For the record.
The World Sikh Council American Region represents a group of large and established sangats. I am familiar with most of these sangats in one way or another.
These are sangats that follow a path consistent with Sikh Rehat Maryada. They serve diverse populations of Sikhs. Not one of them has been embroiled in violence of controversies related to "swordplay."
"Fundamentalist" is a buzz word that is thrown around with abandon so I will not comment on that.
Also on the record, not a single sangat in the United States has been torn apart by controversy over the place of shastars, nor have there ever been reported cases of real or threatened "insurgency" involving shastars.
There may be many smaller sangats that are not members of WSC-AR.
Violence referred to in an Ohio sangat this past year had nothing whatsoever to do with matters related to the practice of Sikhism. The event followed closely on the heels of violence in Canada. The local police investigated and verified that there was no religious motivation behind the event. The perpetrator was suffering from mental illness, and had not been taking his medication. The weapon was not a shastar in any form (not a ceremonial sword, not a kirpan, but a common kitchen knife). This freakish event could happen in any place of worship, Sikh or otherwise. Restraining orders or injunctions could not and would not have stopped it. Here again the judge was misled if that event was placed in evidence by GOR.
The widely reported incidence of armed violence in Toronto, in which Sikh lawyer Manjit Singh Mangat was stabbed multiple times, occurred outside the gurdwara. Perpetrators included individuals who were not members of the sangat. Here again the judge may have been misled.
Connections made between violence in Canadian sangats and the GOR sangat grossly misunderstand the problems faced by Canadian sangats viz the Dasam Granth and Professor Darshan Singh controversies. As much as these controversies involve the time and emotions of the diaspora, they have not boiled over to violence in the US. They also exaggerate the extent to which Canadian sangats have experienced armed "insurgencies." Here again, the judge was misled.
Last point: ordinary reading of the court injunction, which was uploaded by Ajay Singh ji, and which I have read 3 times now, bans 7 people, and anyone working in concert with them. But in provisions D and/or E of each part of the order, anyone else who would enter with a sword, dangerous weapon, kirpan, or in one way or another engages in specified activities that might not meet with the approval of the GOR, is also enjoined. Read the injunction for the particulars of the ban.
I am going to close this thread. It would be gratifying to deal with each and every example of ad hominem argument, straw man argument, and other logical fallacies that have dominated this discourse. Would that make a difference?
Each side has had an opportunity to present its best arguments, and documentation to clarify its stance. When there is more to add, or further updates, we can start a new thread or open this one again. If either side has legal documents they would like to add to the thread, I will upload them, without comment.
Narayanjot Kaur
The World Sikh Council American Region represents a group of large and established sangats. I am familiar with most of these sangats in one way or another.
These are sangats that follow a path consistent with Sikh Rehat Maryada. They serve diverse populations of Sikhs. Not one of them has been embroiled in violence of controversies related to "swordplay."
"Fundamentalist" is a buzz word that is thrown around with abandon so I will not comment on that.
Also on the record, not a single sangat in the United States has been torn apart by controversy over the place of shastars, nor have there ever been reported cases of real or threatened "insurgency" involving shastars.
There may be many smaller sangats that are not members of WSC-AR.
Violence referred to in an Ohio sangat this past year had nothing whatsoever to do with matters related to the practice of Sikhism. The event followed closely on the heels of violence in Canada. The local police investigated and verified that there was no religious motivation behind the event. The perpetrator was suffering from mental illness, and had not been taking his medication. The weapon was not a shastar in any form (not a ceremonial sword, not a kirpan, but a common kitchen knife). This freakish event could happen in any place of worship, Sikh or otherwise. Restraining orders or injunctions could not and would not have stopped it. Here again the judge was misled if that event was placed in evidence by GOR.
The widely reported incidence of armed violence in Toronto, in which Sikh lawyer Manjit Singh Mangat was stabbed multiple times, occurred outside the gurdwara. Perpetrators included individuals who were not members of the sangat. Here again the judge may have been misled.
Connections made between violence in Canadian sangats and the GOR sangat grossly misunderstand the problems faced by Canadian sangats viz the Dasam Granth and Professor Darshan Singh controversies. As much as these controversies involve the time and emotions of the diaspora, they have not boiled over to violence in the US. They also exaggerate the extent to which Canadian sangats have experienced armed "insurgencies." Here again, the judge was misled.
Last point: ordinary reading of the court injunction, which was uploaded by Ajay Singh ji, and which I have read 3 times now, bans 7 people, and anyone working in concert with them. But in provisions D and/or E of each part of the order, anyone else who would enter with a sword, dangerous weapon, kirpan, or in one way or another engages in specified activities that might not meet with the approval of the GOR, is also enjoined. Read the injunction for the particulars of the ban.
I am going to close this thread. It would be gratifying to deal with each and every example of ad hominem argument, straw man argument, and other logical fallacies that have dominated this discourse. Would that make a difference?
Each side has had an opportunity to present its best arguments, and documentation to clarify its stance. When there is more to add, or further updates, we can start a new thread or open this one again. If either side has legal documents they would like to add to the thread, I will upload them, without comment.
Narayanjot Kaur
Last edited by a moderator:
