Caste
Diane
I know that the Sikh religion explicitly forbids caste-ism, but in reality,
is there caste prejudice and prohibitions?
What for example is a Jat Sikh?
And I read somewhere that one of India's "untouchable" politicians, Kanshi
Ram, is a Sikh. This confused me.
Clarifications welcome.
Diane
=================================================================
soc.religion.sikhism is a moderated newsgroup. Post your articles
to this newsgroup, or email them to sikh...@acpub.duke.edu
Administrative contact address is sikh...@acpub.duke.edu
Sunny Bains
Diane wrote:
> Now I have a really incendiary question...
Not really.
> I know that the Sikh religion explicitly forbids caste-ism, but in reality,
> is there caste prejudice and prohibitions?
1. Regarding prejudice in practice:
Against the backdrop of Hindu practice of caste it is rather
mild but is practiced all the same. It is most apparent when
parents are looking for a bride{groom} for their children. Also,
from what I've heard, it's a lot worse overseas than in India,
there are even separate Gurudwara's for different Sikh castes,
which is despicable. I won't be surprised, if the Jats are
at the centre of this controversy.
2. Regarding prohibition in practice:
None that I know.
3. Regarding Caste:
In Hinduism, the most dificult concept to understand is Caste.
Every caste thinks it's superior to every other caste, atleast
as it is praticised not as it is popularly interpreted. But the
Shudra's get the rawest deal because the "top" 3 gang up and treat
them as sub-humans.
There is no synonym for this word in the Indian languages. The
words jati and varna, which are generally translated into
caste, mean quite different things. The word varna is from ancient
Sanskritic theory and it has no real relevance excepting in the
minds of priests; the word jati properly denotes what may be termed
as a group bound by customs and traditions.
> What for example is a Jat Sikh?
Jat Sikh is simply a Jat that happens to believe in Sikhism.
The jury is still out regarding their origin (Jats), theories
range from:
1. Peasant caste
2. Scythian-Kushan-Hun origin
3. [Jat & Rajput] .. from the close communion which has
always existed between them, that they belong to one and the
same ethnic stock ...
From: http://www.geocities.com/pak_history/punjabis.html
4. In Pakistan, Rajput and Jat tribes are so mixed up that it is difficult
to distinguish one from the other at many places and in several cases. Some
of the Rajput tribes are probably of Jat origin and vice versa. In southwest
Punjab the name Jat includes a most miscellaneous congries of tribes of all
sorts. Its significance tends to be occupational: to denote a body of
cultivators or agriculturists. Even tribes which bear well-known Rajput names
are often classified as Jats in the Punjab. Anyway, the origin of both is
the same as stated earlier.
From: http://www.theindianculture.com/states/Haryana/the%20people.htm
5.... Claimed to be the descendants of the heroes of the Mahabharat
and also belonging to the Rajput clans of Malwa, Bikner and
Dharangarh, their origin is still obscure in history. But
acceptable theory could be that the Rajputs and Jats once
were congeners and entered India by the same route from the West
6. Also: http://rajputana.htmlplanet.com/scy_raj/scy_raj1.html
From personal experience, (I'm a jat) in our family (not
immediate, but extended), they will marry into a Rajput (Sikh) family
such as Minhas/Parmar/Chohan etc. (well I have Jat Chohan relatives
too) but not into other Sikh families.
> And I read somewhere that one of India's "untouchable" politicians, Kanshi
> Ram, is a Sikh. This confused me.
Kanshi Ram is not a Sikh but there are a lot of "former" untouchables
that are Sikhs. They are reffered to as Mazahbi Sikhs and I don't know
why they should be labeled as such (Mazahbi).
> Clarifications welcome.
>
> Diane
>
Hope that helps as a start, other people may have different views and
can correct me where I'm wrong.
cheers,
-sunny
Madhusudan Singh
On Wed, 2 Jan 2002, Diane wrote:
> Now I have a really incendiary question...
>
> I know that the Sikh religion explicitly forbids caste-ism, but in reality,
> is there caste prejudice and prohibitions?
>
In Sikh religion, no. In "Sikh" society, yes.
> What for example is a Jat Sikh?
>
An oxymoron that is unfortunately real.
> And I read somewhere that one of India's "untouchable" politicians, Kanshi
> Ram, is a Sikh. This confused me.
>
AFAIK, he is not. Though he does hail from Punjab.
He leads a party of what are labelled in Hindu society, lower castes. And
lately he has started using huge billboards of quotations from SGGS that
speak against caste system.
A political junket.
WJKK,
WJKF.
Diane
"Madhusudan Singh" <a...@sc.hc.de> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.33.02010...@cello.eecs.umich.edu...
> SSA,
>
> On Wed, 2 Jan 2002, Diane wrote:
>
> > Now I have a really incendiary question...
> >
> > I know that the Sikh religion explicitly forbids caste-ism, but in
reality,
> > is there caste prejudice and prohibitions?
> >
>
> In Sikh religion, no. In "Sikh" society, yes.>>
Well, the society is what we (human beings) live in.
>
> > What for example is a Jat Sikh?
> >
>
> An oxymoron that is unfortunately real.
Please describe the reality. I sort of understand what a Jat is (although I
can never understand where these confusing subcastes fit into the classical
four-tiered caste structure--but that's a different issue altogether and not
part of this discussion) but I can't quite comprehend a "Jat Sikh"...
>
>
> > And I read somewhere that one of India's "untouchable" politicians,
Kanshi
> > Ram, is a Sikh. This confused me.
> >
>
>
> AFAIK, he is not.>>
I'll look up the article and send it. I remember it said he was a Sikh!
Brijender
>
> Against the backdrop of Hindu practice of caste it is rather
> mild but is practiced all the same. It is most apparent when
> parents are looking for a bride{groom} for their children. Also,
> from what I've heard, it's a lot worse overseas than in India,
> there are even separate Gurudwara's for different Sikh castes,
> which is despicable. I won't be surprised, if the Jats are
> at the centre of this controversy.
>
I have seen this happen first hand.
A certain Gurudwara was established by a doctor. He gave
selflessly of himself and his family to the Gurudwara. That
temple flourished with sangat, there was a classroom set up for
the kids to be productive while parents joined in prayes.
(I tought there)
Then, the funds on hand became large, and the doctor set up
elections to encourage greater participation and let the sangat
share in managing the Gurudwara.
Next Baisakhi, the Gurudwara was flooded with new faces.
Doctor ji, who used to do kirtan and other services before that
fateful Baisakhi, was soon asked to reduce his participation
and fresh talent replaced him.
Eventually, his participation in the affairs of the Gurudwara, was
eliminated.
Sangat count dropped and charhawa dropped, even those new
faces became less visible.
This point is about those "new faces": Most of them did not wear
turbans, and had cut their hair. Their kids were unruly. Needless
to say that classroom participation was down to zero, and the room
was converted to a chatting hall for socializing.
A bhai ji was "imported" from a village in Punjab who sarted repairing
cars in the parking lot to earn something extra.
Last I heard, that place is called "Jattan da Gurudwara". Much of the
old sangat still lives in approximately the same area, none of them go
there.
BOTTOM LINE: A place of worship MUST be dis-associated from
money. And, the issue is not simply of Jat and non-Jat, but of the actual
traits associated with these labels.
Guru Fateh
KB
> Diane wrote:
>
> > Now I have a really incendiary question...
>
>
I'd like to know as well.
>From what I've "learnt" from my parents and temple officials is 3 main
"groups"
(So don't start flaming me if I make some "mistake")
They are basically classified by profession and locality rather than
caste,race or wealth. These professions don't apply that much these
days in the modern world but it gives a hint of forefather bg. It has
to be clear that all groups were however very agricultural based due
to the geography of Punjab.
1) Jats (predominantly Farmers, mostly well spread) eg there are many
Pakistani Muslim Jats.
2) "Bappas" (predominantly business, and originally mostly Lahore
based,Western Punjab) Culturally they differ a bit like cousin
marriage which is normal for them.
3) Ramghadias (predominantly Woodworkers,Masons, mostly from Eastern
Punjab)
There are many groups of peasants who are also Sikhs but during
marriage, parents need to know which group the opposite person is
from. Usually intermarriage between the groups is no big deal. Its
more of a wealth match rather than which classification of Sikh.
The main difference bween Hinduism classes and Sikh "classes" is that
there isnt any such thing as "untouchables", or discrimination in the
gurudwara or at work. I'm surprised they have a Jat temple, but from
my experience, Sikhs of all "types" converge together in places like
these and also normal day interactions, it doesnt affect normal life
at all.
But as I stated earlier, I too would like to know exact
classifications.
K Birdi
Madhusudan Singh
> >
> > > Now I have a really incendiary question...
> > >
> > > I know that the Sikh religion explicitly forbids caste-ism, but in
> reality,
> > > is there caste prejudice and prohibitions?
> > >
> >
> > In Sikh religion, no. In "Sikh" society, yes.>>
>
> Well, the society is what we (human beings) live in.
Which is why social reform is an integral part of religion. However, there
is another fact that must be accounted for. The Indian govt., in its
affirmative action programs, contrary to common sense, has followed the
policy of reserving lucrative jobs / competitive examinations for people
belonging to backward castes in the Hindu society. The problem with this is :
1. The criteria pay little or no attention to financial well being of the
recipients. In other words, a rich person belonging to a "backward" caste
would have a better chance than a poor person belonging to a "forward"
caste.
2. The programs are open to all Indians. This neglects the fact that caste
is largely a problem of the Hindu society, and not Sikh, Christian and
Moslem societies. However, the result of this has been "interesting" - it
has actually promoted casteism and caste awareness in those religious
groupings that were largely free of this evil. There are churches in South
India which have different pews for caste A and B :-)
>
> >
> > > What for example is a Jat Sikh?
> > >
> >
> > An oxymoron that is unfortunately real.
>
> Please describe the reality. I sort of understand what a Jat is (although I
> can never understand where these confusing subcastes fit into the classical
> four-tiered caste structure--but that's a different issue altogether and not
> part of this discussion) but I can't quite comprehend a "Jat Sikh"...
>
Though I have read at some places that Jats in North West India and
Pakistan are a racial grouping of Scythians etc., the racial differences
that one can distinguish between them and the largely Caucasoid population
of the region are practically non-existent. What one can see is that most
Jats are involved (traditionally) in the farming profession. Most of them
are extremely well to do. This has given them a definite place in the
Hindu caste structure. In a Hindu caste structure, they would probably
belong to the 3rd tier - vaish.
A "Jat Sikh" is an oxymoron. Reason being that a Sikh cannot have a caste
or a racial identity. One is either a Sikh or a Jat. Being both is a
little like being black and white. However, any argument with a "Jat Sikh"
tends to get lost in what has become notorious as Jat pride. The Rehat
even goes further and prescribes that all Sikh men ought to have "Singh"
as surname and women have "Kaur". But it is quite common to find names
like X Singh Y and A Kaur B. I hasten to add that these anachronistic
names are common even amongst what some people would call "non-Jat Sikhs"
(to a lesser extent).
The Y and B above do not make much sense for a Sikh.
>
> I'll look up the article and send it. I remember it said he was a Sikh!
>
I read that article and responded to you earlier in the day.
Kirpal Singh
Kirpal Singh
Diane
> SSA,
>
<snip>
>
>
> >
> > I'll look up the article and send it. I remember it said he was a Sikh!
> >
>
> I read that article and responded to you earlier in the day.
>
Check this link out:
http://www.ambedkar.org/books/tu5.htm
which begins...
"Kanshi Ram was born in 1934 as a Raedasi Sikh, a community of Punjabi
Chamars converted to Sikhism..."
Diane
ParryAu
discuss casteism
why not accept that Sikhism IS inflicted with this social cancer
hope sikhs would come out of the denial and try to handle this vice in a more
constructive manner
i m reposting this post as a contribution to the debate
one more thing Kanshi Ram is a Sikh but not a khalsa
hope sehajdharis have been BANNED just from voting in SGPC elections and not
from following Sikhism which they have been following from generations
and have also been living their lives as humble guru de sikhs
would like to talk about the pain suffered by such abandoned people some other
day
guru fateh rabh rakha whatever
Subject: Re: Casteism in Sikhs
From: "Vijay S. Bajwa" vba...@optonline.net
Date: 12/25/01 1:33 AM AUS Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <x0HV7.167803$bs2.28...@news02.optonline.net>
Absolutely true. But I think if there's any chance of caste divisions being
obliterated, the best chance is in Punjab, with it's generally progressive
culture, and people willing to try new modes social and religious
expressions.
You might have heard of all the controversies in N. America as to why langar
should not be served to people seated at a table rather than squatting on
the
floor. W/o going into the merits of the arguemnets, it shows a healthy
disrespect
for blindly following tradition. I think a few well publicized marriages
between
Jats and the so-called "scheuled castes" will set a trend. There is great
pleaure
in riling up old foggies, people should do it for the fun of it.
Vijay S. Bajwa
Sorry to disappoint u vijay but punjab would be among the last caste citadels
to fell
why?
ask yourself . u have not forgotten to add ur 'Bajwa' id even in this
contentious debate on caste!
Sikh Jatt, well Hindus Jatts are even worse i would say, would never let their
newly-found ascendency to the top of the pecking order go so easily.
for all these centuries they were kept at the bottom of the heap and were made
to belive they were shudras (even British thought so according to some legal
cases decided in 1920s).
remember M Ranjit singh's effort to 'appease' Hindu high priests with gold and
artefacts which he brought back from Kabul?
it was nothing, in my opinion, but an exercise towards sanskritisation (process
to move up in catse and social hierarchy). just like shivaji who had tough time
to get himself declared a suryavanshi.
just go to yahoo! chat 's punjabi channel/room or whatever it is called and go
through the chatters'nicks.
half of them are jatt-centric. and try to suggest that u r a SC (i prefer this
euphemism to its punjabi original) and see how hard these Jattan de puttar come
on u.
and no, few marriages would not make any diff.
a jatt with rural backgroud (and more than 10 kille land) would not marry his
daughter to an SC come whatever may.
he would not marry her to even a bhappa.
but yes
he may take a girl from so-called low caste or bhappas as his d-in-law.
badal would always marry a kairon but never a Majhabi or a sethi or a poor
cheemba.
u may find it really intriguing and amazing but a jatt would, given a choice,
prefer a brahmin as a son-in-law than a SC or other 'low' caste fella.
still better than western UP or haryana/rajsthan jatts
they would kill their daughter instead of marrying her in any other caste
except brahmins and rajputs.
someone may contradict me here as my knowledge is either anecdotal or based
only on news reprts.
and, no offences, but at this stage in history jatts are toooo racist and tooo
casteist to think about letting their (as our friend Nijjar Jatt reminds us so
many times) 'tribal identity' get obliterated and loose their, real or
imaginery who cares, sardari for THEIR religion.
i have emphasiszed THEIR as sikh leadership has been monopolized by your caste.
badals tohras talwandis amrinder singhs SS manns bhattals Com surjits
is it a coincidence that they all are Jatts??
can a non-jatt even dream about becoming Punjab CM or leading a major political
party in this environment? of course BjP and kanshi ram's party two exception
Brijender
Brijender
"ParryAu" <par...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020109081230...@mb-co.aol.com...
ParryAu
and why would I?
No reasons
so relax :)
Brijender
not that it mattersnews:20020112021533...@mb-fm.aol.com...
ParryAu
2. The programs are open to all Indians. This neglects the fact that caste
is largely a problem of the Hindu society, and not Sikh, Christian and
Moslem societies. However, the result of this has been "interesting" - it
has actually promoted casteism and caste awareness in those religious
groupings that were largely free of this evil. There are churches in South
India which have different pews for caste A and B :-)
as far as i know there is no reservation for SC muslims and christians
so how this system has promoted catsteism in these two communities, i would
like to know
the problem with Sikhs is that they do want a separate identity from hindus w/o
getting rid of 'vices' like idoltary, rituals (Pakhandbazi) , and casteism
which are central features of Hindusim (whatever this term means)
everyone knows about casteism in sikhs but idoltary!!!!
yes . they do indulge in this form of worship everyday
would explain some other day if someone asks me to elaborate
Ranbir Singh
> is largely a problem of the Hindu society, and not Sikh
I contradict this view. Casteism is as much a sikh problem as it is of
the hindu society. If you do not beleive me read Rahatnaamaas (RNs).
RNs- Favour the caste system. In fact it is because of RNs that the
caste, a Hindu institution has survived among Sikhs. Though they
converted themselves to Sikhism many generations back, they continue
to follow their caste traditions. Inter-caste marriage is rare among
the Sikhs. The Rahatnaamaas explicitly ban the intercaste marriages.I
give following qoute from a RN.
Apne baran hoi hai joi, baran sasur kaa hoi hai soi (Rahatnaamaa bhai
Desa Singh)
Avar jo aan baran ki naar in ko singh naan kare pyar, Payar kare hovhe
kul haani, taa te in ko taje gyani. (Rahatnaamaa bhai Desa Singh)
Untouchability existed in Gurudwaras also until 1948, when Indian
parliament after independence from British rule passed a law banning
untouchability.
KB
> even goes further and prescribes that all Sikh men ought to have "Singh"
> as surname and women have "Kaur". But it is quite common to find names
> like X Singh Y and A Kaur B.
So, whats the problem? it's got a lot of significance whether you
"approve or not".
* It identifies your forefather background (is that a sin?) I'm from a
woodworker bg, so I know.
* It identifies one's "group" - face it, thats important
socially(during marriage), its not something that has been born this
century or created by us but exists since ancient times.
* It avoids confusion of being identified as a "Rajput" or ppl from UP
where "Singh" is a family name.
* It avoids inter-cousin marriage which is widely not practiced
amongst Sikhs except the "Bhappas". No offence to anybody - thats a
cultural thing.
* What about modern day ID'ing and passports?
* Its a family name and Singh is our "religion" ID.
* 99% of the Sikhs(from different groups) I know have a "X Singh Y and
A Kaur B", let me make that that 98.8% after checking you :)
I hasten to add that these anachronistic
> names are common even amongst what some people would call "non-Jat Sikhs"
> (to a lesser extent).
> The Y and B above do not make much sense for a Sikh.
* Do not, assume for others what you presume as "the" way, only
reflect what doesnt make sense to you, on yourself.
PS "X Singh Y and A Kaur B" Its the same amongst "non-Jat Sikhs", its
not a "Jat" thingy, for everybody's info. :)
Kamal PS Birdi
Madhusudan Singh
On Wednesday 16 January 2002 16:46, KB, purporting to be
bi...@batelco.com.bh, thought it fit to write:
> The Rehat
>> even goes further and prescribes that all Sikh men ought to have "Singh"
>> as surname and women have "Kaur". But it is quite common to find names
>> like X Singh Y and A Kaur B.
>
> So, whats the problem? it's got a lot of significance whether you
> "approve or not".
My approval is irrelevant. It is what the Rehat and spirit of Sikhism is
talking about.
>
> * It identifies your forefather background (is that a sin?) I'm from a
> woodworker bg, so I know.
How is that information important if the person in question is a computer
scientist ?
>
> * It identifies one's "group" - face it, thats important
> socially(during marriage), its not something that has been born this
> century or created by us but exists since ancient times.
What a charming way to justify casteism !!!!
>
> * It avoids confusion of being identified as a "Rajput" or ppl from UP
> where "Singh" is a family name.
Heard of names like Mahendra Singh Tikait (leader of Indian farmers and not
a Sikh) ?
>
> * It avoids inter-cousin marriage which is widely not practiced
> amongst Sikhs except the "Bhappas". No offence to anybody - thats a
> cultural thing.
As if cousins cannot keep track of each other !!
>
> * What about modern day ID'ing and passports?
What is wrong with Singh and Kaur there?
>
> * Its a family name and Singh is our "religion" ID.
>
It is a caste name (read your own arguments above).
> * Do not, assume for others what you presume as "the" way, only
> reflect what doesnt make sense to you, on yourself.
>
> PS "X Singh Y and A Kaur B" Its the same amongst "non-Jat Sikhs", its
> not a "Jat" thingy, for everybody's info. :)
So what does :
"I hasten to add that these anachronistic
names are common even amongst what some people would call "non-Jat Sikhs"
(to a lesser extent)." mean ?
WJKK,
WJKF.
Madhusudan Singh
I think what his (Parry's) statement needs to be ;
"Caste is a problem of Hindu society and religion, and Sikh society (of
Indian descent) but not Sikh religion".
Second, the vast discrepancies in all these rehitnamas (some say
something, others just the opposite) is what led to the review and
derivation of the Panthic Rehat. And there is no place for casteism in the
Rehat. If untouchability developed in Indian Sikh Gurudwaras, the most
probable cause in my opinion was the incomplete missionary work among
Punjab's backward classes which led to conversion of Hindus to Sikhism.
If you find any of the 10 Guru's supporting casteism anywhere in his
lifetime, I would be interested in hearing about it.
WJKK,
WJKF.
On Wednesday 16 January 2002 16:44, Ranbir Singh, purporting to be
KB
> SSA,
>
> On Wednesday 16 January 2002 16:46, KB, purporting to be
> bi...@batelco.com.bh, thought it fit to write:
Whats my email address and initials got to do with the argument,
typical
misleading directions :) remember it was signed properly, you didn't
mention
that.
> > So, whats the problem? it's got a lot of significance whether you
> > "approve or not".
>
> My approval is irrelevant. It is what the Rehat and spirit of Sikhism is
> talking about.
Exactly, it's very irrelevant, you don't have to show us the way,
pandits and
imams are not allowed in our faith.
> >
> > * It identifies your forefather background (is that a sin?) I'm from a
> > woodworker bg, so I know.
>
> How is that information important if the person in question is a computer
> scientist ?
"forefather bg" is very relevant when we sit with our kids, our
grandchildren in far lands and narrate our roots in Punjab, we proudly
say that our grand-parents were farmers who cultivated the land or
part of the cavalry who fought oppression or masons who built the
infrastructure. I can imagine your cynical answers "Well son, I'm a
computer scientist and theres no need to know about our background
'cos it really isn't important! - we're from Punjab, thats all!"
> >
> > * It identifies one's "group" - face it, thats important
> > socially(during marriage), its not something that has been born this
> > century or created by us but exists since ancient times.
>
> What a charming way to justify casteism !!!!
Charming, ain't it? :) Be practical, marriage today is based on the
status of
the 2 parties, which have to be balanced. This is not a sickness, its
the norm, in any human society,I don't care if Jats marry Ramghadias
or Bhappas etc as long as the parents are good with it, otherwise
follow the family norms, you won't find a Saudi marrying a Bangladeshi
because they come from 1 faith, or a New Yorker marrying mid-Western
farmland worker.
It doesnt and hasn't in any way divided the religion, about Jat
Gurudwaras being open only to Jats, well I'd like to check that for
myself, if its true,
then its despicable.
> >
> > * It avoids confusion of being identified as a "Rajput" or ppl from UP
> > where "Singh" is a family name.
>
> Heard of names like Mahendra Singh Tikait (leader of Indian farmers and not
> a Sikh) ?
There's always an exception. Theres a dozen UP/Bihar politicans called
X Singh,
is Jaswant Sing Sikh?
> > * It avoids inter-cousin marriage which is widely not practiced
> > amongst Sikhs except the "Bhappas". No offence to anybody - thats a
> > cultural thing.
>
> As if cousins cannot keep track of each other !!
I'm talking about ppl I've never met, with a common surname, they've
got be long distant cousins, and hence avoid marriage.
> > * What about modern day ID'ing and passports?
> What is wrong with Singh and Kaur there?
Nothing, except ther'd be 1 Million X Singhs in 1 square kilometre.
Something like the Bhatia Clan, I shudder to think of it. Think of all
the stereotyping headed your way :)
> > * Its a family name and Singh is our "religion" ID.
> >
> It is a caste name (read your own arguments above).
I never called it "caste name" anywhere, recheck.
> > PS "X Singh Y and A Kaur B" Its the same amongst "non-Jat Sikhs", its
> > not a "Jat" thingy, for everybody's info. :)
>
> So what does :
>
> "I hasten to add that these anachronistic
> names are common even amongst what some people would call "non-Jat Sikhs"
> (to a lesser extent)." mean ?
It means nothing when you add "(to a lesser extent)" when I say "Its
the same amongst "non-Jat Sikhs"", also you comfortably leave out
:"99% of the Sikhs(from different groups) I know have a "X Singh Y and
A Kaur B"
I know you're trying your best, its ok, as long as you follow your
principles, you can achieve your nirvana.
Kamal PS Birdi
Madhusudan Singh
On Thursday 17 January 2002 08:41, KB, purporting to be
bi...@batelco.com.bh, thought it fit to write :
> Madhusudan Singh <a...@sc.hc.de> wrote in message
> news:<a24tff$svo$1...@news.eecs.umich.edu>...
>> SSA,
>>
>> On Wednesday 16 January 2002 16:46, KB, purporting to be
>> bi...@batelco.com.bh, thought it fit to write:
>
> Whats my email address and initials got to do with the argument,
> typical
> misleading directions :) remember it was signed properly, you didn't
> mention
> that.
Cool down man. Heard of something called NG headers ? I was trying out a
new newsreader (KNode) and I find this header quite descriptive in the
configuration.
KNode does not have a %SIGNATURE defined, otherwise I would have put that
in too :)
>
>> > So, whats the problem? it's got a lot of significance whether you
>> > "approve or not".
>>
>> My approval is irrelevant. It is what the Rehat and spirit of Sikhism is
>> talking about.
>
> Exactly, it's very irrelevant, you don't have to show us the way,
> pandits and
> imams are not allowed in our faith.
That aspect is not even under discussion. Sikhs are a religion of equals.
Our priests are not the only ones who can lead congregations. Any Sikh can.
>
>> >
>> > * It identifies your forefather background (is that a sin?) I'm from a
>> > woodworker bg, so I know.
>>
>> How is that information important if the person in question is a computer
>> scientist ?
>
> "forefather bg" is very relevant when we sit with our kids, our
> grandchildren in far lands and narrate our roots in Punjab, we proudly
> say that our grand-parents were farmers who cultivated the land or
> part of the cavalry who fought oppression or masons who built the
> infrastructure. I can imagine your cynical answers "Well son, I'm a
> computer scientist and theres no need to know about our background
> 'cos it really isn't important! - we're from Punjab, thats all!"
>
I don't consider that argument convincing. Why should a person's surname
have to do with his forefather's professions (in their pre-Sikh history) ?
Usually, the children take their father's surname under this system. Does
that mean that the mother's heritage has no meaning for them ? That would
be sexist.
What happens if there are two "Dhillon"'s (for example) who are not related
and have entirely different family histories ? That would make the kids
totally confused.
When I tell someone about Guru Gobind Singh Ji, do I have to attach Sodhi
to his name to make someone understand what he did ? The entire point of
destruction of caste system undertaken by our Gurus was that no man or
woman would be held back because of his / her birth. And yet here we are,
undoing all that.
>
>> >
>> > * It identifies one's "group" - face it, thats important
>> > socially(during marriage), its not something that has been born this
>> > century or created by us but exists since ancient times.
>>
>> What a charming way to justify casteism !!!!
>
> Charming, ain't it? :) Be practical, marriage today is based on the
> status of
> the 2 parties, which have to be balanced. This is not a sickness, its
Balanced economically and compatible personally. Not "balanced" castewise.
> the norm, in any human society,I don't care if Jats marry Ramghadias
Caste is not "the norm, in any human society". Its the norm only in the
Hindu society.
> or Bhappas etc as long as the parents are good with it, otherwise
That is what does not happen because of these caste attachments. Why is it
different for the West ? Because there are no caste laws saying that a
Kennedy may not marry a Smith.
But there are caste laws stating that a Brahmin may not marry a Vaish. Or a
Jat a Bhappa. You claim that "I don't care if Jats marry Ramghadias
or Bhappas etc as long as the parents are good with it". Admirable but you
keep justifying the caste identity that keeps it from happening.
Contradiction.
The difference between a caste identity and family name is clear. One is a
matter of distinction, discrimination and social restrictiveness (caste).
The other is a matter of identity and heritage (family name).
And as long as caste identity survives, discrimination will keep on
happening. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.
> follow the family norms, you won't find a Saudi marrying a Bangladeshi
> because they come from 1 faith, or a New Yorker marrying mid-Western
> farmland worker.
The first is a difference of race. And a completely different (and equally
condemnable) issue.
The issue in casteism is not race, it is the long forgotten, but
artificially kept alive difference between the professions of two
forefathers in pre-Sikh Indian society.
And, there is no law forbidding the son of a mid-Western farm worker
marrying a New Yorker. Caste is hereditary, economic status (or even class)
is not. Want an example ? Henry Ford. A mid-Western farmworker's son. Had
Americans believed in the ridiculous caste system, Detroit automobile
industry would have never been born, his model of mass production would
have never revolutionised industry.
His descendants today are not restricted to marrying midwestern
farmworkers' children.
So, kindly analyse your examples before you throw them into the pot :)
> It doesnt and hasn't in any way divided the religion, about Jat
> Gurudwaras being open only to Jats, well I'd like to check that for
> myself, if its true,
> then its despicable.
Its a result of caste identity which by its very definition implies
discrimination, restriction and social apartheid. You cannot quibble with
its logical results and claim that there is nothing wrong with caste.
>
>> >
>> > * It avoids confusion of being identified as a "Rajput" or ppl from UP
>> > where "Singh" is a family name.
>>
>> Heard of names like Mahendra Singh Tikait (leader of Indian farmers and
>> not a Sikh) ?
>
> There's always an exception. Theres a dozen UP/Bihar politicans called
> X Singh,
> is Jaswant Sing Sikh?
>
Which blows your argument "* It avoids confusion of being identified as a
"Rajput" or ppl from UP where "Singh" is a family name." . Whether you
attach a caste name or not, you will always be confused with the other.
And Mahendra Singh Tikait is hardly an exception.
>
>> > * It avoids inter-cousin marriage which is widely not practiced
>> > amongst Sikhs except the "Bhappas". No offence to anybody - thats a
>> > cultural thing.
>>
>> As if cousins cannot keep track of each other !!
>
> I'm talking about ppl I've never met, with a common surname, they've
> got be long distant cousins, and hence avoid marriage.
How long distant must they be ? Medical science claims that a marriage is
safe as long as the cousins are at least 3-4 times removed. And what
happens if you had a maternal cousin only two times removed. The caste
surname would not help you there as it would be different. Equally, same
caste surname does not imply that people are related to each other.
Families are so big that you might find a "Birdi" for instance who is 10
times removed or even unrelated. What do you do then ?
:-)
>
>
>> > * What about modern day ID'ing and passports?
>> What is wrong with Singh and Kaur there?
>
> Nothing, except ther'd be 1 Million X Singhs in 1 square kilometre.
> Something like the Bhatia Clan, I shudder to think of it. Think of all
> the stereotyping headed your way :)
>
US has millions of Smiths. Should they all attach different names so that
they can be told apart ?
http://www.census.gov/genealogy/names/
If all Singhs and Kaurs get stereotyped as Sikh lions and princesses, what
is there to shudder about ? That is what we are supposed to be.
I have had experiences in the US, where a total (non-Indian) stranger has
walked upto me and asked, "Mr. Singh, can you help me ?". What better way
of getting to know people ? Half the hard work is already done for you :)
>
>
>> > * Its a family name and Singh is our "religion" ID.
>> >
>> It is a caste name (read your own arguments above).
>
> I never called it "caste name" anywhere, recheck.
>
>
You might not have said it so many words, but that is what you implied.
(with all the "arguments" about marriages, "balances", etc.).
>> > PS "X Singh Y and A Kaur B" Its the same amongst "non-Jat Sikhs", its
>> > not a "Jat" thingy, for everybody's info. :)
>>
>> So what does :
>>
>> "I hasten to add that these anachronistic
>> names are common even amongst what some people would call "non-Jat Sikhs"
>> (to a lesser extent)." mean ?
>
> It means nothing when you add "(to a lesser extent)" when I say "Its
> the same amongst "non-Jat Sikhs"", also you comfortably leave out
> :"99% of the Sikhs(from different groups) I know have a "X Singh Y and
> A Kaur B"
>
It says that Jats and to a lesser extent, non Jats have names like "X Singh
Y" and "A Kaur B". Whom is it leaving out ?
Non-Indian Sikhs ? Maybe, but they do not carry the baggage of an anti-Sikh
practice, so why unfairly include them ?
> I know you're trying your best, its ok, as long as you follow your
> principles, you can achieve your nirvana.
>
It would be unfair if I did anything less than my best.
If your nirvana is in the anti-Sikh practice of casteism, so be it.
WJKK,
WJKF.
Ranbir Singh
> If you find any of the 10 Guru's supporting casteism anywhere in his
> lifetime, I would be interested in hearing about it.
I do not believe that the Gurus ever advocated casteism in any form.
However, references can be given from sikh literature,
if accepted one can conclude that Gurus also believed in casteism
on the lines of the hindu caste.
The following is a quote from Sau Saakhi, a famous book of old
sikh literature.
Taan bol vaak guru ji patshai 10
Brahmin das din sootaki maata dooni maan
Chhattri baaraa vais ik shoodar tees pahchaan (Sau Saakhi- Saakhi no
75)
Here Guru Gobind Singh was supposed to be telling the difference
in the number of days the grief taboo was to be followed by
different castes.
In later tuks the Guru has supposedly modified the grief taboo
period for sikhs belonging to different castes to fifteen.
Although this meant an equal treatment for all castes in this matter,
the recognition of castes is apparent here.
Consider the following tuks also. These are also supposed to have
been spoken by Guru Gobind Singh. Here Guru ji explain that if a
person goes for pilgrimage for the purpose of peace to the souls
of the forefathers and he does not give alms, he shall be condemned
to be born in lowest untouchable (chandaal) family in next birth-
Teerath jaave sraadh vidh aur n karhe daan
Raakhas hoi chandaal ghar bhoge deeaa aan
The following tuks are again from sau saakhi. Here also Guru Gobind
Singh supposedly explained that kshatri (chhattri or raajpoot) is
bad if he does not carry weapons on his person, Brahmin is bad if
illiterate or if he carries arms. Brahmin is also bad if he is my
(Guru Gobind Singh?s) singh. Vaish, Chhattri Bedi and Singh are
also bad if they are learned. He forbids the shoodra to study veda
and declares the re-marriage of a separated woman bad. In effect,
this meant that the Brahmins shall not be singhs (they may be sikhs).
Only Brahmins should be learned and no one else. Only Chhattris
should fight and no one else.
Shastraheen chhattri bura.
anprh dij bairaan
Bipra shastra-dhari bura,
bura bipra mam singh
Vaish parha sabh te bura,
Chhattri bedi singh,
shoodra parhe jo bed baaki,
Tyagi dhaare naar
(Sau Saakhi- Saakhi no 70)
In bachittar naatak, supposedly written by Guru Gobind Singh, he
devotes full chapters explaining his and Guru Nanak's lineage to king
Ram Chandra,
another hindu god (avtaar). This is the reason why questions have been
raised
about the authorship of Bachittar Naatak- Visit the following link
for details-
http://members.pgonline.com/~mpurewal/dasm-b.html
When a few scholars sat together in 1932 to draw a panthik rahat,
they assumed a responsibility of writing a document,
which would be no less than a sikh code of conduct scripture.
I describe here the background for the benefit of those who may
not be aware.
The deficiencies of the earlier Rahatnaamaas were recognized by
the Sikh sangat. In 1932 a group of prominent Sikhs agreed on a draft
of a new Rahatnaamaa.
Today this document is the most sacred document to decide a sikh?s way
of life.
Visit http://www.sikhs.org/rehit.htm for getting a complete text.
For a more detailed account visit
http://www.sikh.net/sikhism/rehat_maryada.htm
The very fact that the Rahatnaamaas have been re-written in the past
leaves the scope of re-writing them in future. They are not sacrosanct
like AGGS wherein even a microscopic change of a comma or a full stop
is not permissible.
Deficiencies of the Latest Rahatnaamaa- "The panthik rahat"
* Although it is acknowledged that not everything contained in the
Rahatnaamaas
is according to Gurmat, the sikhs are not explicitly prohibited to
follow the
older Rahatnaamaas. The older Rahatnaamaas are still considered
important
documents of sikh history . They are often quoted in discussions. In
fact the
modern panthik rahat draws heavily from older Rahatnaamaas. If you
want to know
the justification of any custom being followed rightly or wrongly, you
can refer
to the older Rahatnaamaas. Caste is one such custom.
* The Rahatnaamaa is based on the earlier versions. It can be
described as an
edited version of earlier Rahatnaamaas. It has been presumed that the
earlier
Rahatnaamaas, despite their anti-Gurmat entries, were basically good
documents,
written with good intentions. This is a too simplistic a view of the
things.
Considering the extent to which the anti- Gurmat entries are there,
the intention behind writing them seems to be a conspiracy. In fact,
the Brahmins
were worried because of the increasing popularity of Sikhism. They had
to
devise ways to contain the spread of this new faith, which threatened
to take
away their special status in the society. The anti Sikh lobby, in the
form of
writers of the Rahatnaamaas was largely successful in containing the
spread of
Sikhism.
Consider the following facts about the traditional rahatnaamaas
* Anything that is muslim in origin is to be shunned, howsoever
innocuous it may be.
For example, the cap in muslim style is strictly forbidden.
* Anything that is Hindu in origin is justified on one pretext or the
other.
The effort has been to hinduise the faith as much as possible. For
example-
Casteism is encouraged. An untouchable was not to be allowed to serve
anything in
the Gurdwara or on other functions. Therefore equality became limited
to sitting
in the same row on the floor during the community kitchen i.e. Langar.
The following
lines show the historic importance of caste and untouchability in
serving deig in
Gurdwaras- "Uttaam kul jah janmah payo, madra maas na kabhoo khayo
tinhi te such
deg karaave, avar naa koou varhne pavei."
In the following tuk from Sau Saakhi- Sakhi no 15, while describing,
history, the
shoodras have been referred to in a derogatory sense-
Des Punjab sood jo hoia
Tin eh pandh maran kar joia.
o The cow became a sacred animal. Bhai Desa Singh in the following tuk
exhorts
to defend cows and Brahmins as if other human beings are not to be
defended.
He also directs the sikhs to kill the muslims with a vengeance.
o Go, Brahman ki rakhya kar, turkan ko ati hath kar maarei.
(Rahatnaamaa bhai Desa Singh)
o The 5 Ks have been described as a replacement for the sacred thread
of Hindus.
By implication, it meant that no person of lower birth could wear
them.
o The kes have been justified because traditionally the Hindu
rishi-munis used
to wear them.
The following quote is from a Rahatnaamaa, Gurbilas Paatshaahi 10
(Sukha Singh) Chapter 11
"bikhya kirya bhaddan tyagoh jataa joot rahibo anuragoh"
Shun tobacco, the ritual of shaving the head ( At the time of personal
grief on account
of the death of a near one- Interpretation mine), Grow Jataa (Kes) and
live with love.
In this tuk word jataa has been used in the sense of kes. Jataa has a
connotation of the
unshorn, matted scalp hair of hindu rishi-munis.
The following quote is from another Rahatnaamaa viz. Rahatnaamaa Bhai
Sahib Singh
Prithmay rikhi samaan hai jataa joot vyvhaar
First of all growing jataa (kes) is a practice akin to that (of the
growing of jataa )
of the rikhis (saints).
o The kes have also been supposedly given by goddess Kaali. In
Rahatnaamaa Bhai Daya Singh
the writer says that Guru Gobind Singh was sitting in Anandpur Sahib
when Daya Singh asked
? Your highness, please explain us the code of conduct (Rahat)
listening which we may be
freed.? What was supposedly explained by Guru Gobind Singh is recorded
next. Among other
things Guru ji explained that Kes were given by godess Chandi (Kaali
or Bhagwati ) and
another k, kachh was given by hanumaan, another hindu god.
Kes Chandi Ji Dae, baahni kachh hanoo jee. Incidentally, it is the
same godess which is to
be remembered by each sikh during his daily prayers (Ardas) before
remembering Guru Nanak,
the first guru. Pritham Bhagvati simar ke Guru Nanak lai dhiae. The
Ardas is according to
the panthik Rahatnaamaa. No wonder, in khalsaa shatak (Bhai Budh
Singh), the author the
sikhism as das gur durga hanu mat i.e. the religion of ten gurus,
durga and hanoomaan. In Sau Saakhi- Saakhi no 13, there is a
mythological story. In this story,
a brave un-named man has been described who fought against the evil
for 1005,000 years.
In the end goddess came for his help and destroyed all the evil-doers.
The goddess adored
him with the name of evil-annihilator. She told him to keep her
appearance by keeping hair
unshorn and open. Although the goddess has not been named, it is clear
that the indication is
towards kaali ( Chandi or Bhagvati).
o There is an idolization of the kes. The kes are to be worshipped
like an idol. Consider
the following direction of the self styled "Guru"- Bhai Desa Singh-
Here he declares that
kes are the "golden penny" given by the Guru and deserve to worshipped
by burning incense
sticks.
" Kesan dhoop dei suuch paavan, hai eih guru ki mohr suhavan. "
o An attempt to accord special status to the Brahmins is clearly
visible. In Rahatnaamaa
hazoori Bhai Chaupa Singh Chhibbar, the author declares that a Brahmin
who is Guru kaa sikh
may be given a special treatment.
"Jo Brahman guru ka sikh hove, taan uus di seva tahil karni doonha
nafaa. Jo jagat da
guru hoi ke, guru saran aave taan doonha maraatabaa."
At another juncture, in the same Rahatnaamaa, the author says that all
religious ceremonies
be performed by Brahmin, who is a sikh- "Guru ka sikh, kaaraj, viaah
vich kamm uus Brahman
paason karaae, jo rahat guru ki rakhe."
The special status to the Brahmins goes too far in Rahatnaamaa Bhai
Sahib Singh (Sau
Saakhi, saakhi no 61) when he declares that a brahmin can take take
paahul (baptise) without
kes, while making kes essential for others. "Braman kes bina pahul
dhaare, pakhandi ko door
nivaare."
o The sikh has been prescribed a daily dose of opium. This is a clear
attempt to destroy Sikhism.
Bhai Desa Singh, the self styled "Guru" declares in the Rahatnaamaa
authored by him- Ratti
afeem jo maasaa bhang in ko khaveh kadi nisang.
o The status of women has been lowered.
Keeping in mind the above- mentioned facts, the Rahatnaamaas did not
deserve a mild treatment
like editing. They deserved a more drastic surgery. They should have
been dumped altogether.
And declared as blasphemous documents bent upon destroying the sikh
faith. Anything prescribed
by them, which does not find a mention in AGGS needed to be abandoned.
This applies to the kes
also. They (kes) are essentially hindu in nature like many other
things in Rahatnaamaas.
Ranbir