californiasardar1

This is a good point. But I think one reason "mixing" in marriages hasn't become more commonplace and taken on a bigger priority is the Sikh panth is not composed of several different castes/tribes that form an equal part of it. 60-70% of Sikhs are jatt When one group forms such a majority, are they going to feel pressed to go out of their way and seek out someone from a different caste background when they are much more likely to keep encountering other jatts?

Thanks for the info, but I don't quite understand: why was cutting his kesh a necessity?

No comments? Am I really the only one who has wondered why there aren't any photographs of Satwant Singh?

Hi everyone, I was wondering why every image that's available online of Shaheed Satwant Singh (one of the two assassins of Indira Gandhi) is a painting. Why are there no actual photographs of him? Do any of you actually have a photograph of him? It just seems rather bizarre to me that we have photographs of all of the 80s era shaheeds (including the other assassin of Indira Gandhi, Shaheed Beant Singh), but I can't find a photograph of Satwant Singh. From all of the paintings of him, he seems to have either no beard or a very short beard. I've read in some places that he was a beard trimmer. I'm wondering if perhaps that's why nobody has chosen to release any photographs of him?

I'm not going to go off into the forest. But it does feel at times like I'm already in the forest whether I like it or not. You are right. I need to get serious about my own jeevan. I've been trying to do more path, but I still have a very long way to go. I have a lot more work to do, obviously. This isn't just about me and what will happen for me when "the time is right". Looking at things rationally, I think I will be ok. But is it not selfish to only care about myself? What about our quam? What about the future? Perhaps there's nothing that can be done and that's why it sounds so stupid to fret over it. In any case, you are right. I should give it a rest, try to focus on my jeevan, and whatever will happen will happen.

I appreciate your sentiment, but rather than making an emotionally charged comment, perhaps you could try to look at the facts. Look at what's taken place in the last 40 years. Is this going to stop any time soon? In a few decades, we've gone from the norm, to out of the mainstream, to "orthodox". We're not that far off from "fringe" even now. I could go on and on and explain just why things look so bleak and why my conclusion is far from ridiculous (as I already have in many posts). But you will probably dismiss them. But please try to at least give what I've said some serious consideration. I'm sure if you took a time machine back to 1950 and told people what things would be like early in the next century you'd be dismissed and ridiculed.

You are right. The conclusions you expressed in your earlier posts were right on target. In this day and age, a young man wanting to keep his Sikh identity in tact must be prepared to go through life without a community to call his own (unless you want to count the increasingly small and scattered population of keshdari Sikhs). To make such a decision, one must be prepared to let go of many worldly desires and truly travel a spiritual path. I've resigned myself to the fact that that's just the way it is and the way it will be. I've made my choice and am prepared to live out my life under these circumstances. The question, however, for everyone here: is this satisfactory or acceptable for our quam? How many people can stand alone? Perhaps I will be ok and maybe you will all be ok as well. But what is going to happen to our community as a whole? It all sounds ok in theory: only the truly strong will remain, and perhaps that's how it should be. It will eliminate the weak. But let me ask all of you: are you prepared for the keshdari Singh to be reduced to a fringe figure you read about in books and see once in a while when you visit Harmandar Sahib? If not, can we try to do anything to prevent this? Should we? Or is this vaheguru's will?

No. The "Patiala Shahi" style pag looks the best, by far.

Try to brush your mustache to the side, using your fingers (or a brush if it is nearby) anytime you feel it getting in the way if your lips. If you do this often enough, your mustache will start to naturally stay sticking out to the side and clear of your lips/mouth. It's become a habit for me to instinctively do this quite often It might take a while for this to have any affect Alternatively, fixer would help

One thing that has always confused me is when you see a really nicely tied pag, it's usually on the head of some trimmed-beard bhangra singer. Why don't Singhs seem to put proper effort in tying nice (or even presentable) turbans? This is probably not as much a problem in India as it is in the west (specifically America) It is very embarrassing to see grown men with long beards wearing patkas. When most of these young men finally move on to actual pags, they are usually small and tied in a sloppy, haphazard way. It's sickening how many trimmed beards I see in India, but at least you don't see young men there walking around with patkas or sloppy dastars. Yes, I am aware that appearance does not matter, etc. But it wouldn't hurt if we put in a little effort. If we are going to keep the Sikhi sarup, we should give it its proper regard by making ourselves presentable.

There are historical Gurdwaras etc. in many other cities. Should all of these cities also be considered "holy"? I'm not opposed to the notion of Amritsar being considered some sort of capital for the quam, but I guess I don't understand the notion of a "holy" city within the context of our religion. Sometimes I think we decide to adopt certain stances to mimic other faiths that have "holy" cities, so as to not be any less than them.

Sorry, but what does it mean for a city to be "holy"? I understand the historical relevance of Amritsar and the desire to have some sort of city that serves as something of a capital for the quam. However, what makes one piece of land more "holy" or "sacred" than another? ("Historically important and significant" does not mean the same thing as "holy") I just feel like the whole concept of a holy city is somewhat at odds with my understanding of what our religion preaches.

What about the discrimination from our own? I hear what you are saying and understand that a lot of people have to deal with racism and discrimination of some sort. But I think what makes the challenge unique nowadays for keshdari Sikhs is that there is no real community they can call their own except for other keshdari Sikhs (who are extremely small in number). Our parents and grandparents who moved to the west faced discrimination, but not from their mona Sikh counterparts.

Could you share a bit about your experiences being a mona and now having your kesh? When did you start to keep your kesh? How did you social interactions with other "Sikhs" change?

I see what you mean, and as an adult I'm more prepared to deal with such disrespect. (Although I still have some work to do when dealing with the disrespect in the context of finding a woman to marry.) However, when you are a kid growing up surrounded by hostility and unable to turn anywhere for support and acceptance, you are sometimes unprepared to deal with this.

What's changed in the last 20 years is the proportion of Sikhs with cut hair has shot up dramatically. When you have cut hair but your father, or grandfather, or brother, or cousin, or someone else is a sardar, you are going to view keshdari Sikhs as your brothers. But when you grow up not being related to anyone with uncut hair, you are probably not going to look at keshdari Sikhs as people like you. Instead, you might view them as some strange, fundamentalist "others". This is one of the major reasons why the disappearance of keshdari Sikhs is so troubling. The more monas, the less support keshdari Sikhs get. If all the mona still viewed us as their brothers and sisters, we could reach some sort of equilibrium point where people could make their own choices but still stand together when it comes down to it. This problem is going to reach crisis proportions within the next 20-30 years. At that time, 95% of Sikhs will have not only have cut hair, but they will have grown up being unrelated to anyone with uncut hair. We won't be one community anymore. Khalsa Ji, could you clarify how you are differentiating between monas and sehajdharis here? I am a bit confused.

A lot of you have correctly pointed out that racism happens everywhere and is always in issue. However, what I think is far more difficult to deal with than racism from Americans (or Canadians or Brits or whoever), is prejudice from our own people. People who are Sikhs (in name at least) who are less than respectful towards people who keep their kesh. Most other groups of people who deal with racism can at least get support from their own community. But that's not really the case with our community, and it's probably going to get much worse in the future. I'm talking here about keshdari Sikhs being accepted and supported by monas. I think it's the discrimination from our own that is most painful and difficult to deal with, and is often the breaking point for young Sikhs who are trying to keep their kesh. When you feel like you can't get support and acceptance anywhere, it's very tough.

On what basis could we demand Haryana or Himachal Pradesh? That was not "given to us" when the British left. That's what was left of the original Punjab Province, which included a great deal of land that was not naturally part of Punjab (i.e. Punjabi was not the native language). That wasn't intended to be anything resembling a Sikh homeland. What do you think the purpose of the Punjabi Suba movement in the 60s was? It was to create a state where Punjabi was the official language. If all of Haryana and Himachal Pradesh fit that description, why the necessity to even have the movement in the first place? We could have just stayed put with "what was given to us". There are a few areas of Himachal Pradesh, Haryana and Rajasthan (mostly bordering Punjab) that have large Sikh populations and would naturally fit into the definition of Punjab. But they are rather small areas. The borders of any future Sikh state are essentially Indian Punjab. Are you aware that Haryana is 90% Hindu and Himachal Pradesh is 95% Hindu?

This is a legitimate concern. Do you have any other input? Do you keep your kesh, and if so, did you always?

This is a great point. We have been worse than probably any other major religion when it comes to spreading our faith. Aside from a few hundred White Sikhs in America, Sikhi is basically restricted to people of Punjabi origin. And when you consider that 60-70% of those are jatt farmers, you get an idea of just how narrow the Sikh base is. Part of the problem is with our historical prejudice. We should have reached out to non-Punjabi Indians and so-called "low caste" people. But we didn't. And as a result, Sikhs aren't a religious group, but rather an ethno-religious group. The sad thing is, the "ethnic identity" aspect of Sikhi might be the only thing keeping it alive in Punjab. Most Sikhs see being Sikh almost as belonging to a certain ethnic group rather than a certain religion. So non-religious Sikhs are still nominally in the Sikh fold.

I think you make a great point about the need to galvanize support from the common man and woman in Punjab, and you also rightly point out the problem with the term "Khalistan" and how it has a stigma attached to it. However, this whole notion that there could be a broader Punjabi movement for a separate Punjab nation that is not synonymous with the desire for a sovereign Sikh state (call it "Punjab" or "Azad Punjab" or "Khalistan" or whatever) is a pipe dream. Hindu Punjabis are never going to want an independent Punjab. The only Punjabis left wanting an independent Punjab will be Sikhs. So however anyone chooses to define and label the movement, it will be seen as a Sikh movement for an independent Sikh state. If you don't believe me, check what happened in the 1960s when the Sikh leadership sought to divide Punjab along linguistic (rather than religious) lines. Did the Hindu Punjabis step forward and say "hell yeah, we're Punjabi and we want a separate state where our language is preserved"? No. They chose to identify themselves as native Hindi speakers even though they spoke Punjabi. If Hindu Punjabis could not be rallied by Punjabi nationalism then, they certainly are not going to be rallied by Punjabi nationalism now given what has transpired in the last 35 years. The possibility that there could have been a movement for an independent Punjab where being Punjabi (rather than belonging to any specific religion) formed the basis for a nation came and went in 1947. Then, a state of Punjab could have been formed where no religion formed a majority (if the boundaries were drawn right, Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus would each have been less than 50%). Now, given the Sikh majority of what remains of Punjab, asking for an independent Punjab means asking for an independent Sikh state. By the way, I just want to point out that an independent Punjab has some historical basis, but what is now the Indian state of Punjab was never its own nation. Remember, Ranjit Singh's empire was only northwest of the Sutlej River (in other words, it didn't include Malwa). A majority of what is now Indian Punjab was either ruled directly by the British, or was part of one of several semi-autonomous Sikh princely states. Before then, it was mostly controlled by the Sikh misls, but it was not united as one nation. Anyway, I think you make some great points about how we should handle things as a community (i.e. dealing with police, etc.)

Hi Everyone, As those of you who've read my thread on marriage might know, in my experience, keeping your kesh can be very challenging nowadays. I'm someone who has had my kesh intact throughout my entire life. I've always wondered how someone who might have had a different experience (having cut hair and then keeping it starting as a young person, or going back and forth, etc.) might have a different perspective. I can't speak for people living in Canada or the UK, but at least here in America, growing up with your kesh means that you'll often experience hostile treatment from non-Punjabis who think you are an Islamic terrorist (or, even if they don't think that, often still think you are weird). Sadly, our own community can also be quite ignorant and offensive towards those who keep their kesh, and that makes things much worse. It's easy to grow up feeling like an outcast who doesn't belong anywhere. I've wondered sometimes if I had grown up with cut hair if I might have developed into a more confident, outgoing person. Perhaps I would not have shied away and kept to myself at times that I did. And maybe I would not walk through life with a chip on my shoulder feeling bitter and angry. I've thought about the future of our religion and I think as hard as it has been for boys of my generation to keep uncut hair, it will be exponentially harder for boys growing up 20-30 years from now. At least now, most other Sikhs who are monas with cut hair still have grandparents or cousins or someone who keep their kesh. So when they see somebody like me, most of them (but by no means all) think of me as someone from their community. That will not be true in 20-30 years when 95% of Sikhs grow up without being related to anyone with uncut hair. When they see a boy with a pag, they'll think he's some backwards, fundamentalist "other", just like many non-Sikhs today do. I'm wondering if a more practical path than keeping your kesh from birth and feeling like an outcast your whole life might be starting out with cut hair and keeping it once you've grown up and established yourself. Maybe then, you wouldn't have to deal with such an unsupportive environment as a child, and you could grow up without the same emotional scars. You could develop personality, get married, etc. And then as a mature person who is not in need of belonging, you can embrace the Sikhi saroop. I realize this is against Sikhi. But a path towards eventually embracing Sikhi is better than nothing. And looking at current trends, considering such an approach may be the best hope for us to find a way for people to eventually embrace Sikhi in large numbers while dealing with the challenges of life in today's world. Rather than anyone chastising me, I'd appreciate any constructive dialogue. I'm especially interested in hearing from guys who used to have cut hair and how they might have a different view about things.

Fair enough, but there would still be some issues and it's important to have a realistic view of just how big/small the country would be. I just wanted to point out how ridiculous a lot of these potential maps of Khalistan are. Our Sikh state is going to have a population that 70% Hindu? Really?

You are right that a lot of monas are hardcore Khalistan supporters. I think it's great that they have some sense of religious/national pride. But I must admit that it really pisses me off on many levels. If they feel so strongly about Khalistan, they should grow out their hair. They want political autonomy for their religion while simultaneously contributing to the religion's death. If they were in Delhi in November 1984, nothing would have happened to them. If I saw them on the street, I'd assume they were Hindus. If they feel so proud, why are they afraid to show who they are? It just really baffles me. While the Darbar Sahib being invaded in 1984 was horrible, what's FAR more troubling to me is the fact that if you go to a random village in Punjab today you will have difficulty finding a man under the age of 50 with his kesh intact. That image is far more damning to me than an image of the destroyed Akal Takht. Buildings have been destroyed and rebuilt before. But walking around Punjab struggling to see any non-trimming young sardars, I can't help but feel "this is the image that really captures the irreversible damage that's been done".

Ummm ... those maps of Khalistan are completely unrealistic How could a state formed on the basis of Sikh sovereignty encompass a region where Sikhs make up 20-30 % of the population? That's what your "most likely" map would suggest. The other map is even more laughable. Maharaja Ranjit Singh's empire was far more vast than any potential Khalistan would be. If Khalistan does become a reality, its border would essentially be the Indian state of Punjab. It would be a tiny, tiny country with all sorts of limitations.