singhni84

Unfortunately, this isn't just in India. It's a worldwide epidemic that allows racialized, marginalized, working class, and especially disabled women to rarely if ever see justice served for acts of sexual violence against them. The incidence of abuse is 20% or higher in the developmentally challenged and deaf communities of Canada, yet this group has the lowest rate of cases that end with a conviction for the rapist.

To answer both of your questions with one stone, I'll go for the most simple and obvious answer in hopes that you may grasp it: Where was "these people's soo called sarbloh bibek"? They weren't amritdharee yet (duh?), thus did not follow any rehit, including sarbloh bibek or anything else for that matter.

We as Sikhs should shop ethically. We should be against companies that inhumanly torture and test on animals. We should be against companies that exploit labour. Check out Naomi Klein's NO LOGO for more info on movements against corporate exploitation and neoliberal globalization.

I'm highly predictable :D

Singhavelli, While I agree with you in part, I have to disagree on this issue of violence against women. Just as degendering the issue as "domestic violence/spousal abuse" causes us to lose focus on the actual issue (as the above comment by s133k_s1kh demonstrates), refusing to recognize the other specifications makes us ignorant to what is really happening. Yes, all communities suffer from this problem. Presently however, we have multiple cases of women in the "Indo-Canadian" community being murdered by their intimate partners/husbands. We don't want to talk about it happening in our own households, but when we ignore the reality of the problem, the real face of it, we will find it impossible to identify and implement the proper solutions. In BC, we should be aware of the numerous Aboroginal women who have gone missing and have been murdered after suffering extreme sexual violence, the vast majority of them having taken place along the "Highway of Tears". This is a SPECIFIC type of violence, being committed against a SPECIFIC type of person, against a SPECIFIC type of woman, at a SPECIFIC location. When we look at this as violence against ALL women, we can't solve the SPECIFIC problem of this happening at HORRIFICALLY greater rates to young Native and Aboriginal women than to any other woman in Canada. When we look at this as simply violence against ALL women rather than violence against THOSE specific women, then we aren't going to solve that specific problem. For example, we have asked for inquiries into THOSE deaths, but no one cares about them. We have asked for greater security and preventative measures along that highway, but no one cares about that highway. We have asked for preventative measures geared towards potential target victims (young, Aboriginal, all the other specifics that make those exact women at greater risk), but no one cares to address their specifics because it's easier to look at it broadly "without divisions". As a result of this broad-brush approach, the solutions that HAVE been found do not address the problem they are facing. Similarly, when we refuse to address the specific needs of our own community, the Punjabi community, or the broader "Indo-Canadian" community, we won't find solutions that work for us. For example, the typical mainstream solution to "spousal abuse" is to create more shelters for abused women and now work being done to make them more accessible to racialized minorities. This is not the solution for our community. Shelters for our women are of no use because our women aren't going to use them. We need to solve the issue with a community-specific solution, not a mainstream one that will address OTHER communties. Each community has it's own needs and a "one size fits all" bandage solution is NOT needed or wanted. If we refuse to recognize that this is happening right now in this community, then no one is going to care to find solutions for this community. We should be analytical and critical, yes. But at the same time, we need to stop being so ignorant.

This is an interesting article. I would avoid de-gendering the issue by labeling it "spousal abuse" or "domestic violence" though. This isn't spouses abusing one another. This is violence against women.

Sangat should sit collectively at the same level on the floor. The stage tends to set up a divide between the keertani and rest of sangat when really the keertanis are still part of the sangat, no higher and no lower. Also, the stage usually makes the keertan seem like a "performance" directed at the sangat rather than directed to Guru Sahib as it should be. When keertanis sit on the floor at the same level as the sangat, then the sangat is not in the position of being a passive audience, but becomes active participates and the keertan becomes sangatee keertan where everyone sings along rather than just sitting and listening. Also, palkee is really for transporting Guru Sahib. Parkaash should be done on a taabiya.

Haha, my bad. I'm very rarely on MSN, but I'm on now if you are.

"s133k_s1kh", I know you stated it had nothing to do with the topic, but think about it. Why would you ask it here in this discussion if you didn't feel it was relevant in some way? Whether it's conscious or unconscious, we ARE drawing a link between what the victim wears and her assault. As I've tried to show you, the cause is not clothing or anything else related to the woman/victim/survivor. The cause is in the rapist. That's the "bud" we need to nip. Our solutions should begin and end with the rapist, not with the victim/her wardrobe. There's no point in focusing on the victim, whether it's her wardrobe or her character or her behaviour or anything else about her, BECAUSE, no matter what, no matter where, no matter when, NO woman deserves or asks to be raped. When we focus on the victim, we are looking for solutions in the wrong place because we're letting the problem walk the streets freely. The zameendaar women were their OWN women. They wouldn't dishonour their own women. If it was about sex, then yes, they would have raped any women available, not limit it to certain women based on CASTE. If it was about sex, then ANY woman -- high-class, low-class, without any class at all! -- every woman would have been raped indiscriminately. The problem is indeed systemic, but you've got it backwards here. The problem isn't that women fear coming forward. The problem is that we MAKE them fear coming forward. The problem isn't that they are silenced, the problem is that WE silence them. "s133k_s1kh", I can totally see where you're coming from, especially since I had similar views not that long ago. I haven't responded to much here but as per your PM request, you can add me to your MSN and we can battle it out there :D

's133k_s1kh', You've asked a lot of questions that require lengthy answers so this is indeed a very long post. For the most part, I can completely understand where your questions sprout from. They are common misconceptions, which I disagree with mosly, but rather than offer only my opinion, I've tried to offer as much detail, background and statistics through examples to back up my claims. 1. Do revealing clothes play a role in person being raped ? Anything could "play a role". As "Papi" pointed out, it could be a hand, a foot, a KID. However, we can't make blanket statements about clothing having a role (ie. "revealing clothing leads to rape" or "wearing a hijab and staying at home = no rape") because of the fact that women who are dressed modestly are raped in larger numbers than women who are immodestly clothed ("modest" clothing = what the average person would consider modest, not what a Sikh would consider modest). Therefore revealing clothing is not THE cause or even a MAJOR cause. It is my belief that everyone should dress modestly. The problem is that everyone's perception of modesty differs and even modest clothes can become immodest given a gust of wind, a button popping off, or any number of other factors. To a certain Muslim cleric, maybe all women without a hijab are "immodest", but to me, maybe a hijab is a sign of gender-based oppression and any woman who succumbs to it is immodest by default (I have no such views). It's all subjective though, see? We have to realize that rapists know what a woman's body looks like. They don't need to see it in order to rape her. This issue of clothing is entirely irrelevant. 2. This question has nothing to do with the first question. WHY WOMEN WEAR CLOTHES THAT BARELY COVER THEM?? This is a general question. What makes them wear SHOTTE SHOTTE KAPRE. I can't say for certain why women wear skimpy clothing. And in fact, I refuse to give you my input on it. Why? Because the simple fact that we're caught up on the issue of women's clothing in a discussion on RAPE is thoroughly troublesome and indicative of how backwards our mentality is in terms of drawing the conscious/unconcious link between what a woman wears and where the guilt lies, thereby relieving the rapist of any fault. Whether we say it plainly or not, when our discourse revolves around issues of women's clothing, we are saying loud and clear that the woman is at fault. When we continue to reinforce such thinking, how will we EVER come to a time when women can willingly step forward and admit they've been raped and seek justice so that we don't have rapists walking our streets freely, being our friends and our family, actively seeking out their next victim?? 25% of women in Canada will be raped (1 out of every 4 women you know!), half of them will be raped before they even turn 18. Of those 25% raped, only 10% will ever report it to the police. ONLY 10%!!!!! Of that 10% of rapists who get reported to the police, there's a 94% chance that the rapist will NOT be convicted. Honestly, how much easier do we have to make things for rapists here?? I don't think we need to guilt/shame/scare the victim into silence any more than they already are. I can't stress it enough but we REALLY REALLY REALLY need to get out of the "blame the victim" mentality. You, me, all of us. Whether we mean it or not, when we dwell on clothing in such matters, we ARE blaming the victim. How difficult must it be to be in that TINY 10% minority of women who can actually get up and tell the police what happened to them? How difficult must it be to be asked to describe your attire, often repeatedly, as if they're trying to determine which article of clothing it was that caused the rape? How difficult must it be to undergo this same scrutiny repeatedly by each and every party you build up the courage to tell? How difficult must it be that when you finallyyy take it to a courtroom in hopes of justice, you're required to sit infront of the man who raped you and be expected to tell the court and in essence tell HIM, while he watches you intently, what he did to you and how it made you feel, and then have his lawyer ask what you were wearing at the time?? It's shameful that such questions are asked of the victim by the system, by the defense. It's even more shameful that we ask it, unwittingly, of each other. In our midst, stats show that there must be at least 1/4 women here who know exactly what I'm talking about because it is their real lived experience. And yet here we are shaming and blaming them and asking about their clothing when we should be asking why the rapist gets away time and time and time again. 3. You have said RAPE IS NOT ABOUT SEX. I dont agree with that. You have said its about power and control. I'll give you a few examples Having read the examples you provided and knowing that some cases can indeed be about sex, I still say it is about power and control overall. Whether you see it or not, many of the examples you've shown are in fact PURELY power/control rather than sex related. First of all, in terms of examples concerning different races/classes/castes, the underlying issue behind the rape is the imbalance of power and people's social locations in terms of privilege versus oppression. Where different races are concerned, it is often complemented with "curiosity of the other". A European/white woman being raped by an urban working-poor rickshaw driver in India should be a clear example of that. I see what you're saying about "white meat" but that still isn't about sex, it's about two people in two different positions in the midst of an unequal power dynamic. If it were about sex, the rickshaw driver could go home and be with his wife instead of committing an illegal act of violence, just as many rapists could go home to their wives as well (48% of male rapists in Canada are heterosexuals that are married or living in a common-law relationship, so, if it were about sex, it's not as though they had no option besides raping someone). It's clearly not about sex. This power/control concept is hard to grasp. I readily admit that it seems crazy to think of rape as an issue of power/control rather than sex. But it's true. Proof of it is in the fact that in the VAST majority of all rape cases, the rapist malfunctions. If it was about sex, this would not and could not happen as often as it does. This is a fact and I've brought it forward but in the interests of maintaining a "clean" conversation, please don't ask for details or clarification on this point. It is however a well-known fact in the field of work with assaulted women/children and those (police, lawyers etc) who have to hear details of how the assault happened. Moving on... Your third example: c.) Mughal Invaders during the time of Guru ji's era used to take beautiful women back home. If it was solely about power they could have slaughtred them as they did kill women and children. They took them to satisy their sexual desires This is a classic example of how rape works in times of war or other periods of crisis/unrest. Rape in such cases is one of the strongest weapons of war. Forget guns, tanks and bombs...rape has a much wider and more potent impact. When women are viewed as the "property" of their men, there is nothing that will send a clearer message about who's winning and who's stronger than by raping their women. When there is war, there is rape. Why? Killing a woman is one thing; raping her is quite another. If the enemy soldiers are raping the other side's women, they are exerting power and control over the women, the men, and infact, the entire future of that people through the "honour" they have stripped that community of. In general, one out of every 12 rapes will result in a pregnancy. In mass rapes, the number goes sky-high because the women are raped multiple times over an extended period of time. This will naturally lead to mass impregnated women who will be carrying children of "questionable" parentage (likely fathered by the enemy). The "honour" of every individual woman who is raped is seen as the honour of every man in her life -- her father, her brother, her husband, her son. One dishonoured woman is MULTIPLE dishonoured men. When this happens on a mass scale, it is the community's honour. What is a person without honour? An entire people? A nation?? Look at Darfur and other such examples where gender violence is exploited and especially rape as a communication tool and weapon of war. The raping is carried out in a systematic manner by the Janjawid, often in coordination with Sudanese soldiers and the Air Force, with TOTAL impunity. Specific ethnic groups are being targeted. It is not about sex (if it were about sex, ANY woman would do, not the specific ethnic groups being targetted). This is not about sex. This is the systemic use of rape as a weapon of war. When rape is used as a weapon of war, a SYSTEMIC weapon of war, the women are not often killed. They are raped and MARKED so that their men will know they have been raped. They are sent home with a slit across the thigh. One slit across her thigh is all it takes to say "we win". [side note: I don't really support the concept of "dishonoured women" being a sign of who's winning. nor do I condone the view of seeing the entirety of her honour being wrapped up in some body tissue. Maybe if the rest of the world stopped seeing it like that, rape would no longer be used as a weapon of war. The raped women and any resultant offspring should be able to return to their homes and their families if they so desire, and they should be accepted back just as a wounded soldier is welcomed back, without any sense of lost honour.] Phoolan Devi ( THE BANDIT QUEEN )...raped 17 times. It wasn't about totally about violence. she was stripped naked in front of the whole village. It was about male and upper caste superiority in her case. BUT IT WAS ABOUT SEX TOO. she took revenge from these upper caste ZAMEENDARS and men used to accompany her in all the killings. These men never raped the ZAMEENDAR women. WHY?? You've answered your own question! If it was about sex, then why WOULDN'T they have raped zameedaar women? If it was about sex, they would have raped ANY woman. Indiscriminately. What would caste or class matter if it was about sex? If it was about sex, why would they strip her naked infront of the village? They should have taken her somewhere, raped her, the end. Why did they strip her? The fact of the matter is that it wasn't about sex. It was power and control. They stripped her because it would shame her. Shame is a strong emotion and is pretty much void of any power and control. They stripped her publically so that she would be shamed and so that everyone would KNOW she was shamed and so that they would FEEL her shame as well. It's a way for the rapists to silently say "we're in control, we have the power to do this". From what little I know about her story, all villagers knew the upper caste men were raping the lower caste women. They were scared mindless and were silenced through the threat of having their OWN women stripped publically and raped. Their silence was a protection of their "honour", a concept which they mistakenly tie to the tissue of their unmarried daughters and the wombs of their wives. But the rapists did it publically in order to maintain the impunity and the blanket of silence, passivity and acceptance through fear. Being controlled by the power of fear. And so the villagers closed their doors and pretended to sleep through the screams.

I can't see how any person with even an ounce of humanity could agree with that view. The problem isn't the way in which the cleric made the statement, nor how insensitive or offensive it is. The problem is that it is COMPLETELY and UTTERLY wrong, from start to finish, and each and every Sikh, man woman and child should see it as completely and utterly wrong. There simply can NEVER be ANY justification for rape. Never ever ever. No matter how you word it or how sensitively you bring it up. It happens to prostitutes, it happens to nuns; it happens to CHILDREN, it happens to the ELDERLY and the DISABLED. And it happens to regular unsuspecting and unsuspected people you see going about their everyday lives. It can never be acceptable or condoned or justified in ANY case for ANY reason. Women's bodies have become increasingly sexualized. Simply by virtue of being a woman, we should pretty much expect to be raped and constantly live in fear of being raped because of the fact that our bodies are sexualized to the point of rape being viewed as an acceptable and excused act. Due to the over sexualization of our bodies, whether we are revealing ourselves or not is irrelevant because there is hardly an adult alive today who wouldn't know what a woman's body looks like. Rape is not a "crime of passion". It is a crime of violence. As I stated earlier, rape is NOT about sex and is thus not about the woman's body or how "seductive" she looks or what she's wearing. It's about a CRIMINAL violently attacking someone in order to assert power. The "blame the victim" perspective is extremely detrimental and continues to silence victims and also leads to internalization of the guilt and shame that should belong completely to the perpetrator of the violence, not the victim.

First and foremost, let's get this out of the way, the most common of common rape myths: Rape is not about sex. So that which the victim is or isn't wearing is irrelevant. Rape is about power and control; issues within the rapist, not issues concerning the victim, nor her wardrobe. If rape were about sex and about revealing clothing, then we would be able to narrow down who is a potential victim of rape. It would make sense that only "sexually attractive" people, especially those wearing revealing clothing would be raped, which is completely absurd. Secondly, the rapist is the one who's guilty, not the victim/survivor. Why do we always put the victim on trial as if she's the accused? I'm not sure what you're asking in your second question. If revealing clothing doesn't affect the probablity of being raped, then why bother wearing revealing clothing?? I'll just leave that for now. As for the first question, I personally know, work with, and admire MANY women who have been raped or otherwise sexually violated in unthinkable ways. None of them were wearing skimpy clothing at the time of the assault. I have asked them. I would argue that the majority of rape victims are not skimpily-clad at the time of their assaults. Many of the rape victims I know of were assaulted as children/teens/young adults who never even fathomed themselves being seen or used as sexual objects. Think of rape that occurs during times of war. Is it for sex? No. It's power and control. It's political not personal, structural not singular. It's a message being sent along the very lines of power and control. Distant war-time rape isn't that different from rape that occurs each and every day in our own hometowns. If we stay stuck in notions that tell us that women who wear skimpy clothes get raped, then it becomes harder to prove/believe that a woman who is fully clothed, very respectably clothed, or even HEAVILY/insanely-OVER-clothed can be raped. Ideas like this made it necessary, not that many years ago, for women in Italy I think to have to fight for rape to be accepted as a crime if the victim was wearing jeans at the time. It was seen as impossible, because "only women in revealing clothing get raped", right? It also puts the blame back onto the victim. Not only does "no mean no", but only yes means yes, so whether she willingly enters the rapist's dwelling, or innocently sits on his bed, even if she has some skin showing, EVEN if she's MARRIED to him, she still has every right to refuse and is still not deserving of being raped because rape is and always will be a vicious and violent act. Overall, the myths we buy into, believe and perpetuate about rape makes it harder for women to come forward and to get past the guilt and shame that debilitates them. What she's wearing is one of the worst blame-inducing silencing tricks. As a side note, despite what may otherwise seem to be a rant condoning revealing clothing or making excuses for women who do wear those types of clothing, I'm a Singhnee who wears gurmukhi baana 24/7 and would never imagine wearing anything else, but I know for certain that women are raped when they're not wearing anything even remotely revealing and when they honestly have never even seen themselves in a sexualized manner before and who think of themselves as ugly and undesireable. But I still stick to my point that whether her clothes are revealing or not, it never ever ever gives anyone the right or the excuse to violate her in any circumstance, at any time, at any place.

Does he have a point? NO! Is the issue about "being respectable"? NO! "Respectable" or not, NO woman deserves to be raped. How she's dressed, where she is, what time of day it is...she's never "asking for it". And, putting the victim aside, just how "respectable" is a man who rapes women?? "Pakhandi Baba", rape and sexual assault are acts of extreme violence. They are illegal and carry many many many long-term affects that no woman...no HUMAN...would invite unto themselves. These heinous acts of violence cannot be condoned under any circumstance. A woman may or may not seem "respectable" to you, but that doesn't mean she's asking for it or is in any way a deserving victim. Everyone's understanding of what is or isn't respectable varies, it's subjective, so basically, any woman is fair game as long as you can prove she isn't respectable? If you leave uncovered meat outside, you can surely expect animals to devour it. Does it make sense to have the same expectations of humans? Adult men have the ability to think before acting, the ability to control and think of the consequences of their actions. If not, what then is the difference between a man and an animal? Yes, that is why no woman is ever raped in her own home, no woman with a hijab has ever been raped, and why there is no such thing as child sexual abuse or incest which often occur in the home, the victim's OWN home, when they are often "safely" in their own rooms. This cleric is such an <banned word filter activated>. Clearly the solution here isn't even the hijab...women just shouldn't go out, shouldn't be seen or heard. There is no time and no place for rape to be acceptable. No circumstance makes it okay. When we blame the victim and look at it from this idiotic cleric's perspective (which unfortunately is a very typical and common perspective), then we even start to limit who can and cannot be raped and deny that it can happen to anyone, young/old, big/small, disabled/able-bodied, "pretty"/"ugly", mini-skirt or snow-suit clad, whether you're wearing a hijab or not. We can't determine who is "deserving" of such violence. It's not about the woman, not about how she's dressed. It's about the systemic and structural issues that reinforce how easy it is for men to get away with it (6-month jail sentences for rape??) and how even "religious" authority figures condone it. We'll know we've gotten past the systemic and structural nonsense that blames the victim when we have the first rape or sexual assault case appear in a court when the survivor ISN'T asked what she was wearing. That is yet to happen.

First of all, to "wannabekaur5", I commend you for your strength and courage! Many young singhnees encounter the same pressure to conform that you must be facing but if you deal with your parents in a respectful manner, Guru Sahib will do kirpa! Some very general arguments/logic you could employ include the following: 1) There is only one Khalsa and no such thing as a "Khalsi". When Guru Gobind Singh tells us that "Khalsa Mero Roop Hai Khaas", he clearly refers to both Singhs AND Singhnees to be the reflection of his very form. That form is incomplete without a dastaar, without the crown that makes us all the sons and daughters of the King of all Kings. 2) Double-standards: We would find it inappropritate for a Singh to walk around with a gutt or his hair tied into a bun at the back of his head with his head bare. If the majority of Singhs did this today, there would an outcry to stop it. Why should we be so complacent to let Singhnees present themselves in this way? 3) The physical identity of a Sikh is of extreme importance. I don't think Guru Sahib would have given this unique identity and responsibilty to males alone to distinguish them as Sikhs and not give his daughters the same crown and mark of royalty. All Sikhs are supposed to stand out in a crowd of thousands. If a Singhnee is without a dastaar, what will distinguish her from any other random woman? How would anyone know that she is a Sikh?

I would disagree. I don't think there's any easy way to erase your sins. I think doing a personal ardaas is much easier than admitting your mistakes to Punj Pyaaray. A lot of people would avoid a peshee simply due to ego and not wanting to be exposed. I agree it is a "standard rule" to pesh for bujjar kurehits, but if someone has done something which doesn't qualify as a bujjar kurehit but still seems quite serious, why create a "rule" for whether they can pesh for it or not? It's not something to be taken lightly, but neither is your jeevan. If you've made some kind of mistake, which will affect your jeevan in one way or another, you'd likely want to clear it up in the best way possible. If you do ardaas for your "non-peshable" offenses, that's fine, but getting peshed has the additional bonus of being an opportunity to seek guidance which could perhaps help you avoid making the same mistake in future, and also serves as an opportunity to discuss the issue with Gursikhs who could give you some meaningful insight. Some people also find it useful to be given some kind of sevaa (ie. some paaths or other sevaa). All in all, I hope we'd agree that Punj Pyaaray = Guru Sahib, so who can put a limit on what you can or cannot discuss with your Guru?

It makes perfectly logical sense. The primary rehit of a Sikh is to receive Amrit ("Pratham Rehit Yeh Jaan, Khande-kee-Pahul Chhakey. Soee Sikh Sujaan, Avar Naa Pahul Jo Lai." -- Rehitnama Bhai Desa Singh Jee). Amrit is like the initiation into the faith, without which, one really cannot claim to be a Sikh. A Sikh must submit to Guru Sahib's hukam and give her/his head in exchange for Amrit. How can anyone claim the right to the title without paying the "price" for it? To maximize the affects of Amrit, you should avoid eating from non-Amritdharis, including food from restaurants etc. See this article for more information on Bibek.

Umm, here's a better solution! How about DON'T GO to places where the possibility of someone spiking your drink is high (ie. bars, clubs).

The size of a family isn't really a fair cultural attribute. And you've got it all wrong in thinking that this is something you and your partner can decide between just the two of you. It is, afterall, completely in Waheguru's hands alone. Who knows...maybe you'll have no kids at all. I think that you should however respect your partner's views. It isn't your decision to make, especially given that, as earlier stated, the brunt of the responsibility and work may inevitably fall on your partner's shoulders. In the end though, whatever is meant to be will be.

It's a part of the uniform of the army of the Khalsa. Every member of this army has the same uniform, which includes a kirpan in a gaatra going from your right shoulder to your left hip.

Do you know a funny Singh or Kaur? Someone who constantly makes you laugh with their jokes, storytelling or observations about life? Now there's a chance for those amateur comedians to share their gift, through the purest form of comedy... stand-up. We are organizing a Sikh comedy night to be held in Toronto and are currently accepting participants. Those selected will have a chance to compete for the title of Comedy Singh/Kaur and the $1,000 prize that goes with it. No one is too old or too young... they just need to be funny. All that is required is a few minutes of material, in English or Panjabi. It can be drawn from anywhere... growing up in a Sikh family, interacting with non-Sikhs, camp experiences... absolutely anything funny. For those in the Toronto area, there will be an audition. Outside Toronto, participants would be required to send us a 5-min video of their act. Any non-Toronto participants selected would be paid half of their travel costs to attend the event. Contact us for more details. We all know how humorous Sikhs can be, so we're creating a forum to prove it. Instead of being the butt of jokes as in Indian movies, this will be a chance for us to see Sikhs making the jokes... call it Sardaar's Revenge! Email us if you would like to be informed about the event, so that you can ensure your tickets for what promises to be a great night of laughs. And please help out by forwarding this message wherever you can, because you never know where the Sikh Chris Rock or Ellen DeGeneres might be hiding! Organizers, Sikh Comedy Night Toronto sikhcomedy@gmail.com

From how I've been taught and from what I've seen of other ustaads besides my own, people usually learn to play Yaman or Kaleyan, or Yaman-Kaleyan as their first raag on sitar. If you have a non-Sikh teacher, you usually learn "Jai jagdish harai" in Yaman-Kaleyan as your first raag.

Basant is wicked! Here's the keys: Aroh: Sa Ga Ma (teevar) Da (komal) Re'(taar saptak, komal) Sa' (taar saptak) Avrohi: Sa' (taar saptak) Ni Da (komal) Pa Ma (teevar) Ga Ma (teevar) Ga Re (komal) Sa Pakad: Ma (teevar) Da (komal) Re (taar saptak, komal) Sa' (taar saptak) Ni Da (komal) Pa Ma Ga Ma Ga To tune your sitar, Re is komal (and used only in taar saptak), Ma is teevar, Da is komal. The rest are all shudh.

Are you a beginner? All of these are beginner-level-ish, except for perhaps Raakh Sadaa and Simar Manaa which may be slightly more advanced, but probably not by much. sant_jana.doc Jo_Mangeh.doc Jagat_Jalundaa_Rakh_Lai.doc Jaisaa_Satgur_SuNeedaa.doc Har_Kaa_Naam.doc har_keertan_mein_eh_man_jaagai.doc kaahey_re_bann.doc raakh_sadaa.doc simar_mana_raam_naam_chitaarey.doc

Here's a good article on Bibek.

Just as many of us learn about things like Sikh history from reading, researching and seeking people to inform us without having an ustad or teacher in the field, we should make the same type of effort to learn about Gurmat sangeet too. This could indeed include actively seeking a teacher since that would make it a lot easier, but there is a lot of info available online now, like the keys and times dedicated to each raag which any avid seeker could find and learn from, and online tutorials and classes as well. I know many children who begin learning raag while they're still under the age of 5, so this isn't some mystic thing that only certain "chosen" ones can learn. It's something anyone who wishes to do can do.