Jump to content

Sir Mota Singh Defends Rights Of Amritdhari Sikhs


Recommended Posts

singhhawk, i think you missed the point of Mathleen's post. No one is saying one is better than the other spiritually though one is better than the other cos someone who doesnt compromise is better. I myself tie my darhi but would love to leave it khuli but thats a personal thing. I dont look for validation from others.

What you are suggesting is to change yourself to fit in. If tomrrow, tied darhis are not allowed then does it mean we should be getting rid of them? How far do you compromise your beliefs?

Some is going to confuse a sikh with taliban regardless of how they apear. Just having brown skin would be enough for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 21
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

If every Sikh is not an amrit-dhari then does it implies that they are not SIKH ??

Technically, from a dharmic maryada point of view, yes. The word 'sikh' is not exclusive to Sikhi. We are Sikhs of Guru Sahib, but there are other gurus and their followers are their sheesh or sikhs. To formally become a sikh of a guru, one has to undergo some type of initiation. For us Sikhs, that was Charan Pahul until Guru Gobind Singh Ji gave us Khande Da Pahul. That is why becoming Amritdhari is just the starting point of Sikhi.

The 5 Kakkars are not up to us to wear or not - they are Guru Ji's hukam to us.

Of course, many Amritdharis don't live up to expectations, but it doesn't mean there is a fault with Amrit. The outer discipline is just as important as the inner, especially in the beginning. True spiritual progress only comes by following your Guru's teachings, whatever they may be.

Hence Judge Mota Singh's comments about the Kirpan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heres another good report by the telegraph - not on the Sir Mota Singh issue, but purely published to educate people on the history of the kirpan. Great going Telegraph although again, that use of the word dagger is a bit too extreme.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/7189903/The-Kirpan---Sikh-dagger-banned-by-some-schools.html

The ceremonial daggers can be up to several feet long, but Sikhs in the West generally wear a five inch iron version that fits unobtrusively beneath outer clothing.

The daggers were made mandatory for everyone who goes through the Sikh equivalent of baptism in 1699, following a commandment by Gobind Singh, the tenth Sikh "guru" or leader.

Together with the other four articles of faith - Kesh (uncut hair), Kanga (wooden comb for holding hair in place under a turban), Kara (iron bracelet), and Kachera (specific cotton underwear) - the Kirpan is an outward symbol of a Sikh's religious belief.

Despite the military connotations of a dagger, Sikhs insist that the Kirpan is primarily a statement of their commitment to peace as it traditionally discouraged attacks on the defenceless. There are strict limits to their use as a weapons.

The daggers are exempt from British laws banning the carrying of knives in public places because of their religious significance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sikh dagger is 'part of the body'

By Caroline McClatchey

BBC News

Britain's first Asian judge has said Sikhs should be allowed to wear their ceremonial daggers - known as Kirpans - to school and other public venues.

It follows a number of high-profile cases where Sikhs have been asked to remove the item, required by their faith, in the workplace or in the classroom.

But what exactly is a Kirpan and just how many Sikhs wear one?

Dabinderjit Singh has been wearing his Kirpan almost non-stop for 23 years.

The 44-year-old wears it in the shower (tied to his head), in bed, in the car, at his desk and on the train. The only time he takes it off is when he boards a plane.

Mr Singh, who is an adviser to the pressure group Sikh Federation UK, was keen to get across an important fact - not all Sikhs wear the Kirpan.

"Practising Sikhs are the only ones who are required to wear the Kirpan," he said. "It is only worn by someone who lives a very strict life - that's why only a few Sikhs become practising Sikhs."

He estimated that fewer than 10% of Sikhs in the UK wear a Kirpan.

There is no hierarchy in Sikhism's five "articles of faith", which also include Kesh (unshorn hair) and Kara (steel bangle), but the Kirpan (small sword) is the article of faith around which there is the "most sensitivity".

And by practising Sikhs, he means those boys, girls, men and women who have been baptised, wear all five articles and observe the strict code of conduct.

'Golden decade'

Mr Singh's day begins with a bath, he prays and meditates for an hour in the morning, and again in the evening. He is a strict vegetarian and does not drink.

“ When I was a kid, only one or two Sikhs were practising in my school ” Dabinderjit Singh

Once baptised at the age of 21, he could only marry another baptised Sikh. His father was not a practising Sikh, and his mother only became one at the age of 65.

The 10th Sikh guru decreed in 1699 that baptised Sikhs should wear the five articles of faith, including the Kirpan. It had a symbolic function - to identify and unify the Sikh community - and a physical function - to defend others.

Mr Singh only uses his Kirpan to bless food after a sermon. His daggers range in length between 3in and 5in (7-13cm) and he says they are "pretty blunt".

ARTICLES OF FAITH

Kirpan - dagger

Kara - steel bangle

Kesh - unshorn hair

Kanga - comb

Kacha - special underwear

It is worn in a sling around the body, normally under clothes, and the dagger is always buttoned into its sheath.

"When I was a kid, only one or two Sikhs were practising in my school," he said. "In the last 10 years, more and more young people have become fascinated with their history."

He calls it the "golden decade", marked by several important anniversaries and events.

Public awareness

Something else has changed, he says, and that is the secular acceptance of Kirpans.

He accepts the stricter security measures on planes since 9/11 but says Sikhs can still fly with their Kirpans within the US, Australia, New Zealand, and, of course, India.

“ It is a part of our bodies. It is part of our religion. I don't like to take it off ” Didar Singh Randhawa

Recalling an incident at Buckingham Palace 10 years ago when he was receiving his OBE, he said there was no trouble getting in and the ceremonial guards had bigger swords than he had.

He said he "never has a problem" getting into the House of Commons, but some government buildings and tourist attractions, such as the London Eye, have refused entry to practising Sikhs.

He has also heard that a Sikh was not allowed to sit his driving theory test because of his Kirpan.

But Mr Singh is hopeful that a new government code of practice will help inform the general public and the security industry about the dagger.

Didar Singh Randhawa, president of the two Sri Guru Singh Sabha temples in Southall, west London - the biggest outside India - said public awareness about the Kirpan was all-important.

Mr Randhawa referred to the high profile case of have-a-go hero Sukhwinder Singh. The 31-year-old was stabbed to death after chasing muggers in east London last month and according to Mr Randhawa, Mr Singh was wearing a Kirpan.

Mr Randhawa, who has been wearing his Kirpan for a year and a half, said there had been a few individual cases of problems in offices and schools but the main problem was the airlines.

However, he said the UK government was "more sympathetic" than many European countries and he hoped ministers would listen to their pleas and allow them to fly with the smallest Kirpans.

"The only problem is awareness," he said. "It is a part of our bodies. It is part of our religion. I don't like to take it off."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/uk/8504073.stm

Published: 2010/02/08 14:57:25 GMT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sir Mota Singh defends rights of Amritdhari Sikhs

Judge Mota Singh who became the first Sikh to be knighted has in an interview with the BBC today has come out in support of Amritdhari Sikhs to wear the Kirpan (and other articles of faith) - whether this be children going to school or adults in the work place and public places where there may be restrictions.

The Sikh Federation (UK) has been vocal in the media today to support Sir Mota Singh's comments. ' We are pleased he has used the opportunity of his interview about receiving the knighthood to speak about an issue dear to Amritdharis and not properly understood by no-Sikhs'.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8500712.stm

The Sikh Federation (UK) will be on BBC Radio 5 live at 7.55am, BBC Wales 8.45am and no doubt lots of follow up later in the day.

Will be another interview on talkSPORT at 10.45pm tonight

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the bbc is trying to keep the kirpan debate going by publishing this article by rebecca roache from oxford university -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8506074.stm

Should religion be an excuse for carrying daggers?

Sikhs should be allowed to carry ceremonial knives in schools and other public places, says Britain's first Asian judge. But can religion ever justify loopholes in the law, asks philosopher Rebecca Roache.

The idea of children being allowed to carry knives while at school sounds like a red rag to a bull. But that is what Sir Mota Singh QC, Britain's first Asian judge, who is now retired, says should be allowed. Not any old knife - but the ceremonial dagger known as the Kirpan.

The Kirpan is one of five "articles of faith" which also include Kesh (unshorn hair) and Kara (steel bangle) that are worn by practising Sikhs.

Given the UK's well-publicised problem with knife crime, his suggestion is controversial. It raises the question of how far society should "bend the rules" to accommodate people who wish to practise a religion.

CARRYING KIRPANS IN THE UK

Worn by fewer than 10% of Sikhs in UK, according to Dabinderjit Singh, adviser to Sikh Federation UK

Banned by many schools in the UK, and have been confiscated in public places

Yet Criminal Justice Act 1988, which bans blade carrying, has exemption for religion

Toleration, equality, and respect for others are important values in Britain today. Indeed, it seems unlikely that any multicultural society could be harmonious without them. Even so, the balance between them can be easily upset. Respecting the views of one group in society by allowing them special privileges can seem like favouritism, and this can foster resentment and undermine toleration.

So, how much freedom should people have to live the way they want to live?

The political philosopher John Rawls believed that everyone should have the maximum amount of freedom compatible with everyone else having the same amount. In other words, we should be free to act as we please, provided that our doing so does not restrict the freedom of others.

This principle - with its commitment to both equality and liberty - underpins much UK legislation. For example, car owners living in built-up residential areas often face restrictions on how many cars they can park on the street, since there is not enough space to allow unlimited parking for everyone.

Religion v football

Another influential view is that of John Stuart Mill, who argued that, in disagreements about whether or not a certain activity should be permitted, the burden of proof rests with those who favour restricting the activity.

In liberalised societies like the UK, activities are generally restricted only with good reason, usually because they pose a significant risk of harm to others.

"The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection."

John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (1859)

Of course, religious people may argue that religion plays a far more important role in their lives than music or football play in the lives of those who enjoy these activities, and that as a result, special efforts should be made to accommodate religious practices. However, not only is this claim difficult to verify, but giving religious people privileges denied to non-religious people goes against the commitments to equality and respect for others, both of which are important values in Britain today. Practicing religion, then, should be subject to the same standards as non-religious activities.

So, for example, driving while drunk is illegal because of the increased risk of injuring someone. On the other hand, restrictions on activities that do not pose a risk of harm to others - such as restrictions on sexual activity between consenting adults - tend to be controversial.

Applying Rawls's principle to the case of Kirpan-carrying, it turns out that if Sikhs are to be permitted to carry them, then everyone else should be permitted carry knives too. However, to relax the restrictions on carrying knives in this way would raise the risk of knife injury for everyone.

This risk of harm to others justifies restricting Kirpan-carrying by Sikhs and everyone else, in much the same way that many other potentially harmful activities are restricted.

So, it seems sensible not to allow anyone and everyone to carry a knife.

Is religion special?

Currently, however, there is an exemption - under the Criminal Justice Act 1989, people are allowed to carry blades for religious reasons.

But, is it right that they should be exempt?

To answer this, we must consider whether a person's religion justifies their being allowed to behave in a way that others are not allowed to behave. What is special about religion?

Well, a plausible answer is that practising a religion is central to the well-being of many people and communities - therefore, we should not curtail the freedom to practice religion without good reason.

However, this could be unconvincing as a justification for allowing Sikhs to carry Kirpans. Many non-religious activities are also central to the well-being of many people and communities, and yet such activities are frequently and uncontroversially restricted.

For example, playing musical instruments is centrally important to the lives of many people, yet we do not allow people to play their instruments loudly in residential areas in the middle of the night. And playing football is important to many people, yet football games are not permitted on busy roads, in shopping centres, on other people's property without their consent, and so on.

The reason these activities are restricted brings us back to considerations of harm: unrestricted freedom for musicians and footballers to practise their chosen activities would cause harm to others.

Of course, religious people may argue that religion plays a far more important role in their lives than music or football play in the lives of those who enjoy these activities, and that as a result, special efforts should be made to accommodate religious practices.

However, not only is this claim difficult to verify, but giving religious people privileges denied to non-religious people goes against the commitments to equality and respect for others, both of which are important values in Britain today. Practicing religion, then, should be subject to the same standards as non-religious activities.

Religious cannabis

That is, those who wish to practise religion should be free to do so, but they should not be permitted to engage in activities that pose significant risk of harm to others. Relaxing the restrictions on carrying knives would pose such a risk of harm by increasing the risk of knife injuries. As a result, it seems reasonable to restrict the carrying of Kirpans.

On the other hand, the Millian view that activities should not be restricted without good reason calls into question current restrictions on all sorts of other practices, religious and otherwise. It is not clear, for example, that palnned French restrictions on Muslims wearing full veils can be justified; nor is it clear that Rastafarians (and others) should be prevented from smoking cannabis. Cannabis is a holy herb of Rastafari religious ritual, yet in Britain it is illegal.

On this view, even many apparently innocuous restrictions - such as the restriction that many workers and schoolchildren should wear uniforms - may turn out to be unjustifiable. It is not always obvious whether or not an activity is potentially harmful, and so deciding which activities should be restricted is not always a simple matter.

For example, whilst the French government sees burqa-wearing as undermining the freedom of women, this view is controversial and many disagree that it justifies restricting the freedom of people to dress as they please

However, in cases where it is clear that an activity is potentially significantly harmful - and Kirpan-carrying seems to be just such a case - failing to restrict it is difficult to justify.

Rebecca Roache is a philosopher at the Future of Humanity Institute, University of Oxford.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • yeh it's true, we shouldn't be lazy and need to learn jhatka shikaar. It doesn't help some of grew up in surrounding areas like Slough and Southall where everyone thought it was super bad for amrit dharis to eat meat, and they were following Sant babas and jathas, and instead the Singhs should have been normalising jhatka just like the recent world war soldiers did. We are trying to rectifiy this and khalsa should learn jhatka.  But I am just writing about bhog for those that are still learning rehit. As I explained, there are all these negative influences in the panth that talk against rehit, but this shouldn't deter us from taking khanda pahul, no matter what level of rehit we are!
    • How is it going to help? The link is of a Sikh hunter. Fine, but what good does that do the lazy Sikh who ate khulla maas in a restaurant? By the way, for the OP, yes, it's against rehit to eat khulla maas.
    • Yeah, Sikhs should do bhog of food they eat. But the point of bhog is to only do bhog of food which is fit to be presented to Maharaj. It's not maryada to do bhog of khulla maas and pretend it's OK to eat. It's not. Come on, bro, you should know better than to bring this Sakhi into it. Is this Sikh in the restaurant accompanied by Guru Gobind Singh ji? Is he fighting a dharam yudh? Or is he merely filling his belly with the nearest restaurant?  Please don't make a mockery of our puratan Singhs' sacrifices by comparing them to lazy Sikhs who eat khulla maas.
    • Seriously?? The Dhadi is trying to be cute. For those who didn't get it, he said: "Some say Maharaj killed bakras (goats). Some say he cut the heads of the Panj Piyaras. The truth is that they weren't goats. It was she-goats (ਬਕਰੀਆਂ). He jhatka'd she-goats. Not he-goats." Wow. This is possibly the stupidest thing I've ever heard in relation to Sikhi.
    • Instead of a 9 inch or larger kirpan, take a smaller kirpan and put it (without gatra) inside your smaller turban and tie the turban tightly. This keeps a kirpan on your person without interfering with the massage or alarming the masseuse. I'm not talking about a trinket but rather an actual small kirpan that fits in a sheath (you'll have to search to find one). As for ahem, "problems", you could get a male masseuse. I don't know where you are, but in most places there are professional masseuses who actually know what they are doing and can really relieve your muscle pains.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use