Defining Who Is A Sikh

[singh211]

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Cities/...how/3469153.cms

HC full bench to deliberate on 'definition of Sikh'

11 Sep 2008, 0420 hrs IST,TNN

CHANDIGARH: Whether a 'patit' Sikh is a Sikh or not and whether 'sahajdari' Sikhs ought to have voting rights in SGPC elections are some of the important questions that a full bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court will be taking up soon. An order to this effect was pronounced Wednesday by a division bench comprising chief justice Tirath Singh Thakur and justice Surya Kant. It came in the wake of a plea filed by Gurleen Kaur whose candidature for an MBBS seat in the SGPC-run Guru Ram Dass Institute of Medical Education & Research, Amritsar had been rejected.

Significantly, the college had a 50 per cent quota for Sikhs but Gurleen was denied the seat on the ground she did not fit the "definition of a Sikh in the purest sense of the term" . In fact, she was dubbed a 'patit' Sikh, a term referring those Sikhs one trim their hair or pluck their eyebrows.

Another plea, filed by the Sahajdhari Sikhs Federation of India, also raised an important query as to whether 'sahajdhari' Sikhs, meaning those who don't sport long hair and a beard, should be given rights to participate or vote in SGPC polls.

The moot point remained as to what are the constitutional contours that define a Sikh under the Sikh Gurdwara Act of 1925. Given the sensitivity of the issue, the bench felt it appropriate to refer the matter to the full bench. The latter will begin the first hearing of the case on September 19, in which Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and Chandigarh are the respondents.

[cool water]

My understanding of this is...

Patit Sikh = keshdhari or amrithdari who has cut their hair.

Sahajdhari Sikh = mona sikhs or sikhs who have always shaved/cut hair or slow adapters of khalsa bana

[jasleen k]

My understanding of this is...

Patit Sikh = keshdhari or amrithdari who has cut their hair.

Sahajdhari Sikh = mona sikhs or sikhs who have always shaved/cut hair or slow adapters of khalsa bana

that's not how i understand it.

sehajdhari means "slow adopter", but it implies by name that the person is "adopting" sikhi. meaning they're trying to follow rehet. meaning they have (or are at least growing) kes!

one who does not obey guru ji and does not care for rehet simply isn't a sikh. there's no fancy name for them. maybe "punjabi".

one who is trying and is working towards amrit (the true beginning of life as a sikh), would be sehajdhari.

technically, the definition of sikh = amritdhari, period.

but i guess SGPC needs their thuggs on staff and can't limit themselves too much.

[cool water]

I would disagree with you there sister.... because I only bow down and owe my spiritual allegience to SGGS ji and waheguru and no where in SGGS ji does it state one must keep hair. SGGS ji is the only Guru ji we should seek advise from...it is the eternal guru, we follow only its hukhm not hearsay what might have been said by other guru's but not written down.

So if SGGS does not explictly state one must keep hair to be considered a Sikh then we can conclude that its not mandetory. A Khalsa and a Sikh are two different entities. Khalsa's have their own rehit, as do nihungs, as do naamdhari's, as do various other orders within Sikhism. Hair or lack of it does not make one a sikh or not a sikh, its a ridiculous concept... but it does have spiritual and humbleness connetations. I give this example it is better a Sikh is off the heart than of the apperance because I would rather trust a Sikh who is pure of heart than one who pretends to be one dressed up in a keshdhari/amrithdari bana but acting like a thug (ie indian / punjab police terrorist black cat units of the 1980/90s).

[jasleen k]

I would disagree with you there sister.... because I only bow down and owe my spiritual allegience to SGGS ji and waheguru and no where in SGGS ji does it state one must keep hair. SGGS ji is the only Guru ji we should seek advise from...it is the eternal guru, we follow only its hukhm not hearsay what might have been said by other guru's but not written down.

So if SGGS does not explictly state one must keep hair to be considered a Sikh then we can conclude that its not mandetory. A Khalsa and a Sikh are two different entities. Khalsa's have their own rehit, as do nihungs, as do naamdhari's, as do various other orders within Sikhism. Hair or lack of it does not make one a sikh or not a sikh, its a ridiculous concept... but it does have spiritual and humbleness connetations. I give this example it is better a Sikh is off the heart than of the apperance because I would rather trust a Sikh who is pure of heart than one who pretends to be one dressed up in a keshdhari/amrithdari bana but acting like a thug (ie indian / punjab police terrorist black cat units of the 1980/90s).

veerji, i can see we will disagree on many things. but i don't want to argue, so i'll try to make it short.

first, a sikh is one who follows the teachings of ALL the gurus, that includes Guru Gobind Singh ji. when he made khalsa, when he begged for amrit from the panj piyara, he showed us just how necessary amrit is.

i know i will get harassed for it, but i believe that one must be amritdhari to be considered sikh. i came from a different perspective. i was not born to a sikh family. and before i was blessed with amrit, i wasn't a sikh. i was just a white girl in a turban who hung out at the gurdwara. i was never considered a sikh, by others or by myself, until amrit sanchar. the path should be no different for people who are born to sikh families. you have to make a conscious decision to follow sikhi.

for every one "thug" dressed as a sikh, there are thousands, millions, who are not thugs. who are good people with good hearts and strong rehet.

ਸਲੋਕ ਮਃ ੧ ॥

Shalok, First Mehl:

ਨਾ ਸਤਿ ਦੁਖੀਆ ਨਾ ਸਤਿ ਸੁਖੀਆ ਨਾ ਸਤਿ ਪਾਣੀ ਜੰਤ ਫਿਰਹਿ ॥

There is no Truth in suffering, there is no Truth in comfort. There is no Truth in wandering like animals through the water.

ਨਾ ਸਤਿ ਮੂੰਡ ਮੁਡਾਈ ਕੇਸੀ ਨਾ ਸਤਿ ਪੜਿਆ ਦੇਸ ਫਿਰਹਿ ॥

There is no Truth in shaving one's head; there is no Truth is studying the scriptures or wandering in foreign lands.

ਨਾ ਸਤਿ ਰੁਖੀ ਬਿਰਖੀ ਪਥਰ ਆਪੁ ਤਛਾਵਹਿ ਦੁਖ ਸਹਹਿ ॥

There is no Truth in trees, plants or stones, in mutilating oneself or suffering in pain.

ਨਾ ਸਤਿ ਹਸਤੀ ਬਧੇ ਸੰਗਲ ਨਾ ਸਤਿ ਗਾਈ ਘਾਹੁ ਚਰਹਿ ॥

There is no Truth in binding elephants in chains; there is no Truth in grazing cows.

ਜਿਸੁ ਹਥਿ ਸਿਧਿ ਦੇਵੈ ਜੇ ਸੋਈ ਜਿਸ ਨੋ ਦੇਇ ਤਿਸੁ ਆਇ ਮਿਲੈ ॥

He alone grants it, whose hands hold spritual perfection; he alone receives it, unto whom it is given.

ਨਾਨਕ ਤਾ ਕਉ ਮਿਲੈ ਵਡਾਈ ਜਿਸੁ ਘਟ ਭੀਤਰਿ ਸਬਦੁ ਰਵੈ ॥

O Nanak, he alone is blessed with glorious greatness, whose heart is filled with the Word of the Shabad.

ਸਭਿ ਘਟ ਮੇਰੇ ਹਉ ਸਭਨਾ ਅੰਦਰਿ ਜਿਸਹਿ ਖੁਆਈ ਤਿਸੁ ਕਉਣੁ ਕਹੈ ॥

God says, all hearts are mine, and I am in all hearts. Who can explain this to one who is confused?

ਜਿਸਹਿ ਦਿਖਾਲਾ ਵਾਟੜੀ ਤਿਸਹਿ ਭੁਲਾਵੈ ਕਉਣੁ ॥

Who can confuse that being, unto whom I have shown the Way?

ਜਿਸਹਿ ਭੁਲਾਈ ਪੰਧ ਸਿਰਿ ਤਿਸਹਿ ਦਿਖਾਵੈ ਕਉਣੁ ॥੧॥

And who can show the Path to that being whom I have confused since the beginning of time? ||1||