Re: Sikhism is not the same as Hinduism..or Islam, .....or Christianity.....etc
For the record, Sikhism has developed into a separate sect, but to be honest, not on enough points of departure from Hindu philosophy to be considered a separate religion. But even if you do define Sikhism as entirely different religion, why do people continue to deny Sikhism has powerful orientation from within Vedic conceptions of God, universe, soul and salvation? And why, when we open this can of worms, and the spirit of anti-Hinduism raises it's head, are we not addressing that hostility between Sikh and Hindu communities, because it is the very heart of serious problems and violence today. (quote from Post 35)
What is your basis in logic (not in emotion and inference based on loose associations) that causes you to correlate adherence to Sikh identity and violence against Hindus?
I have answered in detail on a number of threads, some of which are now closed as you well know. What is the purpose of asking that which I can't answer? You yourself have closed the threads because the moderators have decided such conversation as pointing out the sanatan philosophy in Gurbani with relevant correlations to Vedic and Upanishadic teachings somehow offended the Tat Khalsa Singh Sabha prevailing self-definitions of Sikhism as wholly distinct and unrelated to anything Hindu.
As Namjap Ji has so kindly pointed out, my questions have not been answered on several of these threads. How can anyone call it a "discussion" if relevant points, questions and objections are raised which are ignored, then the position itself gets deleted and threads get closed to silence the viewpoint, and pretend in any fashion something about fairness?
If you want hard talk, then let's discuss some of the many questions I have asked on numerous threads including this one. Why do I have to defensively answer so many questions and even direct attacks against my position without any answer in kind? Or is your intention to create a "hotseat" situation where someone who posts an unpopular topic gets grilled, but no one grills themselves over contemplation of the alternate viewpoint? So that isn't hard talk, it just becomes hard-headed.
While I do still have sympathy for militancy as a Dharmic response to political oppression, there is a limit to an appropriate response. I think the Sikh community as a whole is glorifying the violence of the past and exaggerating the Sikh-Hindu divide for a manipulated separatist agenda. We don't have any justification for violence or treasonous attacks against Hindu populations, nor are there credible justifications for support of Pakistani jihadis. This political manipulation is a gross distortion of Sikhism. And I believe it is firmly tied to the current attitudes of hostility and opposition to anything Hindu. This is not how anybody will create Khalistan. It's how people will create another Gallughara. And if we're honest and evaluate all the elements preceding the violence of the Indian state, there were a number of provoking factors and incidents which pitted Sikhs against Hindus. If people don't take responsibility for the causes of communal violence and strife, we're just going to keep justifying and repeating the same mistakes and go down that same path again. Sikhs weren't even noticed internationally during the 1980's and 1990's gallughara. What will happen if glorification of violence gets established in the public mind with incidents of collaboration with jihadi militant groups such as the Indian bombings? Sikhs won't have any support at all. So why are SikhSikhism is volatile and promotes unease and suspicion by Indian government police and intelligence agencies. It also justifies violent means and encourages the fanatics among us. What good can come of it? communities praising the rhetoric of radical Khalistanis? Why continue to praise the rhetoric of independant nationhood and separate identity? Why continue to praise the rhetoric of independant nationhood and separate identity? This very talk about separatism, independance, disrespect for anything Hindu in Sikhism is volatile and promotes unease and suspicion by Indian government police and intelligence agencies. It also justifies violent means and encourages the fanatics among us. What good can come of it?
Do we have hard empirical facts and figures to support your claims. What percentage of the Sikh community worldwide subscribes to armed oppression of Hindus and jihadi activity? or does so on the basis of their belief in Sikh identity? What is the incidence? What is the prevalence? Please provide more than your suspicions.
These aren't suspicions bhenji and you know it. Perpetual and unrealistic denials only serve to further jeopardize the spiritual jeevan. This is a discussion forum and you have already completely deleted the post which discussed in detail and provided video and pictures as corroboration, not of "individuals" but of major rallies which thousands have attended. So falsely taking some stance that implies I have no proof is outrageous, especially given the fact that you deleted the threads which had supporting evidence and was specific to the points I talked about, and now make it seem as if I have only words and opinions and no evidence at all. Asking for a research quality paper which includes percentages is ridiculous as I'm not a University employee, and neither have I undergone any complete study. But I have spent several years in Khalistani communities, and I do think my words are accurate. Bhenji, when dealing with issues of this nature, no one is going to be able to cite a research document which appropriately illustrates who honestly supports what. The very nature of association with some of these groups would create n intelligence services investigation, either in US, UK, Canada, or Britain. So communities aren't going to be entirely forthright. If you hold such a paper in your hands, which claims contrary evidence, I suggest you consider it isn't based on truth due to the legal ramifications.
It has been publicized in a number of reports how a segment of the Sikh community, largely the youth are idolizing violent militant organizations. So it's certainly not even new to hear the allegation. Since I happen to come from exactly that section of the Sikh community, I am simply verifying from my experience, this is a real problem. I have already explained why I think it's a problem, and from what attitudes and beliefs it stems from. Just by attacking the position does not make this serious problem go away. Just by denying won't stop the fanatical elements within Sikhism from continuing to advocate violent means or the Sikh community in general from tacitly tolerating and even justifying those extremist beliefs.
In my mind the question of discrediting this phenomenon of revival and glorification of Sikh militancy as off the mark, is incredible, largely because it's real and even well-publicized. Some of the pro-Khalistani attitudes and anti-Hindu sentiments or genralization of "ALL Hindus as guilty or evil" have been voiced on these very threads; so questioning it's relevance as a topic discussion is rather surprising. In my mind the issue should be "Why does the Sikh community continue to praise and condone the violent baggage which arose out of the 1980's conflict? This is neither obtaining justice for victims of injustice than it is securing the future for Sikhs in Punjab to live peacefully AFTER genocide.
And the reason such issues are related is because the entire Sikh morcha by Akali Dal stemmed out of the Tat Khalsa Singh Sabha self-definitions of Sikhs as entirely separate and independant from Hindustan. 1984 was a direct result of the conflict between these forces of independant national identity and rejection of Hindu society. Now this is a simplication, in justice there were legitimate grievances and there were acts of marginalization. But if you wanted to do a standard research study in comparison, it should compare the Singh Sabhist Bhindranwala faction with the Rajasthanis. The Rajasthanis were also fighting the Moghals and lost rule and land and political power after the British invasion. Yet, they retained a Hindu identity. Despite certain matters of grievance and injustice, the Rajasthani community continued to remain nationalistic, patriotic and prosper.
Contrast that with the Sikh community whose entire agitation has it's basis on a "separate Sikh identity," a "separate nationalism and nationhood." And if you can't see political tragedy in that stance, I don't know what to say. Indira was a evil, selfish demon who I believe is in the lowest hell for her actions, but politically, the fact that the Indira government initiated martial law crackdown following her fradulent election tells you there was a degree of instability in her government. WHO in there right mind decided this would be the ideal time to stage an agitation and a morcha for assertion of independant Sikh rights? In hindsight, can you see how predictable the outcome was? I cannot blame any innocent person for the bloodbath which was planned by corrupt and evil people. But I do feel responsibility is at the feet of leadership, both the Indian government AND the Sikh leaders, who did in fact play into the hands of Pakistani ISI. Now, I have defended against this for years. But realistically I do know, that in a political agitation, you look for the responsible party as being the one with proximity, means and who benefits the most. And if we are honest, Sikh agitation and subsequent gallughara benefitted one entity only... Pakistan. And that is who it continues to benefit, which is why we see things like the Dal Khalsa-Muslim Alliance. Or Simranjit Singh Mann shouting "Pakistan Zindabad," and decrying the United States toleration of nuclear India. Politically these attitudes are treasonous coming from an Indian national. Think about it. And who are the largest supporters of Shiromani Akali Dal Amritsar, Dal Khalsa and Shiromani Khalsa Dal? They are the Sikh disapora in US, UK, Canada, and Britain.
So let's be reasonable in these discussions and not deny the evidence out of simple argumentativeness and blanket denial. Ask yourself (and please I welcome the answer), "How do you think attitudes of Sikh independant identity and separatism are affecting attitudes of hostility to anything Hindu and even glorification of violence against the Indian state?"
It can't be possible that xyz former terrorist is innocent, when the very attitudes of the community largely agree with his alleged terrorist actions, when the actions are justified, and when the victims are demonized as part of some brahmin conspiracy of the evil Indian state. That is simply propaganda worthy of Hitler to demonize and scapegoat populations of people. I invite people to look very closely at this agitation for separate Sikh political identity couched in the name of religion, because it is nothing more than advocacy of violence, of violent means to secede from the Indian state and establish an independant Sikh homeland. It is nothing more than jihadi religion which promotes shaheedi as a means to achieve mukti. It is nothing more than radical Islamic definitions of a One True God and a One True Faith. It is nothing more than an imposed Abrahamic conception which makes every other religion and people in the world inferior to Sikhism, as it proclaims falsely that Sikhism is the only boat of mukti, not unlike jihadis. It is nothing more than a political philosophy of ethnocentric self-promotion and intolerance in the name of a spiritual teaching. (quoted from post 39)
Please explain to the forum how you have arrived at these conclusions - for they are conclusions and not so far drawn from evidence but from your personal perceptions. Have you personally conducted a sufficiently broad investigation using a representative cross-section of the worldwide Sikh community, perhaps by the use of surveys and analysis of print media, to draw any of the conclusions in the paragraph above. I am not convinced that YouTube videos are objective sources of evidence.
Youtube videos may be the only available evidence for certain things. It's not like the Republican party which announces it's platform publically. Babbar Khalsa originally started as a militant movement from within Akhand Kirtani Jatha as a response to the massacre of 13 Gursikhs in 1978 Amritsar by sant Nirankaris. The first thing they did was separate themselves from the Jatha to avoid having the elders be implicated for acts committed by the militants. While I believe this was fair and true, the Punjab police forces still targetted and tortured and killed innocent family members of the militants. Today, when we are discussing photos of sheheed militants in Gurdwaras (there are some in diaspora which are this blatent~ Fremont Gurdwara for example), smagams and rainsbhaes given to honor shaheed militants, Nagar Kirtans which have displays of shaheed militants, etc we cannot ignore that sympathy for militancy continues. But how can you precisely pinpoint with degree of percentages such sympathetic support for an outlawed terrorist organization which would get you questioned, possibly detained and deported, and in cases of some militant communities, extradited to the Punjab police? It's not like analyzing the percentage of brown hair in a Swedish immigrant population in Wisconsin.
Now you've asked a fair question, to what degree is the Sikh community IN GENERAL sympathetic to militants. And I'm honestly telling you, it is not as small as the Sikh community would like the public to believe. Especially among the young, Sikh militancy has been accepted as a path to mukti. It is positively glorified. And we must all be concerned with separatist attitudes which continue to espouse justification of terrorist violence of innocent Hindu population by demonizing them as some kind of evil brahmins who are enemies of the Sikh Nation. It is already embedded in the Sikh consciousness that Sikhs are a separate identity fighting for it's survival against the machinations of evil, corrupted Hindus. When someone defines how Sikhism is NOT related to Hindu philosophy, he doesn't even discuss the philoisophy... he discusses the emotionally laden catch words which amount to rejection of Hinduism as evil and corrupting, denigration of Hindu's (And you have deleted my post which showed a true snapshot of how the Sikh youth REALLY feel about Hindus, in so many derogatory and abusive terms). These ARE the attitudes which will precipitate more and more violence. They are a literal clarion call for violence and agitation against Hindus in the name of independant Sikh identity.
Do you see the Dalai Lama aggressively asserting Buddhist independance from Hinduism? No! And the reason is, he doesn't have to. Buddhism is secure in it's spiritual philosophy and has no problem acknowledging the sanatan origin of Buddhist teaching, which in large measure influence the wonderful Advaita school, which in turn had some degree of influence on the Vaishnavism which in turn influenced Gurbani. The philosphies are there plain as day. But it is unreasonable to assume that any reactions of profound hostility and rejection are necessary for Sikh survival. And I'm sharing with you the political origins of such attitudes, and how destructive they really are.
The Sikh community in diaspora has confused spirituality with violent politics of separatism. And those politics were the likely precipitant for the attack in 1984 and subsequent gallughara. While this can't in any way excuse the horrific and unjust response by the government of India against the Sikhs, it can't be overlooked either, that Sikhs themselves were provoking the Indian state with talk of independant identity, armed rallies and resistence. It isn't much different from today where you see dera sacha sauda premis beating or killing a Sikh... but you find that Sikh was also part of an armed agitation. So honestly, we have to say a certain response from the Sikh Panth is one of provocation. And this alone is a large cause of unrest. Consider that 1978 Amritsar attack by sant Nirankaris against Sikhs would not have occured if Sikhs had not responded to deliberate provocations of Gurbachana by marching with swords and shields. The response received was a gunfight. How could they win? So in hindsight, it was a foolish response, and it resulted in tragedy for the Sikhs. And it was this incident which led to the formation of Babbar Khalsa International, which now has main headquarters in Pakistan and known collaboration with jihadis. Is there anything logical in this history of events which has anything to do with a spiritual message (also quoted from post 39)
I have not, in my limited experience, seen or heard any activity aiming in the direction of armed response or hostility toward Hindus or the government of India at the two gurdwaras that I attend. Perhaps they are meeting secretly in remote areas, or in bunkers disguised as storage facilities and warehouses on the outskirts of the city. Perhaps they do not want me to know about it. I might spill the beans. In fact Khalistan is never discussed there either.
Is this kind of mocking tone really necessary? And will this kind of mockery of a very real and serious issue make it go away? Do you really think for one moment that people actually involved with militancy are going to announce it at the podium? So are you saying by this ludicrous statement that there is not and has not been Sikh militancy? And if you really believe that, I have to conclude you are naive.
Whether they are or they are not violently predisposed toward Hindus is irrelevant in this discussion. What is the logical argument that leads to the conclusion: Sikhism is not the same as Hinduism (title of the thread we are now looking at) can be reasonably associated with separatism, jihadism, violence, and nazism? Please provide empirical evidence and logical arguments.
It is precisely the most relevant purpose of this discussion. We are not here discussing directly the issue of whether Sikhism is philosophically related to Hinduism, such has been discussed in detail in posts which have been closed. This is now addressing the political basis and implication of the identity of Sikhism being based on separation from Hindus, and the many recent relevant traumatic events which have precipitated violence and extremism in the assertion. Prior to the 1900's Singh Sabha reform, Sikhs did not have this vocal and hostile separatism. They were among the most nationalistic communities in India. But as the philosophies and politics of independant nationhood and separatism became forefront, things like the 1980's morcha agitation by Akali Dal and Bhindwanwala faction led to direct confrontations with the Indian government, along with cries for independant Khalistan and witnessing militants working with the Pakistani government to recognize creation of Khalistan state.
Whether or not you in particular choose to acknowledge or reject the recent politics which led to the diaspora Sikh communities in the West, denial of the influence of militants in shaping the political structure of Gurdwaras, ostracizing and beating people who held a different political view, and even drug running and gang-like criminal syndicates to raise millions of dollars funding, who knows what for, is simply not believable. Not only is it documented. It's been witnessed. I've witnessed some of these things. Are ALL Gurdwaras influenced by militant communities? No. Are many Gurdwaras influenced by militant communities? Perhaps in an indirect way, certainly there is a large sympathy for Sikhs against the Indian state, and attitudes derived from Singh Sabha that Sikhs are an independant nation and persecuted minority in India. These attitudes do encourage the more immature views calling for blatant hostility to any and all Hindus, and sympathy for militant violence among the young. The music among the Sikh youth, the artwork, posters, t-shirts, etc, what do they praise? They praise a culture of terrorist violence. Are some Gurdwaras influenced by militant communities? Hehe, please! Anyone who denies that these are the most influential Sikh communities in diaspora is sleeping.
So the issue is not "ALL SIKHS ARE SYMPATHETIC TO MILITANTS." The issue is, "How is the mainstream Sikh community tolerating and ignoring the extremist views of the militant communities? How are their own mainstream youth getting swept up in a culture of independant Sikh identity which is nothing more than glorification of shaheedi militants and attitude of independant separation from the Indian state, from evil Hindus, and treasonous attitudes justifying terrorist violence?"
Because these issues are very real, we can't ignore the implications of anti-Hinduism/anti-India as being asserted as part of the Sikh self-definition.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/south_asia/7281371.stm
http://sify.com/news/fullstory.php?id=14619640
http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/india/states/punjab/terrorist_outfits/ISYF.htm
http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/uncategorized/khalistan-forces-trying-to-stir-sectarian-violence_10029686.html
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080427/khalistan_shirts_080427
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/GF10Df03.html
http://www.rediff.com/news/2006/dec/21pak.htm
http://indiatoday.digitaltoday.in/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&issueid=31&id=11521&Itemid=1§ionid=61
http://www.dailypioneer.com/columnist1.asp?main_variable=Columnist&file_name=KANCHAN161.txt&writer=KANCHAN&validit=yes
http://www.sikhtimes.com/news_071005a.html
http://www.expressindia.com/news/fullstory.php?newsid=12906
Where do these attitudes of pugh-wale RSS anti-Sikh, fake Sikh, Hindus come from?
Dal Khalsa Alliance
Saturday, 03 February 2007
The khalistani leaders [or the followers and members of the anti-Sikh parties like BJP, RSS, etc.] with anti-Sikh L K Advani, an associate of a criminal VP Vajpayee of the RSS & BJP. The khalistani leaders or the Dastaardhari (turbaned) Hindus in The Sikh Identity
http://www.dalkhalsausa.org/content/view/505/48/
From separatist militant organizations which are united with Pakistan like Dal-Khalsa.
The rhetoric of separatism and secession:
Quaid e Azam, Muhammad Ali Jinnah had said at a certain occasion,
"We maintain and hold that Muslims and Hindus are two major nations by any definition or test of a nation. We are a nation of a hundred million, and, what is more, we are a nation with our own distinctive culture and civilization, language and literature, art and architecture, names and nomenclature, sense of value and proportion, legal laws and moral codes, customs and calendar, history and traditions, aptitudes and ambitions. In short, we have our own distinctive outlook on life. By all canons of international law we are a nation."
In these words not only had Jinnah refuted his critics who in their twisted logic had insisted that Muslims and Hindus were nothing but one people, but had at the same time given Pakistan the ethos on which were to be erected the various institutions of this newly founded state. Islam was the cause of the birth of this country and only Islam can justify its existence. http://www.daily.pk/world/worldnews/84-worldnews/6099-the-myth-of-a-united-india-and-indian-democracy-or-hypocrisy.html
I ask another question, in lieu of the corrupted politics of the past and of the present, how do these divisionary self-identities define a universal sanatan spiritual philosophy of authentic mukti which praises the God of love being present in every human being regardless of religious affiliation? And then ask yourselves if the current politicized Sikh identity has lost contact with the reality of univeral Sikhism open to all castes and religions as taught by the Sikh Guruji. Because that message of tolerance and universal acceptance is the profound philosophical viewpoint of sanatan Dharma contrasted with the ugly politics of the Singh Sabha exclusionary nationhood identity of today.
The Sikh identity is chela of Guru!
The Sikh identity is upholder of righteous Dharam!
The Sikh identity is seeing the unity in all men and women.
The Sikh identity is about mukti-merger into the pantheistic All-pervading Oneness of Parabrahm Narayana which is the True Self underlying all creation!
The Sikh identity is not a political objective or nationalistic communal bias.
The Sikh identity is not based on the failings on any other religious community.
The Sikh identity has nothing to do with defined nationhood by Singh Sabha.
The Sikh identity has nothing to do with armed insurrection or agitation against the Indian state.
The Sikh identity is not about prejudice or disdain for Hindus or political alliances with Muslims.
~Bhul chak maaf
