MisterrSingh

Are the Indians smart enough to enact all of the above, bhenji? I don't, for one moment, doubt any of your keenly observed points, but have they the intellectual wherewithal to design and implement such a plan, that will take generations to come to fruition, in order to suppress, subvert, demoralise, and ultimately destroy an entire faith and its followers? Those street-5hitting, wealth and status obsessed Indians have the nous for all that? I don't know, I think we need to look a lot closer to home for the culprits who are enabling our decline. When it comes to governmental policies designed to hamstring Sikhs, then I agree, but what of the other social and everyday issues that aren't affected by the devious hand of the state? That's all on us, surely?

Oh man, that whole post you wrote was dank. I had an inkling things were bubbling under the surface, but not to that extent. They're like Romans... or Spartans, at least. They've got a wife and kids at home for the sake of appearances, but when the gaandu fever strikes all bets are off. Never mind lock up your daughters, it's protect your sons, with those kind of Punjabis on the loose.

Same here, bro. So much to learn, so little time. We'll get there, God willing.

I think we've reached an impasse. Funnily enough I don't disagree with any of the fundamentals of what you've stated. Where we happen to differ is on the details; you have an admirable belief in human nature pertaining to the subject of religious adherence, whereas I believe a considerable dose of pragmatism is required to navigate the choppy waters of religious practice. It's all good as far as I'm concerned. Nice to have a grown-up, fair discussion with someone on this site that doesn't result in someone insulting your mother or claiming you suffer from a mental illness for daring to hold a different opinion.

How the eff did he get as far as burning angs?!? Was the Gurdwara empty?

I wonder if the brothers who came over to the UK during the work permit craze of the Noughties partook in some of those shenanigans, what with 6 or more guys to a room, little to no female contact for a considerable period of time, etc. Actually, I should stop wondering about stuff like that, lol. There's got to be a reason why they don't get worked up about stuff like that, as opposed to guys like us who get uncomfortable when another fella's glance lingers longer than what's normally acceptable. There's got to be some historic cultural precedence from ages ago that informs that kind of carry on.

"Gay abandon." That's exactly what it is, lol. I reckon there's a considerable number of bisexuals back home, but there's none of that labelling that goes in the West. They seem to have a very fluid perception of such things. The things that people get-up to over there that are never mentioned... you'd be surprised. And it's not just limited to the guys. Oh no, not at all. It all goes down in a hush-hush manner.

Does that kind of stuff still go on over there?

I think we're coming at this from completely different perspectives. My desire is to protect, not to control or distort. Again, you're applying idealised, perfectionist methods to people and situations that are the complete antithesis of such behaviour. You aren't acknowledging the base attributes of human nature that must be taken into account. You're ascribing godly qualities to ungodly situations and individuals. If anything, that indicates a fear of taking tough decisions that are at odds with a mentally soothing sense of self-righteousness; at worst it's sticking one's head in the sand and hoping for the best. I apologise if that's not the case, but from my experience those who espouse beliefs of non-action in the face of a threat or a decline, do so not due to any concrete conviction, but because they are riddled with fear. I'm not applying that to you, of course. So we should immolate ourselves on the bonfire of our beliefs and convictions until we've completely destroyed ourselves, to prevent the enemy from doing so? From a spiritual perspective, Guru Tegh Bahadhur sacrificing himself is a wildly different scenario to a fella from Cornwall doing the same thing. To understand why requires a conversation that occurs on a level beyond conservative rationalism.

Fair play is only possible when both sides adhere to the rules of a game. If one side plays dirty, whilst the other clings to a code of ethics and morals, then does one hurtle knowingly into oblivion?

In theory, yes, I agree. But you place too much emphasis in something as fallible and unreliable as human nature. The 'truth seeking' you refer to is indisputably a considerable constituent of what defines a Sikh, but let's be honest, how many of our people follow the faith not out of a conscious decision taken after weighing up the pros and cons of following other viable faiths and paths, but because they were born into a community belonging to that particular faith? Such easily herded people aren't interested in khoj, or anything that requires introspection. They want salvation in the most effort-free manner possible. It's in those type of individually-centred scenarios that I believe your ideas are more than meritorious. Where I differ with you is when it comes to subject of the masses, namely when it comes to safeguarding the interests of a bloc or a mass of like-minded people, and if that means working with the stark, occasionally undesirable reality of a situation, as opposed to its idealised variant, then I do believe tough decisions must be made for the greater good.

Do you believe that in certain instances a certain form of religious dogma is necessary to lend structure and support to what might be described as intangible and abstract truths steeped in theoretical idealism? Also, what's your belief regarding a certain type of dogma being utilised to promote Sikh interests on occasions when Sikhs are under the cosh, as it were, i.e. a survival and longevity tactic?

Really interesting points, particularly your first assertion. Are you viewing the term dogma as a pejorative? The word itself perhaps does lend itself, quite naturally, to a sense of inflexibility, but surely mathematical dogma is fact, as opposed to the other kind, which is an interpretation based on individual (or collective), personal judgement? I guess I should amend my definition of dogma to a narrower version in regards to the concept of faith, and just leave maths out of it, lol. Could you expand on your idea of poetry and raags being safeguards against misinterpretation?

True, but it had genuine precedence in scriptures which definitely were as old as the hills. The Brahmins may have collated and enforced a set of teachings relatively recently, but those teachings originate from a prior period. The Brahmins can claim they "only" meant to document various practices, but its purpose was more than that: to allow them dominance over a social hierarchy. My original assertion stands: dogma is human nature lent conviction through theology.

The Hebrew word for 'paradise' (relating to the Bible's Garden of Eden) is a word familiar to Punjabis: pardes. Of course, it went through many forms such as Greek, Old Iranian, and Assyrian. It's a word I've heard mentioned most of my life (in various songs or conversations), so to learn that its modern Punjabi usage has connotations relating to a timeless, heavenly place, is quite amusing.

I want to respond to a post in a thread on the main site, but the buggy formatting rules prevent me from doing so. The post in question mentions a giani / kathavacak saying, I'm assuming, on stage that the Christian faith only has one martyr. It's the equivalent of stating that the only martyrs in the Sikh faith are the two Guru Sahibs who gave shaheedi, conveniently ignoring the thousands of others we venerate daily during the Ardaas. Anyone who's briefly flicked through a book on Christianity will know that's patently false. There's hordes of Christian martyrs throughout their history. It's that kind of misinformation that will create doubts in the mind of any Sikh who has even an iota of knowledge of history and critical thinking. The average aunty and uncle might believe that to be true, but anyone else will come away thinking, "If giani is wrong about something like that, what else does he not know?" You can't sit on a stage, get caught up in the moment, and add your own masale to make any such arguments ring true. Soon enough people will start calling that stuff out, or even worse, will just walk away thinking the sangat is being lied to.

That was your first mistake. Familiarity breeds contempt, as the saying goes. If she grates on you at this stage of proceedings, a lifetime together seems unlikely. Elaborate if possible.

Can someone explain to me why the clamour for these people to get onto these management committees in India? I'm guessing it's money, but why is it such a big deal, when it should be a private and contained matter within the Sikh religious community?

It makes me laugh when India tries to position itself as a forward-looking, progressive force on the world stage. You realise it's just the Hindu upper class elites looking to feather their own nests and those of their kind. The average Indian suffers as they always have throughout the centuries. Ignore the modern Indian propaganda; the country is as hopelessly lost as it always was. Its economic pull is a smoke-screen.

I think that was the plan all along post the insurgency. Make life for Sikhs in Punjab an uphill struggle, be it education, employment, and agriculture: put as many obstacles in their path as possible, and eventually they'll begin to migrate to the West. Eventually, the elders left behind will die out, and whichever other race or religion of people remains will be the majority. It's from the Russian playbook of realpolitik. The Indians are playing a very long game, and it appears they're winning.

The thing is dogmatism isn't the exclusive preserve of the Abrahamic faiths. It's human nature that's afforded a certain type of legitimacy by religious conviction (I'm not saying it's right), in my opinion. Christianity, Judaism, etc., weren't in existence when Hinduism was decreeing who was pure and unpure based on their social status, etc. That's the worst form of dogma.

"If", lol? There's no "if". Acknowledging those differences shouldn't be frowned upon, but I agree, using those differences for negative purposes is not the correct thing to do.

In response to the topic title, maybe you're Jean Valjean?

How did they discover you're gay? Clearly, they consider you to be a soft touch. They're targeting the visible aspect of your appearance because they know you'll never fight back. As soon as the ring leader turned his attention to you, you should've shut him down immediately. I guess you said nothing; he grows bold with each encounter, and you find yourself in this mess.

How?