Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ikisingh

Pav 'singh' On Tv - Big Brother 2014

Recommended Posts

Pav is keen to educate the world on Sikhism and "show them that Sikhs are liberal, loving people who know how to have fun."

Pav likes girls that are short, fun and fit. "I'm a shallow man, looks are important to me and a strong fashion sense", he says. He's not looking for love in the House, but if he's interested in someone, he won't hide his feelings.

Check out the following for more details:

http://bigbrother.channel5.com/housemate/pav

Should be interesting ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Due to his beliefs pav has never cut his hair, really? what about his beard ?

From what i remember a sikhs should not cut any hair from his or her body.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People that go on Big Brother are insecure and want fame, People that watch Big Brother haven't got a life

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People that go on Big Brother are insecure and want fame, People that watch Big Brother haven't got a life

That was when it was on Channel 4 and actually had a decent audience of millions of social misfits living in their council flats.

Now, it's even sadder. Now, it's on Channel 5 and has an audience of a few hundred mental patients.

It seems Pav Singh and his (very rich) family have more money than sense. An <banned word filter activated> mum and dad that have brought their son up in the belief that 'anything goes' in Sikhism just so long as he promises not to cut the hair on his head. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh no not BB - SINGH DONT SCREW UP

too late he's said he's gonna show the world that Sikhs are liberal and fun-loving ... and that he's looking for love ...he wont mind marrying for love and he doesn't mind what religion the girl is

get ready for girl chasing and boozing... sigh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think he is not Sikh, look at this link http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/pavandeep-paul-big-brother-2014-3861132 , ties his paagh like a tharkhan and has the surname of a chumar. Suddenly becomes "Pav Singh" for TV purposes.

No he's a Katri / Arora bhappa Sikh. The new British born generation of the Afghan Sikhs that arrived in the 90's.

I was at the Parkash at the Guru Nanak School in hayes on Sunday and I would say 75% of the sangat there were these Afghan bhappas. You see them and you instantly notice 2 things about them :

1) Sikhism is only for men. Sikhism does not apply to their wives and daughters. The men have paghs (very very small paghs that are even smaller than some small caps and hats these days) but they ensure their wives are hair-cutted / hair-styled and slutified with hooker type make-up and regalia.

2) Every one of the males has his hair uncut but thats about it. Its as if the uncut hair on the head and the pagh is the sole requirement of being a Sikh. Apart from that, anything goes.

In so many ways Pav Singh actually lives up to his group's stereotype in much the same way as that American hotelier Chadha does. The pagh on the head is just the family tradition. Inside, there is no pyar for Sikhi, only for wealth and they'l gladly take the inequities that come with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Rehat bina na Sikh kahavee''. Guru Gobind Singh Ji wouldn't call him Sikh so what gives us the right to call him a Sikh? He's NOT Sikh.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Rehat bina na Sikh kahavee''. Guru Gobind Singh Ji wouldn't call him Sikh so what gives us the right to call him a Sikh? He's NOT Sikh.

Why isnt he a sikh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are 400-500,000 Sikhs in the UK, less than 1% of the world's population are Sikhs. The turban helps us to identify Sikhs. Upon establishing turban as a Sikh identity Guru Gobind Singh Ji said, “My Sikh will be recognised among millions”.

Since Sikhs believe God to be present everywhere, they cover their head not just in church but everywhere else as well.

We should look at the wisdom ,knowledge and the education and experience of the person rather than his beard or what show his on.


You are Sikh if you follow the teaching of our Gurus. Guru Nanak did not set any example of keeping hair and so on. Most important is to help family, neighbours, no killing, no stealing and earn a living by right way of working and stay away from drugs, do not hurt anyone, be a friend etc, and you will be on the right path to being a good man.

Isn't this what all human beings strive for, regardless of how you look?

Pav is a western Sikh boy that represents many modern Sikh boys living in the UK. I'm for one am very proud that he is on the show, it takes courage, it takes something special than just words to put yourself out there without any fear of what people may think or say.

I dare my fellow Sikhs to do the same.... In fact I hope you do I will back you just the same.

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely those who follow the teachings of Sikhi are Sikhs, dont't drink, don't smoke dont cut hair, Wake up at Amrit Veyla. There are those of course who are aspiring hard to get to this point, then there are those who are Cultural Sikhs ie are Sikhs as far as tradition and cultural identities. Sikhism isnt like Christianity in that you just profess faith, it requires commitment and a true desire to be with Guru ji. Sorry if you want to follow other definitions such as SPGC thats up to you, who am I to argue. I think you should measure if you are a Sikh of your Guru though and not if you wrap it around whats convenient for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  



  • Topics

  • Posts

    • I don't agree. Sure, we might not have the ease and comfort of categorisation along the western introduced binary/dual model. But I'm pretty sure that Sikhi can be demarcated along lines that aren't dumbed down and simplistic like that.   I've often said that the main difference between Hindu matt and Sikhi matt is Sikhi's militaristic egalitarian social vision. Abrahamising or westernising (which are both frameworks built upon binary/duality) Sikhi isn't any sort of solution. Pandering to the lowest intellectual denominator of the panth is stunting our development. As well as reaching down to such people, we have to drag them upwards too (no easy task given certain elements of the panth).    And look at how the example of Dusserha in Sikhi works. It's brought into a Sikh framework for the Sikhi agenda. It's clearly repurposed and adapted to Sikh needs and ideals. It's not some sort of blurring or compromise. 
    • The so called good cops are standing quietly behind the blue line backing their comrades who commit racially motivated murder etc. When their voice is the loudest about abhorrent police practices, then they'll be good cops. Until then they're complicit.   
    • Kinda kills the Teesra / Niara Panth narrative, though, doesn't it?  Something has to come from something else, but those lines of demarcation are becoming blurred with each day.
    • I don't think it is just that. A lot of academics have a sort of secular western mindset too. A lot of them have taken the Singh Sabha ideas and have gone to extremes with them. When I was younger, there seemed to be little understanding of puratan Sikh ithihaasic texts (like those we are looking at in this thread), which were all pretty much branded as 'Hindu accretions' because the writers referenced commonly accepted Indic concepts and such in their narratives. I think colonialism sort of created a dual-abrahamic mindset amongst many educated apnay, and they went to extreme lengths to separate Sikhi from Hindu matt, even going to the extreme of vilifying their own historical texts because they couldn't grasp the contexts with the duality mindsets.  It's really good to see a generation who can study and analyse their own historical texts without the paranoia the olders did. 
    • I shouldn't have been so harsh for your honest opinion. Sorry about that. Guess I can be an ar5e as well.  I thought the book was really good in how it explained those moments of stillness that you can sometimes get if you're lucky when meditating (simran). Those moments (what he calls the power of now i.e. being in the moment unencumbered by the baggage of the past, as well as concerns about the future) are psychologically and spiritually rejuvenating.  And I didn't agree with all he said, I just thought he helped elucidate a purpose of meditation very well.     You should maybe try reading it again, because you might be in a different mindplace now, and be able to take more out of it. I should read it again too sometime.   
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use