Image of the Nishaan Sahib below: by Kanwar Singh Dhillon (ArtofPunjab.com)
Roundtable
The Roundtable Open Forum - Round Ten: Jan 6 - 12
EDITOR
The Rules of the forum are posted here on the right, and need to be followed strictly by all participants.
The following is this week's (Jan 6 - 12) topic for discussion, which should focus on the questions posed therein:
WHO IS A SIKH?
1 Each one of us has an opinion on who we think is a Sikh ... and who isn't. Not a ‘good' Sikh, not a ‘bad', but simply ... "Who is a Sikh?"
2 A reminder: there are personal definitions and there are institutional definitions. Sometimes, they do not coincide.
3 Why? For a simple reason - institutional definitions have far-reaching implications. For example, some are legal, others are social, and yet others pertain to social engineering issues.
They pertain to situations like: Who is entitled to enjoy the rights that can only be enjoyed by a "Sikh" - such as the wearing of a ‘kirpan' in public? Who can vote to be the head of the S.G.P.C. or a Jathedar of a Takht? Who do we count as a Sikh when doing a census?
4 The public definition requires a balance between idealism and pragmatism.
5 On the other hand, a personal definition does not affect the world at large; only you and those around you. For example, in choices re marriage and the raising of children. Or how you conduct yourself in your private life - your identity and appearance, your garb, maybe even your language. Your values and what you want to pass on to your descendants.
6 There are, of course, exceptions and overlaps.
QUESTIONS TO PONDER
- How do you, or how would you like to define a ‘Sikh‘, if you were allowed a single definition of no more than 50 words?
- Once you have put down your definition, please tell us what are your reasons for the parameters and boundaries you have placed in arriving at your definition?
- Would you make any exceptions? When? For whom? Why?
- If someone fell short of your definition, would you consider him/her a ‘bad' Sikh? An apostate? No longer a Sikh?
- And how then would you draw the line for a ‘good' Sikh? That is, would your definition allow for errant Sikhs, or is there a clear line of demarcation?
- That is, what are, in your opinion, ‘acceptable' failings as opposed to ‘unforgivable' ones?
- A reminder: nothing is sacrosanct. Please feel free to express your opinion without any fear of criticism: this is an opportunity for us to do a free exploration as to where we are as a worldwide community, at this time in our history.
Conversation about this article
1: I.J. Singh (New York, U.S.A.), January 06, 2010, 6:30 AM.
Since nothing is sacrosanct and we do need to keep things in context, please do keep in mind that this kind of defining issues and conundrums are not unique to us. The Jews, for instance, try to get a head count of how many Jews there are every ten years. The last head count in 2004 took several million dollars but was not released because of the lack of consensus on who to count or who to leave out. I wonder what the other faiths do? I don't really know, but we do need to - but not necessarily imitate what others do. I imagine if religions do not depend on electoral mechanisms to annoint their leaders, then perhaps matters can be simplified. Even the most flawed follower can then still be embraced. Our model is not that. We are not a heirarchical religion as the Roman Catholics are, but are primarily congregational. That means that considerable autonomy is the right of an individual. With a looser definition of Sikh behavior, we then need to create many institutes of self-governance - somewhat like the republican structure of the USA. I love the topic. It promises to be open-ended. I hope it will open some minds.
2: Gurmeet Kaur (Atlanta, Georgia, U.S.A.), January 06, 2010, 10:56 AM.
I will attempt the public definition another time but here is my personal definition. (sorry not 50 words). Sikhi is a journey (I envision a hiking trail) and the traveler on that trail is a Sikh. This journey begins with "I and me" but ends with God. The Guru is the lovely companion, the guide. Some are further along, walking at a faster pace, some are learning just to walk - but they are all bound with the love for the guide and striving to move forward towards the destination. The trail passes through beautiful meadows but also dangerous ravines and tough climbs. There encounter the spring of life and the summer of growth but also torrential rains and freezing winters along the way. The collective becomes different things when facing different situations: sangat, nation, qaum, pnth - they all hold each other and keep moving. There are ones who may slip and fall, when the feet are not grounded or the flow of - Maya the stream that accompanies the trail, is too aggressive. There are ones who get scared and may change direction and start going back towards "I and me" - there are those who don't know about this trail, come across it, fall in love with the guide and may join it for a while or longer; there are those who don't understand the guide and leave it for other exciting paths. An apostate is an ugly word; the only reason I will ever call one is when he/she intentionally sabotages the path; ploys to harm it.
3: Pardeep Singh (Toronto, Ontario, Canada), January 06, 2010, 11:25 AM.
A Sikh is one who believes in and accepts the teachings of the Gurus and the Guru Granth Sahib only and believes in and accepts the 5 "K's" as their faith. The pilgrim's spiritual progress or journey is individual and it may entail being or becoming a Sikh, a process that is never-ending but must be grounded in the above definition.
4: Ibadat Singh Gill (Orange County, California, U.S.A.), January 06, 2010, 11:39 AM.
I fear that this "Roundtable" will open the floodgates for a certain agenda to promote its own "modern" world-view of Sikhi and negate the relevance and importance of the Articles of the Sikh Faith. Those seeking to re-define Sikhi with their "modern" world-view do not understand that the Sikh Form (that has been gifted to us through innumerable sacrifices) cannot be bifurcated from Baani, Simran and Sewa. They are all integral components of the same path. As far as the definition goes: In my book, a Sikh is anyone who calls himself one. Having said that, I urge all those who call themselves Sikhs, but do not adhere to the Articles of their Faith, to affirm their spiritual identity as a gift, rather than an obstacle, hindrance, or mindless ritual. In addition, we must experience the power of Simran, the reward of Seva, and the benefit of Sangat ourselves - in order to pass Sikhi down with assurance and conviction to our children.
5: T. Sher Singh (Guelph, Ontario, Canada), January 06, 2010, 11:41 AM.
A temporary and very personal definition came to my mind in the immediate post-1984 era: "A Sikh is one who truly feels shaken up by the June 1984 desecration of the Darbar Sahib and other historical gurdwaras." It worked for me then. I remember meeting Indian General J.S. Bhullar - the first and "founding" head of the then new World Sikh Organization (WSO) - and forced myself upon his itinerary for more than an hour in New York to fathom what his plans were. I walked away with a distinct feeling that he had no emotions whatsoever over the Indian government's attack on the Darbar Sahib, and felt deeply uncomfortable. I conveyed my feeling to many a soul, but had no proof! Years later, it was deliberately leaked out by the Indian authorities that he was an Indian intelligence plant whose mission was to ensure that the Sikhs did nothing meaningful to counter the outrage in India! As head of the WSO, he was wildly successful.
6: Gurmeet Kaur (Atlanta, Georgia, U.S.A.), January 06, 2010, 2:29 PM.
T. Sher Singh ji, Reminds me of the verses I included in my talk to the sangat on our commemoration of the 25th anniversary of 1984 at our local gurdwara in Atlanta, Georgia. Kise Akkhyaa-e / Kes nahi - taan Sikh nahin / Puggh nahin taan Singh nahin / Panj kakaar nahin taan Khalsa nahin / Mai arz kardi aa(n) bhai- / Je tere dil'ch kaum lai dard nahi / - taan tu Singh jaan khalsa nahi / - Guru daa Sikh nahin / - jaan tu mera veer vee nahin!
7: Keshpreet Kaur (Ludhiana, Punjab), January 06, 2010, 2:44 PM.
Section One, Chapter 1, Article 1 of The Sikh Rehat Maryada states: Any human being who faithfully believes in i) One Immortal Being; ii) The Ten Gurus, from Guru Nanak to Guru Gobind Singh; iii) The Guru Granth Sahib; iv) The utterances and teachings of the Ten Gurus; and v) The baptism bequeathed by the Tenth Guru; and who does not owe allegiance to any other religion, is a Sikh.
8: Gurujot Singh Khalsa (Espanola, New Mexico, U.S.A.), January 06, 2010, 4:29 PM.
A Sikh can be defined in so many ways. I will make a list off the top of my head, starting with the most liberal one. 1) Anyone who is learning (sikhna); i.e., every human being. 2) Anyone who believes in One God (Ik Oankar). 3) One who works hard, shares earnings, and worships God (could be from any religion). 4) One who is born into a Sikh family and hasn't converted to another religion. 5) One who recognizes the Guru Granth Sahib as Guru. 7) One who recognizes the Guru Granth Sahib, the Ten Gurus, Sikh history, etc. 7) One who goes to the gurdwara and keeps his/ her hair unshorn. 8) One who keeps all the 5 K's, rises atn Amrit Vela and does the 5 banis daily. 9) One who does #s 3,5,6,7 and 8 as listed above. 10) One who meditates on the Naam 24 hours a day. 11) One who is free from ego and the 5 vices. - These ideas range from universal to exclusive, and from practical to esoteric and personal ... exactly how the Gurus have presented it to us in so many ways within the Guru Granth, Sikh history and the rehats. If we believe that the Guru Granth Sahib is a guide for all of humanity regardless of religion, then by some definitions we have to include people of other religions as Sikhs. At the same time, it's hard to ignore the specific tenets as enunciated by Guru Gobind Singh. And, in the spirit of Ik Oankar, it's difficult to be exclusive. I personally like the definition suggested earlier as "one who considers him/herself a Sikh".
9: Raminder Kaur (Kenya), January 06, 2010, 5:17 PM.
The Sikh Rehat Maryada is an extraordinary document which was carefully and diligently formulated by a group of impeccably learned and spiritual elders and scholars of our Faith. True, some of the nuances are often lost in translation. And, of course, it could always benefit from an updating, taking into account, for example, the current idiom and the new currents in a technology-driven society. But, how can we improve on a definition of a Sikh than what's given in this meticulous document? I am very comfortable in defining a Sikh as one who believes in and worships only One God, the Lord of all creation, and does not bow his/head before any other; one who believes in and follows the teachings of the Ten Gurus and Guru Granth Sahib; AND one who believes in the efficacy of the Five Kakaars and the Amrit ceremony. It has worked for me all my life, and sorts out things for me no matter what question has arisen pertaining to this issue. It includes sehajdharis, it has room for those who slip or fail ... and it does not limit the honour to only those who have TAKEN Amrit, or give them any special or elevated status. Again, I reiterate: I think it is a masterpiece of a definition! I should add for the sake of full disclosure: I am an amritdhari and feel blessed to be Khalsa, but I agree wholeheartedly with the Maryada's definition.
10: Gurjender Singh (Maryland, U.S.A.), January 06, 2010, 6:16 PM.
We can discuss any thing for approval or not approval of a Sikh. This all depends what definition comes from the Akal Takht. I was born and grew up in Uttar Pradesh State, India. I never heard in the gurdwara of a good Sikh, a bad Sikh, a Jutt Sikh, a Bhappa Sikh, a Ramgharia Sikh, an amritdhari Sikh, etc. I have seen so many families with Sikhs and non-Sikhs (without turban). But there was no discussion about these categories. Even during the Gurus' time, we never heard these things. As the Sikh religion is getting older, these issues are cropping up. No one should be judged by others as good or bad. Some students in a class get an A grade, others get B or C, but everyone passes.
11: Ravinder Singh Taneja (Westerville, Ohio, U.S.A.), January 06, 2010, 6:28 PM.
To me, there is only one authentic definition of a Sikh and that comes from the gurbani in the form of Guru Ramdas' shabad in Gauri Var, GGS:305, which clearly lays out what a Sikh is expected to do: arise early, bathe and contemplate the Name, then go about life's business focused on the task at hand but with the indwelling Name firmly etched within. Such a Sikh is indeed dear to the Guru. There are other definitions, of course but I regard them as social or legal conventions, subject to change and or modification. We probably all fall short of this definition, and need to develop forgiveness and compassion. Corporate definitions have other implications, but a failure to conform in that domain should not be a cause for exclusion.
12: Kanwar Nijjer (Canada), January 06, 2010, 7:05 PM.
I agree with Hew McLeod's Definition: "A Sikh is one who believes in Sikh Gurus and the Guru Granth". Regardless of whether he/ she is Khalsa or not. It is one's choice. The current Rehat Maryada came from the Singh Sabha and was formulated in 1930. There is no edict by Guru Gobind Singh stating every Sikh has to become Khalsa. [Editor: Neither does the Rehat Maryada definition say so!]
13: Sandeep Singh Brar (Brampton, Ontario, Canada), January 06, 2010, 8:05 PM.
Good question, but one that I find mildly irritating. Why? Because we already have the answer, why would you want to reinvent the wheel? We already have a Panthic definition that took a lot of work over 40 plus years before a consensus was arrived at. The definition of a Sikh in the Rehat Maryada is wonderful in it's inclusiveness while at the same time being specific enough to define parametric boundaries regarding Sikh identity. It is both specific and broad enough to encourage all that are either interested in perusing the path of Guru Nanak or those that are somewhere on that path already. We need goals in life and I think the definition in the Rehat Maryada provides that. It's also human nature that when goals or objectives are set very high, that we try to find excuses why we can't live up to those goals, instead of striving and struggling upwards towards a high ideal. It becomes a lot easier to revise those goals downward instead. I'm guilty of this every day, but rather than perhaps redefining a "Sikh" and lowering those goals downwards towards my personal failures. It's my failures and struggle to live up to being a "Sikh" that keeps me going on the path of Guru Nanak. We need to be inclusive and inspiring rather than turning people away from Guru Nanak's path, but there has to be some reciprocating effort and struggle in order to call yourself a Sikh. It's not something that you are born into, it's a privilege. Can I proclaim myself a doctor, lawyer or engineer without going to school, passing exams and being properly accredited? So how can anyone arbitrarily say "I'm a Sikh", but not be willing to work hard to be one. It's not a pick and choose buffet meal we are talking about here, it's a serious personal life-long commitment. In terms of people that fall short of that definition, I'm not sure what we can do about it as individuals other than try our best as Guru Nanak's ambassadors and hopefully that can inspire us as well as others when we stray form the path. One of my favourite spiritual definitions of a Sikh is the one written by Guru Arjan: "I observe neither Hindu fasting nor the ritual of the Muslim Ramadan month; Him I serve who at the last shall save. The Lord of the Universe of the Hindus, Gosain, and Allah to me are one; From Hindus and Muslims have I broken free. I perform neither the Kaaba pilgrimage nor at bathing spots worship; One sole Lord I serve, and no other. I perform neither the Hindu worship nor the Muslim prayer; To the Sole Formless Lord in my heart I bow. We neither are Hindus nor Muslims; Our body and life belong to the One Supreme Being who alone is both Ram and Allah for us." (Guru Arjan, GGS: 1136)
14: Kiranjeet Kaur Dhillon (Shah Alam, Malaysia), January 07, 2010, 12:39 AM.
To me, the definition of a Sikh is someone who follows the teachings of the Gurus and respects the religion. But is it necessary for a Sikh to follow all the Five Kakaars in order to be a true Sikh? I for one only wear the kara. But I still follow the teachings of the Gurus and practice them in my life. Does that make me not a Sikh?
15: Kartar Singh Bhalla (New Delhi, India), January 07, 2010, 1:34 AM.
Definition: One who believes in Guru Granth Sahib, has respect for the ten Gurus and the Bhagats whose bani is included in Guru Granth Sahib, and calls himself/herself a Sikh, is a Sikh. Reasons: Guru Nanak, the founder of Sikhism and all other Guru Sahiban did not lay down any boundaries or parameters for being called a Sikh. No parameters are required. The Sikh Faith is not a club which lays down rules for admission. Exceptions? There are no exceptions. Re one falling short - One who does not believe in Guru Granth Sahib or does not have respect for the Gurus is not a Sikh. A person whose conduct is not good is a bad person, no matter whether he is a Sikh, Hindu, Muslim, Christian, etc. Line of demarcation: I would not make any demarcation between a fully 'observant' Sikh with five K's and a Sikh who does not keep the five K's. I would not call the former a good Sikh and the latter a bad Sikh. To me a Sikh is a Sikh and I would presume he is a good person unless I see something bad in his conduct.
16: Surinder Kaur (Canada), January 07, 2010, 3:28 AM.
I agree with the comments made by others here that being a Sikh is a state of mind and belief in the Gurus and the Granth Sahib. However, I think that we have to also recognize that it is an 'ethnicity' - distinct racial group. Although this was not intended by the Gurus, the Sikhs by marrying with each other over the last 500 years have develop distinct traits and characteristics both physical and psychological and it would be naive to deny these! Having grown up in the West surrounded by very few Sikhs, it wasn't until I began to study Sikh history and philosophy that I began to really understand myself. I found that I would do things, behave in a certain way, respond to situations differently than my western counterparts and it was only by studying the Sikhs that I realize that these were Sikh traits and values! It was almost as if my DNA was programmed to be Sikh no matter how hard I tried to be otherwise. I know this will sound strange and only makes the water more 'muddier' but that is not my intent. I'm just curious to know if anyone else has experienced this or feels likewise. Can we operate at two levels - as an ethnic group and a religious group?
17: Balraj Singh (New Delhi, India), January 07, 2010, 9:52 AM.
Here's the full text from Bhai Gurdas, Varaan, XXVIII:15: "A true Sikh rises before the night ends, / And turns his thoughts to God's Name, / To charity and to holy bathing. He speaks humbly and humbly he walks, / He wishes everyone well and he is joyed to give away gifts from his hand. / He sleeps but little, And little does he eat and talk. / Thus he receives the Guru's true instruction. / He lives by the labour of his hands and he does good deeds. / However eminent he might become, / He demonstrates not himself. / He sings God's praises in the company of the holy. / Such company he seeks night and day. / Upon The Word is his mind fixed, / And he delights in the Guru's will. / Unenticed he lives in this world of enticement."
18: Satinder (Calgary, Alberta, Canada), January 07, 2010, 2:55 PM.
I love the definition offered by S. Gurjot Singh Khalsa: It is all inclusive. Hopefully, Sikhs are taking on the challenges of the journey depicted in Gurmeet Kaur's and Balraj Singhs definitiona. All three definitions are great and focus on the inner journey. Then, there is the definition of Sandeep Singh Brar of a higher goal, which is also analogous to ecstasy of the Sikh Path. Yet all are journeys, whether in baby steps or leaps. I don't think as a Sikh we should judge the stage of the journey by one's outer appearance. "Ouh aappay tolan haraa!" Ultimately, we are accountable for ourselves. But I do feel that once we have journeyed to the full discipline of the Khalsa, the accountability becomes a public responsibility. As a distinct/ visible member of the Sikh Faith, the stakes go up. As stated in T.Sher Singh's definition, where the founding President of WSO is an example, there should be some repercussions for misrepresentation. Whether the misrepresentation is on the part of a gurdwara leader, a leader of any Sikh organiztaion, spokesman for the community, a kathakari, a fake sant, or a criminal, they all do major harm to the community, all because of their outer appearances. Where once the Khalsa was meant to represent succour for the unjustly treated humanity, we are now looked upon as "terrorists". The question is, what are we going to do about the people who are doing so much harm to the community and the image of the religion and putting extra public challenges on the real Khalsa. I think this requires the alert involvement of all kinds of well-meaning Sikhs at any stage and the Khalsa should be willing to accommodate that.
19: Kartar Singh Bhalla (New Delhi, India), January 07, 2010, 8:29 PM.
Sardarni Surinder Kaur ji (Canada) has made three points with which it is difficult to agree. She says Sikhs are a 'distinct racial group'. The first four Gurus were born in Hindu families. Could they or their followers, the last six Gurus and other descendants be from a 'different racial group'? She further says that Sikhs marrying amongst themselves for 500 years have developed different traits. Thousands of Sikhs have married outsiders in the past and such marriages are taking place today and will take place in the future. She has in the end brought in the question of a different 'DNA'. I think we are going too far in trying to prove that Sikhs are different. Besides, this is far away from the subject of discussion: "Who is a Sikh?"
20: Jasvinder (Hamilton, New Zealand), January 07, 2010, 9:58 PM.
From all the discussion above, I am trying to concluded few things, according to my intellect: it may be that, as our Gurus said being a Sikh is a way of living, following certain traits in us as described by Balraj Singh ji. It was/is a path shown by our Gurus ... to break free from the complexity of religions and rituals during their times. But sadly enough, we have made it into another religion, and are told to follow it strictly. Sikhs are proclaimed to be better in lectures in some gurdwaras too. To me, a true Sikh is a person who is a good human being first and treats others equally. After that, he/she is on a journey to find him/ herself and the Supreme Lord through the teaching of our Gurus, Guru Granth Sahib or use any other scriptures for that matter to find the only Truth which is the Supreme God. So I'll start by being a good human being ... then move on to all other definitions as said above, and all of them apply, as we move further into different stages on our journey of finding God and who I am as a Sikh. If I have any malice in me against anyone, then I am not a true Sikh, if I am fearful because of things I have done, then I'm not a Sikh, if I give pain and, hurt to other people, then I am not a Sikh. If I don't respect other human beings, then I am not a Sikh, in my own little understanding, as I don't know much in detail about gurbani's definitions.
21: Jasvinder (Hamilton, NewZealand), January 07, 2010, 10:06 PM.
I want to add that the comments made by Satinder ji are the need of the hour.
22: Ranvir Singh (Coventry, United Kingdom), January 07, 2010, 11:14 PM.
It would be easy for me/us to define what I/we feel a Sikh is, though it would be impossible for me (and most of us, I believe), to say to someone they are not a Sikh, when THEY believe that they are. So maybe that answers the question for us. I do not believe that only a person who believes in the "teachings" of our Guru Granth Sahib, is a Sikh. Teachings are based on gurbani which is poetry. One of the reasons it may be in a poetic format is because maybe our Guru does not want us to draw close-minded or fixed concepts about the universe or other smaller issues from it. (I fully accept my analysis is probably flawed though I thought I should share this). Guru ji will (I believe) have a relationship with us and it will be different for each person. Some people will say these are the teachings and for others something else. It all depends on where Guru ji takes us. The oxymoron is that both are correct in some sense or in another sense, they make perfect sense. The yin and the yang.
23: Irvinder Singh Babra (Brantford, Ontario, Canada), January 07, 2010, 11:37 PM.
Any one who says today that he or she is a Sikh should be embraced, any one one who is born into a Sikh family is a Sikh.
24: Bhai Harbans Lal (Arlington , Texas, U.S.A.), January 08, 2010, 12:03 AM.
Although I fully accept what I.J. Singh, Gurujot Singh Khalsa, and Satinder ji said to define a Sikh, I do wonder why we are so much engrossed in the question of defining Sikhs. For centuries, this has not been a question except where, out of humility and commitment, Sikhs did articulate what they would like to be or aim at being. Only during the British Raj, the urge to define a Sikh began to take hold of our psyche. First, a section of people needed favours from their British masters, so they began to promote their clan identity. Then with the freedom of India in sight, the representation in the political power was made to be based strictly on numbers. Each religious community was given seats in the legislative bodies based on its population. Everyone began to scheme to increase their numbers. With several plans in place, I was drafted by the SGPC and Akali Dal to recruit my sehajdhari Sikh friends to call upon every person in Punjab and NWFP to urge them to place a check mark in the Sikh column at the time of census so that we could maximize Sikh representation in the state assemblies. I did that enthusiastically and at times even succeeded to get sehajdhari Sikhs elected to political offices reserved for Sikh representatives, and that too on Akali and Panthic tickets. We welcomed almost every non-Muslim Punjabi to be a Sikh for the census. Only ones who objected to the sehajdhari Sikhs to be voting as Sikhs were Hindus who were afraid of losing their political power to the Sikhs. Then came the post-partition era and the proportional representation in the political power was replaced with open elections in the secular India. The only places left for politically minded Sikhs to be elected and have any power base were the offices of our institutions and gurdwaras. Now we needed to exclude whosoever we could so that we may share the power and responsibility for managing our institutional power or wealth with as few people as we could. We began to change the rules and even asked the courts and other political powers to help in excluding as many people as we could so that the bounty stayed within a clan. If those were not the considerations, there is no issue of defining a person as a Sikh or a non-Sikh. Everyone would naturally consider a person as a Sikh if this person privately and publically expressed enthusiasm about learning from the Wisdom of the Guru Granth. After all, those who consider the Holy Quran as their scripture, we consider them Muslims and those who similarly regard the Vedas are Hindus. Forgive me if I touched any sensitive spot. My interest lies in panthic chardi-kalaa, not to be diminished by those who may be unwittingly moving towards what, to some, looks like a self-genocide of my beloved community.
25: Surinder Kaur (Toronto, Ontario, Canada), January 08, 2010, 12:55 PM.
Sardar Kartar Singh ji, I'm sorry to say that the comments made by you are equally invalid. Firstly even though the Sikh Gurus come from hindu families, it does notstand to reason that we are all descendants of hindus. We took our teachings from the Gurus, not their lineage, since Sikhs come from Hindu, Muslim and a number of other backgrounds. Secondly, inter-racial marriage amongst Sikhs is the exception rather than the rule and most Sikhs still marry other Sikhs ... which has, as I said earlier, led to distinct Sikh traits for which we are well known throughout the rest of the world (courage, integrity, forthrightness, etc). Thirdly, human evolution is a scientific fact and it is not too far-fetched to assume that a new ethnic grouping can emerge. I believe this is directly relevant to the issue of "Who is a Sikh?" because whether we like it or not, 90% of present-day Sikhs were born rather than converted into Sikhi.
26: Gurpal Singh Khakh (Wolverhampton, United Kingdom), January 08, 2010, 4:42 PM.
Surinder ji: ethnic groupings and even 'race' are social constructs, not scientific ones. Humans are 99.9% genetically identical and more variation can be see 'intra-ethnically' than 'inter-ethnically'.
27: Gurpal Singh (Wolverhampton, U.K.), January 08, 2010, 4:44 PM.
I agree totally with Bhai Harbans Lal, based on my own experience.
28: T. Sher Singh (Guelph, Ontario, Canada), January 08, 2010, 5:40 PM.
I entirely agree with Gurpal's comment on the ethnic grouping and race issue raised by Surinder. However, I must add that there is a smidgen of truth in what Surinder says, even though all I have to offer in support is anecdotal. I was in Macau, the then Portuguese island near Hong Kong, and dining in a restaurant with some friends a few years ago. The local population consists of two ethnicities - Chinese and Portuguese, with a smattering of Goans and a few other people from former Portuguese colonies. The waiters and waitresses at the restaurant reflected this mix. However, one of the waitresses not attending on us caught my eye from a distance, and I wasn't sure why. It distracted me throughout the meal. However, as we were leaving, she happened to pass us by and stopped in her tracks when she saw me ... and, to my utter surprise, wished me a timid "Sat Sri Akal!" I asked her 'how', 'why', 'when' - and she told me that her father was Sikh, her mother Chinese. He had settled in Macau ages ago, and had died while she was still a child. She was brought up since then entirely by the Chinese branch of her family, with no further contact from the Sikh side. And yes, her features were primarily Chinese! This is not an isolated incident - it's often happened that I've come across people - with no visible signs of being Sikh, Punjabi, Indian or South Asian - in the most obscure places in the world and noticed something unique about them, only to discover later that they were of Sikh descent. There's something about the collective mannerisms of the person, the posture, the "Punjabi" arrogance (maybe), or some mix of features which has become fairly common to Punjab and Sikhs - I don't know the answer. But I too, like Surinder, wonder about it, even though I wouldn't go all the way and say that it appears to point to a unique ethnic sub-group. Something for the experts to chew on, though!
29: Gurjender Singh (Maryland, U.S.A.), January 08, 2010, 7:38 PM.
After reading comments from I.J. Singh, T Sher Singh ji and Harbans Lal, some new questions have arisen which were never asked and raised and should not be asked or raised. The only unparalleled problem was faced by Sikhs in 1984, when innocent Sikhs (turbaned) were murdered by mobs. At that time Sikhs without turbans did not get effected. Even some of the Sikhs without turban refused to support the cause for justice for those who were killed and those who suffered during 1984. I will request, please respond to this situation which divided the Sikhs between turbaned and non-turbaned, which never happened for a long time even during Guru ji's time. [EDITOR: It is a giant leap, with nothing to substantiate it, that non-turbaned Sikhs were not effected by 1984. In fact, you will find that the contrary is true: Sikhs of every kind were ravaged by the crimes of 1984. There is absolutely NO evidence that there is a divide in the community on this issue. There may be exceptions, but it is not the rule.]
30: Nehla Kaur (Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada), January 08, 2010, 10:09 PM.
Gurjender Singh ji, please rest assured that this is not the case. I am a Sikh female with a 'western appearance', having grown up and educated in the West. I was in the U.K. when these events transpired but witnessed them on the TV. Since then I have read extensively on the subject, particularly on the human rights abuses of the 1984 pogroms and subsequent disappearances in the Punjab, and I cannot begin to tell to you how deeply impacted I have been by this. These are life changing events, not only for those directly impacted by them, but also for others like us who self-identify as Sikhs, regardless of our appearances and life styles. I have the utmost regard for amritdhari Sikhs in particular, not only because I know that they were singled out in the ethnic cleansing that occurred in the Punjab, but also because I have always found them to be very noble, humble and accepting of others. Even though I am not like them in appearance, these are the people I gravitate towards because I know they are bound by a higher standard than the rest of us. However, I cannot speak for those Sikhs who are turbaned but have not taken Amrit.
31: Kate (Edmonton, Alberta, Canada), January 09, 2010, 12:06 AM.
Surinder Kaur made a comment about the "inherited" racial traits like courage and integrity. I'd like to say those are going to be more likely the effect of being brought up in Sikhism and having good parents and family rather than an inherited gene. I'm not sure the "why" of defining a Sikh, rigidly or liberally, is even of all that much importance. But perhaps that is because I am not Sikh "by birth"! I understand the legal implications, of course, but as far as on a personal and religious basis, why is it important? Things like status (good Sikh/ bad Sikh/ non-Sikh) shouldn't matter to Sikhs anyways, as we believe in and promote equality for all. To me, that also means that if you are amritdhari and your neighbour isn't, that means you shouldn't judge them for being in a different spiritual place than you. That includes whether they are a Christian, Muslim or a clean-shaven Sikh. If you compare a pee-wee hockey player with an NHL player, they are both in very different stages of development, both physically and in terms of playing ability. But you wouldn't call only the professional player a hockey player, would you? The pee-wee hockey player is as much a hockey player. As I understand it, Sikhi is a path that involves following the teachings of the Gurus. We need to be taught, in essence, things we do not understand and realize on our own. But can all human beings be expected to learn every lesson taught, 100% right away? A 'B-' student is still as much of a student as an 'A+' student. Despite maybe taking more time to realize the importance of certain things, or having trouble with certain concepts. Basically, I also see a Sikh as anyone who defines himself as such. It's between that person and God as to where they are on their path in Sikhi.
32: Kartar Singh Bhalla (New Delhi, India), January 09, 2010, 1:01 AM.
Sardarni Surinder Kaur ji (Toronto, Canada) has repeated many points with which, as I have already submitted, it is difficult to agree. She has made a new point on which I may be permitted to comment. She has stated that Sikhs have distinct traits like courage, integrity, forthrightness for which they are well known throughout the rest of the world. For courage, bravery, yes, they are well known. But integrity and forthrightness are individual traits which many possess and many do not. These traits have nothing to do with membership in a specific religion.
33: Inder Pal Singh (Montreal, Quebec, Canada), January 10, 2010, 7:14 AM.
I was in Grade 2 when my grandfather told me the following story: One day Guru Ram Das was visiting a village near Amritsar. After the congregation, a man approached Guru Sahib and begged him to give him Sikhi. Guru Sahib replied, you took too long to ask for it as I have none left. But the man insisted. So the Guru Sahib said he should come back the following year and may be he will get it. Next year the man came back, and after the congregation, again asked the Guru Sahib for Sikhi. Again Guru Sahib said that he was late and will have to come back. When the man was gone, one of the sevadars asked the Guru Sahib, "Why did you not give him the blessing of Sikhi? Is there something wrong with him?" Guru Sahib replied, ""Sikhi is not a crop that I must harvest and then distribute. If he wants Sikhi then he has to become a Sikh". My grandfather told me that "a person is a Sikh if others/ strangers can trust him/her, count on him/her; an honest, hard working, caring and sharing person is a Sikh". This definition has been my guiding light ever since. I would like to add a word or two about some amritdharis who have added Khalsa with their name. I feel these are the people who have set themselves a level above the Punj Pyaras and the Tenth Guru. These amritdharis have completely ignored the bani of the Gurus and have given themselves the title of 'Khalsa' even though they hardly show any traits of a Khalsa. These people have some kind of inferiority complex. Khalsa is known by deeds and not by the title.
34: Nirmal Singh. Nilvi (Dallas, Texas, U.S.A.), January 10, 2010, 8:07 AM.
An interesting dialogue, mostly comments directly related to the issue, with a few sprinkles of personal perspectives. The critical nature of the issue for the Sikh Faith has prompted me to share my views on "Who is a Sikh". For me, anybody who walks into a Sikh place of worship with a need to learn (curiosity), is a Sikh for the day. If Sikhs welcome him with the Punjabi greeting, "jee aaean nu", show him respect, treat him with dignity and care, ask him to join in singing a shabad and see him off after eating langar together, he will be back. He will become a regular Sikh. Chances are he will bring more with him to join. Because that is what all human beings search for from a group to belong. That is also the historic reason for the creation of the Sikh Faith. That is what Guru Nanak did. That is also what gurbani conveys and requires us to learn and live. Fast forward to these modern times. I agree that if a person claims to be a Sikh, then he is a Sikh. Anybody who believes in the Guru Granth is a Sikh. And I agree with other criteria shared by other contributors for a person to be a Sikh. If the answer is so simple and straight forward, why the question? That is what requires deliberate and serious ponderance from all of us. Our individual perspective is likely to vary, which is okay. In my view, lack of education, our failure to make Guru Granth and gurbani as the core basis, developing rituals around two Gurus (Guru Gobind Singh and Guru Granth), making 'identity' the focal point (in the 1870's) and the failure to impress the need for a "unity of purpose" are some of the key reasons for the current situation. As a result, we are engaged in this discussion to get a handle on the definition of a Sikh. Who is to blame? All of us. Instead of tackling the issue with a mind-set to resolve, we have taken an easy road of blame. Each side is trying to shove their approach into the throat of the other side. We have resorted to calling names, if necessary without any regard for gurbani, which is contrary and forbidding of such behavior. Where do we go from here? First, we need to understand that Sikhism is a faith of many. As such, every Sikh has the right to practice his Faith within his understanding and capacity. The Sikh Faith does not allow others to dictate what practices any Sikh should observe. As such, we need to learn to temper our desire to expect other Sikhs to act and behave in our own image. We also need to learn the importance of "unity of purpose" for the success of any human enterprise. It applies to faith as well. We need to accept everybody the way they are. Sikhism has not matured yet as a faith. It is going through transformation. The current changes include global settlements and the introduction of education at a fast pace. Can we manage this transformation? I think so. Sikhs are a highly devout and committed people. We have the proven ability to get things done. The question is: at what cost (struggle)? And how long will it take? To minimize the struggle, we need to get on with the task. To effectively meet the challenge, we should reverse our behavior. More action, less talk. If this discussion is a step in that direction, I am glad to be part of the group.
35: Dr. Sarabjit Singh (Chandigarh, Punjab), January 10, 2010, 8:36 AM.
A Sikh is one who believes in, and only in the teachings of Gru Granth Sahib. The Sikhi saroop given by the Gurus is very much a part of the teachings of Guru Granth ('sabat surat dastar sira'; 'sabat surat rab di phane beiman'). The concept of sabat surat is very much present in the Guru Granth, even though some people ascribe it to the Tenth Master alone as an excuse to not follow the full discipline of the Faith.
36: Kartar Singh Bhalla (New Delhi, India), January 10, 2010, 8:30 PM.
What S. Inder Pal Singh ji (Montreal) has stated are 'traits' of a Sikh : "A person is a Sikh if others/ strangers can trust him/her, count on him/her; an honest, hard working, caring and sharing person is a Sikh". If the following words could be added, it would become a comprehensive definition: " ... if he believes in Guru Granth Sahib". S. Nirmal Singh Nilvi ji (Dallas) has developed the theme beautifully. He has simplified the issue by saying that "if a person claims to be a Sikh, then he is a Sikh; anybody who believes in the Guru Granth is a Sikh". Such an approach can help us arrive at a good and most widely acceptable definition of a Sikh.
37: Inder Pal Singh (Montreal, Quebec, Canada), January 11, 2010, 9:50 AM.
S. Kartar Singh ji, thank you very much for your suggestion. It was not an oversight on my part. I was merely quoting my grandfather who, in his time, probably never met a Sikh who did not have Guru Granth Sahib in his home. Yes, in the present day, inclusion of your suggestion would be most appropriate.
38: Nirmal Singh Nilvi (Dallas. Texas. U.S.A.), January 12, 2010, 11:06 AM.
Several comments shared in this discussion require clarification or further exchange of opinions for better understanding. Take for example 'courage'. There is no doubt in my mind about Sikhs being more courageous. However, is it a genetic trait or acquired after training. In danger, our emotional response of fight or flight may be normal, but after training we become better prepared to fight (and resist). What do you think? We are known all over the world for bravery. Bravery is well known to provide exposure all over but we are hardly known. What is the general opinion? Here my point is not to be critical, doubtful or cynical. But it has a question about our psyche. Guru Gobind Singh wanted (and accomplished) a Sikh mind to believe in his/her capacity to "Sava lakh se ek larraoon". Have we acquired that kind of spirit? Re another comment made in this dialogue: Sikhism is congregational in nature, compared to the Roman Catholic church, for example, which is hierarchical. Is this true? Guru Nanak established the practice of the congregational concept and Guru Gobind Singh further added the idea of the Panj Pyare to the practice. But in reality, Sikhism became a bit hierarchical even the during Gurus' time. Even now, we are congregational in a small ceremonial way. Otherwise, the gurdwara has become a place for power struggle, confrontation and control. In Catholicism, the Pope is elected through an elaborate democratic process. My point is for us to become more self observers. This is the only way we can benefit from the most befitting advice in the Guru Granth: "munn toon jot saroop hain, aapna mool pehchaan". And in the process become a more successfully and smoothly functioning society - and individuals too!. To emphasize my sensitivity, I just picked up these examples out of the ongoing discussion to illustrate the point and get your feedback. Is there a gap between reality and opinion in our community? Do we have a tendency to claim something we conceptually may have but lack in practice? Do we avoid discussing such needed analysis openly because it is stifled whenever it comes up for discussion and resort to calling the practice blasphemous if necessary? Do we come across as wearing our religion on the sleeve? I hope these issues have relevant connection with "Who is a Sikh" as well.
39: Sanmeet Kaur (Brampton, Ontario, Canada), January 12, 2010, 6:40 PM.
One sure conclusion of this discussion is that being a Sikh means many things to us all, but at the same time it boils down to just one: You are a Sikh when you "claim to be a Sikh," and believe in One God, recognize one and only Guru, the Guru Granth, and aspire towards the Guru's Grace. All this, keeping in mind that the Guru Granth embodies the Ten Masters and their teachings. I am with Kate when she asks, "I'm not sure of the 'why' of defining a Sikh rigidly or liberally, is even of all that much importance," (but, unlike her, I have inherited my Sikhi). Instead, we could concentrate our efforts on working on a census (an online registration site?) and building our Panth (can we instill real democracy into our Gurudwara committees?). If one is looking at guidelines, there are Bhai Gurdas' Varaan (described as the key to the understanding of the Guru Granth) and the Rehat Maryada. When you accept that the Guru Granth is the living Guru then you accept and acknowledge the Sikh Maryada to be more than just culled by individuals. I believe that being a Sikh has to do with your faith and intent, and your conduct thereafter. How much of a Sikh you are is between the Guru and you. Everyone on their own path is right in their perspective. Like Sandeep says, "We need to be inclusive and inspiring rather than turning people away from Guru Nanak's path, but there has to be some reciprocating effort"! It is also true that nowadays, "Instead of striving and struggling upward towards a high(er) ideal, it's become easier to revise those goals downward instead". I remember as a teenager one 'Aunty' from my mother's social set cut her hair and said, "I follow Guru Nanak, not Guru Gobind Singh ji." I didn't get it. I still don't. If a gate has ten sections, it's still one gate; all Gurus are One Light. There is no difference between the ideologies of any two Gurus. The opportunity of being Khalis - pure - is given to every Sikh. If you are born into a Sikh family that is amritdhari, it means you have a couple of steps less to travel. As far as I know, Sikhism does not identify with the concept of apostasy. In the event that you choose to forgo your inherited Sardari, you lose the status the Guru empowered you with; you are considered 'patit' - one without status (or patt). You no longer remain aristocrat, leader, chief, champion. As for compromising your Sikhi or self, that again is between your Guru and you. Be aware, though, that you will have let down your panth, your family. When I see a Sikh who has removed his turban, a question will arise in my heart, "Did you give it your best shot before you gave it up?" As much as it's painful, it's not mine to ask - or judge. If our Guru accepts you, if you are His, than you are mine!
40: Yadwinder Singh (Pickerington, Ohio, U.S.A.), January 18, 2010, 9:20 PM.
Anybody who believes in the Guru Granth is a Sikh. If a person is humble and eager to learn and claims he does know anything, Waheguru is everything and he wants to learn ... he is a Sikh. People who want to create a grade system in a religion based on looks, caste, etc., probably do not understand gurbani at all.
41: Jas (New York, U.S.A.), January 30, 2010, 5:03 PM.
I apologize for not commenting on the primary question (because I don't have an answer) but I would like to answer a question that some have asked - why are we asking this (controversial) question? The answer is simple - we must answer this question within our community so that those outside of our community will not be in a position of answering it on our behalf. As Sikhs become more influential in this world, this question is being asked of us by nations, institutions, courtrooms and other communities. It would be unwise if we do not have a "definition" that we can agree on to share.