jsingh@cive.ri.cmu.edu (J S Singh) (10/10/86)
There has been significant discussion on this net about Sikhism (and this notion of a sikh state) and till now there haven't been any responses from any sikhs themselves. So, I'll give it a shot. Sikhism did start out as a pacifist movement between the hindus and the muslims. It also sought to rid society of evils like idol worship, and the caste system (and perhaps practices like 'sati'). Guru Nanak, the very first in the line of gurus of the sikhs, is viewed to have had popular support from both Muslims and Hindus. Yet, if you read what he had to say, apart from the insistence on monotheism, most of his teachings can be thought of as a natural progression of mainstream hindu doctrine (karma, etc). BTW, it can be argued that Hinduism is monothiestic after all. After Guru Nanak, there was a progression of nine 'gurus' who had the role of 'spiritual leaders' of the sikhs. Around the time of the third guru, it was becoming painfully clear that muslims were forcibly converting non-muslims into islam. Hindus in the local area complained to the these gurus and soon the idea of 'militant saints' evolved. This was a fairly unprecented step because hindus have been typically non-violent especially if they had anything to do with religion. So initially, sikhs were polarized as a group of people that banded together to protect non-muslims from harassment of the muslims who were also in power at the time (under Babar, Humayun, Shah Jehan and Aurangzeb; Akbar was benevolent). There are stories that at the dead of the night, sikhs would go to the muslim camps and bring back the people that the muslims had taken to be forcibly converted to islam. Therefore the folklore of sikhs going "mad" at twelve o'clock (if you lived in India you must have heard sikhs being teased "bara baje"- now you know where that came from). By the time of the tenth guru- guru Gobind Singh, the transformation to militant "saints" was complete- the "khalsa" was created. In the creed that the first sikhs (to be baptized) espoused is the idea that one should defend their beliefs and property if someone tries to take it way from them- hence one the 5 things required of sikhs- the "kirpan" (a sword). The analogy is not perfect but "sikhs" can be thought of as the samurai of north india. To start of with, they were a fierce bunch charged with the responsibility of upholding a high moral and ethical code. Of course their were other ideas- there is only one god, all men are equal, idol worship is wrong, etc. Since then, the sikh population has diversified somewhat. However, They are still seen as warring (witness large numbers of sikhs in the indian military) and in general having more brawn than brain. They have earned their respect through hard work. Notice sikhs are often called "sardar" which literally means "leader". While it is true that there are significant number of sikhs living in Punjab, a significant the sikh population is spread out all over India. They are an integral part of the country just as hindus, muslims, jains, and christians are. Contrary to the person who started this whole discussion, I have never met a single person (sikh or otherwise) who has wanted a separate country for the sikhs. I sure as heck don't think it is an idea worth spending more than 10 minutes on. Just as Pakistan was a mistake, "Khalistan" would be a big mistake. Pakistan was a mistake because in general mixing religion and politics is no good. Pakistan had to be done done because a significant population felt that they were being persecuted. Israel (in its zionist form) is also a big mistake. In contrast we have India where uptill recently people have been able to live side by side. There have been problems but none that are insurmountable. In fact this secesstionist movement is popular mostly with sikhs who live in Canada and the U.K not with those in India. Not to say that concerns voiced by sikh moderates are unfounded. Basically, Punjab has felt shortchanged. The central government has given it little autonomy and taken a lot of resources from the state. This is a fundamental problem with the Indian system of government- very little local control and lots of central control. Obviously states putting out more than others are bound to feel used. This is getting much too long so I will summarize: -Secession: Bogus. -Concessions to Punjab: Unfair to other states. -Solutions: Give states more power to govern themselves and to reap benefit of their own work. For example, the city of Bombay pays 60% of the the country's taxes. What does it get in return? Whatever you guessed- its too high. --Sanjiv (what's in a name? my family is all sikh but my parents gave me a typically hindu name. A cousin of mine is named Tanvir, a typically muslim name.. can you separate us from the rest of India?)
kalra@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu (Devendra Kalra) (10/12/86)
Organization : California Institute of Technology Keywords: Secession Bogus, Give more power to all states Atta Boy Sanjiv Singh. Your reasonable and logical article was a welcome change to all the mud slinging and "Me better than you" going on on the net. Also it was great to hear the views of a Sikh who believes in the unity of India. I wish that people post more informative articles like these and not just post articles pointing out small factual/grammatical/or other mistakes of previous articles. Also Sanjiv, Thanks for telling us the origins of "Bara Baje". I don't know if this should be believed but it sure is a plausible explanapation.
ams@briar.UUCP (Ali Shaik) (10/15/86)
In article <1134@im4u.UUCP>, raghu@im4u.UUCP (Raghu Ramakrishnan) writes: > > I know a Tamil family who named their daughter Yasmin, which is a > Muslim name. I think this is a nice idea. I once had a classmate by the name Yasmin, and I thought she was a good idea too!