Talk:Sarika Singh: Difference between revisions

I find that this whole issue is in many ways blown out of all proportion. That each of us sikhs, should have the freedom to practice our religous beliefs, as should others goes without saying. That each of us should be able to wear apparel which denotes our faith is a more complex argument. Almost all religions have religous apparel which denotes who they are. I can accept that a beliver who has taken Amrit, will hold this are absolutely important, but those of us who have not, which included Sarika make all sorts of compromises in our lives which do not denote our faith.

Sarika Singh, well the name should speak for itself. The word Singh denotes the male of the faith. She should be called Sarika Kaur. It is anoying and a dimunition of the faith when females refer to themselves as "Singh". If that is an exporession of her faith, then she is sadly wrong. Perhaps she should reflect on this before taking the high ground. Perhaps those in support should also reflect on this also.

Is is going to be the next case that a BNP supprter who alledgedly converts to Sikhism (remember that he does not have to take Amrit to do so) will be allowed into a school with a Kirpan?

I am all for the maintenance of faith, I am sikh myself, but it is about time that we stopped indoctrinating our children and useing them as the means for our own battlkes. This girls education has been materially affected. her ability to see the contradiction of her faith and her name has been impaired. What chance do es she have in life, when those around her do not have the good sense to counsel her properly.

If she is so committed, then let her take Amrit and change her name. let us see her committment.

For the sake of our faith, which is robust and beutiful, let us not taint it with squalbles, butas the Granth sahib says, consider the whole sangat.

Where do you draw the line?

In a similar case concerning the turban, what would be your stand? Do you think that a Sikh male should be prohibited from attending school without his turban. Who decides when it is right for one to start wearing the 5Ks.

If a non-Sikh decides to become a Sikh, then who decides which of the 5Ks he or she should be allowed to wear and in which order - Or do you think that he or she should not wear any of the 5Ks until they take amrit?

Surely these are thinks that the individual should be allowed to choose themselves. Sarika should have the choice to decide which of the 5Ks she wants to wear or not wear as she becomes more closer to her faith. The State does not have a right to infringe on this right.

Singh is part of her chosen surname which is Watkins-Singh - presumably a connection to her mother who is Sikh. She has not taken amrit and does not use the name Kaur. This is perfectly acceptable for someone who is not a baptised Sikh. Bhul-chuk-maff, das Hari Singh^talk 23:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

What is a practising Sikh

Some ridicule has been aimed at Sikhs who use only S. or K. and go by their tribal or village name, as some hold that using more than Singh, as a last name, makes them less of a Sikh. I thought Sarika was just using her father's name--western style as Singh. (now i see it is her mother who is a Sikh/comment 2)

Many comments have been written on sikhiwiki's pages questioning Sikhs who cut their hair or shave or wear a hat other than a turban. Some say they should not even be considered Sikhs.

This page states that the Kara must be worn by all Sikhs. I had thought that it was only a requirement of those who had done Pahul and became members of the Khalsa, who keep and honor them out of their respect for Guru Gobind Singh.

Guru Nanak had refused to wear the twice born string of the higher castes of the religion that he was raised in, seeing it as an empty and meaningless ritual or 'piece of apparel'. Yet his Purohit, who pleaded with him to wear it, thought that it was a Holy Symbol of the religion (many Hindus probably still do?). Before Guru Gobind Singh ji's edict was a kara anything to a Sikh more than a steel bangle? Some Sikhs seem to be wondering about that today. A recent poster here (possibly a link to Sikhnet) had a picture of an arm with a Kara, asking the question--does this make you a Sikh. It went on to stress that living ones life like the Gurus lived theirs--being a Gursikh (walking the walk if you will) was the more important thing.

Of course, it would be the best of all worlds if anyone was able to wear any item associated with their religion, but shouldn't we also wonder what is behind the school's policy:

• 1. are they trying to stop violence--i.e. students quarreling over religions?
• 2. just enforcing a uniform look, and keeping richer kids from harming the feelings of poorer students who can't aford diamonds?
• 3. or are they just picking on a Sikh girl who is tuning into her religious heritage?

Is a cross (a symbol Jesus would most likely not have worn) less of a symbol of the Christian religion. There was no leader who like Guru Gobind Singh who asked or, as is often written, gave the 5 K's to his devotees. Yet many Christians feel that their cross is part of their religion as many Jews feel the Magen David is part of theirs.

How about the Swastika, a sacred or respected symbol for Hindus and Budhists--if a skinhead student at Sarika Singh's school wants to wear one is that o.k.?

I can only guess that the Kara, Cross, Magen David are prohibited so that some skinhead can't wear a swastikka. That is the only reason i can think of for the policy. Of course reasons 1 and 2 make some sense as well.

Just for clarity, while the 5 K's are associated with the Khalsa are there any written statements about their use? Does it say somewhere that the small comb must be worn in ones turban or Hair or can one keep it in a pocket like my small sandalwood one which could never really be used to comb my hair. The underwear never being in sight (no Sikh child would take to wearing the low pants not under attack in American schools) has never been a problem. I've seen Sikhs who wear their Kirpan as a little jewelry like ornament on a chain around their neck. One Khalsa Kaur at the Gurdwara last year had purchased her's at a jewelry store in Amritsar. She considered it to be meeting the requirement of having a Kirpan. Is there any thing written on the size of a kirpan?

Does the Kara have to be worn around one's wrist? Would a person be not in compliance if it was worn around a chain under a sweater or in a pocket? Many older sucessful Sikhs wear a golden Kara instead of steel is this keeping with tradition or altering it? Don't know where to find these answers.

Hari Singh's reply

As a Sikh, I only consider myself as an expert at Sikhi and cannot say much with an authority about other religions. But, I can say with confidence that if Jesus Christ had insisted on Christians wearing the cross, most Christians would be wearing one. However, it appears that this was not a Hukam or order made by Jesus. So I don't believe we are discussing the same thing. For Sikhs, there is a Hukam; a requirement to wear the 5Ks while I don't believe the same applies to the other things that you have listed for the other religions.

The other point that I make is that most Sikhs aspire to take Amrit/pahul one day and so they slowly begin to acquire and practise the disciplines of the Khalsa. Most male wear a turban although they may not have taken amrit. For example, I have always worn a turban; kept my kesh; worn a kanga and kara since I was 13 year old. But I only took amrit when about 19. At that stage, I did not have a lot of adjustments to make as I already wore most of the 5Ks and read a few of the banis. By the way, I do use my kanga to comb my hair.

The 5Ks have to be worn correctly - It would be ridiculous to carry all your 5Ks in a bag around your neck and proclaim yourself as Guru Gobind Singh's Khalsa! There is a proper place for the turban - over the kesh; the kachhera; the kirpan; the kara and the Kanga. Just because some Sikhs cannot be bold enough to wear a 'full' kirpan does not mean that the way forward is to compromise the kakkars and their symbolism. Since 1699, the Sikhs have faithfully followed the Guru's command and have brought some order and merit to this world. I don't think the Sikhs will give up this proud and unique heritage now! I believe that we have a lot to offer the world and our identity is something that needs to be preserved.

The other thing is that the world is full of diversity. Look at the plant kingdom and animals - we have many thousands of types of horses, cattle, etc. God does not believe in restriction of nature. We should welcome and accept this diversity. To restrict the customs of others is to be self-centred. Look at the example set by Guru Tegh Bahadur. Guru ji chose to give his life for the Kashmiri pandits! This is how important it is to allow other to practise their ways without hindrance.

Uniform brings certain benefits to society - but it is not so important as to be a major consideration. Within every uniform requirement there is the need for flexibility to cater for all religions. This is not a difficult task and most schools and business cope very well with this necessity. Uniform does not stop fights over religions - only proper understanding will stop that. Uniforms do not stop the evil of discrimination and ego-centric behaviour - that only comes with knowledge and caring.

Guru Nanak refused to wear the janun as it was a meaningless exercise - a ritual without any merit or credibility. It was a ritual to establish the position and status of the brahmins! The 5Ks are a symbol of our Guru and the spirit of Khalsa. When a person wears these symbols he or she connects to the Guru and undertakes to walk on their path.

Think why the police, army, security guards have a uniform - for various practical reason and for recognisability. Doesn't the spiritual and moral dimension also need a uniform to show the world the path curved by our Gurus?

Obviously, a kara on its own does not make one a Sikh; however, a person without a kara cannot be a Sikh! A complete Sikh must wear a Kara! das, Hari Singh^talk 18:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Restraint in all matters

I think you miss the point here; the question is not whether she chooses to wear the Kara or whether a male should be allowed to wear a turban. The question is where does it stop. As a society, we must exercise restraint in all matters, as a culture we must show our children and through them others who they are and as a faith we must be true.

In all the teachings of our guru’s, restraint and tolerance is preferred to hot headedness. Seeing the big picture is our role as parents, not to politicise them before they have the maturity to deal with such matters.

Our rights have been borne out of struggle, but they are not unassailable. The rights we win apply to everybody, not just to us Sikhs, they are not free, but are the product of the good things we do. I note you mention the Turban, in that respect, you will appreciate that it was Winston Churchill who came to the assistance of the Sikhs to wear the Turban for their brave and gallant sacrifice in the First World War. History and our faith reward us for the good we do, the restraint we exercise and the counsel we give to our children. Remember, it is they that will take our faith forward. I agree that in some matters a stand need to be taken, but in others compromise is a better goal. Which side we fall should be a decision of us all, hence my contribution.

The issue of the Turban is raised but I note that the question I put regarding the Kirpan is not dealt with. Is it right that a child or an adult in the workplace has an unassailable right to wear a Kirpan? What then of the BNP supporter. The Kirpan is allowed for adults under clothing, which is a compromise that adults have made, it does not offend against their expression of faith.

You see, when the argument is advanced on the basis that to wear one item is unassailable then all items of faith are to be treated the same. What then of the consequences.

What would be your view if a child was injured or god forbid killed by a Kirpan, either by the wearer or by somebody else who had wrested from him. What if the child was yours, would that be the unassailable view that you have.

There is no absolute answer to the rhetorical question posed, the answer is in reality that we must think carefully where we are going and the path we travel.

The school or the workplace are not the places for these matters, it is the home. I grew up in the UK, having been born here. I did not wear the 5 K’s as a child (although I wear some of them now). I am no less a Sikh for it. I learnt from my father the meaning of hard work, honesty, compromise and honour (that is to be proud of who I am and my heritage). I learnt from my mother the meaning of struggle and love and I learnt from those around me the meaning of my faith and belonging. All this in a time when racism was rampant in the inner cities of the West Midlands.

I did not need to wear the 5 K’s to do this; I had the good counsel of my family and the direction of my Lord (Waheguru).

My faith and heritage was not so fragile that I needed to have a Kara to remind me to do good things as my Lord commands of me; my upbringing reminded me of this.

There are many inconsistencies with this girl’s stance, not least the adoption of the name Singh. Lest we forget, it was the command of Guru Gobind Singh Ji that joined the Khalsa with the common names. It does not matter that we use village names, but what we use should be used correctly. The adoption of the name Singh by this girl’s mother is wrong and contrary to the Guru’s command. What then of that as the outward expression of her faith.

Balance, restraint and devotion to all others and above all matters to our Lord is what we should instil in our children. With that to carry them forward, they will not go wrong and they will stay within the faith. Contradiction will cause them to stray as they fail to be able to reconcile such contradictions.

Let us not blindly walk in to a fanatics paradise