‘My Children Don’T Want To Add Singh To Names’

[buddasingh]

Nice post, very well said. However, the last part about 'massacre' is slightly misstated.

There was nothing stated about 'forcing children' by suggesting that cutting kesh is massacre or forcing anyone for that matter. No one should be forced, shamed etc.

At the same time, no one should attempt to redefine Sikhi. An important point is the issue is not with those that don't have kesh, but those who disrespect to suggest it's not necessary, and there are plenty. Ram Rahim attempts to redefine Sikhi and we are up in arms. But if our brothers and sisters openly oppose Guru Gobind SIngh Ji and suggest kesh are a mere option, we speak of acceptance.

People leaving Sikhi altogether are not a problem in this scenario. Non-keshdhari's who have a deep respect and will say kesh are necessary are not a problem in this scenario. The problem lies with a large number of non-keshdharis willing to shout from the rooftops that kesh are unnecessary for Sikhi. They are directly attacking Sikhi causing greater harm than any external enemy.

We have have printed angs of gurbani gifted to by us by our Guruji and when someone else tears them up, a city shuts down. However, if we ourselves insist we are Sikhs and suggest it's optional to cut Guruji's gift of kesh, a gift that is physically attached to our body, and throw it in the garbage, there is no issue with that!!? Again, the issue is not with those that don't have kesh, but those who disrespect to suggest it's not necessary.

If kesh is a gift of Guru Gobind Singh Ji and an adult says I proudly claim Sikhi and despite Guruji it is perfectly fine to cut kesh and throw them in the garbage, then that is nothing less than a 'massacre' of kesh.

Your post bravely speaks of love and acceptance. You in this case, and we as a collective, only truly get there when amritdhari's/keshdari's don't display polite cowardice to play a numbers game, and non-keshdhari's have a respect deep enough not to try to redefine Sikhi to suit their own limits.

No it isnt ok for sikhs to 'massacre' their hair. However what about after? Since someone thinks they cannot keep this gift, are they forever unredeemable, unable to do anything good? This i think is the case of moneh shaheeds. They refused the gift of hair and maybe also consequently sikhi, but they could not deny the good causes sikhs were fighting for. They could not sit on the sidelines and just watch. So they joined in and gave their life. This is admirable and deserving of the shaheed title. So even if someone is not amritdhari/keshdhari, they can do good things and admirable things. I think everyone agrees with this.

I think the conflict arises in calling them 'sikhs'. When they reject the main rules of sikhi, are they sikhs? I think this problem arises as SGGS is supposed to be jagat guru as well as The Guru of the sikhs. So is anyone following SGGS a sikh? According to sikh rehat maryada, yes as long as not following anyone else and believes in 10 gurus and so on.
I like what jkvlondon says that sehajdhari is progress ( ppl of other faiths slowly coming into sikhi) not regression (children of amridhari/sikh families going monah). Thats why the source provided by dally singh is ambigious. Were those cut haired siques new into sikhi or for generations staying sehajdhari or was there an upward movement into the amridharis.

At the end of the day, we cant and shouldnt judge ppls avasthas on their appearance. Also i would rather that sikh families allowed children choice then force them to be kesdhari, by saying things like this is a massacre of a gift. The true assests to the panth come when mone decide by themselves through inspiration to come to sikhi. Such as jugraj singh,manvir singh etc. They done a lot more than ppl growing up in sikhi environment. Cuz they were inspired and chose themselves. Also they werent closeted as many who grow up as sikhs are.

[JagsawSingh]

Plus, given that you are in the UK, Sikhs themselves fought for some weird racial definition of themselves in the courts here, I'm sure you know this. Jews and Sikhs have some weird ethno-religio categorisation here. By that definition (which I might not necessarily agree with), even the most skanky, nonpractising Sikh is still a Sikh.

What you mean "might not necessarily agree with" ?

The fact that you keep calling the fact that Sikhs are a distinct race "weird" leaves nobody in any doubt as to where you stand. You've hardly left it a mystery dallysingh.

Anyway, back to the actual topic of the thread.....and I don't think many of you have even figured out what it is yet......Sikhs need to change the focus of this campaign. It shouldn't be about Sikh children losing self-esteem because of Skh jokes. Our emphasis should be about reminding Indian Hindus that they are a whole generation behind the rest of the civilised world in terms of realising how racist stereotype 'jokes' are the mark of a backward uncivilised people. They need to be reminded how the Americans, up until the 1970's, did exactly the same thing with exactly the same 'jokes' about Polaks (Polish-Americans) and the British, up until the 1970's, did exactly the same thing with exactly the same 'jokes' about the Irish. Both however, matured enough intellectually to realise that such 'jokes' were not only not funny...not only hurtful to those on the receiving end....but actually extremely harmful to society as a whole where children grow up thinking such racist remarks are perfectly OK.

Our emphasis therefore, should be on reminding the Indian Hindus that they are uncivilised barbarians compared to the civilised world and if they wish to join the civilised world they need to re-think what civilised behaviour is.

[simran345]

Going on from what Not2Cool2Argue ji One thing I like about what Jugraj Singh ji says is, that one has to experience Sikhi themselves in order to follow the path. Self experience I agree with, rather than following and doing things blindly.

[dallysingh101]

The fact that you keep calling the fact that Sikhs are a distinct race "weird" leaves nobody in any doubt as to where you stand. You've hardly left it a mystery dallysingh.

We are made up of all types of races. That's why the definition is weird.

Okay, I understand that the definition arises from political moves made by apnay in the 70s/80s in Britain, that they felt would be to their benefit. If we are talking from a purely utilitarian perspective I get it.

I even get that if we are talking about historical processes - that those who've descended from the Sikh movement can be technically categorised by their historical antecedents in this way regardless of their practice of the faith. But this is where the contention lies - plenty of people would say no, those people who are essentially secularists who do not remotely practice the faith aren't Sikhs - even if they've descended from them. Who is right?

And if we are talking racially (which I don't think is a good idea), would it not be infinitely more accurate to classify Sikhs as majority Panjabi with a smaller number of Sikhs who aren't from this background i.e. Afghans.

[dallysingh101]

People leaving Sikhi altogether are not a problem in this scenario. Non-keshdhari's who have a deep respect and will say kesh are necessary are not a problem in this scenario. The problem lies with a large number of non-keshdharis willing to shout from the rooftops that kesh are unnecessary for Sikhi. They are directly attacking Sikhi causing greater harm than any external enemy.

I think you're twisting things up here (probably out of ignorance rather than malice):

All I've said (ad-nauseam now), is that the Sikh community has always been a mixture of monay/sehadhari and Amritdharis. There is a LOT of evidence for this going back a LONG time, some of which I posted. This is not saying that kesh is not a necessity for Amritdharis or kesh is unimportant to Sikhi; or in anyway telling people to cut their kesh.

You need to grasp that, I honestly don't get why it is so difficult for you?

The Sikh community has been and always will be a diverse bunch. End of story.

If anyone is 'redefining' the Sikh community, it's people who deny the above truth.

[double-edge]

Maybe it would be an idea to consult guru sahib on who and who isn't a sikh..agree?

A good start would be to look at the following bachans..

Gur satgur ka jo sikh akhay..

Whosever calls themselves a sikh must..

And..

So sikh sakhaa bandap hai bhai...

That sikh is my true relation..

Lets not base our views on what goray have written about us in history or anyone else for that matter. Our views should be our gurus views full stop.

[dallysingh101]

Lets not base our views on what goray have written about us in history or anyone else for that matter. Our views should be our gurus views full stop.

Yeah, but we also really need to understand the nature of our society in the past to learn lessons from it. Problem with way too many apnay is that they have this tendency to whitewash history to fit their own (often erroneous) misconceptions.

I wouldn't discount any historical information as long as we apply a honest critical eye on it. It can be invaluable. If we don't study our history we wont learn about what we did right, and what we did wrong or how our ancestors dealt with the complex social, cultural and political changes around them, (including ones involving Sikh identity in a dynamic and rapidly changing environment) to draw lessons from.

I mean even today's SRM is based on a study of older, surviving rehat-namas and a particular interpretation of them for example.

[double-edge]

Agree that history is important to learn from but if were looking for the definition of a sikh from it then we will surely fall short.

The problem with apnay/ppl generally in my view is that they prefer to follow wherever their mind leads them rather than what satguru advises and instructs.

[silvermoon]

Agree that history is important to learn from but if were looking for the definition of a sikh from it then we will surely fall short.

The problem with apnay/ppl generally in my view is that they prefer to follow wherever their mind leads them rather than what satguru advises and instructs.

...

[jkvlondon]

...

eyewitness account of what dasmesh pita ji said on our birth in his home:

https://www.facebook.com/Tisarpanth/photos/a.296605053810306.1073741828.296603627143782/675987352538739/?type=3&theater