First, symbols can be helpful in reminding people to behave in a certain way, especially in times of stress. I myself, have set my computer to flash a symbol every 2 hours to remind me to drink water! So, logically I cannot deny that symbols can be useful.

Second, this point about allowing Sarika to where a Kara being unfair on other people seems to suffer from logical flaws too. Suppose, for example that the EU decided to ban the German language, it would be a law that applies to everyone equally. So what would be wrong with such a law? Well, of course it would affect Germans, Austrians and some Swiss much more than others. So, Ravi Naik and Persephone, how do you respond to that? In light of this example, your arguments about having the same laws for everyone being fair don’t seem to make sense.

Basically, I think people are quite happy to ban all sorts of things (for all sorts of stupid reasons) as long as it does not affect them personally.

Scientology was meant to be a bit of a joke and now its a widely held belief.

Sure FSM is a joke today, but in a few years it might not be a laughing matter.

@ 66 origin of sikh ‘kesh’ is hard to trace since long hair was kept before sikhism.

“I will not however be so egotistical to dismiss other faiths’ scriptures”

Sikhs cannot dismiss other religions as Guru Nanak distilled aspects of many other religions when forming sikhism. We come full circle in that, symbols or otherwise, we have a common platform with those from other religions and beliefs. That inclusive aspect I like in sikhism.

Perhaps your reference point should be Juggo Jug Atal Sahib Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji (withstanding any further objections on emphasis you may have). All other references are simply points of view or reflection of history. I prefer to go straight to the source and the primal legacy of Sahib Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji – which ‘is the original thinking’ that you referred to.

The symbols you refer to as being introduced 200 years after the Pehli Paatshahi, I understand were not all introduced as you describe. These were introduced from Sahib Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji onwards, starting with kes. There is no mortal reference which would deny that all Guru Ji’s followed this rehat.

BTW the term ‘Sacha Paatshah’ as a reference or veneration to Guru Ji should not in any way deny another aspirants belief in their chosen path or their faith in their Avtar or Prophet, but to me those other paths are not desirous of what I seek. I do not seek re-birth, heaven or the false pleasures that those other paths promise. As a Sikh I have a longing for my soul to be together and re-merged into the Primal Soul (Param Atma) from which my soul is long separated. However I have no reason to deny the veneration I have for my Guru, who has shared this enlightened knowledge with me. My reason therefore to sing from the mountain tops, if it pleases my Beloved, that the Jot that emanated from the embodiment of the 11 Paatshahihah is True and will remain so forever. I have no doubt of that whatsoever. The message, as enshrined in their 11th Saroop, is original and unadulterated, and not prepared either years or decades after their physical passage from this world.

I will not however be so egotistical to dismiss other faiths’ scriptures, as Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, explains ‘Ved Kateb kaho mat chhuute chuutha jo na vichare’.. do not say that the Vedas and the Katebs are false he/she is false who does not read and discuss them’. I admit I have not yet had the opportunity to read the Vedas or Kateb fully, though i will confess of the little I have read from these scriptures I have not been spiritually inspired or uplifted.

Rab rakha.

You said you had not come across sikhs wishing to discard symbols so am suggesting there were no reference points. I’m surprised since I’ve known many who never partook at all as well as several who wore them for their parents but when older got the confidence to assert themselves – more so with cutting hair – just in 1st year at my Uni 2 guys cut their hair & some girls would slowly trim their hair shorter every year so that it was not too obvious. Perhaps I just know more rebels
—————–

Oh, I think I understand you now. In case you’re under a misapprehension, I personally do not keep kesh but even I have to draw the line at the suggestion that Sikhs who do keep rehat are “out of date” somehow. I know you can get some people who flaunt their rehat and think less of those who don’t keep them. Forget them, they don’t take anything away from the beauty and achievements of Sikhi. I’ve met many who’ve discarded their kesh over the years – I’ve also met a few who have done the opposite and gone from “modern” mona city boy to amritdhari. So I guess I have a nice spectrum of reference in this respect.

When I made my comments I was specially talking about this statement of yours:

“Consider this case also in context of a sikh value being to tolerant other beliefs – for me this case belies that”

I interpret this as your saying Sarika refusing to take her kara off was not being tolerant of others belief. It was in this context I wrote:

“Yes, Sikhs are generally a tolerant people, but I’ve never before heard the suggestion that this tolerance involves discarding or devaluing their identity symbols at the behest of others.”

Hope this clarifies. lol

I am not eshewing the values behind the symbolism. I get and am fully FOR the values

” there is really no change in emphasis at all just a question of whether you wish to follow the path of Sacha Paatshah or not”

It is phrases like ‘sacha paatshah’ that I object too which infer that that way is the true/real way & others are not. I would say that is a big emphasis.

” maybe you need to review YOUR reference points?”

My reference point is the original thinking which was nearly 200 years before symbols were introduced. How do you suggest that reference point be reviewed?

Yeah agree it was a big jump. I should have linked it more closely to the post by explaining that the oppression is not just external but internal too – so not personal

” don’t understand the bit about my “reference points.”

You said you had not come across sikhs wishing to discard symbols so am suggesting there were no reference points. I’m surprised since I’ve known many who never partook at all as well as several who wore them for their parents but when older got the confidence to assert themselves – more so with cutting hair – just in 1st year at my Uni 2 guys cut their hair & some girls would slowly trim their hair shorter every year so that it was not too obvious. Perhaps I just know more rebels

Reference points as to history of ranjit singh et al. A lot of the literature is written from fragments of notes, photos & records by someone not normally connected to the subject. I found speaking to people whose ancestors were there is more accurate and revealing as a reference point

PS i too wish Gurinder Chadha had made that film but she was too busy making her current film: Angus, Thongs and Perfect Snogging. Perhaps a little thing
called revenue got in the way.

So true. A history repeated so many times in the past century.

Perspherone the outward symbols aren’t just gestures invented by religious snobs. Rehat is an attribute inspired by Guru Ji, a manifestation of commitment, and a visual symbolism denying worldly maya. Many of these ‘symbols’ were also acts of accepting Gods will in defiance of Islamic laws which restricted and denied rights to kafirs, such as the wearing of the dastar, the right to carry arms (or ride horseback even). The common name – another symbolism, challenged casteism and the suggestion that inequality was a birthright, and that womenfolk were not second class citizens but at least as important as their male counterparts.

A point was made earlier and suggested a change of emphasis between post- military and Sahib Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji’s message. The essential and fundamental (i know that’s an extreme word lol) consideration here is that Sahib Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji’s message to all adherents was to be sincere to whichever path they followed to God. Therefore there is really no change in emphasis at all just a question of whether you wish to follow the path of Sacha Paatshah or not. There is no compulsion in making the choice- but there is a crucial issue of whether it is still Gursikhi or not. After all 7th Paatshah disowned Raamrai, his eldest son, for changing a single word in Gurbani to please the Mughal Emperor, and sent a message for him never to return to the House of Guru Nanak. Subsequently Sikhs were blessed with Sahib Sri Guru Harkrishan Sahib Ji as a child Guru in the 8th jot.

You may choose not to adhere to the rehat, but that doesn’t mean that anyone can deny the importance of the rehat – maybe you need to review YOUR reference points?

So do I.

——-
If my viewpoint does not fit in with your reference points it may be because you have not come across those who don’t need them as a reminder nor as a visual show of identity. Perhaps because they go about their everyday lives not wanting to display their beliefs so visibly and without adornment
——-

Well, growing up I was taught one of the key reasons for the conspicuous symbols was to ensure Sikhs can’t deny their identity. You probably know the background to this was soldiers challenging Sikhs in the assembled crowds after Guru Tegh Bahadur’s execution in Delhi and Sikhs denying their faith. It’s the notion of being identifiable as a Sikh in a crowd that is the crux of the matter here. If you feel you don’t need this, fair play to you.

———-
Thks for the link – I have read several bios on Ranjit & Dilip Singh which were more insightful. Rather than what is read by others, suggest you ask families whose ancestors were alive & in that circle. But you may not like all that you hear – it may not fit in with your reference points.
———

History is a passion of mine. I’ve read a few interesting bios on them as well. I don’t understand the bit about my “reference points.”

——
As to feisty punjabis? I’ve seen that used as an excuse (..oops reason) when working in an environment that supported female (inc punjabi) victims of domestic violence. Oh no did I forget, it must be the ‘military side’ being enacted out now that there are no testosterone fuelled battles to win? Perhaps feisty-ness as a stereotype is something one ought to discard as punjabis.
——-

That’s a big jump from my admiring the feisty Sophia to your suggesting I excuse wife battering……

I hope Panjabis remain and continue to be spirited and feisty in the face of assholes.

———
Happily I am sure the Victorians liked the feisty nature – it sure made it easier for them to recruit droves of hotheaded sikhs (itching to prove their feistyness) into unfeasible battles and certain death.
———

I’m sure they did. Those Sikhs were really easy to manipulate. Maybe we can use that period as a a clear warning to make sure you know more than just farming skills to get by. So you’re not forced to be a mercenary for a living. What’s happened has happened, we must learn from all this imperialism and make sure it doesn’t happen again. Especially as those Sikhs busy fighting for the empire couldn’t prevent the mass murder of Sikhs in their own homeland during partition.

If my viewpoint does not fit in with your reference points it may be because you have not come across those who don’t need them as a reminder nor as a visual show of identity. Perhaps because they go about their everyday lives not wanting to display their beliefs so visibly and without adornment

Thks for the link – I have read several bios on Ranjit & Dilip Singh which were more insightful. Rather than what is read by others, suggest you ask families whose ancestors were alive & in that circle. But you may not like all that you hear – it may not fit in with your reference points.

As to feisty punjabis? I’ve seen that used as an excuse (..oops reason) when working in an environment that supported female (inc punjabi) victims of domestic violence. Oh no did I forget, it must be the ‘military side’ being enacted out now that there are no testosterone fuelled battles to win? Perhaps feisty-ness as a stereotype is something one ought to discard as punjabis.

Happily I am sure the Victorians liked the feisty nature – it sure made it easier for them to recruit droves of hotheaded sikhs (itching to prove their feistyness) into unfeasible battles and certain death.

OK, but because some Sikhs may overemphasise or misunderstand the symbols it doesn’t mean we should discard them or think less of them.

———-
I do not see the girl in this case as being oppressed & certainly not in comparison to the events you have mentioned. Consider this case also in context of a sikh value being to tolerant other beliefs – for me this case belies that
———-

I don’t know what material you have come across but from what I’ve learnt Sikhs preferred death to giving up their “symbols” in the past. Yes, Sikhs are generally a tolerant people, but I’ve never before heard the suggestion that this tolerance involves discarding or devaluing their identity symbols at the behest of others.

Interestingly I found this on the net. The latter part concerns the granddaughter of the legendary Maharajah Ranjit Singh. Looks like that feisty Panjabi blood was still flowing through her veins. I wonder what stiff arsed Victorian British society made of that? lol

It’s a shame Chadha never made the film. Would have been better than Bride and Prejudice…..zzzzz

http://youtube.com/watch?v=O-o4S2qhLPQ

The school may well have gone OTT but to my mind the really pertinent point in the article is that she was NOT banned from wearing the bracelet. ‘The school had offered the student reasonable alternatives to accommodate her religious beliefs, such as wearing the bangle, but not so that it was on display.’

The school offered an alternative which was rejected by the girl (or at least her parents) and followed by court. Would you call this girl’s actions proportionate all things considered Riazat?

All this, of course, is before questions about whether she could have gone to a school that accommodated her religious demands/wishes [delete as appropriate]. The last paragraph of the Guardian article seems to suggest that she could.

The stark reality Raizat is that this case is a piss-taker’s and attention-seeker’s charter masquerading as faux religious tolerance and deep down I think you know that.

Incidentally Rumbold, the Guardian article Riazat links to seems to make clear that Liberty was the brains behind this, not any MP. I will leave it to you to dwell on whether Liberty encourages fecklessness.

Guru Nanak Dev Ji was a witness to Babar’s invasion and the suffering caused in its wake. He protested in His Gurbani hymns, collectively known as “Babar Vani”, against the uncalled for death and destruction by Babar. That’s why Guru Nanak Dev Ji paved the path for others to follow by not being idol witnesses to oppression but active opponents of tyranny.

In standing against injustice Guru Nanak Dev Ji could have been enslaved or killed, and was imprisoned. So to try to separate the One Jyot (light) that passed through all Guru’s is a fallacy – the same message of Love for God and His Creation was/is shared by all 11 Guru’s. The only difference is in application. The saint-soldier values emanated from Guru Nanak Dev Ji and the martial tradition isn’t something that just sprang up during Guru Gobind Singh Ji’s tenure as Guru. Other examples – Piri and Miri from 6th Guru, Harmander Sahib and Akal Takhat as spritual and temporal centres of Sikh society.

But I accept the balance has too often shifted towards the temporal over spiritual, similar I suppose to the power play within other religions. But that cannot be an excuse. Sikhs should ensure that this changes and more efforts need to be made to share and understand the spiritual treasures embellished in Gurbani. The message of God’s Love for His creation and a true adherents Love for God is truly magnificent and is so undervalued by Sikhs that they really are guilty of a great crime to humanity by not serving Gods Creation as they should.

Regarding the suggestion of Sarika not being oppressed I was shocked when I heard Sarika’s mother describing how the school treated her daughter- she was taught in isolation, couldn’t even speak or wave to her friends, would be moved between classrooms only when corridors were clear of other children- sounds more like prison than a school. This is clearly cruel treatment for any child, and was designed to punish her and socially ostracize her. The school was psychologically bullying this 14 year old child to force her to give in to their rules. Whether you’re a secularist or otherwise, this is something i am sure all would find deplorable.

Rab Rakha

No they were not proportionate, they were bloody ridiculous. I can see the H&S arguement in a PE context, beyond that it is just entirely petty. I wonder who funded the schools’ action?

“She spent nine weeks in isolation in a classroom, alone except for a teaching assistant, working from notes which she was instructed to copy. The school canteen was barred to her and so were its corridors whenever they were being used by other pupils.

She was not allowed to join her friends in the playground and had to be accompanied by a teacher when she went to the toilet.”

I wonder if people on this thread think the school’s actions were an proportionate.

” With all respect, I feel very uncomfortable with outsiders defining what a Sikh is and what they aren’t, especially when they refuse to listen to Sikhs own self definition.” and “With all respect, I feel very uncomfortable with outsiders defining what a Sikh is”

You are making a big assumption that I am what you call an ‘outsider’. Your using the word outsider is, in itself, as a sikh, divisive and I am not comfortable with that.

” If Sikhs are considered militaristic, it is because a part of Sikhism is exactly that.”

This is exactly where I feel an aspect in time has overtaken over the original intent.

” I notice how westerners are quick to promote the perceived pacifist ways of Guru Nanak and sort of play down the tenth Guru implying that he is “out of date”

It is not just who you call ‘westerners’ (again another label – can one not be a sikh AND ALSO a westerner, especially if living & being a citizen of a western country?). What I am saying is that the religion has been highjacked. Plus if what you call a ‘westerner’ or anyone else has a viewpoint on sikhism I have no objection to this

” You talk about oppression as if it ended along time ago.”

Yes Sikhs have been oppressed for their religious beliefs. But in context of this post, I do not see the girl in this case as being oppressed & certainly not in comparison to the events you have mentioned. Consider this case also in context of a sikh value being to tolerant other beliefs – for me this case belies that

“The symbols and what they stood for seem especially valid to me.”

You are entitled to your intrepretation as am I. But I see the over dominanace of the symbols has in some cases meant that some) sikhs think the symbols are all it takes to be a sikh.

Well, from a Sikh perspective, your separation of the 10 Gurus is problematic. Sikh doctrine clearly states that they are all to be considered one in spirit. This belief was current during the Guru’s lifetimes.

With all respect, I feel very uncomfortable with outsiders defining what a Sikh is and what they aren’t, especially when they refuse to listen to Sikhs own self definition. It’s just an extension of the old “orientalist” dialog in my eyes.

If Sikhs are considered militaristic, it is because a part of Sikhism is exactly that. Guru Gobind Singh’s wisdom has ensured Sikh survival against great odds. You talk about oppression as if it ended along time ago. The Sikh experience in more recent times (i.e. partition) points otherwise. I’m not even going into the knotty issue of 1984 etc.

I notice how westerners are quick to promote the perceived pacifist ways of Guru Nanak and sort of play down the tenth Guru implying that he is “out of date” somehow.

Given the international political scenario today, made up of wily pseudo imperialistic governments and nut job fanatics running around the place. The symbols and what they stood for seem especially valid to me.

Don’t separate Guru Nanak from Guru Gobind Singh to understand. See them as agents evolving a whole system. Guru Gobind’s actions ensured the survival of the whole thing.

As for the purpose of the symbols, we can debate this for a long time. Personally I’ve come to believe they were multifaceted and did not serve any simple single purpose. Has Guru Nanak been forgotten? I would say no, but yes we could all do with reminding ourselves about what he stood for. Sikh or non Sikh.