PM sending chaddar Ajmer Sharif - Page 5

Originally posted by: atominis

Minorities and majority are different.

Some of us accepting Christian prayers at Convent schools etc, makes no difference to us. That's because the Hindus are in majority. And of course, nobody is going to make claims about them whereas for a minority, anyone can start to generalise that they are Hindus or are all converts.

What is more important good education or the image in the mind of some radicals ?

But if for someone else, their beliefs are important, why should he or she be forced? They will rather avoid then.

They should have freedom to run own educational institutions and I believe the Constitution of India gives this right as a part of Fundamental Rights. So why such criticism?

Well madrasah is legal in India and every city has madrasah but if you look at the syllabus that's taught in their class is not enough to stand in this competitive world.

Here is a syllabus from Lancashire, UK madrasah and see whats taught in their class.

http://www.quwwatulislam.org.uk/madrasah-syllabus

http://www.quwwatulislam.org.uk/images/syllabus_2013.pdf

From class 1 to 10, its complete waste of time, it may be good in understanding the religion but

Do you think children with such education can compete in future for high salary jobs ? Will you hire someone who lacks basic education ? The condition of such poor education will remain poor no matter whether government alot 25% reservation or 100% reservation.

Here someone else was talking about appearance and giving example of beard. Well first of all there is something called tolerance. Others might not believe in or endorse what one is doing, but they can ignore instead of asking others to change etc.

Why should anyone let go of their identity? That man with beard was better off alone than try to change himself so that ladies like that one don't have problems with them.

Its the image that has been ruined by terrorist daily activities but the other issue is no one has come out in open and showed the positive sides or opposed such radicals acts. Infact mentality of some people have become more stubborn and they want to make other feel their presence through their atire.

I am not talking any falsehood.

It is evident what happens and how history is tweaked by ruling masters. Or reality subjectively shown.

If every thing in history is tweaked, then what was the reality ?

And why are you talking about "any other country"? You are trying to imply that we are "still better" than most countries? Countries that might kick minorities out are role model? An Indian minority was born here. He or she is not an immigrant. Kicked out or forced to change doesn't apply here.

Yes India is much better place then other countries, atleast minorities get reservation, and its better because minorities can practice what they want and not restricted like other countries.

Some things can be changed. But issues like personal appearance, faith and family should not be interfered with. Birth control, for eg, can be encouraged but it is voluntary. I myself am against having too many kids and know what problems it causes. But it is not done if I try to impose on others how many kids they should have or not. I can tell, I can keep giving suggestions but I cannot force.

Yes its right thing to impose restriction on having too many children because it is not only burden for the family but its also burden for the society and the government.

The same people who want to impose birth control today might start asking their favoured community or majority to have even more kids (which some of its sections already are). These matters are strictly personal and interfering in these is violation of human rights.

I can't believe what am I reading here, anyways I don't want to comment.

Certain tribes and languages have already gone extinct in India. People should be allowed to preserve their culture instead of being forced to integrate and lose identity in process.

Nobody is stopping people to practising their beliefs or faith they can do in their house or at religious place but if they can't amalgamate with people then they will find themselves alone. Thats the reason muslim wanted separate colonies, separate countries because they are not ready to accept change and mix with people.

@9tanki

Reality? Reality is only known to those who experienced it. And even in present experience, everyone has different view about reality. Every history book, history related discussion has varied views.
There are reasons why so many different religions, different lifestyles and different approaches to academic subjects, social and political organisation, conduct of personal lives etc exist.
Even understanding of science and technology has evolved and kept changing.

There is no absolute reality.

I wonder if you are genuinely concerned about Muslims or plain bothered by them for some other reason.

I have not examined syllabi of madrassas. World has given them alternatives. Now it is upto them to accept those alternatives or not. Their loss if they don't "progress".

Regarding terrorism, I wonder why they are still fighting? How they are able to recruit followers?

Or do they believe they are fighting for a just cause and it is only others who perceive them as terrorists?

It's also a joke how whatever US does is just. Whatever powers that control the narrative do, is fine. What others do gets branded as terror. It happens on local level also. Separatist movements in India were labelled as insurgency, terrorism, rebellion, anti national etc. Whereas people fighting or those who supported them felt they were fighting for a just cause.

I don't know if sections of people feel their culture, beliefs, languages etc are under threat or their resources are being taken away from them. There must be reasons why people clash.

I don't think ascribing any image and generalising people is right. All Muslims for eg are not into terror activities. Why should the ones, who are not terrorists, also get judged or be made answerable for acts of others?
Every time a person discriminates, stereotypes or is being hostile to other, he or she worsens the situation.
A person who has been judged like this is going to feel bad and could even tend to turn to those who claim they need to fight for their community.
Some Muslims have formed groups to counter such perceptions and foster peace. But what else can they do?

An ordinary person of any community can only do so much. He or she cannot single handedly stop those terror outfits.

We like discussing things in black and white terms be it in media or online.

In real life, people only want to secure themselves and go about their everyday lives. They remain silent!
There are many who don't want to take any side whatsoever.

Personally I find Muslims kind of rigid. There's only a limit to which you can discuss with them.

Even the few liberal ones ultimately have certain limits. I realised that abput a decade ago when UNICEF used to host forums for youth around the world, online. Threads mentioning Islam used to go on and on, only to get locked.

You or I discussing here, can't make any difference to them.

I felt like leaving them to themselves.

On the contrary, I find some have rather been inspired by the way these people seem to have protected their religion and culture and started adopting similar ways to "protect" their culture and religion.

For eg that Hindu group that threw crude bombs at a TV channel's office which held a debate on whether married women should wear thaali or not.

Don't mind but fanaticism about identity, practices and cultures seem to have increased now and I find it suffocating as an individual.

Muslims or others - all seem to be concerned about protecting their identity and hence demand separate colonies.

I saw an ad about a housing society only for Brahmins, recently. The ad went viral on Facebook.

What's the love jihad propaganda? The recent propaganda on conversions and Christians?
The similar mentality seems to be at work here. Our people vs their people.

Opposition to inter caste, interracial, inter religious marriages, rise of portals like Community Matrimony dot com, how are they much different from those who demand separate colonies?

These religious leaders calling out each couple to have 4 kids, exist in other communities also.

I only know that government imposing restrictions on birth will pose a communal crisis. Even those who don't have too many kids will find it problematic.

People don't favour State meddling in matters as personal as having or not having kids.

Get such a law and see the reactions for yourself.

India poses a very peculiar situation because there are many other minorities too (and all are not immigrants or outsiders). The kind of control measures you call for will create immense tension and backlash. Many regional, religious, tribal and linguistic minorities have always felt their survival is under threat. It doesn't take long to stoke fears in them and revive all fears, resistance, doubts they had long harboured or heard of from others.
The probability of all of them feeling persecuted is greater than probability of people understanding actual, logical reason behind birth control.

I don't mean to offend anyone here. But even if their population increases but they don't progress, don't study modern curricula, then they can't achieve much in today's times. They have to be CONSTANTLY told that. And no need to give them freebies like reservations in jobs. Let them seek education and skills enough to compete and qualify for jobs.

Policymakers should use other means to tackle these issues. Laws on birth control will tick off even those who practise birth control.

Islam has posed a weird challenge for the world (no offense). Some just keep away from Muslims, some unite with them as minorities and march together with them, some have organised themselves against them, some want them to be liberal and reform themselves...the approaches towards them, the perspectives on them are unlimited. Their own people say different things!

I do understand why there's talk about them. But it gets complicated with involvement of other communities as well.
And others seem to be kind of impressed by these guys and are trying to take to their ways of protecting identity of the community.

Originally posted by: cineraria

<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" size="3">Jagjit Singh was a Mona Sardar, he did not and was not forced to to change his appearance.</font>

<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" size="3">Sikhs had to trim their hair and get clean shaven during the 1984 riots for many Sardars were burned alive by congress people and others who labeled them as Indira Killers. The 1984 riots were brutal and heinous and they did so to protect themselves.</font>

<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" size="3">@atominis After Independence the congress followed the British footsteps of divide and rule policy. Sikhs, Jains, Punjabis, Sindhis they don't follow a separate religion. They are very much Hindus. They follow Sanatan Dharma, they worship the same Gods as Hindus do. It's the Congress who divided the religion into so many religions to gain political mileage from devising "minorities".</font>

<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" size="3">Ask any Jain you find, what religion does he/she follow. The answer would be Hinduism or Sanatan Dharm. Among Jains have been the greatest devotees of Lord Shiva. Many temples you see in India have actually been constructed by Jains.</font>

<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" size="3">Sikhs worship Om so do Hindus. "Ik Omkar Satnam." The OM symbol and sound has been crucial and indispensable part of Sanatan Dharm. Sikhs too worship the same gods as Hindus, they celebrate the same festivals as Hindus, they keep fasts as per Hindu rituals, they visit temples. And nobody is forcing them to. How can anyone when it is the same religion and belief system.</font>

<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" size="3">And Hindus visit Gurudwars, contribute in Langars, many non-Sikh Hindus such as me wear kada. </font>

<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" size="3">The only difference is that majority "Hindus" as you define them, don't follow any Guru. These are communities or sects among Sanatan Dharm, that along with the basic religion also follow the principles of Mahavir Swami and Guru Nanak Saheb. Does that mean majority Hindus have got nothing to do with these Gurus? We too respect and imbibe the ideals by Mahavir Swami and Guru Nanak ji. We celebrate Mahavir Jayanti.</font>

<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" size="3">Sindhis too follow the teachings of Guru Nanak Dev, they consider him as their first Guru. Does that make Sindhis non Hindu? Certainly not. Following the principles of a great Saint does not make one follow a separate religion.</font>

<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" size="3">Jains, Sikhs are all thoroughly fused and mingled with the "majority Hindus" as you define them. They may have been made separate by Political means but ask a common Sardar or a Jain, do they really identify themselves different on a spiritual level? Why would they when what they follow is Sanatan Dharm. </font>

NONSENSE.

Hindutva version of history. 🤢

Sikhs do not believe in Hindu gods or worship Hindu gods.
Their beliefs and practices are entirely different. Their Holy Granth criticises all practices associated with Hinduism.
Monas are not considered sardars. There's no such thing as a Mona Sardar.
It's evident they were forced to change for greater acceptance.

You're joking if you say Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists etc are part of so called sanatan dharma!

You're denying history and culture of entire communities and their struggle to keep their identity by making this ridiculous claim that Congress created different communities! As if people had no mind of their own!

No wonder communities feel persecuted. No wonder separatist movements arose.

You ask a Sardar if he identifies himself as Hindu or similar. And see the answer.

Just because for sake of mutual respect people say We are One it doesn't mean they identify with one community.

I have known enough Jains and Buddhists also. They are different!

Rather Congress sneakily clubbed all those religions under Hindus.

Gurudwaras have always had open nature. Hindus visiting Gurudwaras doesn't mean Sikhs and Hindus are same. Muslims also visit Gurudwaras and Langar is open for all.

So what if people of one religion visit other place of worship? Many Hindus visit dargahs. So? You will call them Muslims?
All Sikhs don't visit temples. These forms of worship are forbidden by their religion.

It is the pressure to fit in due to which people cut hair or did idol worship.

Your post proves my point.

The majority has dominated everywhere. These guys claimed even Sai Baba and made Hindu style temples, kathas, mantras for him though in REALITY, he never identified himself with any specific religion or practice.

It is laughable how some Hindus have utterly denied unique identity of other groups and taken even neutral saints in their fold.

Funny how same people talk about Christians and Muslims when their own tactics are no different.

Part of the propaganda on how everyone born in India is a Hindu.

We talk of oneness and unity for sake of humanity. Whereas vested interests in certain communities put a spin on this to claim all are part of their community or follow their way of life!

Originally posted by: cineraria

<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" size="3">^^^</font>

<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" size="3">The sikhs that I know certainly do. You can't say that they don't with so much certainty unless you are a Sikh yourself. And if you are one and you feel this way then let me tell you there are many who don't. I have Sikhs in my family whom my cousins married. Their families worship all Hindu gods. You could argue that the Sikh girl whom my brother married did so because her in-laws were Hindus. What about the Sikh guy's family my sister married. We have even gone to their houses to celebrate navratras together.</font>

<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" size="3">I am yet to come across a Sikh who doesn't celebrate Holi, Diwali or Karwa Chauth.</font>

<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif" size="3">I know well about Jains because I live in a place where there are a lot of, Lot of Jains. And believe me there is absolutely no difference whether in faith or religious practices. </font>

Sikhs don't believe in fasting. Karvachauth is not their thing. Ones who do it might be outside Punjab. Also Punjabi Hindus are also there who people mistake as Sikhs perhaps just because they go to gurudwara.

Sikhs celebrate Diwali as it is Bandi Chor Diwas for them. Their Guru returned and was freed then. They had lit lamps to welcome him. Similarly Sikhs have Holla Mohalla where martial arts, horse riding, are displayed, special paath, kirtan and langar are performed. Guru Gobind Singh started this at Anandpur Sahib.

Otherwise Sikhs do not celebrate Holi. Just because a Sikh friend or relative of yours celebrated because he liked it or as a friendly gesture, it doesn't mean Sikhs celebrate Holi. Holi is not our tradition.



Idol worship, rituals, fasts are not a part of Sikhism and their teachings. Their Holy book speaks against these things. It's meaningless for them.

Most Sikhs staunchly discourage that.

I am from a Sikh family and I can tell you what the truth is and explain the situation.

Guru Gobind Singh created Khalsa and gave distinct identity to Sikhs. Sikhs have preferred to die than gave up their faith, beliefs, articles of faith etc in past.

Just because the nature of religion was liberal, people twisted it. Slowly, many started avoiding getting baptised.

The unshorn hair, kangha, kara, kirpan etc started seeming restrictive to some.

It is simply the pressure to conform.

Plus our people in India somehow always reduced religion to rituals. Sikhism had no such things as fasting. But mentality of people is such that they turn to ridiculous claims like fasting will give something in return.

The Sikhs who followed their teachings and Code of conduct to the T were mocked. And still are. I and my cousins mocked few relatives. There's pressure to fit in.

Sikhs were in minority. They have always faced resistance throughout their existence. Many were killed if they refused to convert. Many had hair forcibly cut off.

For them, survival and fitting in were always an issue. The people who hoped to be sucessor to Gurus but weren't chosen, started conspiring against Gurus or started own sects. Guru Nanak's son is an example. He was not chose as successor so he got his own followers and started own cult.
You will see many deras across Punjab of some baba or the other who claim to have relation with Sikh Gurus or claim to have fought or worked with them. These babas adopted ways of existing majority to get new followers. If they also bless, fast or do other things, it doesn't mean Sikhs do that or Sikhism teaches this. They are not at all a part of Sikh Gurus' teachings.

Just because Sikh Gurus never prescribed harsh punishment to those who didn't follow religion properly, it doesn't mean they were fine with it, or deviance is okay in Sikhism.

First they faced problems with Mughals and Afghans, resistance from other religions, then British Rule arrived. Survival and fitting in was always an issue.
Most invaders entered India through Northwest and Punjab has always faced strife. The very history of the land is enough to tell a lot about what Sikhs are.

Partition ruined them again. Many got killed. Some got forced to convert. They were afraid for losing their ancestral land and homes. It is because of being in minority and being spread all over (historical Sikh Gurudwaras and places of birth of Sikh Gurus are there in different parts of India, they were there in Pakistan too but due to being in minority the Sikhs got no say), that their leaders grudgingly agreed to be a part of India only.

It is to escape killings and further persecution that some of them started following majority's ways to gain acceptance and peace.

At the end of the day there is only so much that one can take. Survival, stability matter to everyone.

Some Sikhs stopped taking amrit. Some cut hair. Some started participating in other festivals either to get acceptance or due to old time cults that were dividing their community.
What's happening abroad now, also happened here. People would make fun of Sikhs. Their long, unshorn hair, their turbans and kirpans.
My own father has been through this during growing years. Sometimes someone would open his jooda, make fun of him but he tolerated it just for sake of safety.
My grandfather often used to argue in case anyone mocked or insulted them or questioned their religion or misunderstood them. But my grandmother was paranoid and always asked him to avoid and stay safe lest anyone got violent.

Only the ones who have seen bloodshed and experienced displacement continuously, know how much fear it can instil.
When some of my relatives went to other states for higher education, my grandmother only advised them to focus on study and jobs and be safe. The uncles and aunts who studied or worked in those places avoided speaking much. Even took part in Hindu festivities just to fit in.

The ones who felt persecuted and wanted to stick to their faith were effectively subdued and silenced.

There was movement for own state then. But the trifurcation of Punjab and denying Punjab its own High Court and Capital did not go down well with many. This coupled with general pressure to conform to majority and clubbing Sikhs with Hindus, making fun of Sikhs' looks, kirpan etc was what that gave birth to Khalistan movement.
That movement was supported by some, opposed by some.

When I discussed it with my family, they admitted same fear of another bloody struggle, violence and instability.

Sikhs were divided. Many were also silenced either by family or bosses and colleagues at work. The ones who had been settled here and finally doing well, feared another round of instability.

While Sikhs don't agree with Operation Bluestar, they are divided in their opinion because this further worsened things and threatened survival. 1984 riots weren't just in Delhi.
They affected Sikhs all over India. My father was working in Gujarat as a doctor with Indian Railways. He had mobs looking for him but it was an attendant of his who helped him escape safely. He resigned from that lucrative job in fear and moved to Punjab. My grandmother's fears grew even more. They had settled around Jaipur after my grand father's retirement. But they gave up everything and yet again lost their home. They started from a scratch in Punjab.
From then on the Amritdhari Sikhs and Sikhs in general became feared. The mocking and suspicion all increased.

It was Catch 22 situation for the aam aadmi. Some were only concerned with survival. Some felt cause of Sikhs' freedom was a must. There was pressure from all sides. Many Sikhs were jailed, killed in fake encounters or disappeared, many gave up "obviously" Sikh appearance and names to escape persecution and just survive.
Many moved abroad.
Sikhism just got scattered.

When people are displaced and in conflict for ages, some of them then start thinking only of survival.

Sikhism was just reduced to visiting gurudwara or keeping uncut hair. Even those were abandoned by many.

Few follow the teachings and rules of Sikhism for real. People have started cuttiing hair, often don't even visit Gurudwaras or follow Hindu or any local rites and rituals. Often people mistake Punjabi Hindus for Sikhs.

Though quite a lot of people still follow Sikhism in its original essence but they can't help it if their own people are not looking beyond survival.

So if you find people with turbans in a Hindu temple or wearing turban but having a trimmed beard, it's not a sign of Sikhs being Hindus or part of Sanatan dharma. It is matter of survival, convenience, fitting in and has ties to cultural changes.

People are becoming modern and changing. Just as many Hindus don't follow each and every practice necessarily it doesn't mean they are not Hindus. Or if they celebrate X Mas or go to a gurudwara or dargah it means they are part of Christians, Sikhs or Muslims.

Abroad also Sikhs have same crisis. Some are proper Sikhs, some started cutting hair whereas some cults also started by certain white men who were impressed by teachings of Sikhism and started following it their way.

You've got to be lying and kidding if you denied the pressure to conform and stay safe.

Same happened to Sikhs post 9/11, abroad. Some started mistaking them for Muslims and started attacking them and their Gurudwaras. Their kids who grew up their already wanted to adopt more of a Western culture.
Many cut their hair, shaved, changed names to avoid persecution yet again. It doesn't mean one can say Sikhism is all this or a part of Hinduism.

There are many who maintain Sikhism as it originally was. And try to dispel myths about their religion.

There are many who made it a matter of convenience.

I see a lot of Sikhs in BJP who get clicked with babas or attend pujas just to get political mileage.

Indian government has been pretty clever. They manipulated Sikhs and cashed on their fear. On one hand Sikh struggle was subdued and quelled. On other hand to fool people they made Sikh President in 80s.

Nobody likes Badals in Punjab. But they are ruling and built property worth crores.

It is evident that a routine person will choose jobs, ranks and ensure surivival than constantly fight.

People remain silent. Till date. All because they do not want to suffer.

And people of my generation either know nothing or adopted religion our own way, or shrugged entire history or did adopt Sikhism in true form but kept it to own selves.

The relatives of mine who practise Sikhism in proper form keep telling us about teachings, sacrifices etc. But we just listen and leave it. They also don't impose further. Their kids do follow the faith properly though.

I admit the odd man out feeling is there in every Sikh. As a man if you have long hair, guys not aware of your origins make fun of you. As a woman if you're hairy then also you feel out of place. A Sikh woman was recently made butt of jokes due to her "beard".

I might sound controversial here but the rules of true Sikhism are hard to follow. Waking up early in morning, doing Nitnem etc. And especially not shaving or cutting hair at all are tough to follow.

Sikhism is a faith which is struggling to survive. No surprise you called it part of Hinduism just because you saw some so called Sikh relative fast or cut hair. People abroad label it a part of Islam without knowing a thing about it.

I don't like facial hair. I didn't get baptised. I don't go to Gurudwara daily or do Nitnem. But I write Sikh in my forms.
And it doesn't mean seeing my lifestyle, people should assume about Sikhism and its teachings.

I don't mean to offend any Sikh who might be reading this. But yeah, we lost the plot over selfish concerns of survival.

I personally feel Sikhs should have formed advocacy group for their rights instead of that Khalistan movement later. Their leadership was weak.

I hate religion and communal talks knowing and seeing what it leads to.

I don't like Sikhism being branded as a cult of either Islam or Hinduism.

That Khalistan movement has left such a label on Sikhs that anyone who preaches true Sikhism or wants to advocate for recognition as unique, separate religion is labelled an extremist.

Now how is upholding own unique identity, extremism? They are not asking for a separate country or something!

Punjabis in general focus on securing own safety and survival now. And Sikhs are part of this. The region, having suffered enough strife, doesn't want more. Today's Punjab is not even a patch on what Undivided Punjab used to be.

Time and now issues on rights, stereotypes etc come out. But who cares?

You're given examples of Manmohan, Zail Singh, Montek Singh blah blah to claim Sikhs are doing fantastic.

Or you get examples of Sikhs who cut hair or observe karva chauth.

It's done, dried and dusted.

I don't talk much to Sikh friends and relatives on such issues now. Sikhs have lot to blame themselves for. They don't even allow movies on them to raise awareness at least on what Gurus were all about.

We are a divided lot. And while we feel we are being liberal. We don't realise how others perceive us part of this or that dharma.

I wish the country where it originated, didn't resort to such things. Just because you know people are struggling for survival and already less in number, it doesn't mean you claim their religion as your majority religion's sect.

Jains are also leading movements. But their voices were ignored. Buddhism? Does it even exist now?

I am ashamed the foundation of this country was laid on communal basis. It irritates me to see community based discussion like this.

I know about our Sikh history but arguing is futile because damage is done. And the ones who wanted to correct it are not right in their approach either.

Same community that used to make sacrifices now lost its roots.

Chalta hai.

You blame Congress but you should be happy they fooled and subdued so many people be it in North, NE, South. Several independence movements exist or existed here. But all were labelled separatist, insurgents, militants, traitors, anti national elements etc. And dealt with so mercilessly that their own community better remained silent than join them.

Don't assume I am against any community. Communities lived together in Undivided India despite clashes. Only the ones from Partition affected areas know this well enough. Now also not against any religion. But definitely oppose clubbing of Sikhs with Hindus.

I can see why Muslims are being this opposed. They don't perform Hindu rituals and didn't "amalgamate" enough na to brand them as part of Hindus!
Don't worry. The propaganda of calling them all sons of converted ancestors might yield result someday.


BJP follows same strategy. Installed Muslim Prez but had 2002 "riots". Amusing they blame Congress while they themselves are no different.

Originally posted by: atominis

NONSENSE.

Hindutva version of history. 🤢

Sikhs do not believe in Hindu gods or worship Hindu gods.
Their beliefs and practices are entirely different. Their Holy Granth criticises all practices associated with Hinduism.
Monas are not considered sardars. There's no such thing as a Mona Sardar.
It's evident they were forced to change for greater acceptance.

You're joking if you say Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists etc are part of so called sanatan dharma!

You're denying history and culture of entire communities and their struggle to keep their identity by making this ridiculous claim that Congress created different communities! As if people had no mind of their own!

No wonder communities feel persecuted. No wonder separatist movements arose.

You ask a Sardar if he identifies himself as Hindu or similar. And see the answer.

Just because for sake of mutual respect people say We are One it doesn't mean they identify with one community.

I have known enough Jains and Buddhists also. They are different!

Rather Congress sneakily clubbed all those religions under Hindus.

Gurudwaras have always had open nature. Hindus visiting Gurudwaras doesn't mean Sikhs and Hindus are same. Muslims also visit Gurudwaras and Langar is open for all.

So what if people of one religion visit other place of worship? Many Hindus visit dargahs. So? You will call them Muslims?
All Sikhs don't visit temples. These forms of worship are forbidden by their religion.

It is the pressure to fit in due to which people cut hair or did idol worship.

Your post proves my point.

The majority has dominated everywhere. These guys claimed even Sai Baba and made Hindu style temples, kathas, mantras for him though in REALITY, he never identified himself with any specific religion or practice.

It is laughable how some Hindus have utterly denied unique identity of other groups and taken even neutral saints in their fold.

Funny how same people talk about Christians and Muslims when their own tactics are no different.

Part of the propaganda on how everyone born in India is a Hindu.

We talk of oneness and unity for sake of humanity. Whereas vested interests in certain communities put a spin on this to claim all are part of their community or follow their way of life!

Originally posted by: atominis

Sikhs don't believe in fasting. Karvachauth is not their thing. Ones who do it might be outside Punjab. Also Punjabi Hindus are also there who people mistake as Sikhs perhaps just because they go to gurudwara.

Sikhs celebrate Diwali as it is Bandi Chor Diwas for them. Their Guru returned and was freed then. They had lit lamps to welcome him. Similarly Sikhs have Holla Mohalla where martial arts, horse riding, are displayed, special paath, kirtan and langar are performed. Guru Gobind Singh started this at Anandpur Sahib.

Otherwise Sikhs do not celebrate Holi. Just because a Sikh friend or relative of yours celebrated because he liked it or as a friendly gesture, it doesn't mean Sikhs celebrate Holi. Holi is not our tradition.



Idol worship, rituals, fasts are not a part of Sikhism and their teachings. Their Holy book speaks against these things. It's meaningless for them.

Most Sikhs staunchly discourage that.

I am from a Sikh family and I can tell you what the truth is and explain the situation.

Guru Gobind Singh created Khalsa and gave distinct identity to Sikhs. Sikhs have preferred to die than gave up their faith, beliefs, articles of faith etc in past.

Just because the nature of religion was liberal, people twisted it. Slowly, many started avoiding getting baptised.

The unshorn hair, kangha, kara, kirpan etc started seeming restrictive to some.

It is simply the pressure to conform.

Plus our people in India somehow always reduced religion to rituals. Sikhism had no such things as fasting. But mentality of people is such that they turn to ridiculous claims like fasting will give something in return.

The Sikhs who followed their teachings and Code of conduct to the T were mocked. And still are. I and my cousins mocked few relatives. There's pressure to fit in.

Sikhs were in minority. They have always faced resistance throughout their existence. Many were killed if they refused to convert. Many had hair forcibly cut off.

For them, survival and fitting in were always an issue. The people who hoped to be sucessor to Gurus but weren't chosen, started conspiring against Gurus or started own sects. Guru Nanak's son is an example. He was not chose as successor so he got his own followers and started own cult.
You will see many deras across Punjab of some baba or the other who claim to have relation with Sikh Gurus or claim to have fought or worked with them. These babas adopted ways of existing majority to get new followers. If they also bless, fast or do other things, it doesn't mean Sikhs do that or Sikhism teaches this. They are not at all a part of Sikh Gurus' teachings.

Just because Sikh Gurus never prescribed harsh punishment to those who didn't follow religion properly, it doesn't mean they were fine with it, or deviance is okay in Sikhism.

First they faced problems with Mughals and Afghans, resistance from other religions, then British Rule arrived. Survival and fitting in was always an issue.
Most invaders entered India through Northwest and Punjab has always faced strife. The very history of the land is enough to tell a lot about what Sikhs are.

Partition ruined them again. Many got killed. Some got forced to convert. They were afraid for losing their ancestral land and homes. It is because of being in minority and being spread all over (historical Sikh Gurudwaras and places of birth of Sikh Gurus are there in different parts of India, they were there in Pakistan too but due to being in minority the Sikhs got no say), that their leaders grudgingly agreed to be a part of India only.

It is to escape killings and further persecution that some of them started following majority's ways to gain acceptance and peace.

At the end of the day there is only so much that one can take. Survival, stability matter to everyone.

Some Sikhs stopped taking amrit. Some cut hair. Some started participating in other festivals either to get acceptance or due to old time cults that were dividing their community.
What's happening abroad now, also happened here. People would make fun of Sikhs. Their long, unshorn hair, their turbans and kirpans.
My own father has been through this during growing years. Sometimes someone would open his jooda, make fun of him but he tolerated it just for sake of safety.
My grandfather often used to argue in case anyone mocked or insulted them or questioned their religion or misunderstood them. But my grandmother was paranoid and always asked him to avoid and stay safe lest anyone got violent.

Only the ones who have seen bloodshed and experienced displacement continuously, know how much fear it can instil.
When some of my relatives went to other states for higher education, my grandmother only advised them to focus on study and jobs and be safe. The uncles and aunts who studied or worked in those places avoided speaking much. Even took part in Hindu festivities just to fit in.

The ones who felt persecuted and wanted to stick to their faith were effectively subdued and silenced.

There was movement for own state then. But the trifurcation of Punjab and denying Punjab its own High Court and Capital did not go down well with many. This coupled with general pressure to conform to majority and clubbing Sikhs with Hindus, making fun of Sikhs' looks, kirpan etc was what that gave birth to Khalistan movement.
That movement was supported by some, opposed by some.

When I discussed it with my family, they admitted same fear of another bloody struggle, violence and instability.

Sikhs were divided. Many were also silenced either by family or bosses and colleagues at work. The ones who had been settled here and finally doing well, feared another round of instability.

While Sikhs don't agree with Operation Bluestar, they are divided in their opinion because this further worsened things and threatened survival. 1984 riots weren't just in Delhi.
They affected Sikhs all over India. My father was working in Gujarat as a doctor with Indian Railways. He had mobs looking for him but it was an attendant of his who helped him escape safely. He resigned from that lucrative job in fear and moved to Punjab. My grandmother's fears grew even more. They had settled around Jaipur after my grand father's retirement. But they gave up everything and yet again lost their home. They started from a scratch in Punjab.
From then on the Amritdhari Sikhs and Sikhs in general became feared. The mocking and suspicion all increased.

It was Catch 22 situation for the aam aadmi. Some were only concerned with survival. Some felt cause of Sikhs' freedom was a must. There was pressure from all sides. Many Sikhs were jailed, killed in fake encounters or disappeared, many gave up "obviously" Sikh appearance and names to escape persecution and just survive.
Many moved abroad.
Sikhism just got scattered.

When people are displaced and in conflict for ages, some of them then start thinking only of survival.

Sikhism was just reduced to visiting gurudwara or keeping uncut hair. Even those were abandoned by many.

Few follow the teachings and rules of Sikhism for real. People have started cuttiing hair, often don't even visit Gurudwaras or follow Hindu or any local rites and rituals. Often people mistake Punjabi Hindus for Sikhs.

Though quite a lot of people still follow Sikhism in its original essence but they can't help it if their own people are not looking beyond survival.

So if you find people with turbans in a Hindu temple or wearing turban but having a trimmed beard, it's not a sign of Sikhs being Hindus or part of Sanatan dharma. It is matter of survival, convenience, fitting in and has ties to cultural changes.

People are becoming modern and changing. Just as many Hindus don't follow each and every practice necessarily it doesn't mean they are not Hindus. Or if they celebrate X Mas or go to a gurudwara or dargah it means they are part of Christians, Sikhs or Muslims.

Abroad also Sikhs have same crisis. Some are proper Sikhs, some started cutting hair whereas some cults also started by certain white men who were impressed by teachings of Sikhism and started following it their way.

You've got to be lying and kidding if you denied the pressure to conform and stay safe.

Same happened to Sikhs post 9/11, abroad. Some started mistaking them for Muslims and started attacking them and their Gurudwaras. Their kids who grew up their already wanted to adopt more of a Western culture.
Many cut their hair, shaved, changed names to avoid persecution yet again. It doesn't mean one can say Sikhism is all this or a part of Hinduism.

There are many who maintain Sikhism as it originally was. And try to dispel myths about their religion.

There are many who made it a matter of convenience.

I see a lot of Sikhs in BJP who get clicked with babas or attend pujas just to get political mileage.

Indian government has been pretty clever. They manipulated Sikhs and cashed on their fear. On one hand Sikh struggle was subdued and quelled. On other hand to fool people they made Sikh President in 80s.

Nobody likes Badals in Punjab. But they are ruling and built property worth crores.

It is evident that a routine person will choose jobs, ranks and ensure surivival than constantly fight.

People remain silent. Till date. All because they do not want to suffer.

And people of my generation either know nothing or adopted religion our own way, or shrugged entire history or did adopt Sikhism in true form but kept it to own selves.

The relatives of mine who practise Sikhism in proper form keep telling us about teachings, sacrifices etc. But we just listen and leave it. They also don't impose further. Their kids do follow the faith properly though.

I admit the odd man out feeling is there in every Sikh. As a man if you have long hair, guys not aware of your origins make fun of you. As a woman if you're hairy then also you feel out of place. A Sikh woman was recently made butt of jokes due to her "beard".

I might sound controversial here but the rules of true Sikhism are hard to follow. Waking up early in morning, doing Nitnem etc. And especially not shaving or cutting hair at all are tough to follow.

Sikhism is a faith which is struggling to survive. No surprise you called it part of Hinduism just because you saw some so called Sikh relative fast or cut hair. People abroad label it a part of Islam without knowing a thing about it.

I don't like facial hair. I didn't get baptised. I don't go to Gurudwara daily or do Nitnem. But I write Sikh in my forms.
And it doesn't mean seeing my lifestyle, people should assume about Sikhism and its teachings.

I don't mean to offend any Sikh who might be reading this. But yeah, we lost the plot over selfish concerns of survival.

I personally feel Sikhs should have formed advocacy group for their rights instead of that Khalistan movement later. Their leadership was weak.

I hate religion and communal talks knowing and seeing what it leads to.

I don't like Sikhism being branded as a cult of either Islam or Hinduism.

That Khalistan movement has left such a label on Sikhs that anyone who preaches true Sikhism or wants to advocate for recognition as unique, separate religion is labelled an extremist.

Now how is upholding own unique identity, extremism? They are not asking for a separate country or something!

Punjabis in general focus on securing own safety and survival now. And Sikhs are part of this. The region, having suffered enough strife, doesn't want more. Today's Punjab is not even a patch on what Undivided Punjab used to be.

Time and now issues on rights, stereotypes etc come out. But who cares?

You're given examples of Manmohan, Zail Singh, Montek Singh blah blah to claim Sikhs are doing fantastic.

Or you get examples of Sikhs who cut hair or observe karva chauth.

It's done, dried and dusted.

I don't talk much to Sikh friends and relatives on such issues now. Sikhs have lot to blame themselves for. They don't even allow movies on them to raise awareness at least on what Gurus were all about.

We are a divided lot. And while we feel we are being liberal. We don't realise how others perceive us part of this or that dharma.

I wish the country where it originated, didn't resort to such things. Just because you know people are struggling for survival and already less in number, it doesn't mean you claim their religion as your majority religion's sect.

Jains are also leading movements. But their voices were ignored. Buddhism? Does it even exist now?

I am ashamed the foundation of this country was laid on communal basis. It irritates me to see community based discussion like this.

I know about our Sikh history but arguing is futile because damage is done. And the ones who wanted to correct it are not right in their approach either.

Same community that used to make sacrifices now lost its roots.

Chalta hai.

You blame Congress but you should be happy they fooled and subdued so many people be it in North, NE, South. Several independence movements exist or existed here. But all were labelled separatist, insurgents, militants, traitors, anti national elements etc. And dealt with so mercilessly that their own community better remained silent than join them.

Don't assume I am against any community. Communities lived together in Undivided India despite clashes. Only the ones from Partition affected areas know this well enough. Now also not against any religion. But definitely oppose clubbing of Sikhs with Hindus.

I can see why Muslims are being this opposed. They don't perform Hindu rituals and didn't "amalgamate" enough na to brand them as part of Hindus!
Don't worry. The propaganda of calling them all sons of converted ancestors might yield result someday.


BJP follows same strategy. Installed Muslim Prez but had 2002 "riots". Amusing they blame Congress while they themselves are no different.

Originally posted by: souro

I agree with atominis that Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains cannot be called Hindus or followers of Sanatan Dharma. Buddhism developed because Buddha was opposed to certain practices of Hinduism/ Sanatan Dharma, so how can we say that they are same. However, Buddhism, Jainism and Hinduism, all three are closely related. Sikhism I'm not very sure.

One thing I'd like to point out, 1984 riots was not Hindus against Sikhs as is being made out here, it was Congress followers against Sikhs.

I don't agree with atominis's idea that Sikh leaders grudgingly had to agree with joining India. They might have grudgingly agreed, I don't know, but they agreed because they hardly had any other choice. Let's look at what other alternatives they had.

1st Alternative: Indian Punjab stays together with Pakistan Punjab and the whole part goes to Pakistan.

Being a minority in Pakistan is a lot more difficult than in India, as can be attested from the declining figures of minority population in Pakistan. Laws like blasphemy law and biased laws when it comes to conversion, would have made life difficult for the Sikh population had they been in Pakistan. Moreover in India, individual states enjoy a lot of autonomy in dealing with their internal affairs. So, Sikhs being in majority in Punjab can actually decide a lot of policies of Punjab to suit their own lifestyle and religion. That autonomy won't have existed had they joined Pakistan, as Pakistan took away federal powers of the provinces and concentrated them in Islamabad with a vision of one Pakistan.

2nd Alternative: Current Indian Punjab deciding to remain independent, not joining either India or Pakistan (Muslim dominated part of Punjab going with Pakistan as happened in reality).

A land locked country surrounded by two displeased neighbours over its decision, heavily dependent on agriculture, water coming from rivers flowing through India, trade routes not entirely open anymore and taxes making agricultural produce less competitive in price in Indian market, all these would have made existence itself quite difficult.