Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

131 Excellent


About californiasardar1

  • Rank
    Nimakh Naa Bisro Tum Ko Har Har

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I agree that this is great, and I also find it very surprising. I never would have expected to see western born Sikhs from nonreligious families move towards Sikhi. Here is something that I don't understand, and maybe you can help shed some light on this since you are from the UK: When a young man from a mona family grows his kesh out and becomes a singh, why does the father (and sometimes even the grandfather) remain mona? Is it a lack of sharam? Or maybe it is fear of embarrassment since they would have to admit, as middle-aged or elderly men, that they don't know how to tie a paghri? It is one of the most puzzling things that I have seen. A family with a young singh with a beautiful, full dhari and dastar ... and a clean-shaven bald man with a visible double-chin who is apparently his father. I find it so baffling that the father in such a situation is not shamed into keeping his kesh.
  2. You are right that early rural Punjabi immigrants made the turban out to be a much bigger hurdle to obtaining employment than it actually was. I don't have much sympathy for their decisions to cut their kesh. But look how far we have fallen: at least the early Sikh immigrants had some excuse they could point to and some of them legitimately felt bad to have discarded their kesh. Today's pathetic Sikhs sitting in Punjab discard their kesh routinely WITHOUT ANY EXCUSE. And they don't feel any sense of shame for having done so. They are always ready to try to justify themselves.
  3. You are right. My comparison really pertain to families in America whose parents left rural Punjab between the 1970s-early 2000s (but mostly from the late 1980s on) vs. families in the UK whose grandparents or great grandparents left rural Punjab in the 1950s-60s or whose parents or grandparents left East Africa in the 1960s-70s. In this comparison, the relatively recent rural roots of the American families preserved some more traditional/conservative aspects of Punjabi culture. But in the last 10-20 years, rural Sikhs sitting in India have been moving away from traditional Punjabi culture at a highly accelerated rate. Today's Punjabis will run as fast as they can towards anything that they perceive to be western or (to use the word that they constantly use and abuse) "modern." I doubt that people who have arrived from Punjab in the last 10 years will be raising their kids in traditional environments.
  4. Yes, there are plenty of "urban" Sikhs who cut their kesh too. But let's be honest here: they still keep their kesh at a much higher rate than "rural" Sikhs. The trimmed beard and turban is not an East African innovation. That style has existed in Punjab for a very long time. The reason you can say that the East African Sikhs "brought it into the UK" is because the kinds of "rural" Sikhs who would trim their beards in Punjab would take it one step further and remove their paghs and head hair before moving to the UK (showing a combination of cowardice and lack of confidence even though they like to portray themselves as brave, confident people). The only "rural" Sikhs who kept their paghs intact after moving to the west were the 100% pakay ones (with full beards too).
  5. You are absolutely right in making these points. I can only speak for myself, but I should have been more clear that the "westernization" that the East African Sikhs brought, in my opinion, had to do with women behaving less "traditionally" than they might in families that recently arrived from Punjabi pinds. I apologize for my mistake. But you are right, "rural" (I'm using the term "rural" to stand in for something else, but I'm sure you know what I mean) Sikhs are absolutely pathetic when it comes to keeping kesh. I say this as someone who comes from precisely this background. I'm not holding any other group responsible for "corrupting" rural Sikhs. As we see in modern day Punjab, rural Sikhs are quite adept at corrupting themselves. I just was noting how the further the time-distance from India, the further various Sikh communities have moved from traditional Punjabi cultural practices in various ways.
  6. (just to be clear, I'm commenting here on America only ... I don't think my comments necessarily apply to Canada) The uncles do indeed all have haircuts. But when I was growing up, I basically never saw an auntie with a haircut, regardless of what her husband's practice was. (That is changing a bit now, but seeing aunties with haircuts is still far less common than in the UK, where it is the norm.) My point is that, aside from uncles all having haircuts, the situation was not that different from what one would see in India. Men would drink openly and do stupid things (just as you'd see in India), but women still retained Punjabi cultural traditions in terms of their behavior. Also, "kids" in their 20s and 30s would behave a certain way in front of their parents (not like the UK where they seem to do whatever they want). This is not to make any sort of statement other than to note how things change in each community depending on how far removed from India they are. When I was growing up, there was virtually no such thing as an American born uncle or auntie (and it's still rather rare today). And there was no community of Sikhs from East Africa or Malaysia who were already westernized. Basically all uncles and aunties grew to adulthood in the pinds of Punjab. Things have already changed a bit from when I was growing up, but it is still far from what one would see in the UK. But give it 10-20 years, and the American Sikh community will be like today's UK Sikh community (probably much worse, to be honest). By the way, don't get me started on the post-84 asylum seekers. Only a tiny percentage of them were legitimate. Most were monay who couldn't care less about Sikhi but saw an opportunity to move to America.
  7. I remember a conversation 20 years ago with a friend of mine. Somehow the topic of the UK Sikh community came up. My friend said (I'm paraphrasing): "They are going on their third generation there. Imagine what the girls are like these days. Their community is going to hell." That was from a conversation that took place 20 years ago! Now, that statement wasn't 100% correct. I am actually surprised that some young British-born Sikhs are into Sikhi (and in some cases, more into Sikhi than their parents). But here are some things that are VERY common in the British Sikh community that I basically never (or very rarely) saw in the American Sikh community: 1. Girls drinking openly at Punjabi wedding receptions and parties 2. Aunties drinking openly at Punjabi wedding receptions and parties 3. Aunties with haircuts 4. Aunties wearing revealing clothing 5. Clean-shaven "babay" (grandfathers) 6. Boys and girls in their 20s or 30s who live with their parents but come and go as they please, going out partying, wearing revealing clothing and getting drunk and coming home in the middle of the night ... and somehow not having to hide any of this from their parents. It seems like this kind of behavior is very widely tolerated. 7. Boys and girls with tattoos I could go on and on ...
  8. Sorry, I'm going to need more than this. Everybody was saying for years that it was "no secret" that Deepa was a mona, but more details reveal otherwise. What about the old photo I posted of Jinda?
  9. I know you didn't bring up Deepa, but I am going to share some photos because monay love circulating haircut or trimmed-beard photos of him online (probably so they can justify cutting their hair)
  10. Where is your evidence that Sukha and Jinda were monay before the freedom struggle? Here is the youngest photo of Jinda that I have seen floating around: Notice the curls on the side of his beard (indicative of it not being trimmed). You bringing up hindi speaking, pro-indian, bhappay is irrelevant to me. Being keshdhari alone obviously doesn't mean anything (see KP Gill, etc.). If you are keshdhari, maybe you are pro-sikh, maybe you are anti-sikh. But if you are NOT keshdhari, my opinion is actually irrelevant because you yourself, through your actions, have declared what you think about sikhi.
  11. What do bhappay have to do with this? Why are you bringing up bhappay when they were a tiny minority of singhs during the 1980s? Most singhs in the 1980s (khalistani, non-khalistani, any other category) were from a rural background. And please cut out the revisionist nonsense. Note that: 1. There were a few monay in the khalistan movement, but the VAST, VAST majority were pendu singhs. 2. Most monay who were in the khalistan movement were in fact originally singhs who became monay in order to go undercover and evade capture (jinda, sukha, deepa, etc.). Only a tiny percentage of khalistani monay of the 80s were actually monay before becoming involved in the movement. There is a big difference between becoming a mona to go undercover, and being someone who is just a mona for no good reason.
  12. It's sad that this narrative has emerged, whatever really happened. On the other hand, it looks like this "Jassi" guy is a mona, so that makes me care much less.
  13. A Sehajdhari Sikh is someone who is not born into a Sikh family and is slowly moving to adopt Sikhi Someone born into a Sikh family who has a haircut is a patit (or, in my world view, a Hindu)
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use