Sikhs in the Indian Constitution
The contents of an email from Tarlochan Singh, a member of the Indian Parliament, to Jagpal Singh Tiwana were published in The Sikh Times recently. 
Apparently, the member of Parliament is trying to have the Indian Constitution amended so that Sikhs are no longer referred to as Hindus for the purposes of Article 25 (freedom of religion).
Dear S. Tiwana Ji,
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. [The Sikh Times]
Currently, freedom of religion in India’s Constitution (Article 25) reads as follows:
Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion –
(1) Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion.
(2) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the State from making any law –
(a) regulating or restricting any economic, political or other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice;
(b) providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus.
Explanation I – The wearing and carrying of kirpans shall be deemed to be included in the profession of the Sikh religion.
Explanation II – In sub-Clause (b) of clause (2), the reference to Hindus shall be construed as including a reference to persons professing the Sikh, Jaina or Buddhist religion, and the reference to Hindu religious institutions shall be construed accordingly. (emphasis added) [link]
I’ve often wondered about the history behind Explanation II and why it was articulated as it was. It seems to bar caste discrimination in places of religious worship, but it could certainly have been articulated to achieve that purpose without referring to Sikhs, Jains, and Buddhists AS Hindu. I also don’t know whether this reference to Sikhs as Hindus was intended to be completely limited to the purposes of Art. 25- to prevent caste discrimination in places of religious worship. If that was the original intent, the effect has been altogether different. In a 2005 ruling of the Indian Supreme Court, according to the Tribune,
[The Indian Supreme Court] said if the argument for recognising every religious group within the broad Hindu religion as separate religious minority was accepted and such tendencies were encouraged, ‘the whole country, which is already under class and social conflicts due to various divisive forces, will further face divisions on the basis of religious diversities. Such claims to minority status based on religion would increase in the fond hope of various sections of people getting special protections, privileges and treatment as part of constitutional guarantee,’ the court said adding ‘a claim by one group of citizens would lead to a similar claim by another group and conflict and strife would ensue.'” [pluralism project]
The problem with this ruling is that it assumes that Sikhs weren’t already recognized as a religious minority community – and they clearly were in the Constituent debates which framed and drafted the Constitution.
The debates of the Constituent Assembly of India (translated into English where necessary) which took place from December 1946 through Janurary 1950 are online. They shed light on many aspects of the Indian Constitution, but not on this one (*disclaimer- I haven’t read them all yet). Unless Explanation II was inserted much after the main debates regarding what freedoms of religion should be for the newly independent India, I don’t think it was part of the initial drafting (again, I haven’t read all of the debates, and please do correct me if I’m wrong). If anyone knows more about the history of this “explanation,” please do share.
77 Responses to “Sikhs in the Indian Constitution”
In my opinion sikhs deserve to be having there own personal law and not covered under the Hindu law and termed as Hindus as sikhs do not follow hindu rituals and are very practical devoid of any kind of supestitions,the religious practices are very very simple and as such nothing common to Hindus.Constitution grants us rights of freedom to religion and this should be granted to sikhs.
In my opinion sikhs deserve to be having there own personal law and not covered under the Hindu law and termed as Hindus as sikhs do not follow hindu rituals and are very practical devoid of any kind of supestitions,the religious practices are very very simple and as such nothing common to Hindus.Constitution grants us rights of freedom to religion and this should be granted to sikhs.
[Admin Kaur: This comment has been removed for violating our comment policy. The author has a better explanation of his viewpoint below, and we would prefer to allow that to stand.]
[Admin Kaur: This comment has been removed for violating our comment policy. The author has a better explanation of his viewpoint below, and we would prefer to allow that to stand.]
Satvinder,
That is an extremely ignorant, and blatently prejudice comment. Those people who committed the 1984 genocide on Sikhs, are as hindu as those who blew up Air India, or the terrorists that killed innocents in Punjab throughout the 80's and 90's.
It is one thing to speak like that, but it is another thing to believe it. Its that type of language that is contradictory to what we have been trying to achieve in India, as far as religious freedom. If you want to create this false sense of religious hate, and this sense of responisbility of actions for a select mob, then I suggest you do some introspection. The fact of the matter is, no community hands have been soaking in ivory. For me to call you or my family child molesters because a edmonton gurdwara had a select amount of granthis doing that stuff, how would you feel?
Ignorance will eventually breed prejudice thinking, which keeps that person in an every ending cycle of looking for meaningfulness is what surrounds them.
That was a disgusting, ignorant, and uneducated comment. Grow up.
Satvinder,
That is an extremely ignorant, and blatently prejudice comment. Those people who committed the 1984 genocide on Sikhs, are as hindu as those who blew up Air India, or the terrorists that killed innocents in Punjab throughout the 80’s and 90’s.
It is one thing to speak like that, but it is another thing to believe it. Its that type of language that is contradictory to what we have been trying to achieve in India, as far as religious freedom. If you want to create this false sense of religious hate, and this sense of responisbility of actions for a select mob, then I suggest you do some introspection. The fact of the matter is, no community hands have been soaking in ivory. For me to call you or my family child molesters because a edmonton gurdwara had a select amount of granthis doing that stuff, how would you feel?
Ignorance will eventually breed prejudice thinking, which keeps that person in an every ending cycle of looking for meaningfulness is what surrounds them.
That was a disgusting, ignorant, and uneducated comment. Grow up.
Raja,
You might also want to be careful – your last line is bordering on spewing hatred yourself! But since you targeted Satvinder's comment and not Satvinder himself, I'll let it stand… Just keep in mind that it's easier to listen to someone when they're not attacking you.
Raja,
You might also want to be careful – your last line is bordering on spewing hatred yourself! But since you targeted Satvinder’s comment and not Satvinder himself, I’ll let it stand… Just keep in mind that it’s easier to listen to someone when they’re not attacking you.
Satvinder, Raja's right in that pitting entire religious communities against each other is painting the problem with too broad of a brush.
It's true that 1984 and subsequent state actions have yet to be addressed properly by the state. However, that's a work in progress. There are people both in India and in the diaspora working on building a case to force the government to admit, apologize for, and give reparations to those affected.
However, these issues of legal identity- both constitutional and in personal law- are separate.
Satvinder, Raja’s right in that pitting entire religious communities against each other is painting the problem with too broad of a brush.
It’s true that 1984 and subsequent state actions have yet to be addressed properly by the state. However, that’s a work in progress. There are people both in India and in the diaspora working on building a case to force the government to admit, apologize for, and give reparations to those affected.
However, these issues of legal identity- both constitutional and in personal law- are separate.
I didnt mean for it to be offensive to others, or insult Satvinder directly, it is just that I found that comment so incredibly offensive. I mean, it would be hard pressed to find a human being who isnt appalled and disgusted by the acts of those mobs, and the governmetn during that time, let alone a hindu.
I would hate if I were grouped together with those who committed acts of terrorism against the punjabi people int he 80's and 90's. I would hate to be grouped together with injustices that the sikh community has committed, and thus, why should be perpetuate that ignorant thinking towards others?
Its just so counterproductive, and it boggles my mind when someone says ignorant things like that. Again, I meant no personal insult, just frustrated by the ignorance that seems to be so prevelant in our community sometimes. How can we urge for community if we keep promoting distinction?
I didnt mean for it to be offensive to others, or insult Satvinder directly, it is just that I found that comment so incredibly offensive. I mean, it would be hard pressed to find a human being who isnt appalled and disgusted by the acts of those mobs, and the governmetn during that time, let alone a hindu.
I would hate if I were grouped together with those who committed acts of terrorism against the punjabi people int he 80’s and 90’s. I would hate to be grouped together with injustices that the sikh community has committed, and thus, why should be perpetuate that ignorant thinking towards others?
Its just so counterproductive, and it boggles my mind when someone says ignorant things like that. Again, I meant no personal insult, just frustrated by the ignorance that seems to be so prevelant in our community sometimes. How can we urge for community if we keep promoting distinction?
Sorry, but I thought that you tried to respect all religions on this blog (which I respect), recently going so far as to delete a derogatory comment about whom you called "the Prophet Muhammad." How has comment #1, which calls Hinduism an impractical and superstitious religion, not been deleted or at least addressed by now then?
Sorry, but I thought that you tried to respect all religions on this blog (which I respect), recently going so far as to delete a derogatory comment about whom you called “the Prophet Muhammad.” How has comment #1, which calls Hinduism an impractical and superstitious religion, not been deleted or at least addressed by now then?
And I'm not even sure what 'question' Satvinder's comment answers, or how it is relevant.
And I’m not even sure what ‘question’ Satvinder’s comment answers, or how it is relevant.
Agreed with above. I am new to this site, so I didnt really know if the comments are protrolled or not, if so, what an ignorant comment.
It always interests me how others choose to belittle another sect of people, to inherently feel good about themselves. I would ask the author of comment Number One how he/she feels about saying these comments on an internet forum, but shying away from a public forum. I am almost sure that author of #1 does shy away from such comments in the public, am I right?
Maybe its my personal ego, but I couldnt sleep at night knowing that my expressions on the internet are a far cry from my public statements.
Agreed with above. I am new to this site, so I didnt really know if the comments are protrolled or not, if so, what an ignorant comment.
It always interests me how others choose to belittle another sect of people, to inherently feel good about themselves. I would ask the author of comment Number One how he/she feels about saying these comments on an internet forum, but shying away from a public forum. I am almost sure that author of #1 does shy away from such comments in the public, am I right?
Maybe its my personal ego, but I couldnt sleep at night knowing that my expressions on the internet are a far cry from my public statements.
Thanks for clarifying your intent Raja.
I can't speak for Satvinder, but, I think Satvinder's anger has legitimate roots- it may have been misdirected in his comment, but I think we can also try to understand where he's coming from, and just focus on the topic of this post in this thread.
Thanks for clarifying your intent Raja.
I can’t speak for Satvinder, but, I think Satvinder’s anger has legitimate roots- it may have been misdirected in his comment, but I think we can also try to understand where he’s coming from, and just focus on the topic of this post in this thread.
Stunned by hypocrisy- our moderating policy is stated above the comment box and you can email me at reema@thelangarhall.com if you want to discuss it further.
Stunned by hypocrisy- our moderating policy is stated above the comment box and you can email me at reema@thelangarhall.com if you want to discuss it further.
Prior to 984, India penetrated a genocidal impulse within the Hindus constructing a mean-spirited feelings against the Sikhs and their rights. The genocide of Sikhs couldn't have been perfomred without the support of the larger HIndu Society thorugh culmination of mean-spiritedness amongst gullible Hindus. It is historical fact that Hindus called Indira "Durga Mata" after the attack and the killers of Sikhs won overwhelmingly after the Nov 1984 carnage. All this tells that the wider Hindu population elected and supported the massacre of Sikhs out of Anti-sikh pide.
Recently terrorists enter luxurious Taj Hotel of India but India didn't assaualted hotels with tanks but did so against Sikhs in 1984 and destroyed thier precious relics of historical importance. Hndu populance and Hindu Media significantly cheered the assault on Sikhs. This is a historical fact. Were Hindus naive, gullible, innocently propagandized by their Hindu leaders or silent supporters- we can surely debate on it.
One thing many people haven't learned yet is that India is dominated by the upper-caste Hindus in both political and educational institutions and media also. This has been historically true also. The history of India(Hindustan) especially regarding the social control and manipulation is veiled under the facades of Indian Nationalism.
The constitution of India is a Hindu document that enforces Hindu morality upon Sikhs.Period.
Reema,
You must agree that his anger has to be at the wrong people. I mean, with all that is going on with the world today, blaming an entire community is, in my humble opinion, the most lowest understanding of any situation. Look at the Mumbai attacks, my anger was at those terrorists who killed those innocent people. My anger was towards the ISI who allegedly trained these terrorists. But NOT for one moment did I blame muslims, or islam as a whole for these actions.
What happened in 84 was tragic. What would be more tragic is if will allow the inhumanity of those days continue on in our prejudice thinking. Those responisble are the government officials who allowed these radical mobs to kill innocents, and those who didnt stop them. Blaming “hindus” for what happened is as prejudice as it comes. I dont believe if his anger is directed at hindus more any reason, it is even close to legitimate.
If his anger is directed at the right people, and the culprits, then his anger is not legitimate, he is uninformed.
Reema,
You must agree that his anger has to be at the wrong people. I mean, with all that is going on with the world today, blaming an entire community is, in my humble opinion, the most lowest understanding of any situation. Look at the Mumbai attacks, my anger was at those terrorists who killed those innocent people. My anger was towards the ISI who allegedly trained these terrorists. But NOT for one moment did I blame muslims, or islam as a whole for these actions.
What happened in 84 was tragic. What would be more tragic is if will allow the inhumanity of those days continue on in our prejudice thinking. Those responisble are the government officials who allowed these radical mobs to kill innocents, and those who didnt stop them. Blaming "hindus" for what happened is as prejudice as it comes. I dont believe if his anger is directed at hindus more any reason, it is even close to legitimate.
If his anger is directed at the right people, and the culprits, then his anger is not legitimate, he is uninformed.
Prior to 984, India penetrated a genocidal impulse within the Hindus constructing a mean-spirited feelings against the Sikhs and their rights. The genocide of Sikhs couldn’t have been perfomred without the support of the larger HIndu Society thorugh culmination of mean-spiritedness amongst gullible Hindus. It is historical fact that Hindus called Indira “Durga Mata” after the attack and the killers of Sikhs won overwhelmingly after the Nov 1984 carnage. All this tells that the wider Hindu population elected and supported the massacre of Sikhs out of Anti-sikh pide.
Recently terrorists enter luxurious Taj Hotel of India but India didn’t assaualted hotels with tanks but did so against Sikhs in 1984 and destroyed thier precious relics of historical importance. Hndu populance and Hindu Media significantly cheered the assault on Sikhs. This is a historical fact. Were Hindus naive, gullible, innocently propagandized by their Hindu leaders or silent supporters- we can surely debate on it.
One thing many people haven’t learned yet is that India is dominated by the upper-caste Hindus in both political and educational institutions and media also. This has been historically true also. The history of India(Hindustan) especially regarding the social control and manipulation is veiled under the facades of Indian Nationalism.
The constitution of India is a Hindu document that enforces Hindu morality upon Sikhs.Period.
Since you told me to e-mail you, and I did, but you didn't respond even though you did find time to write a new post, I'll just post the contents of my e-mail here:
I posted on thelangarhall recently under the name "stunned by the hypocrisy," and you said to contact you about discussing this further. I am curious, since your comment policy states that it is a "hate-free zone" and "no name calling" is allowed, how you would allow that comment but not an earlier comment about the Prophet Muhammad. I may be missing something since I didn't actually see that earlier comment and just how hateful it was (whereas this one just seems more ignorant, but it's still upsetting that the site moderators wouldn't address the notion that Hinduism is an overly complex and superstitious religion), just the ensuing discussion about it and how thelangarhall claims to respect all religions as it is an intrinsic part of Sikhi and therefore reserves the right to delete any disrespectful comments about religion.
Also, a recent commenter on another thread said that thelangarhall seems very anti-India. I think H Singh's comments about the "historical fact" of all the guilty Hindus of Indias (yeah, apparently all 1 billion or so of them) strongly speaks to that element of this blog.
Since you told me to e-mail you, and I did, but you didn’t respond even though you did find time to write a new post, I’ll just post the contents of my e-mail here:
I posted on thelangarhall recently under the name “stunned by the hypocrisy,” and you said to contact you about discussing this further. I am curious, since your comment policy states that it is a “hate-free zone” and “no name calling” is allowed, how you would allow that comment but not an earlier comment about the Prophet Muhammad. I may be missing something since I didn’t actually see that earlier comment and just how hateful it was (whereas this one just seems more ignorant, but it’s still upsetting that the site moderators wouldn’t address the notion that Hinduism is an overly complex and superstitious religion), just the ensuing discussion about it and how thelangarhall claims to respect all religions as it is an intrinsic part of Sikhi and therefore reserves the right to delete any disrespectful comments about religion.
Also, a recent commenter on another thread said that thelangarhall seems very anti-India. I think H Singh’s comments about the “historical fact” of all the guilty Hindus of Indias (yeah, apparently all 1 billion or so of them) strongly speaks to that element of this blog.
Apologies for jumping into this thread a bit late — sometimes our ability to moderate is also a function of who's available/online on a given day, and so some comments stand longer than we intend them to.
H. Singh, I think it's important to separate Hindutva from Hinduism. I think it's absolutely true that politicians (worldwide) leverage difference across identity lines to support a particular goal or action. I think this choice — to reduce a disagreement to "longstanding conflicts between identity communities" — often obscures very real disagreements or fears or resource access claims.
Just as we cannot tolerate when the press equates Sikh or Muslim with terrorist, we should not encourage or tolerate the conflation of Hindu with Hindu nationalist or Hindu with genocide. Both are offensive, extreme, and do not accommodate for, or speak to, the diversity of political opinions and practice within the larger Hindu faith community. We ought to be thoughtful, and specific, about our language. It's true that there is a larger dynamic of what the "true identity" of India is, and whether that India is multicultural and interfaith, or whether it ought to be "Hind, Hindu, Hindustan." The latter opinion, however, is one of Hindu nationalism, not Hinduism, and we need to be mindful and cautious of the difference.
Apologies for jumping into this thread a bit late — sometimes our ability to moderate is also a function of who’s available/online on a given day, and so some comments stand longer than we intend them to.
H. Singh, I think it’s important to separate Hindutva from Hinduism. I think it’s absolutely true that politicians (worldwide) leverage difference across identity lines to support a particular goal or action. I think this choice — to reduce a disagreement to “longstanding conflicts between identity communities” — often obscures very real disagreements or fears or resource access claims.
Just as we cannot tolerate when the press equates Sikh or Muslim with terrorist, we should not encourage or tolerate the conflation of Hindu with Hindu nationalist or Hindu with genocide. Both are offensive, extreme, and do not accommodate for, or speak to, the diversity of political opinions and practice within the larger Hindu faith community. We ought to be thoughtful, and specific, about our language. It’s true that there is a larger dynamic of what the “true identity” of India is, and whether that India is multicultural and interfaith, or whether it ought to be “Hind, Hindu, Hindustan.” The latter opinion, however, is one of Hindu nationalism, not Hinduism, and we need to be mindful and cautious of the difference.
Stunned by Hypocrisy,
In addition to Camille's point, H Singh is a commenter. The views of NO commenter reflect the views of this blog.
This blog is not "anti-India" or anti-any state. There may be individual bloggers who hold libertarian political views and thus are generally wary of state actions, but even those don't reflect the views of the blog as a whole.
Stunned by Hypocrisy,
In addition to Camille’s point, H Singh is a commenter. The views of NO commenter reflect the views of this blog.
This blog is not “anti-India” or anti-any state. There may be individual bloggers who hold libertarian political views and thus are generally wary of state actions, but even those don’t reflect the views of the blog as a whole.
I like how my original question still hasn't been answered, or my e-mail still hasn't been responded to.
I like how my original question still hasn’t been answered, or my e-mail still hasn’t been responded to.
[quote comment="9481"]I like how my original question still hasn't been answered, or my e-mail still hasn't been responded to.[/quote]
The bloggers on this site don't do this fulltime – they actually have 'offline' lives. They'll get to your question or any email you've sent when they have the time for it. Could be tomorrow, could be next week, or could be after the holidays. If this makes you angry, frustrated, anxious – that's too bad – and more your problem than it is their's.
But since you "like" how your question hasn't been answered, and how your email hasn't garnered a response, I recommend the admins/bloggers forego answering your question or replying to your email – it saves them time, and keeps you "liking" the situation. Everyone wins.
[quote comment=”9481″]I like how my original question still hasn’t been answered, or my e-mail still hasn’t been responded to.[/quote]
The bloggers on this site don’t do this fulltime – they actually have ‘offline’ lives. They’ll get to your question or any email you’ve sent when they have the time for it. Could be tomorrow, could be next week, or could be after the holidays. If this makes you angry, frustrated, anxious – that’s too bad – and more your problem than it is their’s.
But since you “like” how your question hasn’t been answered, and how your email hasn’t garnered a response, I recommend the admins/bloggers forego answering your question or replying to your email – it saves them time, and keeps you “liking” the situation. Everyone wins.
“Stunned by hypocrisy”
So you are blaming me for questioning the criminal behavior of your country? A country that has systemically killed Sikhs as a national policy and instead of questioning these policies you are blaming it on me? Isn’t this silent support?
.
Instead of answering the question about the crimes committed by India you eloquently try to deny the facts by raising the bogey of "anti-India". It is a usual upper-caste Hindu Apologism to turn away attention from the crimes of India.
The constitution of India is a Hindu document that imposes Hinduism on Sikhs and this has widespread support amongst upper-caste Hindus who don't consider Sikhs as Sikhs. Being a Sikh becomes illegal in the Hindu India, and the next steps for India are now made easy.
“Stunned by hypocrisy”
So you are blaming me for questioning the criminal behavior of your country? A country that has systemically killed Sikhs as a national policy and instead of questioning these policies you are blaming it on me? Isn’t this silent support?
.
Instead of answering the question about the crimes committed by India you eloquently try to deny the facts by raising the bogey of “anti-India”. It is a usual upper-caste Hindu Apologism to turn away attention from the crimes of India.
The constitution of India is a Hindu document that imposes Hinduism on Sikhs and this has widespread support amongst upper-caste Hindus who don’t consider Sikhs as Sikhs. Being a Sikh becomes illegal in the Hindu India, and the next steps for India are now made easy.
I understand that they have offline lives, but the blogger specifically asked that I contact her through e-mail, and then she never answered my question, even though she has written other posts and comments since then. I am not asking the question to be belligerent, but because I honestly think that it shows hypocrisy in their comment policy. I sense evasion, not busy-ness.
P.S. you're a master of sarcasm.
WOW. Now you're just being rude and attacking me.
It may surprise you, but I'm not Hindu. ("half-Hindu half-Sikh" is how some relatives put it. and the Hindu half isn't upper caste either btw. So suck on that.) is how some people put it. I would never advocate that any country kills any group of people like what happened in 1984. But I think you're making a mistake in that I find that YOU'RE the one equating India and Hinduism, and Hinduism to Hindutva. The fact that you rail on and on about this is what makes me believe that you are anti-India. I also find it incredibly offensive that you're asking me to speak for "my" country (when I'm just as American as I am Indian) and "my" people.
Out of curiosity, what is "your" country?
I understand that they have offline lives, but the blogger specifically asked that I contact her through e-mail, and then she never answered my question, even though she has written other posts and comments since then. I am not asking the question to be belligerent, but because I honestly think that it shows hypocrisy in their comment policy. I sense evasion, not busy-ness.
P.S. you’re a master of sarcasm.
WOW. Now you’re just being rude and attacking me.
It may surprise you, but I’m not Hindu. (“half-Hindu half-Sikh” is how some relatives put it. and the Hindu half isn’t upper caste either btw. So suck on that.) is how some people put it. I would never advocate that any country kills any group of people like what happened in 1984. But I think you’re making a mistake in that I find that YOU’RE the one equating India and Hinduism, and Hinduism to Hindutva. The fact that you rail on and on about this is what makes me believe that you are anti-India. I also find it incredibly offensive that you’re asking me to speak for “my” country (when I’m just as American as I am Indian) and “my” people.
Out of curiosity, what is “your” country?
Also I love how you assume that because you assume that I'm Hindu that I support pogroms against religious minorities.
(And P Singh, by "love" I really mean "am frustrated and amused by," FYI)
Also I love how you assume that because you assume that I’m Hindu that I support pogroms against religious minorities.
(And P Singh, by “love” I really mean “am frustrated and amused by,” FYI)
I just looked upthread and noticed that Satvinder's comment has been deleted. Honestly, I thought that comment #1 was more offensive than what Satvinder wrote (who was writing in anger and later explained himself). But essentially 'dissing' another religion is being allowed? WTF.
I just looked upthread and noticed that Satvinder’s comment has been deleted. Honestly, I thought that comment #1 was more offensive than what Satvinder wrote (who was writing in anger and later explained himself). But essentially ‘dissing’ another religion is being allowed? WTF.
stunned by the hypocrisy,
I 'get' your sarcasm – there wasn't a whole lot of wit complicating it.
You sense hypocrisy after this brief exchange, and are comfortable labelling the admins/bloggers as 'hypocrites' after this one exchange? A more reasonable approach would be to see how similar issues, articles have been addressed before, to see if there is some great anti-India sentiment being pushed by the admins before throwing out such labels. However, I guess your spidey-senses are honed to such a fine level, you've got no problem throwing around such labels, simply because you didn't get the immediate attention you wanted. Cry me a river.
Have a nice day.
P.S. (By "Have a nice day", I really mean "I don't give a pudh", FYI).
stunned by the hypocrisy,
I ‘get’ your sarcasm – there wasn’t a whole lot of wit complicating it.
You sense hypocrisy after this brief exchange, and are comfortable labelling the admins/bloggers as ‘hypocrites’ after this one exchange? A more reasonable approach would be to see how similar issues, articles have been addressed before, to see if there is some great anti-India sentiment being pushed by the admins before throwing out such labels. However, I guess your spidey-senses are honed to such a fine level, you’ve got no problem throwing around such labels, simply because you didn’t get the immediate attention you wanted. Cry me a river.
Have a nice day.
P.S. (By “Have a nice day”, I really mean “I don’t give a pudh”, FYI).
Dear "stunned by the hypocrisy"
Please stop beating the bush around to ignore how upper-caste Hindu India imposes Hinduism on Sikhs and yet mischieviously calls itself a secular country. It is sham secularim. This mischievious national policy of Hindu State is a Hindu policy on Sikhs that declares Sikhs illegal. Stop with this hypocrisy! as I am "stunned by (upper-caste)Hindu hypocrisy".
Dear “stunned by the hypocrisy”
Please stop beating the bush around to ignore how upper-caste Hindu India imposes Hinduism on Sikhs and yet mischieviously calls itself a secular country. It is sham secularim. This mischievious national policy of Hindu State is a Hindu policy on Sikhs that declares Sikhs illegal. Stop with this hypocrisy! as I am “stunned by (upper-caste)Hindu hypocrisy”.
H Singh- Camille addressed the difference between Hinduism and Hindutva already.
Keep that distinction in mind. Hindutva is NOT Hinduism. If you insult entire religions (Hinduism), we'll close this thread (and may do so anyway since this thread hasn't had any productive conversation, but just insults).
To say that Sikhs are "illegal" in India is absurd.
India's secularism is unique in that the state protects the freedom to PRACTICE religion for ALL faiths- that certain parties and organizations have 'otherized' specific religious minorities (mainly Muslim and Christian) and is a related but different matter.
Stunned by the hypocrisy has been banned- I emailed him, he didn't respond, and he continued to rant about the blog instead of the subject matter of the post.
Stunned- you can feel free to contact me by email if you'd like to discuss that matter further- keep in mind that I won't respond within 5 minutes of your email, but will do so as quickly as I can, within a busy schedule.
H Singh- Camille addressed the difference between Hinduism and Hindutva already.
Keep that distinction in mind. Hindutva is NOT Hinduism. If you insult entire religions (Hinduism), we’ll close this thread (and may do so anyway since this thread hasn’t had any productive conversation, but just insults).
To say that Sikhs are “illegal” in India is absurd.
India’s secularism is unique in that the state protects the freedom to PRACTICE religion for ALL faiths- that certain parties and organizations have ‘otherized’ specific religious minorities (mainly Muslim and Christian) and is a related but different matter.
Stunned by the hypocrisy has been banned- I emailed him, he didn’t respond, and he continued to rant about the blog instead of the subject matter of the post.
Stunned- you can feel free to contact me by email if you’d like to discuss that matter further- keep in mind that I won’t respond within 5 minutes of your email, but will do so as quickly as I can, within a busy schedule.
I've been banned?
I’ve been banned?
Sorry, you can delete that and go ahead and ban me, I was testing it out to see if I was.
You're confused. I'm not talking about hypocrisy about anti-India or whatever, I'm talking about hypocrisy when it comes to how the first comment of this thread was addressed, compared to one in a recent thread about Muhammad that was deleted. So FYI, I have been following this blog for a long time, so it actually is based on how similar issues have been addressed before. But in reading those previous posts I feel pretty certain that many of the bloggers (and commenters, if the psycho H Singh is any indication) are fairly anti-India, although I can't say that of the 'blog' itself. But it's not gonna change, so I'm just going to leave you all alone from now on. So go ahead and ban me; I won't visit again anyway, and if I do, I won't comment.
You have a nice day too, P Singh.
And Reema, I apologize, I hadn't checked my e-mail when I posted my last comments. But that's why you banned me? Wow.
Sorry, you can delete that and go ahead and ban me, I was testing it out to see if I was.
You’re confused. I’m not talking about hypocrisy about anti-India or whatever, I’m talking about hypocrisy when it comes to how the first comment of this thread was addressed, compared to one in a recent thread about Muhammad that was deleted. So FYI, I have been following this blog for a long time, so it actually is based on how similar issues have been addressed before. But in reading those previous posts I feel pretty certain that many of the bloggers (and commenters, if the psycho H Singh is any indication) are fairly anti-India, although I can’t say that of the ‘blog’ itself. But it’s not gonna change, so I’m just going to leave you all alone from now on. So go ahead and ban me; I won’t visit again anyway, and if I do, I won’t comment.
You have a nice day too, P Singh.
And Reema, I apologize, I hadn’t checked my e-mail when I posted my last comments. But that’s why you banned me? Wow.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.]
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.]