Hinduism Sikhism Part Of 'great Hindu Samaj' : RSS

[Archived_Member16]

SOURCE: Sikhism part of 'great Hindu samaj': RSS

Sikhism part of 'great Hindu samaj': RSS

PTI | May 02, 2007 | 15:38 IST


The Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh�has described the Sikh faith as a separate religion belonging to 'one great Hindu samaj'.

In a view that may not go well with Bharatiya Janata Party's ally Akali Dal, the Sangh says it sees a 'problem' if minorities assume a 'political' character.
Spelling out its stand on minorities on its website under a mission header, it says it believes the Hindu Code Bill is applicable to Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists and that it should be applicable to all, including the Christians and the Muslims.

"The RSS believes in the plural structure of society. Therefore, it recognizes that there is bound to be a majority-minority syndrome, and hence each group, whether in the majority or minority, will have a distinct identity and distinct character," it says.

But minorities, according to the Sangh, should restrain themselves from overstepping their 'basic character'.

"...the majority-minority distinctions must be restricted to the bases on which the minority character is sought to be claimed...the problem arises when a particular minority transgresses the basis of its minority character and assumes a political one," it says.

In its stand on Sikhism, the Sangh has called it a separate religion but its followers part of Hindu samaj.

"We regard the Sikh religion as a separate religion, but we regard the Sikh people as belonging to our samaj. When we say that they are a part of the one great Hindu Samaj, we do not deny the existence of their separate religion and separate beliefs. The Hindu samaj is a commonwealth of many religions," it says.

The samaj, it adds, includes idol worshippers as well as those who oppose idol worship and those who accept the authority of the Vedas as well as those who do not.

They are all included in the wider Hindu conceptualisation, the Sangh says.
"Many Sikhs attend RSS Shakhas, but nobody is asked to remove his beard or his turban. The RSS will never try to obliterate the identity of the Sikhs. That will be against the very grain of the RSS," it says.


----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------


----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------

 

[Boota]

It sounds to me like the RSS are a very confused bunch!

 

[Archived_Member16]

http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/Print.aspx?Id=00f29785-5f61-4556-adf4-184fc761ae60

Hemendra Singh Bartwal
http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/
New Delhi, May 03, 2007


SGPC reacts on RSS statement on sikh religion




The RSS’ attempt to put at rest earlier controversies by redefining its stand on the Sikh faith, saying that it is a separate religion but part of the larger Hindu samaj, has only complicated matters further with the Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee (SGPC) adopting a hard stance and objecting to this view.

“We regard the Sikh religion as a separate religion, but we regard the Sikh people as belonging to our samaj.When we say that they are a part of the one great Hindu samaj, we do not deny the existence of their separate religion and separate beliefs.The Hindu samaj is a commonwealth of many religions,” it was stated on the RSS official website while clarifying their stand on minorities.

It stated that the RSS held the belief that the Hindu Code Bill is applicable to Sikhs , Jains and Buddhista alike and it should be applicable to others like Christians and Muslims too.

Reacting sharply to the RSS statement, SGPC President Avtar Singh Makkar asserted that the Sikhs have their own separate identity and are not a part of the Hindu samaj.
Speaking to HT, he questioned the RSS authority for raising such controversies time and again. “How can the RSS claim that Sikhs are part of the Hindu samaj.We believe only in Guru Granth Sahib and are ordered by the highest Sikh temporal seat,” he said while advising the Sangh not to expand their domain unnecessarily.

On the issue of applicability of the Hindu Code Bill to all minorities as well,the veteran Sikh leader pointed out that they had been opposed to the idea for long.

“The Sikhs should not be covered under the Hindu Marriage Act.The government should implement the Anand Marriage Act while accepting Sikhs as a separate community,” he said.

In what may not be to the liking ot the Akalis, allies of the BJP, the Sangh has also expressed the view that it sees a “problem” of minorities assume a political character.

“The majority-minority distinctions must be restricted to the bases on which the minority character is sought to be claimed ... The problem arises when a particular minority transgresses the basis of its minority character and assumes a political one,”it said.

A heated controversy had broken out on the RSS view of the Sikh identity some years ago when the Sangh leaders had described Sikhism as a part of the Hindu religion saying that they did not consider it as a separate entity.On strong protests from Sikh religious leaders, the RSS had then sought to tone down their stand.




http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/Print.aspx?Id=00f29785-5f61-4556-adf4-184fc761ae60
© Copyright 2007 Hindustan Times

 

[simpy]

Sapp baar baar siri chukdaa, us di aadat hai
jehreela hovey na hovey

 

[eshersingh]

Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh ,

Hindus generallay say that the term Hindu was first used by Persians and Greeks, Sikhism and islam did not existed on this earth. Now its upto Sikhs and Muslims if they want to call themselves Hindus or not though theoretically any person living east to Sindhu river is a Hindu.

They suggest or explain the term Hindu somewhat like this "Persians called river Sindhu as Hindu due to difference in pronunciation ". But here is the catch "the interpretation for the word Hindu is a corrupted version of Sindhu does not or fails to explain why the Sindhu River or the people who live in the valley of this river did not acquire the name ‘Hindu’ ". This river is called Sindhu and the people are called Punjabis and Sindhis. No body calls the state of Sindh as Hind or Sindhis as Hindis.

There are some Indian writers who have looked at the word "Hindu" with critical eye and they does not agree with the interpretation what RSS people give.

"The political situation of our country from centuries past, say 20-25 centuries has made it very difficult to understand the nature of this nation and its religion. The western scholars, and historians, too, have failed to trace the true name of this Brahmanland, a vast continent like country, and therefore, they have contended themselves by calling it by that meaningless term ‘Hindu’. This word, which is a foreign innovation, is not made use by any of our Sanskrit writers and revered Acharyas in their works. It seems that political power was responsible for insisting upon continuous use of the word Hindu. The word Hindu is found, of course, in Persian literature. Hindu-e-falak means ‘the black of the sky’ and ‘Saturn’. In the Arabic language Hind not Hindu means nation. It is shameful and ridiculous to have read all along in history that the name Hindu was given by the Persians to the people of our country when they landed on the sacred soil of Sindhu." (R. N. Suryanarayan, Universal Religion, p 1-2, published from Mysore in 1952.) "

"Some people, according to the author, say that this word Hindu is a corrupt form of Sindhu but this is wrong because Sindhu was the name of the river and not the name of the community. Moreover, it is correct that this name has been given to the original Aryan race of the region by Muslim invaders to humiliate them. In Persian, says our author, the word means slave, and according to Islam, all those who did not embrace Islam were termed as slaves." (Maharishi Shri Dayanand Sarswati Aur Unka Kaam, edited by Lala Lajpat Rai, published from Lahore in 1898, in the chapter of introduction.)

Besides, a Persian dictionary titled Lughet-e-Kishwari, published in Lucknow in 1964, gives the meaning of Hindu as ‘chore (thief), dakoo (dacoit), raahzan (waylayer), and ghulam (slave)’. Yet according to an other dictionary named Urdu-Feroze-ul-Laghat – part 1 (p 615), the meaning of the word Hindu is as under:
In Turkish: chore, raahzan and lutera (looter).
In Persian: ghulam, barda (obedient servant), sia faam (black color) and kaalaa (black).

The hypothesis that Persians had difficulty in pronouncing Sindhu is baseless and preposterous. For example,
1) How do the Persians who are Shia Muslims pronounce words like Shia, Sunni and Shariat, Siyasat,sifar? In Punjabi there are many, many words of Persian origin, which start with ‘s’ and ‘sh’. For example, sardar or sirdar (leader), shaheed (martyr), shhadat (martyrdom) shair (lion), sahir (town), sar (walk) shayer (poet), shakar (sugar), sja (punishment), siahi (black ink), siah (black) and so on.The word Punjab is also derived from Persian panch and aab (five waters).
2) Everybody knows the tale of "Sindbad the Sailor" which is based on Arabian Nights(Persian) stories. So according to Hindus it should be called "Hindbad the Sailor" not "Sinbad the sailor" as the people from arab could not pronounce correctly "S" .

Many Hindus have suggested that people living east of Sindhu river were called Hindus due to mispronounciation of the term Sindhu .But then they fail to explain why there is moutain range in Afghanistan that goes by the name "Hindu Kush" (in english it translates as "Killer of Hindus") valley and it is not in the east of Sindhu river ?

Hinduism is derived from the word Hindu, the names of the other three religions, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism founded on the Indian subcontinent are derived from Indian words with noble meanings: "Budh" (enlightenment), "Jan"[victorious (over vices)] and "Sikh" (learner), respectively.

Does it make any sense for Indians who are never tired of talking about the glory of their past, their religion and their civilization to call themselves "Hindus" when this word is not found in any Hindu text. This label "Hindu" was given to the people of the Indian subcontinent by outsiders in the derogatory sense (black, slave, servant, thief, robber and waylayer), except the term "black". What right or justification do the champions of "Hindutva" have to apply this label to others, Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists?

 

[aristotle]

If RSS believes that all Sikhs are Hindus and all Hindus are Sikhs (as their sarsanghchalak commented in Amritsar a few years back), Hindus should better throw out stone idols from their temples and install Sri Guru Granth Sahib besides performing kirtan praising the true Lord, Akal Purakh and not the alleged Gods/Goddesses which are nothing but a good piece of imagination. Then, the RSS would be in a better position to comment about the topic!