Comments on: Sikhs in the Indian Constitution

By: pencil

pencil — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 16:25:26 +0000

Not all religions are compatible with freedom. That is a hard lesson many nations are going to have to learn. You may not find that all members of such a religion support that particular aspect of it, but such a creed can nevertheless exist within a holy book. Not all people care about the rights of others. Neither do all religions. You could not convince a modern republic to sanction human sacrifice, but this was practiced by people in the Amazon as well as old Native America.

By: Sikhs are much adored in Pakistan - Page 4 - Pakistan Defence Forum

Sikhs are much adored in Pakistan - Page 4 - Pakistan Defence Forum — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 14:32:13 +0000

[...] Originally Posted by Tango25 Yeah. Please continue the bs. When I became a Member of Parliament I moved a Private Members Bill for an amendment of Section 25 of the Indian Constitution such that the Sikhs are treated as an independent religion. Under the present Constitution Sikhs are regarded as part of the Hindus. So this amendment is required for getting us independent status. My bill came before the House for discussion twice but due to disturbances in the House no proceeding could take place. Now I am waiting for the next opportunity. Secondly, I moved another proposal such that a registration clause be added to the Anand Marriage Act of 1908. As present, Sikh marriages can be solemnized as per Sikh rites but the registration of Sikh marriages must occur under the Hindu Marriage Act. I succeeded in getting this proposal approved by the Parliamentary Committee for Law & Justice. The Law Minister has already announced in the House that the amendment Bill will be moved very soon. I am following this closely and am having frequent meetings on this topic with the Minister. Tarlochan Singh, M.P. India The Sikh Times – News and Analysis – Tarlochan Singh Makes Historic Push for Sikh Rights More info Sikhs in the Indian Constitution | The Langar Hall. [...]

By: H Singh

H Singh — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 00:12:49 +0000

[Deleted. That has nothing to do with this post. -Admin.]

By: Harinder

Harinder — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 02:14:53 +0000

Dear SINGH
With 2 % you cannot have a claim to be the might.
It only seem to be power centric statement.
And in any event what do the SIKH do In India besides farming 2 % land and 10 % soldiering and 10 % Trucking.
Other minorities such as Christians run more educational institutes and Muslims do more labour work than most of the Sikhs boys.
Bulk of our boys are drug sddicts and are only wanting to escape to West rather than making their own Punjab Great.
We need a Renniance in Punjab.

By: H Singh

H Singh — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 21:18:30 +0000

Harinder,

That is very good attempt to disguise the reality of upper-caste Hindu Dominism on Sikhs. Time after time the history has shown it and still we refuse to admit in front of own eyes who is behind the political might of India.

By: Harinder

Harinder — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 05:46:07 +0000

It is silly to see India as a monothestic Hindu nation.
It mamy have started as one but it is no more like that now.
Dalits call themselves reborn Buddhist about 20 %
Muslims will be what they always are 15 %
Chritians overt and covert are about 6 %
Sikh to have found their new autonomy.
I GUESS we are indulging in fear mongering and hate spewing over past griveances against dead foes.
I guess it is a natural to prey on peoples fear and keep animosities alive.
If SIKHS were to remember all their History ( Mughals to Britishers to Indian Congress of 80 s )they will find reasons to hate every one else except themselves and this will be in direct contradiction to our basic Philosophy of “NIRVAIR” and all Loving nature of Our GOD.

By: H Singh

H Singh — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 05:08:28 +0000

Dear Reema and Camille,

I appreciate your responses and let me say that I am not equating Hindutva and Hinduism together. What I am saying is that India is a Hindu State that sponsores Hinduism’s Hindu Laws.

You say India’s secularism is unique. This statement is misinformed and a false pretension of the upper-caste Hindu India. It is certainly not secularism to enforce Hindu Laws on Sikhs unless one wants to imply Hindu Secularism.

The Hindu elite further has chosen a Hindu Name “Bharat” from Hindu Scriptures for India (a name that has never been used in history) in the Indian Constitution.The constitution of India is a dangerous document that is a tool for exploitation.

Sikhs are legal in India but it is conditional and i.e when Sikhs are part of Hindus. Constitutionally speaking Sikhs don’t have right to be Sikhs in India. The constitution of India gives right to interfere in the institutions of Sikhs. It is naive to say Sikhs are not illegal in Hindu India. There is an ideology of Hindutva i.e. to impose Hinduism on non-Hindus and the above clause has widespread support amongst the upper-caste Hindus of India.

By: Satinder

Satinder — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 22:52:56 +0000

Why so much anger and hatred by some posters here? Where does it come from? Sikhi teaches curbing Krodh. In reading Obama’s book, Audacity of Hope, one is touched by how he avoided identifying himself as an angry young black man. He knew anger was corrosive towards good thought and fashioned his life to avoid it. The results are apparent. Now imagine if he had taken the highway marked ANGER. Where would that have led to?

This wonderful blog needs support and admiration, and should not turn into a punching bag for personal frustrations. [Edited by Admin. There's no need for personal attacks and please stick to the subject matter in the post.]

By: Camille

Camille — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 21:51:00 +0000

Oh, and I have no idea what this “anti/pro” India comment is about, and honestly, don’t really want to entertain it. We’re critical people. We criticize. We’re pretty equal opportunity about it.

By: Camille

Camille — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 21:49:49 +0000

stunned, there’s an element of selection of which comments are allowed to stand for the development of the conversation (i.e., “teaching moment” comments) versus those that are so offensive that there is no room for conversation, e.g., links to neo-nazi web sites or ones that are so offensive to another faith community that it shuts down all conversation. We are slightly Lessig-esque in our approach to comment moderation and are loath to remove comments in general, but especially those that later contribute to a dialectic dialogue. That said, we all evaluate through our own lenses/viewpoints, and what we find offensive you may not find offensive and vice-versa. That’s life. A policy that includes comment-moderation does not always mean the moderation comes out the way you think it should.

With respect to timing and response, we are all HELLA busy right now. I’m in finals, others are traveling, and others are working. There’s an element of triage in what we do, and responding to your email may not make it into the “first round” of tasks. This is why someone may post a story before responding to your email.

H. Singh, please reflect on our comments re: the distillation of Hinduism into Hindutva and adjust accordingly. Elsewise we will close the thread. There has certainly been a state-policy of Hindutva at different times and under different administrations in India, but it is not ok to attribute this to whole swathes of the population.