Search the Community

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa, Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh, The Sikh religion is self-admittedly universal. I do not believe any Sikh would disagree. The Sikhs of the diaspora (and, it may be said, in India) have fought tooth and nail for a long time in order to be recognized as a distinct ethnic group. The argument which is used most commonly to refute this proposition is that Sikhism is a religion, theoretically open to anyone. In order to be described as an ethnic group a people must share a common language, culture, history, religion, and geographical origin. As is currently stands we fulfill all these criteria. But if Sikhi were spread and converts to be made to such an extent that, in the future, a large proportion of of Sikhs did not trace their origins to the Punjab, speak Punjabi and did not share in the history which flows through our veins in the form of the blood of our forefathers, then we could never again advance the idea that we are an 'ethnic group' because the definition of this term would no longer apply to us. In other words, the more converts are made to the Sikh religion, the more the cause of a distinct Sikh ethnicity is undermined and undone. Does the self determination of the Sikh people (the desire to be recognized as a separate ethnic group) conflict with the proliferation of the Sikh religion? Which of these causes do you consider to be more important? I cannot yet decide. I love our people and our traditions and the greatest way to protect the integrity of these traditions would be Sikh self-determination. But I also don't like the idea of denying the Jot of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji Maharaj to the world and its people, who sorely need it in the blackness of Kaljug. May any offence I might have caused be forgiven, Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa, Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh