Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'ethnicity'.
Found 4 results
Speaking in platonic generalities, as per the Census Bureau of India, demographic information with regard to Punjabis has solely been collected on a linguistic basis, e.g. how many people speak Punjabi as their mother tongue, or the population of Punjab province, which in itself is inaccurate owing to the fact that not the entire population is going to ethnically be of Punjabi stock. That said, what is total ethnic composition of Punjabis in India, as well as abroad in the form of the diaspora?
I’ve noticed in the USA on the census ethnicity is Chinese, Indian etc. Same for Canada. But in England they’re making it so there’s British Indian and British Sikh. In your opinion are Sikhs really genetically different from the rest of Indians (esp Hindu Punjabi’s) and what about non Punjabi Sikhs? What’s your view in this issue
What is keeping India, a country of 100 ethnic groups together ? Simple, it's Hinduism. 77 percent of the country is Hindu, however, before the british, it was only united a few times, like the Ashoka empire and the Gupta empire and maybe the mughal empire. The fact remains, majority of the times, it's was split into many local kingdoms and many ethnic gropus. Unlike yugoslavia, another country made up of many ethnic groups which broke up, India has managed to remain the same since the 47. However, even today, people still hangout with their groups. South Indians hang out South Indians, Panjabis with Panjabis , Gujratis with Gujratis and so on. Even with all this disunity, India is projected to be the 2nd largest economy by 2050 and a global superpower. Which begs the question, has hinduism been able to keep the country together? Lets be honest , If the North India was majority Sikh or Muslim, it would be another country by now, even in 47 if Sikhs were the majority , there wouldn't be a Pakistan.
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