californiasardar1

Having the same surname does not mean you have any substantial relation to that person If you are distantly related, you obviously should not get married. But if you aren't related, I don't see why it should matter. If you think having the same surname actually means something, why stop at comparing your fathers' surnames? Compare your mother's maiden names. (After all, why should it be taboo if your fathers have the same surnames but ok if your mothers do?) Then compare the surnames of your four grandparents, then your eight great-grandparents, etc. You can see how ridiculous this will get after a while. Bottom line: unless you have roots in the same pind, having the same surname probably does not mean you are related.

::yawn:: Maybe once we can get fellow Sikhs to stop dismissing practicing Sikhs as "giyanis" or "babas" I will care Let's get our own house in order first

I didn't know things were so bad in the UK. Where are Punjabis who have been settled in the UK for a while generally looking to move then? America? Is there really a mass exodus going on, or is it something people talk about and think about but hardly ever do?

I completely sympathize with your predicament. Also, I think it extends to more than just sex. It extends to other characteristics of being a "nice guy" (like not drinking, being religious, etc.) I found a girl who was just like me in many ways (virgin, non-drinker, etc.). In the end, she thought I was "too nice" and wanted more of a "bad boy". Most of the guys who she had been into previously were "bad boys," but I gave her the benefit of the doubt (perhaps it was a phase she went through when she was younger, etc.) That's the sad thing. Even a lot of girls who are "nice girls" want guys who are more "bad" than them I do wonder at times if I am delusional to think that there are girls out there who value what a guy like me has to offer

Your suggestion that we chose the "besharm" over the "honourable" in 1947 is VERY problematic. I do not think it is right that hundreds of thousand of innocent Muslims were killed in 1947. But please note that the massacring was started by the Muslims in Rawalpindi (as others have pointed out in their links). That was before all of the bloodshed in East Punjab that virtually wiped out its Muslim population. That doesn't excuse the retaliation in East Punjab, but the timing of the events goes a long way towards explaining why the Sikhs had so many misgivings about joining Pakistan. So, considering the killing, looting and raping that began in West Punjab (long before any similar activity took place on a large scale in East Punjab), was there any basis to believe that choosing to join Pakistan would be choosing an "honourable" side? It was the Rawalpindi killings and the disturbances that followed that made the Sikhs so reluctant to join Pakistan. I am not disputing your suggestion that we cast our lot with besharms in joining in India. But it's not like there was any reason to believe that we'd be joining an "honourable" side in Pakistan. It was a lose-lose situation. Having said that, I do think the Sikh leadership could have come up with a better solution if they were more competent. Facilitating a bloody population transfer in which your community ends up concentrated in a tiny, truncated province is not exactly a brilliant idea.

This is an interesting suggestion, but it won't work: it is easy to tell if someone is a full sardar or not by looking at the beard

Thanks!

Thanks. Should it be double patti, like the patiala shahi that most Punjabis wear, or single? Hmm ... I see what you mean. So should it definitely be folded as jusreign does it, or does some people tie the England pag after doing pooni the same way they'd do for the patiala shahi? Oh, and should the cloth be double patti or single?

6-8 meters probably? I'm glad you provided such a specific range (sarcasm). If you're right, that would surprise me, since the typical big "Punjabi style" turbans are that big and I always thought of the "England style" ones as being smaller. But perhaps I thought wrong and you are right. I haven't found a girl yet, but I've learned an awful lot and will continue to look. I've concluded that it is very possible to find the type of girl I'm looking for while maintaining my kesh. BUT, it's only possible if almost everything else about you is top notch and you have a very good strategy and technique. I wish I knew what I know now when I was 20. I wish I had planned for and started this whole process back then. It would have made things much, much easier.

It's not a pure Kenyan style pag. It's been changed somewhat since being appropriating by Punjabis in England. That's why I called it the "England style" Anyway, if you could tell me how long of a piece of cloth I need, it would be very helpful.

This was a lame attempt at humor I think everyone here knows what I mean by an "England style" pag, and there is no other term for it that I am aware of

Hi Everyone, I'm interested in tying an "England style" turban. I was wondering: How long of a piece of cloth is generally used? Is it double patti or single? Thanks.

Why can't West London Singh post elsewhere? Why has he been banished? He's one of the best posters!!

I totally agree with this. I find it disgusting how five minutes after leaving the gurdwara, the men take off their turbans and shave their beards. And it is disgusting how people who have no respect for the Sikh sarup suddenly act like they think it looks good for half an hour. If they are monas, fine. But come in front of the Guru to get married as you who are. Don't pretend to be someone else. It's disrespectful to people who actually keep their dhari and kesh and wear pagaris every day.

1947 was VERY long ago. And at that time, a very large proportion of Sikhs had served in the armed forces, many in the World Wars. Since that time, the proportion of Sikhs in the Indian army has steadily decreased (although we are still substantially overrepresented). Then there is also the question of weather the Sikhs who are in the Indian army are more loyal to the Sikh community or the Indian government. As for the west, where is that martial streak going to come from? Unless we start enlisting in the armed forces in large numbers, how would we gain the experience?

I don't think the Wisconsin shooting is a good example. An armed gunman killed several people who did not have any arms of comparable capabilities. Such massacres have happened to Sikhs even when we were legitimately martial (Nankana Sahib, Jallianwalla Bagh, ... the list can go on). As for Delhi in 1984, Sikhs were dealing with mobs that HEAVILY outnumbered them and had been organized beforehand. Some Sikhs did attempt to fight back with limited success. But when you are outnumbered and out-organized, there's not much you can do to avoid being butchered. I'd also add that the urban Sikhs (the kind found in Delhi) were not known to have as much of a martial streak as the rural Sikhs. Anyway, although I disagree with the examples you are using, I do think we are much less of a martial community today than we were even a few decades ago. This is especially true in the West. In the west, we don't carry on a tradition of enlisting in the armed services (like we used to in India), so where is that martial streak going to come from?

I don't dispute this. There are many mona Sikhs who are always among the first to step forward when there is an issue that affects our community. We should all be grateful for their contributions. However, there are also many monas who don't come anywhere close to falling under that category. The point is, being a mona, I think you can have a choice in some sense. Many choose to be active, many choose not to. But you're not going to be singled out the way a sabat surat singh will be. If you are a sardar with your kesh and dhari intact, there's no way to avoid it. Even if you prefer to be apathetic, you are going to be approached by people assuming or wondering who you are and what you believe. It's only natural that when something affects you directly, you are going to be more likely to try doing something about it.

This is extremely interesting. Thanks for sharing!

Maybe it's not 99%. Maybe it's 97% or 95%. But do you really think it's something dramatically different? I'm not turning this into a discussion about cutting hair. The point is, if every Sikh male wore a pag, we would have a lot more visibility than we do now and a lot more people would know who we are. You'd be surprised how many times I've run into Americans who talk to me and act like I'm the only Sikh they've ever met until I point out some clean shaven Sikhs who they themselves know. Many Americans with limited exposure to Sikhism think we all wear turbans. Then they look around and see how few turbanned Sikhs there are and they come away with the impression that we are a much smaller group of people than we actually are. We are a small group, but not THAT small. If people knew how many of us there really are, we would get a lot more recognition as a major religion and significant part of the community. Finally, I'm sorry if I'm hurting some feelings here, but I think it's just a fact that your average mona Sikh is not going to feel as much of a need to spread awareness about who Sikhs are because they are usually not going to be confronted.

He died like a true Singh, indeed.

First of all, Sikhs are a much smaller percentage of the overall population in America than they are in, say, England or Canada. So we are naturally not going to be as well known here. Second of all, 99% of Sikhs males in America are clean shaven. What need do they have to explain who Sikhs are? They aren't the ones who get singled out. So when only 1% of an already tiny population in a country has a real need to spread awareness about who Sikhs are, you can imagine why it's hard to do.

I agree with you that it's a shameful thing, but what what will restricting the matrimonial service to keshdhari turbanned sikhs accomplish? As I pointed out earlier, it would become a joke: there would be like 7 people registered Doing what you suggest would put an end to the shameless public display of clean shaven preference in one specific matrimonial service. But will it do anything to address the root of the problem? No. This issue is not being over dramatized by me or anyone else. If you don't think there's a huge stigma attached to keeping your kesh and dhari in our community, then you've been living in a cave.

You guys are missing the point. What will eliminating the "prefer clean shaven" option from gurdwara matrimonials accomplish? either: 1. No girls will be allowed to explicitly state their preference, but it won't matter because as soon as they see the guy is a pag wala, the talks will grind to a halt 2. Girls who are mostly or exclusively interested in clean shaven guys will stop using the matrimonial service. Then there will be like a half dozen people left using it and it'll be a complete joke. In any case, the fundamental problem is left unaddressed: How do we reverse this disturbing trend where the dhari and kesh have become extremely stigmatized in our community?

This is a very interesting story. Especially how you described going to India and for the first time seeing turbans in a fashionable light. Most young men who wear turbans in Punjab trim their beards. But they tie VERY fashionable turbans!! In the west, young men who wear turbans hardly seem to put any effort into tying them. They don't tie them right. Their turbans are not very impressive looking or fashionable. I wonder if it might make a difference if guys in the west started wearing good looking pags.

You are obviously referring to jatts here. I am very critical of jatts, as I think they are probably the worst in the quam when it comes to maintaining rehat. How many jatts keep their kesh? How many jatts refrain from drinking? I say this being a jatt myself. But while jatts have their shortcomings, there is another very big reason why any discussion of caste inevitably ends up with people blaming jatts for the majority of the quam's problems: Most sikhs are jatt!! Jatts numerically dominate and will naturally get blamed for most of the problems. Who is to say we would be any better off if a different caste/tribe formed such a majority? Anyway, whatever shortcomings jatts have, they embraced Sikhi in larger numbers than any other group. Without jatts embracing Sikhi, Sikhi would not have much of a presence anywhere.