Are Sikhs Hindus in Disguise??

Society Religion & Philosophy
41

Dear Baykhatr,
First of all, our "Hindu fundamentalist" government HAS ALLOWED the filming to continue and has ordered the U.P. government to clear the way for the film's shooting. So your news is a bit outdated ! The only change that was made in the film was one line which was extremely insensitive which the director agreed. But thats it. Also the film is NOT about a Brahmin girl marrying an "untouchable" or vice versa. The director has clarified this. She was apparently angry that people were speculating on the script even when it wasn't released.
And no the demonstrators were not angry about the romantic angle at all. The were apparently angry at the way in which the film depicts Hindu widows in a bad light. Believe me today no one in his right mind will oppose an inter-caste marriage (at least publicly). That would be political suicide !!
One thing that must be said here is that no one is defending the protestors. If they had issues, they should have done in a democratic and peaceful way --- they have that right. But they didn't have any right to use violent means --- NO ONE has that right !!
Controversial topics will always create a storm, whether it's India or the US or any other place in the world. What is important is whether the nations laws allow for discrimination. If the constitution and the laws are secular and promote freedom of expression then no "Fascist" government can do anything... which was proved yesterday and was also proved before in movies like "Bandit Queen" and "Fire" (which also ran into problems).

I know my posts are getting long and boring...but I'll just add one more thing --- a couple of years back in my home state a Marathi play was released. The name of the play was "Mee Nathuram Godse Boltoi" ("I'm Nathuram Godse speaking"). The play was about the assassin of Mahatma Gandhi and his views on why he commited the crime. There were violent demonstrations on the streets and some people forced the theatres to close down the play. Unlike the above mentioned movies, the play was NEVER allowed in theatres again !! So it's no surprise why certain Hindu organisations take up militant postures against perceived anti-Hindu films !!
Is freedom of expression limited to a select few or should other controversial films / plays also be judged by the same yardstick.

Baykhatr....I'm not defending what Brahmins did years back. No one would. What I meant was hating Brahmins or showing contempt for them is as bad as hating Muslims or Dalits or any other religious / ethnic group !

[This message has been edited by BombayKid (edited February 04, 2000).]

42

Channmahi,

Very good post, I agree that the essence of Sikh religion is toleration towards all, and respect for all humanity.

"Nanak naam Chardi Kaala, Terai Banay Sarbot Ka Bhalla."

Nanak says oh God keep everybody in uplifting spirit, I pray for the welfare of everbody (all Humanity).

[This message has been edited by Rani (edited February 04, 2000).]

43

Well.. my posts were not for declaring that sikhs are hindu, though my reading is that the philophy is the same as vedanta. now kesh and kripan and even social customs are not a part of philosophy. as far as rejection of jeneoo or likes are concerned, they are again parts of symbols, rather minor points. philosophy of soul-god unity, reincarnation, moksha, naam jap and so on are the same as vedanta. but if u want to say it's different, i am not bothered. in fact, we do not even know if all sikh gurus grew hair or it started later after declaration of it as essential. the paintings of sikh gurus are all last century and this centry done on someone's imagination.

it is interesting to see a marxist quote as an authority on religion.

the reason, i stressed the issue is that, the kind of equidistance from hinduism and islam claimed recently does not exist. what rebel spiritual kabira asks in guru granth sahib to give up all symbols, all labels, turuk or hindu and get after jap of raam naam and approach god. it is a different thing that, giving up the old labels, u just get a diffrent label.

44

Thankyou Bombaykid. :)

I was not suggesting or preaching any hatred against any group. My remarks, were geared towards the false pride of such Brahmans. Such notions of superiority, and racial pride lead to disgrace to humanity.

I often hear or read very amusing and unbelievable stories of Indian religious cum social practices. Like three nights ago BBC aired a news item in which it was reported that the ex pm of India Chandar Shaikhar was ambushed and attacked, while his train was passing thru an isolated UP area, which is considered a hub of pirates. As per the same report, some villagers literaly worship 'guns', and passengers bolt their compartments securely while the train is passing thru this remote land. The dacoits are known to snatch the jewelery and other valuables of the passengers.

Had the felons known that an ex prime minister is travelling, they might would have removed his clothes as a sign of perhaps some kind of benediction or blessing :)

But it is good to know that there is an addition in 'Devetas' . We had Monkeys, Snakes and now Bandook Deveta!! Very soon Bandook Devetas statues will be on sale.

45

oh, ya sure baykhtar, looting is a religion of some indians.. most of these stay in delhi, though.

46

ZZ, there are twice as many things we can list to differentiate Sikhs from Hindus as many to show the similarities. It is a fruitless excercise, atleast in the context of this thread.

The fact is that Sikhism is not a revealed religion. It is a very practical and up to the times religious philosophy which is based on what existed before it. As a Hindu, it is normal for you to focuss on what existed before it, and for Sikhs it is normal to think about what follows after its origin and is different. I never said anything about Sikhism being equidistant from hunduism and Islam. I don;t have the knowledge to make that claim...surfing few websites on a religion for few months does make one any authority on any religion. Thats the reason I never or hardly participate in religious section of the forum. I only jump in when I have something relavant to say based upon my personal experience. Of course others have the right to not to agree with that. Anyaways, concept of ONLY one God, Sangat(ummah), to fight for the operessed are very similar to what they have the concept of Ummah and Jehad in Islam. Nothing like that I have heard exisiting in Hinduism...if it did or does, I would like to know about it. Infact I am sure it does not. Otherwise no Gauri would have dared to bother hindu ummah.

If you did not get the gist of the poem from the original text, and my traslation was very brief, let me explain it in a little more detail.

What poet is saying is that, the Taig of tyrrany which killed Teg Bahadur is always there to quench itself in the blood of the innocents. But good thing is that now we know how to recognise the holder of that taig - aurangzeb, a symbol- no matter wheather he is a muslim, a tillak wearing hindu or a turban wearing Sikh. Meaning that that tyrrant personality of Aurangzeb is always there and is not limited to any particular religion. Now what is wrong with that coming from one time naxlite supporter poet, hain?

You said:
1.
" are again parts
of symbols, rather minor points. philosophy of soul-god unity, reincarnation, moksha, naam
jap and so on are the same as vedanta. but if u want to say it's different, i am not
bothered......"

2.
"....in fact, we do not even know if all sikh gurus grew hair or it started later after
declaration of it as essential. the paintings of sikh gurus are all last century and this centry
done on someone's imagination."

You were making some sense in the qoute part#1 but all of a sudden the real ache of your heart took over and ..hence the qoute part#2....So only difference between Sikhs and Hindus in your view is the hair?? Are you trying to implecate that the concept of unshowven hair is only a manifestation of recent Sikhs?

About you not being very sure of whether Sikh Gurus had hair or not, It is a common belief that Ram of Ayudheya was clean shaven many centuries ago( as shown in movies, serials and pics)...what is that belief based upon? If you have any archelogical evidence on that please let us know? Sikhism was not revealed to one person at the beginning but it was developed over 250 years....by all Gurus. I am sure there were additions to the basic philosophy, to the code of conduct, to the way of life over all this period of 250 years by various Gurus...

I have seen so many Sikhs go through their daily lives even in USA with their flowing beards and colorfull turbans with out getting bothered about it. Why are you so hung about their hair? or are you keeping a goatee yourself seceretly? ;)...not that anything wrong with it...last time I checked it was very fashionable in youth. :)

CM

ps: don't take the comment about goatee seriously :)

47

Monoethism is precisely vedanta. in fact it says everything is god. vedantic monoethism differs from Islamic monoethism in that in Islam, god is someone ouside and different while in vedanta it is everywhere. the concept of 'sat', 'chit' and 'anand' is vedantic.

As far as fighting for the right is concerned that is what geetha is about. geetha again one of the pillars of vedanta. i believe that as far as philosophy is concerned sikh philosophy is vedanta.

True, concept like ummah, does not exist. But that is an organization aspect of religion. Hinduism is surely not an organized religion, which, for example sikhism is. But this is worldly aspect of religion and not spiritual.

I am not bothered about hair. All i said is that it is as much a part of symbolism as janeoo or tilak or whatever. True, none knows if Ram was clean haven even when he was sentenced to stay in jungle, perhaps he was not. but then shaving or not shaving is not a part of any particular custom here. I mean nobody will be offended if I show Ram with beard. In fact we have portraits of Shiva with beard or without beard and that is not issue.

I am not using word 'hindu' but just vedantic since there are plenty of Hindu philosophies and they are very different from each other. I am talking of advait philosophy of shankarachrya - vivekananda school and I am claiming that sikh philosophy as far as spiritual aspects is concerned is vedantic.

[This message has been edited by ZZ (edited February 05, 2000).]

48

I just want to clear the concept of Sangat in Sikhism.

The Sikh concept of Sangat is very different than Ummah. Ummah is a brotherhood of all muslims and only muslims but sangat means literally congregation which can consist of followers of any religion gathered together
in a Sikh Gurudawara or function, with sole purpose of praying to God. outside that gathering they are not referred as Sangat, therefore it is not a brotherhood of any sorts. Main function of propogating concept of sangat was to organize people so that they can exchange ideas and collectively formulate a stategy to solve common problem.

49

Baykhatr,
"My remarks, were geared towards the false pride of such Brahmans."

What Brahmans are you talking about. You seem to have made up your mind that the people who were protesting were Brahmins. They could have been of any caste.....but you're saying that they are Brahmins. You guys accuse western countries of stereotyping Muslims and here you've already decided that the hooligans who were protesting were Brahmins. Like I said before, sometimes we tend to judge people before we know the full story which is sad indeed. Like I said many people in Pakistan think that India's ruling class consists of Brahmins and all administrative positions in government and bureaucracy are taken up by Brahmins. Now everyone in India knows (you may even ask Indian Muslims) that these days the chances of a Brahmin getting a government job is extremely low (I'm including qualified and deserving Brahmins). Thats the reason we see that there are very few Brahmins in government and bureaucracy in India today. So my friend we're hardly involved in making government decisions today. But I am not complaining. I am definitely NOT saying that Brahmins are discriminated against today....All I am saying is that don't blame everything on Hindu Brahmins. As far as I am concerned, I don't have pride (false or otherwise) in being a Brahmin not am I ashamed of the fact. I'm hardly a devout Hindu (I also eat beef on occations). But I never ridicule the religious beliefs of others however repulsive they may be to me and I wish that others also feel the same way. So basically if someone worships "Monkeys", "Snakes" or some Banduk Devata" doesn't make a difference to me as I'm not affected by it.

50

I have no problem in accepting that Sikhism does draw some of its concepts from some ancient Hindu philosophies like Vedants. That was not the point of discussions here. The question was are Sikhs, Hindus and what I have stressed above or atleast meant to stress was that inspite of some of those conceptual similarities with ancient Hindu philosophies and some outward similarities with Islam, Sikhism is differnt than the two of them.
You warm the milk and add some khatai to it and you get dahi. Despite the fact that Dahi is white like milk and a bit khata like khatai, you never call it either but Dahi. You are insisiting that since dahi was made from milk, it is still milk and we should shake it to make lassi(hence no need for hair and other worldy symbols) and call it milk again. It does not work that way. Even if you are able to shake dahi to make lassi and lassi looks like milk to the outsider, it is still not milk...but lassi/dahi.
I don't know why you cann't accept that much, you claim to know and like Sikhism and Sikhs. Please give them some room to breathe, will ya?

Rani, there is always a difference at conceptual level between things that are similar and not the same. Sangat is similar to ummah, or atleast the Sikh Sangat and Sarbat Khalsa are.

CM

51

Yes I think as regards to the question "Are Sikhs Hindus in disguise ?", the answer is an obvious NO !! We all know that. It is treated as a seperate religion all over India and no one has ever said that they are part of the Hindu religion. The source of Mr. Xtreme's "research" was the RSS site and even the stuff that he has posted does not say that Hinduism and Sikhism are one but merely highlights some of the common ideals of the two religions. Whats wrong in that ?

52

Dear Bombaykid!

Please do not explode. The gist of my post or message was on 'such' Brahmans. I am not generalizing the entire creed of Brahmans. Offcourse there are good people everywhere and there are bad or abhorant people also. Be they Brahmans or Muslims.

If there are protestors about some theme, it is logical that they must be those who prescribe to such ideologies. I dont think you are suggesting that those hooligans were hired. When Hollywood makes a movie depicting Jesus as a homosexual, the protestors got to be those who are devout followers of Divine Ordination.

so once again, I was talking about people who are subscribers to such ideologies and not every Brahman.

Oh btw, if one eats meat, would he be classified as good Brahman or corrupt? :)

53

I see, Bayakhtar, so when are you going to launch an agitation to allow 'satanic verses' in pakistan?

54

ChannMahi,

I disagree that Sikh sangant is same as Ummah. The way I understand is that Ummah only consists of muslims and it transcends nations. Muslims first and nationhood second. Whereas Sangat (congregation) can consist of any people of any religion gathered to pray, as sikhism is an inclusionary religion. You and I cannot join Ummah whereas muslims can join our Sangat and also Panth as Sejhdari are also part of the path as much as Keshdari.

55

ChannMahi,

I disagree that Sikh sangant is same as Ummah. The way I understand is that Ummah only consists of muslims and it transcends nations. Muslims first and nationhood second. Whereas Sangat (congregation) can consist of any people of any religion gathered to pray, as sikhism is an inclusionary religion. You and I cannot join Ummah whereas muslims can join our Sangat and also Panth as Sejhdari are also part of the path as much as Keshdari.

56

No Baykhatr,
I'm not "exploding" at all. I was merely pointing out that you had assumed that the hooligans were Brahmins. Why would only Brahmins get upset at the theme of the film. Like I said before, the film has nothing to do about inter-caste marriage -- it was only a rumor.
As far as me being a good or a corrupt Brahmin, I guess I could be labeled as a corrupt Brahmin. But I could care less as I am not religious at all. There are places all over India where you get good meat (both red and white), so in any case it's not a big deal. India and it's customs have changed a lot over the last 50 years and people these days are not that religious minded (in my view) which may come as a surprise to you.
Basically I am against banning controversial books/films/plays but our so called "secular" Congress government in the 80's became the first government in the world to ban the "Satanic Verses". The funny thing was we banned the book before any of the Muslim countries did it. Couldn't they have waited for the opinion of the Muslim countries at least !! But no --- they bowed down to fundamentalists yet again and made a mockery of our secular ideals !!

57

Dear BombayKid!

I can see the twist in your much misreported post. Yes ZZ I will get back to your too.

But right now, my question is for Rani, I think, who believes that Hindu and Sikhs are two different religions. It is reported in yesterday's India's Today, that The most power holding organization of Sikhs, 'Akal Takht', have condemed ten members of Gorodawara Parbandhak Committee, (DPC) for committing sins and have sentenced all of them to 'cleaning dirty dishes and moping the floors of Darbar Sahib'. These ten include the Party person Jagir Kaur, who refused to appear as a witness for the trial of 'Akal Takht'. The leader of Akal Takht, Giyani Puran Singh, announced the verdict, in which it is pronounced that Jagir Kaur, will not be permitted to discharge her religious responsibilities for her rebelious conduct. She was further, condemed for floating a new Sikh Calender, which is apparently prepared by a Canadian Sikh, who has shown the Sikh religious festival different than those of Hindus. Accordingly, she is condemed for striving to cause breach in the Sikh/Hindu religious relationships, thus creating mistrust. She is removed from the chairpersonship of the Gorodawara Parbandhak Committee.

For those who may not know, Akal Takht is extreemly powerful Organization. Prior to this they have sentenced, ex interior minister of India, Bouta Singh to 'polishing shoes'. I think, if Jagir Kaur is meeting her fate in this manner, it would not take her for a surprise, as washing dirty dishes or moping floors would certainly not be a new chore for her. As a regular housewife, she might be fully conversant with such obligations. So I think cleaning the Gorodawara floors won't cause her much distress.

Fortunately, Pakistan Gorodawara Parbandhak Committee, in Hasan Abdal, does not fall under the jurisdiction of Indian Gorodawara Parbandhak Committee, therefore, General, retired, Jawed Nasir has nothing to fear for such punishments.

Do you still believe that Sikhism is not evolved from Hinduism?? I have many Sikhs friends, and what I admire Sikhs are for their monotheism concept. 'WaiGuru' - One God is borrowed from Islam. Well certainly not from Hinduism.

:)

58

ZZ.....>>I see, Bayakhtar, so when are you going to launch an agitation to allow 'satanic verses' in pakistan?<<

I am sure you must would have heard a saying in Urdu, 'ulti chuut louray ko choday!' Why would I launch any such agitation to allow the satanic novel in Pakistan. Salman Rushdie has been universally branded as an enemy of Islam for his blasphemous writings. Have't you read BombayKid's post? Even a secular government of India waisted no time in banning it in India. Although it was not the first. But it is very admireable of them to have acted so. You are trying to take out something on me for nothing. I do not hate fundamentalists. I am myself a fundamentalist. And I love it. Without it one deviates and finds inovations in the religion or lifestyles. And who knows might end up eating meat.

Hey have you tried ham sandwich. :)

59

Bayakhar says, "i am myself a fundamentalist. and i love it"
surprise! surprise! one would not have guessed that on reading him.

60

Bakhtiar,

Well it is amusing to see fundamentalist muslim to take so much interest in Sikhism. Although, I am not an authority on Sikhism, I will try to explain some of its concepts. One is concept of Akal Takht. Sikhism does not believe in ordain priesthood and most of the power to make decisions lies with the congregation. No one person is allowed to make decision, which effect the Panth (Sikhs).

Jagir kaur cannot unilaterally make a decision, which effect all Sikhs that is why she was reprimanded. Akal Takht is a gathering place to discuss issues and come to some consensus and cannot exercise any dictatorial powers.

Seva is an integral part of the religion followers of all ages volunteer to clean the dishes, cook langer and look after Joddas (shoes). If you visit any Gurudawara at night you will find lot of volunteers (university student to house wives) cleaning the Gurudawara and shining the artifacts. Seva is considered holy and adds to good Karma. To participate in cleaning dishes ( seva) for the congregation is considered to be holy act. Jagir kaur will join lot of volunteers to clean and cook. This act will give her a lesson in humility make her feel closer to the congregation.

Sikhs have requested Pakistani government many times to allow them to look after their Gurudawaras (in Pakistan) but tolerant Muslims have never allowed them to do so.

I am not sure what your question to me is but I have given you lot of information, I hope I have covered what you wanted to know.