Pav 'singh' On Tv - Big Brother 2014

[buddasingh 209]

HJ

Love is the answer, but it can take blood sweat and tears to share. Otherwise it is a mere meditative sleep.

Your approach to life is a great start but without any guidelines for order and decorum it would lead to world war 3

Free to be you has limits. Every day we abide by accepted norms, rules, courtesy and respect without even thinking. If you decided to be 'free' and leave your home without clothing you would get arrested and screened for a mental illness. If a male walked into a ladies washroom police would be called. If you insisted on wearing shorts to work on the hottest days of the year many employers would fire you. If you enter many places of worship with your shoes on you would be made to remove them or leave.

Pav... Singh has made a choice to represent Sikhi in life and specifically on the show. He is outspoken about this. He needs to step up to the plate with humility and grace to know what that means. The most basic education would provide that this includes an unhacked natural beard.

You made a choice to come on a Sikh forum and speak amongst Sikhs. In one fell swoop with a comment about hair you've insulted and dismissed Guru Gobind Singh Ji and all Sikhs. Then you proceed to speak about love and acceptance while conveniently forgetting that others did not stop at speaking but gave their heads for love and acceptance by refusing to cut their hair.

Some nice snippets of thought also. Look forward to seeing more from you on the forum.

[DustOfYourFeet 44]

No man can reveal to you aught but that which already lies half asleep in the dawning of your knowledge.

The teacher who walks in the shadow of the temple, among his followers, gives not of his wisdom but rather of his faith and his lovingness.

If he is indeed wise he does not bid you enter the house of his wisdom, but rather leads you to the threshold of your own mind.

The astronomer may speak to you of his understanding of space, but he cannot give you his understanding.

The musician may sing to you of the rhythm which is in all space, but he cannot give you the ear which arrests the rhythm nor the voice that echoes it.

And he who is versed in the science of numbers can tell of the regions of weight and measure, but he cannot conduct you thither.

For the vision of one man lends not its wings to another man.

And even as each one of you stands alone in God's knowledge, so must each one of you be alone in his knowledge of God and in his understanding of the earth

This is from Khalil Gibran, a Lebanese artist/poet, the rest of Harjinder J's posts are taken from Conversations with God- Neale Donald Walsh.

[sikhiseeker 253]

WJKK WJKF

The topic on the Amritdhari Harnam Kaur who was recently in the media for being a bearded lady was locked on sikhsangat as the reason was that she was not able to represent herself on this forum? How can this topic on Pav Singh then be permitted?

[sikhiseeker 253]

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.

WJKK WJKF

How your above comment is permitted on this forum goes totally over my head? You have brought this topic down to his ancestry/caste when really it has zilch to do with it. You quickly judge other Sikhs level if sikhi, when sikhi teaches their is only one judge, which is not you or me!

Pav Singhs weakness/strength in sikhi is simply his own, not a whole communities.

[sikhiseeker 253]

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.

WJKK WJKF

What turban style would make your insecurities on caste preference feel better?

His surname suddenly becoming "Singh" is stereotypical of all punjabi people when it's suits, like how jazzy b is apparently a great role model as is the very caste orientated chap, Diljit Dosanjh!

Again, why such castist comments surpass this forum defies logic, as it is meant to be a "sikh" forum. Last time I looked, caste is all about Hindus, nothing to do with us Sikhs!?

[DailyMail 315]

West London Singh,

You say that as far as khatri's are concerned, "Sikhism is for men only". In the same token, I can say in jatts, sikhism is for no one! The men are largely clean-shaven, the women won't marry a guy with a turban (unless she is amritdhari) - its epidemic in that community. Of course, it wasn't always like that with jatts, in the past they have contributed alot in shaheedi terms, therefore, this makes it even more ironic.

I remember a Panth Time discussion show last year. to put things into context, they were discussing 'dastaar day'. A member of the ramgharia community stood up and told the panel in no uncertain terms: "excuse me gentlemen, keep this is mind: in the last 50 years, the sikh identity (dastaar) has been kept alive by only two communities in the UK - tarkhaan and bhappe. Not anyone else". The panel were lost for words, mumbled and changed the subject!

Its no coincidence that the infamous "turban case" Mandla v Lee in 1982 was fought by tarkhaans in the highest court of the land. Jatts had no need to fight it through the courts - they were clean shaven and so were their sons (of course there are exceptions).

I belong to neither of the commuities mentioned, so I'm not praising my own either (julaha). But credit where credit is due, bhappe do at least wear a turban.

[vaddapaapi 6]

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.

wow dude, you have some strong opinions.. you certainly seem to have a lot of pyaar for sikhi since you're going to the Gurdwara and are able to notice these wives .

[West London Singh 326]

West London Singh,

You say that as far as khatri's are concerned, "Sikhism is for men only". In the same token, I can say in jatts, sikhism is for no one! The men are largely clean-shaven, the women won't marry a guy with a turban (unless she is amritdhari) - its epidemic in that community. Of course, it wasn't always like that with jatts, in the past they have contributed alot in shaheedi terms, therefore, this makes it even more ironic.

I remember a Panth Time discussion show last year. to put things into context, they were discussing 'dastaar day'. A member of the ramgharia community stood up and told the panel in no uncertain terms: "excuse me gentlemen, keep this is mind: in the last 50 years, the sikh identity (dastaar) has been kept alive by only two communities in the UK - tarkhaan and bhappe. Not anyone else". The panel were lost for words, mumbled and changed the subject!

Its no coincidence that the infamous "turban case" Mandla v Lee in 1982 was fought by tarkhaans in the highest court of the land. Jatts had no need to fight it through the courts - they were clean shaven and so were their sons (of course there are exceptions).

I belong to neither of the commuities mentioned, so I'm not praising my own either (julaha). But credit where credit is due, bhappe do at least wear a turban.

Good points my friend. Doesn't show the whole picture though. In fact, it totally ignores the existence of the 50% of Sikhs that are female as if they are irrelevent as human beings. And that goes back to my point doesn't it ? the one where I say there are some communities among the Sikhs (lets use Tarkhans and Khatris because you specifically mentioned them above) where the majority of men have dastaars but their wives have cut hair. I personally don't see how these men add any value to Sikhism as 'Sikhs' when the mothers of their children are basically Hindus.

You made a mild rant about Jatts in your post but you are failing to recognise the current rennaisance in all things Sikhi among the Sikh youth in Britian. Seeing how I, unlike you, also count females as human beings too, one could argue how it is only the jatts keeping Sikhism alive by being the only ones with a dastaar and amritshak. (you can count on one hand the entire number of bhappa females that are amritdhari and dastaar wearing).

So you see your argument above is valid but only if one wishes to ignore the existence of half our number purely because of gender. Personally, I feel the female Sikhs are even more important than the men as they give birth to Sikhs.

wow dude, you have some strong opinions.. you certainly seem to have a lot of pyaar for sikhi since you're going to the Gurdwara and are able to notice these wives .

Yes and yes. Yes I do have strong opinions and yes I do tend to keep my eyes open when I'm in public places as I have often found that keeping them closed leads to accidents, falls and trips.

[TurbanGuys 104]

I have question to the above posters if you all are amrithdahries ..The Question is "Why did you take Amrit when You still know you are behaving like Any Hindu or Brahmin?

[sikhiseeker 253]

I have question to the above posters if you all are amrithdahries ..The Question is "Why did you take Amrit when You still know you are behaving like Any Hindu or Brahmin?

WJKK WJKF

LOL, good point brother, I think this user thought this was jattworld.com but mistakenly came on a sikh forum. It's always the same case scenario isn't it veer, using percentages and derogatory language for their supremacist cause.

[sikhiseeker 253]

Good points my friend. Doesn't show the whole picture though. In fact, it totally ignores the existence of the 50% of Sikhs that are female as if they are irrelevent as human beings. And that goes back to my point doesn't it ? the one where I say there are some communities among the Sikhs (lets use Tarkhans and Khatris because you specifically mentioned them above) where the majority of men have dastaars but their wives have cut hair. I personally don't see how these men add any value to Sikhism as 'Sikhs' when the mothers of their children are basically Hindus.

You made a mild rant about Jatts in your post but you are failing to recognise the current rennaisance in all things Sikhi among the Sikh youth in Britian. Seeing how I, unlike you, also count females as human beings too, one could argue how it is only the jatts keeping Sikhism alive by being the only ones with a dastaar and amritshak. (you can count on one hand the entire number of bhappa females that are amritdhari and dastaar wearing).

So you see your argument above is valid but only if one wishes to ignore the existence of half our number purely because of gender. Personally, I feel the female Sikhs are even more important than the men as they give birth to Sikhs.

Yes and yes. Yes I do have strong opinions and yes I do tend to keep my eyes open when I'm in public places as I have often found that keeping them closed leads to accidents, falls and trips.

WJKK WJKF ( that "J's" don't stand for JATT)

It's funny bro how your demonising whole communities of Sikhs under caste preservation, all under your "sikh" opinion. It's also funny how you seem to forget that the majority of the Jatts after leaving panjab and going out to abroad like the uk and canada cut their hair (men and women) to gain jobs and be accepted and progress. Now that the 2nd/3rd generations of these original Immigtant Jatts are well educated and financially secure, they have somehow remembered the religion they turned their back on. Other sikh communities didn't lose their dharam, struggled for work, opened the very first gurdware and also succeeded, with their religious dignity intact.

The point is, all castes/braderi have pro's and cons, the Khalsa has only pro's.....which do you affiliate with? Caste or Khalsa as both can never be affiliated like oil and water!

WJKK WJKF