Moderates, Fundamentalists, and Now Orthodox Sikhs
Gotta love Kim Bolan. For years, the Sikh-Canadian community’s favourite journalist has gotten tremendous mileage from the monikers “moderate” and “fundamentalists” that she has used to describe the BC’s Sikh population. Now, in her reporting of the Guru Nanak Sikh Temple’s election, she’s created a new segment of Sikhs: the “orthodox youth”.
Orthodox youth group sweep all executive positions at Surrey Sikh temple (Link)
I guess just saying “youth group” wouldn’t have been malicious enough. That would have brought up images of young underdog activists who chose to actually make a difference in overcoming tremendous odds in beating a slate of grey-bearded (or no-bearded) uncles who have monopolized our institutions.
Instead, she (and the Vancouver Sun) chose to stick a loaded word in front that insinuates a group that’s rigid, backwards and slightly Talibanistic. Yes, I know the word orthodox technically means “Adhering to the accepted or traditional and established faith” but the textbook definition of fundamentalist is someone who has ” a point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles”, and that’s not how it was used over the past decade to describe observant Sikhs.
I guess Miss Bolan still has a job to do. If Sikhs actually got along and there was no controversy (real or incited), she’d have nothing to write about.
Random Posts
Orthodox in the context of religion doesn’t denote that at all. In the Jewish religion, Orthodox describes those who observe the Jewish version of rehat maryada with regards to dietary and clothing ‘laws’.
Kim Bolan is a low life 3rd class anti Sikh writer. I offer my congratulations to the Sikh youth group for uprooting the old timers. LOL
Prem,
“Orthodox”, when used by Kim Bolan, is a loaded word. Words have power and Ms. Bolan chose to describe the youth slate as orthodox. She could just as easily have described them as the “youth slate”.
As Maple Leaf Singh has pointed out, even a word like “fundamentalist”
, which is a loaded word when applied to Sikhs, actually has a relatively benign definition. It is not the definition that is troublesome, it is the connotations the word carries.
It may well be that Ms. Bolan, in this article, chose to describe the group as orthodox with no ill-intent, and only meant to describe the largely amritdhari slate in a neutral fashion. However, I have difficulty giving her the benefit of the doubt, given her past writings; she lies in the bed she has made herself.
she lies in the bed she has made herself.
What does that mean. This writer has gotten death threats against her and her children from some people part of the fundamentalist movement who do not understand the concept of freedom of speech in Canada.
It’s bad enough that the only journalist killed in Canada was father of MLA Dave Hayer who ran the Indo-Canadian times and believed to be killed by fundamentalist sikh’s. I could only image what this would due to the image of sikhs if somebody was to attack Mrs.Bolan because they don’t agree with what she writes.
I guess Miss Bolan still has a job to do. If Sikhs actually got along and there was no controversy (real or incited), she’d have nothing to write about.
Well Miss Bolan has writen many articles about a group called the Hell Angels and other gangs like the United Nation and Independent Soldiers.
I love how people blame Miss Bolan for all the problems in the community. This is the same writer who has made it her life work to honor the memory’s of the 329 people who died in Air India bombing which included many sikh’s who died in the bombing.
The family members of the Air India victims are very grateful for Miss Bolan and the work she had done.
The sad thing is all the sikh’s who died on June 23,1985 on that tragic fight seemed to be ignored by some in our community.
It’s been a couple of years now since Kim Bolan book Getting away with Murder and still no lawsuit against her for what she wrote in the book, I wonder why.
I find this rhetoric sinister in the light of the death threats that Ms Bolan reportedly receives.
No doubt, some people would say that she ‘deserved’ it, that she ‘made her own bed’, and then in the next breath, complain about prejudice and media stereotyping of Sikhs on this issue.
I hope that anyone who disagrees with Kim Bolan on any issue does so by peaceful and rational means, through counter-argument and through writing, which is the way that a democracy works.
And I pray that she stays out of harms way if there really are people out there motivated enough to murder her or any members of her family. If that were to happen, it would be a bleak day for democracy and a triumph for fascism.
Having just commemerated Guru Tegh Bahadur’s martyrdom, let’s be very clear on what I believe is a fundamental concept in Sikhism:
I may not believe what you believe in. In fact, it may be the antithesis of my beliefs, but the sheer fact that you believe it, means, I as a Sikh, will fight to the death for your right to hold and express your views.
Guru Tegh Bahadur didn’t die for a specific faith group. He sacrificed himself to stand up for freedom of conscience and expression. If Kim Bolan’s opinions are the exact opposite of what I believe, that’s fine. I can challenge and oppose her ideas in an appropriate manner. However, if someone wants to keep her from speaking, than as a Sikh I’m actually obligated to defend her right to speak her mind.
As much as Sikhs love their demonstrations (especially if they get to brandish unsheathed kirpans), in this case, the pen is infinitely mightier than the sword. If Kim Bolan writes something that we are offended with, fight back with letters, op-eds and petitions. Death threats are immature, completely counter-productive and just plain non-Sikh.
I’m fairly certain P.Singh did not indicate that death threats are appropriate, but rather that Ms. Bolan should not be surprised from the criticism and opposition she faces from Sikh communities because of her loaded rhetoric/coverage of folks in Vancouver. Whether or not her rhetoric is loaded is an entirely different conversation (and the topic of this post), but I don’t think anyone (in this forum) is advocating violence or threats.
Suki,
The meaning should be fairly obvious if you read the paragraph preceding the fragment you highlighted. To spell it out for you – her biased writing in the past colors how many readers will interpret her articles today, even if her intent is neutral, so…. she is the author of her own misfortune, she lies in the bed she has made herself, she reaps what she has sown…. Associating my comment with death threats is ridiculous.
[quote comment="9078"]she lies in the bed she has made herself.
What does that mean. This writer has gotten death threats against her and her children from some people part of the fundamentalist movement who do not understand the concept of freedom of speech in Canada.
It’s bad enough that the only journalist killed in Canada was father of MLA Dave Hayer who ran the Indo-Canadian times and believed to be killed by fundamentalist sikh’s. I could only image what this would due to the image of sikhs if somebody was to attack Mrs.Bolan because they don’t agree with what she writes.[/quote]
[quote comment="9101"]
I find this rhetoric sinister in the light of the death threats that Ms Bolan reportedly receives.[/quote]
So, what are you proposing Prem? Bolan should be given a free pass when it comes to journalistic integrity, and we should all sit quitely for fear that any criticism against her will be taken the wrong way?
Is freedom of speech, including to criticize, now to be limited because Bolan alleges she has received death threats?
I find such pussy-footing to be far more sinister than any imaginary connection you’ve drawn between my statements and death threats. If you’re going to draw connections and label them sinister, then make sure you analyze the whole of what was written, and not just one selective fragment.
Camille,
You’re spot on – thank you.
I agree with P. Singh. Of course, all Sikhs are completely against threats or intimidation of a journalist. We respect the right of a journalist to do research on important news and report the news to the public. We respect the right of the journalist to freedom of expression, freedom of speech and freedom of the press. However, the previous actions of other individuals against Kim Bolan should be held separately and criticism should be held separately. Criticism is also a type of expression and we also strongly defend everyone’s right to publically criticize Kim Bolan’s articles which often are a horrible misinterpretation of the Sikh teachings and a disgusting misrepresentation of the Sikh community. Just because somebody loathes Kim Bolan’s propagandist reporting style, does not mean they are a supporter of intimidation or threats. It also doesn’t mean they are trying to quiet or nullify the quest for justice in the Air India case. In some ways Kim Bolan’s reporting has in fact caused many people to become aware of real issues that deserve attention. These are not the topics that are being protested. If somebody’s entire career was devoted to finding the truth about the 9/11 WTC attacks, but also made it a point to vilify and misrepresent all Muslims in the process, they would be wrong no matter how righteous their cause. This is the case with Kim Bolan. She stands behind the cause of finding justice and truth in the Air India case, which is important, but her real agenda could be something completely different – to create a general consensus in the Canadian population that Amritdhari Sikhs, especially those who advocate a free Khalistan, are extremely sinister elements of society and should be arrested or deported. Her articles strike fear in people about Sikhs as a whole based on her purposeful misrepresentation of Sikhs, which is irresponsible and highly unbecoming of a journalist.
Well, she has received death threats, these are not allegations. They are facts.
Your question is a little bizarre, in as much as no suggestion was made that ‘freedom of speech’ should be limited because of the death threats that Kim Bolan receives. I said that I found the rhetoric of her being ‘a low life’ who has ‘made her own bed’ to be sinister because they echo so much of the rhetoric of threat and violence that underlies discussion of Kim Bolan by some Sikhs. Your freedom to say what you want has not been impeded — it still operates under less onerous conditions than Ms Bolan experiences, for example.
Thank you Maple Leaf. I believe that to be not just the ‘Sikh’ ideal, but a universal ideal too. As long as individuals receive threats to their lives for what they say, what they are saying becomes obscured. To put it plainly, not only are threats of violence, bullying and intimidatory rhetoric morally evil and cowardly, they are also moronic in as much as they never extinguish the flame of free speech. Someone else will always take up the mantle being carried by the targets of murderous intent.
Sikhs can claim the moral highground if they stand firm on these principles.
Correction to this sentence in my above post:
As long as individuals receive threats to their lives for what they say, what they are saying becomes obscured….in as much as the focus becomes on their safety, on the nature of the threats, on the violation of the principles of open debate, and so the counter-argument to be put to the journalism or points of view they make, the alternative perspective also becomes obscured.
Prem, how many people/ journalists have taken up the mantle of political satire regarding Islamic militants after the Motoons murders and mayhem? How many stood with Theo Van Gogh after he was killed for making the movie “Submission”??
If you think the flame of free speech can’t be extinguished then explain the amount of self-censorship taking place in Europe today with regards to Islamic terrorism?
It’s simply not true that someone will always be there to “take up the mantle”.
Also, I find it idiotic that someone would find P. Singh’s comments “sinister”. P. Singh may be many things, but based on his many comments, “sinister” is hardly an apt description.
Prem, no one on this thread has advocated anything “sinister”. You took one fragment from my post, and labelled it “sinister”, notwithstanding the fact, that the fragment is superceded by several paragraphs that make the intent of the fragment quite clear.
Frankly, I find your analysis to be inaccurate, at best.
You have stated you found the rhetoric of “made her own bed” to be sinister – this conclusion coming by looking at the fragment in isolation, without considering the paragraphs preceding it. Effectively, you are saying even fragments of sentences, taken out of context, are “sinister”, given the death threats Bolan has received. This doesn’t make sense.
Such analysis of posts criticizing Bolan will almost always enable readers to pick out seemingly “sinister” fragments, or piece together threatening words. Sentences and fragments of sentences have to be looked at in the context of the entire post/message/letter etc.
If readers will selectively choose fragments of writing, and interpret them in isolation, and not in context, then it is not the writing which is troublesome, it is the reader’s comprehension. No offense meant – just calling it how I see it.
I have in an earlier post said that this blog is one of the best things that have happened within the Sikh Panth of late. So, many thanks for your clarification Maple Leaf. You connecting the supreme sacrifice of Guru Tegh Bahadur Ji and the freedom of expression and conscience is a splendid proposal. I find it interesting that most active contributors here just ignored that. One wonders why? To keep on with your positive thoughts, it would be useful if the bloggers here were to propose what precisely are the ethics of journalism when reporting on the Sikhs. After all Kim Bolan is not making up the events she reports. Are her facts being disputed or the lexicon? If it is lexicon perhaps reporters should introduce the word Amritdhari to North American readers. Within Judasim, the talk of ultraorthodox, orthodox, and reform is quite common. As Sikh school children in France struggle for the right to wear a turban to school, bikers in Ontario to rescind helmet laws, and Quebc kids for the Five Ks, and now travelling ragis, it is paramount that Sikhs remain always at the front of all struggles for human rights and freedom of expression. Otherwise, it is easy to see that we want to be the exclusive bearers of rights but not extend the same to others. And that to be sounds rather unsikh like.
P.Singh, thanks for your reply. Your final sentence sums up all I have to add in return to you too.
Some people self-censor. But people still do investigate, confront and discuss the issues related to extremist ideology associated with Islam. Do you think that if Kim Bolan was to be silenced through violence, that other journalists would not investigate and confront the forces that led to her being silenced? If anything, it would increase interest in the issues surrounding her silencing.
Culture wars are taking place in Europe to prevent the closing down of debate over violent theology today. I can assure you, the debate is very much on, very much alive.
I’m not sure if you say that with regret or satisfaction. I’ll assume the former, because I am generally an optimist.
Anyway, the presumption that nobody takes up the mantle when free speech is compromised by death threat and actual violence is the kind of apathy that the fascists rely on. The fear they inculcate will prevent further scrutiny falling on them. It’s the logic and rapture of them mob, the fascist, the intolerant, that they can silence criticism, and internal dissent. In free, open, democratic societies, ultimately, it can’t be done.
Democracy and an open society aren’t a given. They have to be fought for without compromise. Unfortunately this is not the case in Europe where civil liberties are going by the wayside as it integrates members of a religion that espouses non-integration. Self-censorship and the unchallenged use of sharia courts which inherently discriminate against women and non-muslims are the tip of iceberg.
Most people are happy to just go along with whatever is happening around them. Hence, the formation of the Khalsa who for obvious reasons stand out and so can’t just go along anonymously like joe or jane public.
Sikh youth should challenge people like these to open debates on tv and radio.
People like Bolan and Dosanjh will have nothing to say when they get direct answers and asked questions by Youth.
SGPC is a hijacked body and therefore nobody ready will take notice of such a directive, espically in west hemisphere.
Akal Thatkt Sahib needs to decide on the issue, who bby the way is also hijacked by SGPC itself.
Balbir Singh Sooch, you might want to use the enter key when posting it makes your comment that much more readable if you break your thoughts up into paragraphs that have some coherent point.
Just read an interesting article in the New York Times on the Jewish Community in Mumbai. It freely uses the terms Orthodox and Ultra-Orthodox in describing the Jewish faith. Given that the Jews are a minority and the the Times has such high standards this item may be of interest.
There’s a difference in using that terminology to refer to the Jewish Orthodox community, where that’s an actual term for one of the methods of practice (along with Conservative, Reform, Hassid). It has a very different connotation and meaning when leveraged against a community that has no similar internal distinction.
For example, if you undergo your bar mitzvah in ANY “division” of Jewish practice (I apologize I don’t have a better term — these are not sects or denominations, but if someone can provide the more accurate label I would be happy to edit/amend), you are confirmed in the faith. It doesn’t change what kind of Jew you are. I think the analogy is comparable in Sikhi. Taking amrit does not change your faith basis itself; it confirms a commitment to a specific series of lifestyle and faith concepts. Concepts that exist across ALL Sikhs, even if not all choose to follow all parts at all times. I think this distinction is significant and shouldn’t be cast aside in favor of throwing inappropriate Judeo-Christian terms on a non-Judeo-Christian faith.
The terms listed: Conservative, Reform and and Ultra Orthodox are all of relatively recent vintage, nineteenth century. They emerged as the Jewish community left the Great Pale of Eastern Europe and walked into Central and Western European cities. As different members of that diaspora adopted different religious attitudesin places like Germany these terms arose. Sikhs too are confirmed in their faith through Amrit and are called Amritdhari Sikhs and this contrasts with those who are non-Amritdhari. So distinctions exist and many other shades besides, but the issue here is what lexicon is ethical and respectful.
I agree that the conversation is about which lexicon is ethical/respectful. I just draw the distinction between a faith community adopting its own terms/labels (the case with the Jewish community) versus having meaning transposed onto them from those outside the faith community.
[...] I know Kim Bolan’s agenda and pay no attention to her. However, how much do we add? Like Chris Rock said, I don’t worry [...]
[...] Guru Nanak Sikh Gurdwara in Surrey is especially noteworthy. We have covered the topic in the past a few times and the results seem to be in (again). The Youth Slate wins [...]
[...] remarks is the Vancouver press’ portrayal of the events. Everyone’s favorite reporter (or NOT!) or even Renu Bakshi’s moronic portrayal that an organizer’s stupid comments were a battle over [...]