Sikh or Indian?

yee.jpg

At Stockton’s Sikh Temple on Friday morning, State Sen. Leland Yee, a San Francisco Democrat, asked whether members of the faith identify themselves more as Indians or as Sikhs.

That’s a controversial point, to be honest,” temple representative Sarabjit Singh said.[link]

The question often arises in various discussions. In fact in a recent conversation about the sometimes-called Sikh (pagh salute: GK) Inaugural Ball in DC this week, one commenter lamented:

One thing that I noticed about the Sikhs, is that they always seem to feel underrepresented. By the amount of their rhetoric, a Westerner would probably think that 33% of India is compromised of Sikhs, when in fact, the figure is more like 2%. Also, Sikhs tend to not view themselves as Indians, and apparently, they don’t view themselves as being “desi”. Even this Sikh Inaugural Ball has the headline “Sikhs and Desis Celebrate Obama.” Wait a minute…so Sikhs are exclusive to Desis now?[link]

The State Senators question to the Sikh community came at a time when he was attempting to discover an Asian Civil Rights Agenda for Asians in California. Asian Indians (read mainly Sikhs) make up 14% of the Asian population in Yees San Joaquin County (includes Stockton, Tracy, Lodi, Manteca, etc.). Also as an aside, the article was reported in the Stockton Record that features a keshadhari Sikh, Jagdip Dhillon, as a sportswriter.

For me, my personal experiences, I have always had a much closer affiliation with a Sikh identity. This may be for a number of different reasons, probably tied to the fact of growing up in the diaspora during the height of the Khalistan movement in a largely Sikh-community. Despite Sarabjit Singhs trepidations, the assertion of this identity has been less controversial in recent times.

While I feel males (keshadhari or not) are much more quick to assert an exclusive Sikh identity, I have seen this impulse not as strong amongst some women. Is there a politics behind this as well? What is your perspective?


bookmark bookmark bookmark bookmark bookmark bookmark bookmark bookmark bookmark bookmark bookmark bookmark
tabs-top


60 Responses to “Sikh or Indian?”

  1. BUCHANGI says:

    Sikh any day.

    Nobody can say im not a sikh. Plus i feel prouder when i call myself a Sikh.

    I feel like a slave with someone calls me indian.

  2. BUCHANGI says:

    Sikh any day.

    Nobody can say im not a sikh. Plus i feel prouder when i call myself a Sikh.

    I feel like a slave with someone calls me indian.

  3. Narinder Singh says:

    Sikhs belong to 'Sikh Nation', whose central power of throne is Sri Akaal Takht Sahib.

    Sikhs may live anywhere on the planet according to law of land, but whom they ultimately owe allegiance to is Akaal Purakh.

  4. Narinder Singh says:

    Sikhs belong to ‘Sikh Nation’, whose central power of throne is Sri Akaal Takht Sahib.

    Sikhs may live anywhere on the planet according to law of land, but whom they ultimately owe allegiance to is Akaal Purakh.

  5. Harpreet Singh says:

    Langar Hall often posts articles which catch my conscience or rather which I have often thought about in the past. Just today I wrote a comment in Timesofindia.com, which I know would not go online because of they cant hear when someone speaks true but under represented thing in a propriety manner. It was about TOI's nonplussed attitude of whether to call Diasporic Sikhs as Sikhs or NRI's. I have observed that when India as a nation doesnt extracts some prestige or influence out of the news of Sikh NRI's, then they are referred to just as Sikhs. But when the news acts as a source of proving India's image and influence in diaspora abroad, then they are referred as NRI.

    Also your point that girls are not among the sikh population who are not proud to refer themselves as sikhs is very well observed. And if statistics were to be maintained, you could feel shame that how more than 50% of the sikh girls are marrying in Hindu families. I feel its high time some people do something about it. Indian sikh girls are the ones with no feeling towards the panth, they are the renegades.

  6. Harpreet Singh says:

    Langar Hall often posts articles which catch my conscience or rather which I have often thought about in the past. Just today I wrote a comment in Timesofindia.com, which I know would not go online because of they cant hear when someone speaks true but under represented thing in a propriety manner. It was about TOI’s nonplussed attitude of whether to call Diasporic Sikhs as Sikhs or NRI’s. I have observed that when India as a nation doesnt extracts some prestige or influence out of the news of Sikh NRI’s, then they are referred to just as Sikhs. But when the news acts as a source of proving India’s image and influence in diaspora abroad, then they are referred as NRI.
    Also your point that girls are not among the sikh population who are not proud to refer themselves as sikhs is very well observed. And if statistics were to be maintained, you could feel shame that how more than 50% of the sikh girls are marrying in Hindu families. I feel its high time some people do something about it. Indian sikh girls are the ones with no feeling towards the panth, they are the renegades.

  7. Jodha says:

    Harpreet,

    I completely agree with your thoughts on TOI. Very interesting analysis and worthy of further discussion.

    As far as your comment that girls are not proud to refer to themselves is far more extreme than anything I was suggesting. The politics of women's identification with their Sikhi may be different than for a male. I was just making an observation, not coming up such conclusions. Actually statistically I doubt that 50% of Sikh women marry non-Sikh men. In fact from an earlier report, it stated that within the US, "Asian-Indians" tend to be amongst the most likely of "Asian" groups in America to marry within the same ethnicity. I assume Sikh women will largely fall within this category. With regards to the preference for non-keshadhari males that is a forever boring topic that I do not wish to open.

  8. kaptaan says:

    Its called Khalsa Panth, and Sikh Qaum for a reason…

  9. kaptaan says:

    Its called Khalsa Panth, and Sikh Qaum for a reason…

  10. Jodha says:

    Harpreet,

    I completely agree with your thoughts on TOI. Very interesting analysis and worthy of further discussion.

    As far as your comment that girls are not proud to refer to themselves is far more extreme than anything I was suggesting. The politics of women’s identification with their Sikhi may be different than for a male. I was just making an observation, not coming up such conclusions. Actually statistically I doubt that 50% of Sikh women marry non-Sikh men. In fact from an earlier report, it stated that within the US, “Asian-Indians” tend to be amongst the most likely of “Asian” groups in America to marry within the same ethnicity. I assume Sikh women will largely fall within this category. With regards to the preference for non-keshadhari males that is a forever boring topic that I do not wish to open.

  11. DK says:

    Isn't the question about where you are from vs. what religious group you identify with? My understanding is you are Indian when you are from India. You are Sikh, when you practice Sikhism.

    But then again, I was born in Canada, am a Sikni, and yet find it easiest to say I am an Indian when asked.

  12. DK says:

    Isn’t the question about where you are from vs. what religious group you identify with? My understanding is you are Indian when you are from India. You are Sikh, when you practice Sikhism.

    But then again, I was born in Canada, am a Sikni, and yet find it easiest to say I am an Indian when asked.

  13. Harpreet Singh says:

    I know and I have some perceptive observations, even though I live in India, that sikh girls living abroad are more assertive and confident to represent their faith than sikh girls in India, who by and large are more Hindu than Sikh. I am saying this because although it is ok for them to mingle with the majority and get along with their practices as well, even I do that…but when the time comes calling to show panth some love, even then they are reluctant and feel shame to represent sikhism…more clearly putting through the perspective of Indian sikh women that I have seen, being sikh for them is assuming being under developed and desi in majority's eyes. I think also that they are quite uninformed and uninterested about the sikh history and the sufferings of sikhs in India which could have kindled some feeling for their panth.

  14. Harpreet Singh says:

    I know and I have some perceptive observations, even though I live in India, that sikh girls living abroad are more assertive and confident to represent their faith than sikh girls in India, who by and large are more Hindu than Sikh. I am saying this because although it is ok for them to mingle with the majority and get along with their practices as well, even I do that…but when the time comes calling to show panth some love, even then they are reluctant and feel shame to represent sikhism…more clearly putting through the perspective of Indian sikh women that I have seen, being sikh for them is assuming being under developed and desi in majority’s eyes. I think also that they are quite uninformed and uninterested about the sikh history and the sufferings of sikhs in India which could have kindled some feeling for their panth.

  15. Harpreet Singh says:

    Jodha,

    The statistics that I pointed are of Indian resident sikh girls. And as for your speaking of marriages in US or for that matter any other foreign country, its of little use because you know too what percentage sikh population abroad comprises to that in India…so comparing there is of no signifacnt value to the point that I put…I hope you understand the ground realities.

  16. Harpreet Singh says:

    Jodha,
    The statistics that I pointed are of Indian resident sikh girls. And as for your speaking of marriages in US or for that matter any other foreign country, its of little use because you know too what percentage sikh population abroad comprises to that in India…so comparing there is of no signifacnt value to the point that I put…I hope you understand the ground realities.

  17. Parminder Singh says:

    The funniest is when sikhs will tell media, we are not Muslim, we are Indian, not realizing there are more than 5X as many Muslims in india than Sikhs…

    I mean it is really convenient to say I'm Indian, because then we don't ahve to give gorre the whole lecture on Sikhi in a 2 minute attention span. But what purpose does that really serve?

    When i was growing up going to school, I was called dothead, Hindu, gandhi, then recnetly since the sept 11th stuff, we are arabs, towelheads, camels, blah blah

    maybe that inconvenience of telling about our sikh heritage and culture will help prevent misguided assumptions of fellow sikhs?

    facts are facts. India was a nation created in 1947. Sikhs are not even recognized as a distinct faith in India's constitution. And as a matter of fcat, Sikhs never even signed the Indian constitution.

    The Sikhs are a nation older than present day India.

    National Bird: Baaj (Hawk)

    National Symbol: Khanda

    National Army: Khalsa Panth

    National Anthem: Deh Siva

    National Center of Authority: Sri Akaal Takhat Sahib

    National Founder: Guru Gobind Singh Ji

    National Heroes: Puratan Shaheeds are terrorists for the Mughals and recent Shaheeds are terrorists for India ( go figure)

    National Food: Saag and Makki di roti (or as Indians say sarson ka saag, makki ki roti)

    National Pasttime: Kabaddi

    New Years: Vaiskahi

    etc etc

    If the sikhs aren't a nation then what are they?

    peace.

  18. Parminder Singh says:

    The funniest is when sikhs will tell media, we are not Muslim, we are Indian, not realizing there are more than 5X as many Muslims in india than Sikhs…

    I mean it is really convenient to say I’m Indian, because then we don’t ahve to give gorre the whole lecture on Sikhi in a 2 minute attention span. But what purpose does that really serve?

    When i was growing up going to school, I was called dothead, Hindu, gandhi, then recnetly since the sept 11th stuff, we are arabs, towelheads, camels, blah blah

    maybe that inconvenience of telling about our sikh heritage and culture will help prevent misguided assumptions of fellow sikhs?

    facts are facts. India was a nation created in 1947. Sikhs are not even recognized as a distinct faith in India’s constitution. And as a matter of fcat, Sikhs never even signed the Indian constitution.

    The Sikhs are a nation older than present day India.

    National Bird: Baaj (Hawk)
    National Symbol: Khanda
    National Army: Khalsa Panth
    National Anthem: Deh Siva
    National Center of Authority: Sri Akaal Takhat Sahib
    National Founder: Guru Gobind Singh Ji
    National Heroes: Puratan Shaheeds are terrorists for the Mughals and recent Shaheeds are terrorists for India ( go figure)
    National Food: Saag and Makki di roti (or as Indians say sarson ka saag, makki ki roti)
    National Pasttime: Kabaddi
    New Years: Vaiskahi

    etc etc

    If the sikhs aren’t a nation then what are they?

    peace.

  19. PCJ says:

    What's so difficult about this?

    Those who are Indians and like to be classified as Indians are Indian and those who are not from India or don't like to be classified as Indians are not Indian…

  20. PCJ says:

    What’s so difficult about this?

    Those who are Indians and like to be classified as Indians are Indian and those who are not from India or don’t like to be classified as Indians are not Indian…

  21. H Singh says:

    PCJ,

    Besides the geographical identification Indian also implies an ideological belief. Hindu means Indian also. So does that means Sikhs are Hindus?

    The question is whether being a Sikh encompasses all the definations that we give to ourselves.

  22. H Singh says:

    PCJ,
    Besides the geographical identification Indian also implies an ideological belief. Hindu means Indian also. So does that means Sikhs are Hindus?

    The question is whether being a Sikh encompasses all the definations that we give to ourselves.

  23. Prem says:

    And if statistics were to be maintained, you could feel shame that how more than 50% of the sikh girls are marrying in Hindu families. I feel its high time some people do something about it. Indian sikh girls are the ones with no feeling towards the panth, they are the renegades.

    If you want to know why there are still honour killings of Sikh girls and women, the above quotation illustrates the roots of the rotten mentality that leads to that kind of evil. 'Shame', demonising Sikh women as 'renegades', treating them as if they are animals that belong to men, and not only that, Sikh men everywhere.

    I pray that God saves Sikh women from this evil mentality and hypocrisy.

  24. Prem says:

    And if statistics were to be maintained, you could feel shame that how more than 50% of the sikh girls are marrying in Hindu families. I feel its high time some people do something about it. Indian sikh girls are the ones with no feeling towards the panth, they are the renegades.

    If you want to know why there are still honour killings of Sikh girls and women, the above quotation illustrates the roots of the rotten mentality that leads to that kind of evil. ‘Shame’, demonising Sikh women as ‘renegades’, treating them as if they are animals that belong to men, and not only that, Sikh men everywhere.

    I pray that God saves Sikh women from this evil mentality and hypocrisy.

  25. KDS says:

    Prem

    Your comment is highly offensive I am surprised That moderators of this blog still allowed it.It is true that many sikh girls are marrying non sikh men and after marriage majority of them raise Hindu families and do hindu customs.If someone say this it does not mean that he beleive in honour killing or women as property of men etc.

  26. KDS says:

    Prem

    Your comment is highly offensive I am surprised That moderators of this blog still allowed it.It is true that many sikh girls are marrying non sikh men and after marriage majority of them raise Hindu families and do hindu customs.If someone say this it does not mean that he beleive in honour killing or women as property of men etc.

  27. Harinder says:

    Historically India and SIKHS shall alway be entwined much as u may like to disapprove.

    You cannot deny certian facts of Our History

    1 ) Guru Gobind Singhji was from Patna which is no where close to Punjab.

    2) Panj Piares roots of SIKHS

    a) Dharam Das, a Jat from————–Hastinapur,

    b) Muhkam Chand, a cloth-printer from–Dwaraka,

    c) Himmat, a water-bearer from ——–Jagannath,

    d) and Sahib Chand, a barber from——Bidar,

    3) Two of our TAKTHS in NANDED and PATNA

    None of these places have been part of Punjab at any time.

    Future I do not Know for I am no Crystal Gazer and I do find "TIME" and "LIFE" a very complex and mysterious phenomenon which eludes understanding of my mind.

    It is likely that SIKHS may grow like many major religions of the world outside its roots eg

    a) Christianity from Syria and Iudaea

    b) Islam from Mecca

    c) Buddhism from Lumbini in Nepal.

  28. Harinder says:

    Historically India and SIKHS shall alway be entwined much as u may like to disapprove.

    You cannot deny certian facts of Our History

    1 ) Guru Gobind Singhji was from Patna which is no where close to Punjab.

    2) Panj Piares roots of SIKHS

    a) Dharam Das, a Jat from————–Hastinapur,
    b) Muhkam Chand, a cloth-printer from–Dwaraka,
    c) Himmat, a water-bearer from ——–Jagannath,
    d) and Sahib Chand, a barber from——Bidar,

    3) Two of our TAKTHS in NANDED and PATNA

    None of these places have been part of Punjab at any time.

    Future I do not Know for I am no Crystal Gazer and I do find “TIME” and “LIFE” a very complex and mysterious phenomenon which eludes understanding of my mind.

    It is likely that SIKHS may grow like many major religions of the world outside its roots eg

    a) Christianity from Syria and Iudaea
    b) Islam from Mecca
    c) Buddhism from Lumbini in Nepal.

  29. H Singh says:

    Prem has a stereotypical obeservation about Sikhs widely popular amog Indians. Hindu/Indian recognization of Sikhs is only when Sikhs are terrorists and infanticiders otherwise Sikhs are Hindus. I am not intrigued by Prem's response.

    Harinder,

    Your assertion of Sikhs being Indian lacks the assetment of principle of Sikhi. Did Gurus give us a nationality? Does Sikhi means a geography? I think you should re-asses your assertion based on the principles of Sikhi. Regards,

  30. H Singh says:

    Prem has a stereotypical obeservation about Sikhs widely popular amog Indians. Hindu/Indian recognization of Sikhs is only when Sikhs are terrorists and infanticiders otherwise Sikhs are Hindus. I am not intrigued by Prem’s response.

    Harinder,
    Your assertion of Sikhs being Indian lacks the assetment of principle of Sikhi. Did Gurus give us a nationality? Does Sikhi means a geography? I think you should re-asses your assertion based on the principles of Sikhi. Regards,

  31. I'm not Indian, never been Indian, have no Indian family, and may never be an Indian citizen, and I don't feel any pride or benefit when Indians gain recognition in this country. At least not any more than my pride for humanity for acting consciously and recognizing each other as fellow humans.

    I think Indians have plenty of recognition, Sikhs still are completely unknown in this country. My home state is the only place in the U.S. where I can travel about in my bana and people don't stare.

    Also I'd like to clarify that the Khalsa is not the Sikh army, it is the army of God. We only follow the will of God and protect all of humanity. Khalsa Akal Purakh Ki Fauj! WaheGuru Ji Ka Khalsa, WaheGuru Ji Ki Fateh!

  32. I’m not Indian, never been Indian, have no Indian family, and may never be an Indian citizen, and I don’t feel any pride or benefit when Indians gain recognition in this country. At least not any more than my pride for humanity for acting consciously and recognizing each other as fellow humans.
    I think Indians have plenty of recognition, Sikhs still are completely unknown in this country. My home state is the only place in the U.S. where I can travel about in my bana and people don’t stare.
    Also I’d like to clarify that the Khalsa is not the Sikh army, it is the army of God. We only follow the will of God and protect all of humanity. Khalsa Akal Purakh Ki Fauj! WaheGuru Ji Ka Khalsa, WaheGuru Ji Ki Fateh!

  33. JR1 says:

    fascinating. I am an Indian Hindu (as opposed to an ABCD hindu) and I never realized that Sikhs feel so alienated from India. Is it just the ones overseas.?? Because I dont think Hindus every drew a line vis a vis the Sikhs the same way they did with Muslims and for good reason…most Hindus view Sikhism as a martial caste created to defend Hinduism against Muslim oppression. And also Indians identify strongly with sikhs overseas.

    wish you guys came around, I hate the congress sponsored riots of '84 but I have a ton of Sikhs pals in India and it never once occurred that they were different except of course for the 'sardar jokes' :)

  34. JR1 says:

    fascinating. I am an Indian Hindu (as opposed to an ABCD hindu) and I never realized that Sikhs feel so alienated from India. Is it just the ones overseas.?? Because I dont think Hindus every drew a line vis a vis the Sikhs the same way they did with Muslims and for good reason…most Hindus view Sikhism as a martial caste created to defend Hinduism against Muslim oppression. And also Indians identify strongly with sikhs overseas.

    wish you guys came around, I hate the congress sponsored riots of '84 but I have a ton of Sikhs pals in India and it never once occurred that they were different except of course for the 'sardar jokes' :)

  35. Harinder says:

    I dont think it is a correct question ?
    One is about 'SPATIAL IDENTIFICATION" and other is about "THEOLOGICAL IDIENTIFICATION"
    The more appprotpiate question would be do you identfy more with say USA or INDIA.
    The ansawer would then be posssible.
    Indian Sikhs would call them selves Indian and American Sikhs would call themselves Americans .
    To give example from physics my beloved subject :–
    It is like that you cannot compare liters with Grams or second.

  36. Harinder says:

    I dont think it is a correct question ?
    One is about 'SPATIAL IDENTIFICATION" and other is about "THEOLOGICAL IDIENTIFICATION"
    The more appprotpiate question would be do you identfy more with say USA or INDIA.
    The ansawer would then be posssible.
    Indian Sikhs would call them selves Indian and American Sikhs would call themselves Americans .
    To give example from physics my beloved subject :–
    It is like that you cannot compare liters with Grams or second.

  37. karun says:

    sikhs are amongst the most patriotic people in india, infact all sikhs I know in India would be the first ones to defend India, there is something strikingly different about the dispora in the US and Canada. But then these kids who were born here who seem to indentify with sikh more than Indian, also are the ones that walk around with a African American Gangster rapper look, they identify themselves with that in a big big way too. So I mean their is something different overall , times have moved on, India has moved on in a big way.

  38. karun says:

    sikhs are amongst the most patriotic people in india, infact all sikhs I know in India would be the first ones to defend India, there is something strikingly different about the dispora in the US and Canada. But then these kids who were born here who seem to indentify with sikh more than Indian, also are the ones that walk around with a African American Gangster rapper look, they identify themselves with that in a big big way too. So I mean their is something different overall , times have moved on, India has moved on in a big way.

  39. kw2 says:

    Huh – funny – I thought being a sikh also meant (or rather mainly meant) recognizing everyone as one / equal – guess doesn't apply when it comes to being proud to be of a religion / nation? "Awwal Allah Noor Upaya, Qudrat de sab bande , ek noor te sab jag up jeya, kaun bhale kaun mande"

  40. kw2 says:

    Huh – funny – I thought being a sikh also meant (or rather mainly meant) recognizing everyone as one / equal – guess doesn't apply when it comes to being proud to be of a religion / nation? "Awwal Allah Noor Upaya, Qudrat de sab bande , ek noor te sab jag up jeya, kaun bhale kaun mande"

  41. Sewa says:

    These are not the same things..Sikh is faith or religion, Indian is a nationality or ethnic group

  42. Sewa says:

    These are not the same things..Sikh is faith or religion, Indian is a nationality or ethnic group

  43. Sen Khalsa says:

    SIKHS ARE A NATION. SIKHS WILL HAVE KHALISTAN. WE ARE NOT HINDUS.

  44. Sen Khalsa says:

    SIKHS ARE A NATION. SIKHS WILL HAVE KHALISTAN. WE ARE NOT HINDUS.

  45. Sewa says:

    I am very proud to be Sikh…I am very angry about 1984, indeed remmeber it, esp hatred I had at time towards Hindus, and how I admired Bhinderwale…My view is slighlty different now…I still dislike Hindus who are prejudice to Sikhs ( In fact feel that Punjabis across the border are culturally closer), BUT, I am not so keen on Khalistan anymore…not because of what it will do to India ( They still have not bought the bad guys of 84 to book), but because I look at Pakistan, a Muslim State and see what it has become, I look at Israel, A Jewish State, and see what it has become. Both are foced to justify themselves on Religion, which has lead to Fundamentalism, and both being at the epicentre of all world problems….I do not want that to happen to Punjab…The time for an Independant Sikh state was either after Maharaja Ranjit Singh ( But his inheritors screwed that up with help of Whites) or in 1947, when we should have said no to joining India.

    Now we are Indian, and just need to fight to maintain Punjab strong…If we have to be independant, our religion should not come into it, as Khalistan could become like Pakistan..intolerant to free thought

  46. Sewa says:

    I am very proud to be Sikh…I am very angry about 1984, indeed remmeber it, esp hatred I had at time towards Hindus, and how I admired Bhinderwale…My view is slighlty different now…I still dislike Hindus who are prejudice to Sikhs ( In fact feel that Punjabis across the border are culturally closer), BUT, I am not so keen on Khalistan anymore…not because of what it will do to India ( They still have not bought the bad guys of 84 to book), but because I look at Pakistan, a Muslim State and see what it has become, I look at Israel, A Jewish State, and see what it has become. Both are foced to justify themselves on Religion, which has lead to Fundamentalism, and both being at the epicentre of all world problems….I do not want that to happen to Punjab…The time for an Independant Sikh state was either after Maharaja Ranjit Singh ( But his inheritors screwed that up with help of Whites) or in 1947, when we should have said no to joining India.

    Now we are Indian, and just need to fight to maintain Punjab strong…If we have to be independant, our religion should not come into it, as Khalistan could become like Pakistan..intolerant to free thought

  47. jatt says:

    i am a jatt sikh we had fought many battles in past and in 1984 riots.we will also fight to save our lives in future also.

  48. jatt says:

    i am a jatt sikh we had fought many battles in past and in 1984 riots.we will also fight to save our lives in future also.

  49. Sher says:

    @Jatt …. "we had fought many battles…"

    Which battles you are talking about son?

    Know what, can you name one Sikh/Hindu Jatt King of Punjab before M Ranjit Singh (who was a SANSI btw) ? How embarrassing, right? Such a large population of jats in Punjab (over 40 per cent!!) and yet not a single King!! As far as Jatts fighting battles in 1984 riots is concerned, well what should I say. 'pathetic' is the only word which comes to my mind for such a jingoist person.

    The only jats 'fighting' in 1984 riots (along with Gujjars) were the lawless, lumpen from the villages adjoining Delhi.

    Sher

  50. Sher says:

    @Jatt …. "we had fought many battles…"

    Which battles you are talking about son?

    Know what, can you name one Sikh/Hindu Jatt King of Punjab before M Ranjit Singh (who was a SANSI btw) ? How embarrassing, right? Such a large population of jats in Punjab (over 40 per cent!!) and yet not a single King!! As far as Jatts fighting battles in 1984 riots is concerned, well what should I say. 'pathetic' is the only word which comes to my mind for such a jingoist person.

    The only jats 'fighting' in 1984 riots (along with Gujjars) were the lawless, lumpen from the villages adjoining Delhi.

    Sher

  51. Godless says:

    Has it occurred to anyone of you that 'God' does not actually exist and that you are all fighting over nothing? There are no Hindus or Muslims or Sikhs because there is no God.

  52. sM k says:

    I'm not a Sikh, but have had many Sikh friends in India and for most ordinary Indians, rich or poor (and India is no longer the pathetic borrower of the 80s but a global powerhouse now) have a very high regard for the Sikh community. But since coming to Canada I've seen a different side of the community. And one of the comments on this post made me genuinely feel sad. He said that people calling him Indian made him ashamed and feel like a slave. I did not know a community that is so well respected in the hearts of Indians detests Indians so much. I belong to a non Hindi community and believe me when I say that most linguistic or religious minorities are marginalised in India. It is not a reason to despise us.