (you and I) who are doing more damage to Sikhi than any outside forces. To be yourself and trim can perhaps be chalked up to a personal psychological baggage etc. However, to decide to represent and advertise oneself as specifically Sikh with the Sikh look and trim is immature, irresponsible, unschooled, and uncouth. A trimmed beard is as much about fashion in the Sikh context as is severe self-mutilation in any other context. When did something based in shame and illiteracy become something of which one is proud? As a Sikh, have the guts to be the lone one who speaks up eloquently amongst the masses. Empower those masses and then humble yourself to also learn from them.

Very interesting topic. The original question "When did your family become Sikhs?" seems to make logical sense to all. It begs the question: "What did your family do to become Sikhs?" which then raises the question "Is your family/are you Sikh today?" Do we suddenly apply different criteria to becoming/being Sikh today?