Bbc Regrets Over Nihals Comments

[SarabhaPanjab]

problem i see with bbc "asian" network from a Sikh perspective is that the so called sikh callers are so rubbish they actually support the rubbish nihal comes out with.

I dont know a single person who listens to it

The station is so sleazy and only really appeals to dimwits, that there is never any intellectual debates - so normal educated Sikhs, or Spirituality inclined Sikhs would never dream of listening or calling in to make a counter argument.

Therefor nihal keeps getting away with it, and actually thinks most sikhs are ok with his rubbish.

[Hammertime007]

problem i see with bbc "asian" network from a Sikh perspective is that the so called sikh callers are so rubbish they actually support the rubbish nihal comes out with.

I dont know a single person who listens to it

The station is so sleazy and only really appeals to dimwits, that there is never any intellectual debates - so normal educated Sikhs, or Spirituality inclined Sikhs would never dream of listening or calling in to make a counter argument.

Therefor nihal keeps getting away with it, and actually thinks most sikhs are ok with his rubbish.

I think the we should hear what people are saying on nihals show, like with Pakistani pedoes being termes "asain"

Most Sikhs who phoned dony like the term, the Pakistanis loved as it takes the spot light of them, also it was shown that the only time they want "asain unity" is when they are under scruitny.

The term "British Asain" is so tedious

[Borat]

If Sikhism was indeed a hotchpotch of Islam and Hinduism then you would expect it to reconciliate the beliefs of both systems and their traditions.

But Sikh scriptures do not pay reverence onto Abrahamic figures, nor do Sikhs adopt Muslim customs.

In fact, Sikh customs are diamertrically opposed to Islamic ones.

Take for instance the cruel methods of Hala meat compared to the clean and swift Sikh method known as jhatka.

Sikhism is indeed an offshoot of Hinduism, but Hinduism itself is so varied that some argue it isn't even a religions but a multicutde of social customs.

By calling Sikhism a hotchpotch of religions, the Dravidian Nihal is implying that Sikhism is unoriginal and has nothing to offer the world.

This is completely untrue. Sikhism differs greatly because of it's communitarian traditions such as seva, which doesn't just mean helping out Sikhs but non-Sikhs. Conversely, in Hindu temples you have to either offer food or pay upfront for it.

[dalsingh101]

It is so sad that none of the people who jumped up and down about this knew that the idea that Nihal was pushing has long antecedents and was originally pushed by Europeans who first encountered Sikhs in Panjab (when we were free).

It is called the 'syncretic theory' of our faith. An online defintion of syncreticism is:

Reconciliation or fusion of differing systems of belief, as in philosophy or religion, especially when success is partial or the result is heterogeneous.

This western 'theory' of the nature of Sikhi has been rejected by the western academic world in recent times and is considered to be an early misapprehension of the faith by people who had not studied it to any depth. Even the notorious W. H . McLeod (considered the foremost western authority of Sikhs) rejected this characterisation of Sikhi.

My point is that if brothers and sisters read more and were aware of this, Nihal's nonsense statement would have been properly contextualised and easy to refute. When all of the university stuff about Sikhi from the last few decades have rejected this 'fusion of Islam and Hindu' theory, anyone who makes this statement is obviously very poorly informed - and check how Nihal has apnay reacting like predictable seals with his purposefully provocative statements.

To me the end conclusion seems to be that brothers and sisters need to read more - and listen to sh*te like Nihal's show a lot less?

[VanHelsingh]

It is so sad that none of the people who jumped up and down about this knew that the idea that Nihal was pushing has long antecedents and was originally pushed by Europeans who first encountered Sikhs in Panjab (when we were free).

It is called the 'syncretic theory' of our faith. An online defintion of syncreticism is:

Reconciliation or fusion of differing systems of belief, as in philosophy or religion, especially when success is partial or the result is heterogeneous.

This western 'theory' of the nature of Sikhi has been rejected by the western academic world in recent times and is considered to be an early misapprehension of the faith by people who had not studied it to any depth. Even the notorious W. H . McLeod (considered the foremost western authority of Sikhs) rejected this characterisation of Sikhi.

My point is that if brothers and sisters read more and were aware of this, Nihal's nonsense statement would have been properly contextualised and easy to refute. When all of the university stuff about Sikhi from the last few decades have rejected this 'fusion of Islam and Hindu' theory, anyone who makes this statement is obviously very poorly informed - and check how Nihal has apnay reacting like predictable seals with his purposefully provocative statements.

To me the end conclusion seems to be that brothers and sisters need to read more - and listen to sh*te like Nihal's show a lot less?

Valid points but you seem to be under the impression that Nihal's show is a BBC Radio 4 high-brow / academic analysis of the roots of the Sikh faith. Nobody involved with the output of shows such as that fronted by Nihal are concerned with academic studies or even the facts.

These type of shows are the equivalent of The Sun or The Daily Star newspapers, i.e. reactionary, sound bite inducing, tabloid radio "journalism". The focus of these types of shows is to generate as much listener ratings as possible. If they can throw anything (even knowingly misleading or blatantly false) out into the ether then the hope is a little bit will stick with a few of the people listening, and then opinions will begin to be formed which are based on absolute inaccuracies.

So, the presenter really doesn't give a darn about the listeners refuting or replying with facts. The BBC want's conflict and confrontation. Whilst we must ensure we don't fall into their trap, it is the duty of a Sikh to speak up whenever he encounters such absolute b4llocks which is designed to intentionally mislead and malign.

What do you suggest people do? Stay quiet and then in another future show Nihal is emboldened (because nobody bothered to make a fuss the first time around) to make an even more offensive and inaccurate statement about Sikhi because he knows he wasn't challenged previously?

No, there's a time for getting the research papers and the dissertations out, and there's also a time for kicking up a fuss in direct opposition to whatever dirty, rabble-rousing tactics are being used by the other side. The quicker it happens (i.e. the objection), the quicker the production teams behind these shows have a word with presenters such as Nihal to control their guests AND ensure that the presenter does not make stupid statements without being 100% aware of the facts.

It's not about being a seal or an uncouth pendu pawing at the telephone in blind rage. It's about getting loud voices to counter-act these misleading and offensive attempts to denigrate the existence of the Sikh faith.

[dalsingh101]

Valid points but you seem to be under the impression that Nihal's show is a BBC Radio 4 high-brow / academic analysis of the roots of the Sikh faith. Nobody involved with the output of shows such as that fronted by Nihal are concerned with academic studies or even the facts.

These type of shows are the equivalent of The Sun or The Daily Star newspapers, i.e. reactionary, sound bite inducing, tabloid radio "journalism". The focus of these types of shows is to generate as much listener ratings as possible. If they can throw anything (even knowingly misleading or blatantly false) out into the ether then the hope is a little bit will stick with a few of the people listening, and then opinions will begin to be formed which are based on absolute inaccuracies.

I wonder ho many people actually listen to his show?

I know damn well that his show is hardly intellectual, and okay I get your point about the futility of using reason against 'tabloid' style journalism. But in this country, controversy sells. And baiting brown people about their faith gets top dollar these days.

The truth is that outside of conscious Sikhs (a minority if you ask me) no one really gives a hoot about these 'identity politics' issues. People with brains can't seriously be reasonably expected to react to every little slur out there? And if the show usually attracts dimwits (as you seem to be suggesting) then maybe there is an argument for letting the 'intellectually challenged' rant and rave amongst themselves?

If the attack is on a PR level, then we need to think about how we can get our own PR out 'there'. In a way that gives a solid slam to all the little bitchy comments about the faith/community i.e. not with pictures of 'look at us giving out free food to those who probably don't desperately need it, are we great' in the papers. I haven't got all the answers, but do need to prioritise. If people find Nihal's crap offensive, what would they make of the academic stuff that is equally as denigrating but put forward in an infinitely more subtle and sophisticated way! My point is in the face of hostility from a number of sources we need to prioritise which we need to deal with over others.

That being said I can even imagine good being done from Nihal's crap if it forces some apnay to think about and engage with their roots. lol

It's not about being a seal or an uncouth pendu pawing at the telephone in blind rage. It's about getting loud voices to counter-act these misleading and offensive attempts to absolutely denigrate the existence of the Sikh faith.

The best way we will be able to slam these things is to have a confident community that has high standards. I hear what you are saying but in the face of what we are facing, there is a strong argument for rising above the more petty stuff?

At worst maybe some of you more clued up, articulate younger brothers (perhaps like yourself) can use the situation as an opportunity to sharpen their media interaction skills/knowledge/savvy? But some of you people out there just need to shut up because when you try to 'help' it just backfires and makes us look even more stupid. lol

Don't be a Sikh version of that EDL "I want Britain to be back British" <banned word filter activated> for our own sake.

Point: If media is being selective and manipulative - maybe, just maybe we might want to avoid it as much as we can? Just a thought?

[singh135]

I wonder ho many people actually listen to his show?

I know damn well that his show is hardly intellectual, and okay I get your point about the futility of using reason against 'tabloid' style journalism. But in this country, controversy sells. And baiting brown people about their faith gets top dollar these days.

The truth is that outside of conscious Sikhs (a minority if you ask me) no one really gives a hoot about these 'identity politics' issues. People with brains can't seriously be reasonably expected to react to every little slur out there? And if the show usually attracts dimwits (as you seem to be suggesting) then maybe there is an argument for letting the 'intellectually challenged' rant and rave amongst themselves?

If the attack is on a PR level, then we need to think about how we can get our own PR out 'there'. In a way that gives a solid slam to all the little bitchy comments about the faith/community i.e. not with pictures of 'look at us giving out free food to those who probably don't desperately need it, are we great' in the papers. I haven't got all the answers, but do need to prioritise. If people find Nihal's crap offensive, what would they make of the academic stuff that is equally as denigrating but put forward in an infinitely more subtle and sophisticated way! My point is in the face of hostility from a number of sources we need to prioritise which we need to deal with over others.

That being said I can even imagine good being done from Nihal's crap if it forces some apnay to think about and engage with their roots. lol

The best way we will be able to slam these things is to have a confident community that has high standards. I hear what you are saying but in the face of what we are facing, there is a strong argument for rising above the more petty stuff?

At worst maybe some of you more clued up, articulate younger brothers (perhaps like yourself) can use the situation as an opportunity to sharpen their media interaction skills/knowledge/savvy? But some of you people out there just need to shut up because when you try to 'help' it just backfires and makes us look even more stupid. lol

Don't be a Sikh version of that EDL "I want Britain to be back British" <banned word filter activated> for our own sake.

Point: If media is being selective and manipulative - maybe, just maybe we might want to avoid it as much as we can? Just a thought?

ive stopped watching all bbc channels because of the offensive nihal show.

The caller's comments were deeply offensive and degrading and I encourage anyone who disagrees to boycot it

[Shamshere]

This whole Sikhism is a combination of Islam and Hinduism is one of the biggest misconceptions of our religion.

My sister said the same thing to me last week. I said do you think Guru Nanak just came to this world and said 'I'll take a bit of this from this religion and a bit of that from that religion'?

Guru Nanak was a divine messenger. Not some philosopher.

Most Sikhs out there probably believe this 'combination' bs as well.

[Mehtab Singh]

Next time someone says its a combination, the response should be "So you agree deep down that it is better than both of them? A combination usually is supposed be!"

[jashb]

My sister said the same thing to me last week.

Acchhhha???????

Bhai Saaahb... Mainu lagda, k thahanu pehla, apna hi ghar samhaalna chahida... Lolz :lol2: