Sikh Council Uk - Anand Karaj

[InderjitS]

Jagraj Singh mentioned that those being married should have to undergo a test of some description. What better test than to ask the couple to recite Japji Sahib (Kant) and then the marriage be accepted. Ideally it would be the whole Nitnem but that would be stretching it in this PC skewed era, well and Jaap Sahib is found to be harder to memorise.

[Tony]

Fateh

Just to highlight a few points:

- In Hinduism, even today it not permitted to marry outside your caste (i.e. Pandit to Pandit).

- In Muslim religion, If a Muslim marries into another religion, the partner will need to make a promise to bring the children according to Islam.

- In christanity, Marriage outside the catholic church is a sin.

- In Parsi,..... same

- In Jews,...... Same..... every religion is the same… exempting buddhism where the views of Mahatma Gautam towards marriage in whole are somewhat different. (No disrespect intended).

So what the h*LL is wrong with our lot? Why insist on this stupid argument which dont hold any substance.

If you knew about sikhism you wont have to argue with the Gurudwara Commitee to tell them to you what a sikh is.

Derisory gone down to another level...

Moorakh nall na loojiye…. Unless .. you don’t want to be a Moorakh but then Gur bin gayan no hoyi……

No matter what rules you make..... somone will try to break that rule and create another havoc….

Fateh. . . . ..

[KhoonKaBadlaKhoon]

Are most or a lot of these gurdwaray in UK private? This is a good step for UK Sikhs, but it still leaves corrupt oldies in power, who will no doubt try to find some loopholes. Here in Vancouver area, we have a newer Sikh Youth organization that has won at one major gurdwara, and at another smaller gurdwara. I'm not sure but they may also soon attempt to win over another major gurdwara. Seems to UK has plenty of Panthic youth, should go for a takeover. Now a days it is the older "Sikhs" who need a beating.

[Cisco_Singh]

Ranjeet Singh Ji i personally don't have any statistical analysis to support the common sense inference.

But let's take the case of the Walsall marriage that was blocked recently this month.

The couple just went ahead and got married at a Hindu Mandir subsequently without issue or protest.

I would hazard a guess that they might feel more welcomed by the Hindu community as a result.

And that they might feel happier bringing up their children attending Mandirs in the future as a result.

That's not true, I know family members of the couple who's wedding was halted at Walsall.

The anand karaj ceremony was not carried out instead an agreement was reached to carry out an ardaas to receive a blessing. The groom was Radha Soami with a Sikh father and Hindu mother he did not have Singh in his name. No Hindu ceremony ever took place.

[DTF]

But did the poorer non-Sikhs embrace Sikhi before Anand Karaj or did they did they do this after.

The vast majority of new Sikhs in the early 20th century embraced Sikhi out of conviction prior to Anand Karaj.

However, a not insignificant minority of the huge number of new Sikhs in that era came into Sikhi via Anand Karaj (particularly as wives).

Why u keep makin up ur history for? Muslims were already majority in jalandhar, amritsar, firozpur, and each of those r in majha, malwa and doaba.

StarStriker bro use your logic on this for a minute.

Muslims were a majority in those area's in 1947 (agreed). Pakistan wanted all of Majha, Malwa and Doaba in Pakistan in 1947. Now bear in mind the statistic that the Sikh percentage of the Punjabi population grew by more than 73% between 1901 to 1941. Imagine that happening happening in the next 40 years from now - that would be the equivalent of 20 million new Sikhs on top of our current numbers.

So let's say we have 1000 Muslims in a village in 1947. That same village used to have 450 Sikhs back in 1901. But due to our Panth's population percentage as a proportion of the whole increasing by more than 73% during 1901-1941, the Sikhs in the same village now number 780 people, that altered the equations drastically (in terms of Pakistan not managing to annex Majha, Malwa and Doaba in 1947).

So in short if Singh Sabha parchar and Anand Karaj had not bought the new Sikhs to the Panth that they did between 1901-1941 there was every chance the Muslim numerical supremacy would have made avoiding a Genocide of Sikhs in Majha, Malwa and Doaba much much harder to fight off.

Take the Kharku Lehar after 1984 as an example. Do you think Sikhs would have better able to battle Congress if we had a 73% bigger population or not? The answer is obvious. Numbers matter. And I stand by my point that if the new Sikhs that came into Sikhi between 1901-1941 had not bolstered Sikh numbers to the point where we could combat and fight back the east Punjab Muslim death squads with broadly comparable numbers then east Punjab may well have ended up in Pakistan at the time. By the way it wasn't just your grandparents that fought to prevent the planned wholesale Genocide of Sikhs in east Punjab in 1947 and their planned subsequent annexation of east Punjab into Pakistan it was everyone's ancestors (including my own) as the choice was simple, either we fight to save ourselves in at least east Punjab where we had comparable numbers to the Muslims or we faced complete Genocide at the hands of Jinnah's Muslim League death squads.

My grandfather told me that in pre-partition, 90 out of 100 villages in Kapurthala district were muslims and where Sikhs were a majority in the villages, Muslims constituted a large minority (up to 40 per cent).

Exactly Ranjeet and think where we would have been in 1947 had Giani Ditt Singh Ji's Singh Sabha parchar not been instrumental in increasing Sikhs by more 73% proportionally between 1901-1941. It doesn't even bear thinking about if the Sikhs had not managed to valiantly save east Punjab from the Genocide that Jinnah and his cohorts had planned for Sikhs there.

That's not true, I know family members of the couple who's wedding was halted at Walsall.

The anand karaj ceremony was not carried out instead an agreement was reached to carry out an ardaas to receive a blessing.

The groom was Radha Soami with a Sikh father and Hindu mother he did not have Singh in his name. No Hindu ceremony ever took place.

Ok that's good to read Cisco Singh that a Hindu Mandir wedding was avoided and that the marriage was rightfully blessed at a Gurdwara.

[StarStriker]

The vast majority of new Sikhs in the early 20th century embraced Sikhi out of conviction prior to Anand Karaj.

However, a not insignificant minority of the huge number of new Sikhs in that era came into Sikhi via Anand Karaj (particularly as wives).

StarStriker bro use your logic on this for a minute.

Muslims were a majority in those area's in 1947 (agreed). Pakistan wanted all of Majha, Malwa and Doaba in Pakistan in 1947. Now bear in mind the statistic that the Sikh percentage of the Punjabi population grew by more than 73% between 1901 to 1941. Imagine that happening happening in the next 40 years from now - that would be the equivalent of 20 million new Sikhs on top of our current numbers.

So let's say we have 1000 Muslims in a village in 1947. That same village used to have 450 Sikhs back in 1901. But due to our Panth's population percentage as a proportion of the whole increasing by more than 73% during 1901-1941, the Sikhs in the same village now number 780 people, that altered the equations drastically (in terms of Pakistan not managing to annex Majha, Malwa and Doaba in 1947).

So in short if Singh Sabha parchar and Anand Karaj had not bought the new Sikhs to the Panth that they did between 1901-1941 there was every chance the Muslim numerical supremacy would have made avoiding a Genocide of Sikhs in Majha, Malwa and Doaba much much harder to fight off.

Sorry sajna, i read your statement wrong in your initial post, i just realised reading it again, n i actually agree with u 100% wat u had written. I do apologise, n accept my apology please my friend.

[DTF]

StarStriker Singh Ji no worries at all and no need to apologise at all dost.

I know how passionately you care about Sikhi so I knew that you meant it from a point of view of defending Sikhi so its all good. Despite all Sikhs having different opinions from time to time, we are one indivisible united Sikh Panth and nothing can stop us if we become United and stay United (no pun intended) on the biggest issues that matter.

[Akalifauj]

Singh Sabha Sikhs were the ones who kicked out moorti puja from the parkarma of Sri Harmandir Sahib, Sri Amritsar. If I were to use DTF rationale (kick out non Sikhs now from anand karaj and they will go to marry in churches, mandirs, etc), Singh Sabha Sikhs actually kicked out future Sikhs and no longer will these Hindus be thinking about coming to Sikhi. Instead they will go to churches, mosques, and mandirs for puja/namaz/prayer. Why didn't the Singh Sabha Sikhs educate these Hindus and pandits on moorti puja? Look at how many future Sikhs these fanatical Singh Sabha Sikhs kicked to the curb. The pandit could have become future parcharkacks for the Khalsa Panth. Instead Singh Sabha Sikhs with their extremist views kicked them out. :stupidme: :stupidme: :stupidme:

DTF/singhsabha1699/Sukhasinghmehtab2015 or whatever other usernames he is using actively, is spewing out anti dharma views, better known as missionary gossip.

Today the anti-dharma cults want Anand Karaj amended to allow non Sikhs to be married in the Gurdwara and tomorrow they will want to increase numbers by giving Amrit to non Sikhs. Singh Sabha Lehar highlighted Sikh principles like Anand Karaj for only Sikhs and no moorti puja allowed in Sikhi. The pandits refused to take their moortis out of Sri Harmandir Sahib and the Singh Sabha Lehar aggressively put them out in the streets. The same is taking place today when it comes to Anand Karaj. Those couples who refuse to obey to the rules of the Anand Karaj are being protested against told to leave the Gurdwara in shame. Education is for only those who want to listen and apply it. It`s not for those who praise Singh Sabha for kicking out moorti puja out of Sri Harmandir Sahib and with the same tongue slander those who today are fighting against the same resistance on the Anand Karaj.

[Akalifauj]

Those Sikhs who are involved in protests at Gurdwaras are requested to refrain from any further protests for a period of six months to allow education processes, programmes and resources to be developed and implemented by Gurdwaras.

Sikh Council UK will continue working with Gurdwaras, organisations and individuals to resolve community issues through dialogue in the best interests of the community.

Singho, I have sat in these type of meetings more than I ever wanted too and I believe its my responsibility to tell Sikhs of the UK, the Sikh Council UK is not being honest and forthright. What we need to understand is, the highlighted activities at the Gurdwaras have a lot of weight on certain popular figures in the Sikh Panth in the UK. Currently the protest have been giving a bad name to these certain figures and the Sikh Council UK is doing damage control. Most likely politicians are going to start forcing police officers to make arrest and carry out charges against those who are involved in the protest. Most likely Sikh Council UK was approached by a government politician to stop the protest "fear mongers" and like good sheep, Sikh Council UK gave in. Additionally, this distance Sikh Council Uk from any further protest that will occur. Sikh Council UK will be in the politically correct and point the fingers at the Sikhs, who they encouraged to keep protesting as the rotten apples. This six months ban on protest is put in place to stop the protest altogether. Additionally, this six month ban will cause a rift between the Sikhs, who are protesting. Some Sikhs (those who don't see the deceiving plan of Sikh Council UK) will agree with Sikh Council UK and have infighting between those, who see the real agenda here. In these Six months Sikh Council UK is hoping to cause enough divide, which can't be repaired. This divide will give them the opportunity to label the few still protesting as bad characters and majority of the Sikhs will not care if they get arrested for protesting. Sikh Council UK is using divide and conquer tactic on the Sikh Youth. Darshan Ragi as Sri Akal Takht Sahib Jathedar also destroyed the Khalistan movement in this way. Only difference Darshan Ragi was bought out by the Indian government.

These old men only use Sikh Youth to the point they don't need them anymore. The most shocking point and which gives their true agenda away is this one:

Sikh Council UK is requested to coordinate the development of appropriate education processes, procedures and resources for use by Gurdwaras. Sikh Council UK will involve organisations and individuals including youth organisations in this developmental work.

These protest and this Sikh Council has been trying to address the Anand Karaj issue for the past couple of years and only NOW did they decide we need to develop education processes, procedures and resources? They have not even started developing resources to implement. During the summer it's not so cold in the UK that these old men need to keep their hands in their pant pockets all day. Sikh Youth of UK need to counter these old men and publicly ask these old men, why they have not even started to develop resources to educate the Gurdwaras and couples?

[StarStriker]

OH WAT A SHOCK!! The hippy sikhs from sikhnet, write an article, saying wat i KNEW they would write, so predictable, and anti-sikh. The fact that theyre using that old crappy arguement, "the golden temple has 4 doors" nonsense, jus shows what their thinking is, n completely ignoring history n guru ji's hukams.

http://www.sikhnet.com/news/mixed-marriages-our-gurduaras

Oh! what a mess it is that we sometimes make with the best of intentions and all in the name of God and love for our Gurus.

Recent incidents in Great Britain and elsewhere show us that all hell seems to be breaking out around a simple issue and seemingly for the most sensible reasons.

A hot debate is in progress on the Internet these days, and its getting hotter by the day.

What to do when a young couple, visibly infatuated with love, wants to marry and only one of them is a Sikh but the other is not? Should they be allowed to marry in a gurduara and enjoy the blessings of the Guru and the sangat in congregation?

Believe us, this is not just a tempest in a teapot, even though some would like to dismiss it as such. There are just as many or more on the other side that believe a Sikh wedding ceremony is exclusively permitted only for a couple where the bride and groom are both Sikhs. They claim that when only one, either the bride or groom is a Sikh, it becomes a hodge-podge and an anathema an insult to centuries of hallowed Sikh tradition.

The issue is not new nor is it unique to Sikhs. It is also amenable to a little common sense, and thats what we need. Lets unravel the matter a bit.

It is true that communities and religions have a code of conduct that emphasizes the common values and practices of a community. This promotes and assures unity and security. Such codes define boundaries between different but neighboring communities much as good fences make good neighbors. But fences remain porous; they should never become stone walls for that would kill communication among neighbors, destroy their path to progress and undermine human societies.

All of us understand that practices like marriage and lifestyle are the fundamentals of a family. They become sacred because they guarantee continuity of a people. But the fences between neighbors do tend over time to morph into impenetrable stone walls.

For instance, not so long ago, if a mixed-faith couple wanted to marry in the Roman Catholic tradition, the non-Catholic partner was required to sign a binding agreement that all children would be raised in the Catholic faith. The past 30 odd years have seen a fair degree of rethinking and turnaround in such practices, but thats not under the lens here today. Such restrictive binding agreements diminish the fundamentals of humanity and love in the marriage by undermining the faith of one partner or the other.

Many religions have similar laws that are binding on the believers. One must wonder about the origin of such laws. Perhaps they come from a fear of dilution of the faith, or possibly to create an insular barrier to outsiders? Or perhaps they are rooted in an attempt to ensure a successful marriage? If the latter, then we would say that the aim has been rather unsuccessful. We see many unhappy and broken marriages between people of the same faith, whether Sikh or not, and many successful and loving marriages between a Sikh and a non-Sikh.

As an example we offer Siri Narayan Kaur Khalsa and her husband, who have been happily married for 53 years. Years ago, she received Guru's Amrit and always dresses in full bana while her husband, a physicist, remains an agnostic. She says that her Lavan ceremony was deeply and profoundly meaningful, a joining of two souls into one, and that her husband has always been supportive of her daily practice and her Sikhi. And then she mused upon the question, "Was Guru Nanak's wife (Mata Sulakhani) a Sikh?"

The very foundation of our Sikh faith is openness to all. The Harimander Sahib (Golden Temple) was designed and built by our Gurus with four doors open to all four winds so that everyone is welcome.

The determination of who is and who is not a Sikh is, in fact, not up to us to decide. Who lives as a Sikh is determined, not by birth, but by the Guru. The Guru chooses his Sikh, not the other way around.

Who knows when or if Sikhi will blossom in the heart of a spouse by the Gurus divine touch?

This is emphatically not to say that we should enter marriage blindly.

We can all understand that part of required premarital counseling for a mixed-faith couple should be a meeting with the priests (or equivalent) of both faiths for a serious conversation about the fundamentals of both faiths, so that a dose of reality gets added to the blinders of love.

If the couple can decide on the one religion that would define their new entity as a family, then it should not matter which rites they choose.

If, as some do, they want wedding rites in both faiths, one after the other, then there is an inherent problem that may surface now or years later when identity of the family and children become the issue. Because this may indicate that at some level each partner is still equally attached to his or her own tradition and that irreconcilable differences might emerge weeks, months or years later.

But there is no rhyme or reason that suggests that a faith tradition should ban mixed-faith marriages in its place of worship.

When a person enters a gurduara for a service a keertan, for instance no one has the right to question what kind of a Sikh or how good a Sikh he or she is. No one has the right to prevent someone, even if clearly a non-Sikh, from any of the functions in a gurduara, as long as proper respect is shown.

Even if you see mixed marriage as akin to a pothole in the road of Sikhi, it is not one that will close the road down or destroy the vehicle.

Be not afraid of non-Sikh strangers coming into gurduaras and participating in most seminal of our rites and practices. Welcome them!

Remember, when you first meet anyone, he or she is always a stranger. It is only time and engagement with each other that transforms a relationship into that of the best of friends and soul mates.