Sehajdharis seek separate SGPC if voting right denied

kds1980 · #1 (**permalink**) 12-Apr-2010, 14:38 PM

The Tribune, Chandigarh, India - Ludhiana Stories

Sehajdharis seek separate SGPC if voting right denied
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/hard-talk/29946-sehajdharis-seek-separate-sgpc-if-voting.html
Our Correspondent

Jagraon, April 11
The national executive council of the Sehajdhari Sikh Federation (SSF), a political party registered with the Election Commission of India, has decided to form a separate SGPC for ‘Patits’ and Sehajdhari Sikhs as they have been denied voting right in the SGPC elections.

Condemning the new definition of the Sikh given by the High Court, SSF leaders stated that the fanatic attitude of the SGPC and the Delhi Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee the Sikh religion had been confined to the ‘keshdharis’ and ‘amritdharis’ only.

Spokesperson of the federation Balwant Dhaliwal stated that the World Sikh Conference at Delhi was merely an eyewash of the Sarna brothers where 85 per cent of the Sikh population had been ignored by declaring them ‘Patits’ and non-Sikhs.

‘If a person who trims his beard is not a Sikh, a person who colours his /her hairs is not a Sikh who goes to the beauty parlour is not a Sikh, who consumes alcohol is not a Sikh, then who is left behind to be called a Sikh’, questioned the SSF leaders.

The SSF council stated that after the Haryana, Rajasthan SGPC was formed and after that a few so-called Sikhs have formed an All-India SGPC but all of them have ignored the Sehajdhari Sikhs. They stated that the persons born in Sikh families who does not keep unshorn hairs or trim their beards cannot be called ‘Patit’ as it is applicable for those thrown out of religion and those who commit transgressions after par taking amrit of the 10th Guru.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=29946

Labeling non- amritdhari as the ‘patits’ and non-Sikhs has divided the religion. Sikh religion, which is already in minority, has been divided into a sub-minority by this definition of the Sikh.

jasbirkaleka · #2 (**permalink**) 12-Apr-2010, 17:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kanwardeep Singh

The Tribune, Chandigarh, India - Ludhiana Stories

Sehajdharis seek separate SGPC if voting right denied
Our Correspondent

Jagraon, April 11
The national executive council of the Sehajdhari Sikh Federation (SSF), a political party registered with the Election Commission of India, has decided to form a separate SGPC for ‘Patits’ and Sehajdhari Sikhs as they have been denied voting right in the SGPC elections.

Condemning the new definition of the Sikh given by the High Court, SSF leaders stated that the fanatic attitude of the SGPC and the Delhi Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee the Sikh religion had been confined to the ‘keshdharis’ and ‘amritdharis’ only.

Spokesperson of the federation Balwant Dhaliwal stated that the World Sikh Conference at Delhi was merely an eyewash of the Sarna brothers where 85 per cent of the Sikh population had been ignored by declaring them ‘Patits’ and non-Sikhs.

‘If a person who trims his beard is not a Sikh, a person who colours his /her hairs is not a Sikh who goes to the beauty parlour is not a Sikh, who consumes alcohol is not a Sikh, then who is left behind to be called a Sikh’, questioned the SSF leaders.

The SSF council stated that after the Haryana, Rajasthan SGPC was formed and after that a few so-called Sikhs have formed an All-India SGPC but all of them have ignored the Sehajdhari Sikhs. They stated that the persons born in Sikh families who does not keep unshorn hairs or trim their beards cannot be called ‘Patit’ as it is applicable for those thrown out of religion and those who commit transgressions after par taking amrit of the 10th Guru.

Labeling non- amritdhari as the ‘patits’ and non-Sikhs has divided the religion. Sikh religion, which is already in minority, has been divided into a sub-minority by this definition of the Sikh.

The SGPC and other such other Sikh Organisations are proving to be the worst enemy of their own They are doing a great a dis-service to the most modern and rational religion of the world.Tsk.tsk.Going to the courts to defne who is a Sikh.What a great idea.What next?
And lo, the Hindus are so happy to see the Sikhs redused to such a minuscule minority

.

harbansj24 · #3 (**permalink**) 12-Apr-2010, 21:24 PM

Jasbirkaleka ji,

The Punjab and Haryana High Court gave a definition of who is a Sikh only for the purpose of governance.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=29946
Now if you did not have such a definition, then anybody can claim to be Sikh and then enjoy preferred admission into Sikh minority institutes, vote in the gurudwara elections etc. Sikhism being such an open and inclusive religion, anyone can declare himself to be Sikh without being questioned.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=29946
So then how would you differentiate between a Sikh and a non Sikh for such purposes?

ac_marshall · #4 (**permalink**) 12-Apr-2010, 21:44 PM

Why would Hindus be happy? What have they got to do with the internal politics of Sikh Organizations? Is there a single Gurudwara that Hindus don't visit? Most Hindus and other communities don't even know who are Sehajdharis and Amritdharis. All that most of the people of other Indian communities know is that a Sikh is called "Sardarji" who maintains unshorn hair, beard and wears a turban and that he is the most appealing member in India's Armed Forces. Why would Hindus, Christians or Muslims even bother about knowing who are Sehajdharis?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jasbirkaleka

The SGPC and other such other Sikh Organisations are proving to be the worst enemy of their own They are doing a great a dis-service to the most modern and rational religion of the world.Tsk.tsk.Going to the courts to defne who is a Sikh.What a great idea.What next?
And lo, the Hindus are so happy to see the Sikhs redused to such a minuscule minority

.

ballym · #5 (**permalink**) 13-Apr-2010, 00:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by harbansj24

Jasbirkaleka ji,

The Punjab and Haryana High Court gave a definition of who is a Sikh only for the purpose of governance.
Now if you did not have such a definition, then anybody can claim to be Sikh and then enjoy preferred admission into Sikh minority institutes, vote in the gurudwara elections etc. Sikhism being such an open and inclusive religion, anyone can declare himself to be Sikh without being questioned.
So then how would you differentiate between a Sikh and a non Sikh for such purposes?

Why should there be a reservation in educational system? Give them free education but never compromise on quality.
If Gurudwaras are really for everyone then what is the problem if a person visiting it regularly votes( and does not have hairs) in its election. Criteria should be active , constructive involvement.
If some unwanted person is still able to vote, then it is some problem with eligibility mechanism which can be corrected.
Simply keeping hairs is should not be a criteria. Right now, that is practically the criteria. I respect you are a great scholar.... please suggest a different method other than length of hairs.
Real intellectuals like you can only bring a change. And a change is a must .... otherwise it may be too late.

ballym · #6 (**permalink**) 13-Apr-2010, 00:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ac_marshall

Why would Hindus be happy? What have they got to do with the internal politics of Sikh Organizations? Is there a single Gurudwara that Hindus don't visit? Most Hindus and other communities don't even know who are Sehajdharis and Amritdharis. All that most of the people of other Indian communities know is that a Sikh is called "Sardarji" who maintains unshorn hair, beard and wears a turban and that he is the most appealing member in India's Armed Forces. Why would Hindus, Christians or Muslims even bother about knowing who are Sehajdharis?

I guess you are unaware of religious black market( I have coined this phrase just now! Copyright

) .There are so many agencies who are interested in getting a piece of sikh population folllowing their Guru. Hindus are definitely one of them. Why should they state that sikhs are just a part of hindus. They do it time and again.
Why a Christian clergy had to do when he offered me to convert? It did happen. What is your motive in being so naive? Are you really ignorant about the questions you have asked? Read related threads on this forum to get information instead of asking simple questions.
You have stated MOST. SO how many bad apple does it takes to create problem. Muslims say that MOST of them are peace loving!

ac_marshall · #7 (**permalink**) 13-Apr-2010, 00:58 AM

Gurfateh,
The only thing I've tried to convey is that internal conflict among Sehajdharis and Amritdharis cannot benefit either christians, hindus or muslims.

With members of each group (Amritdhari and Sehajdhari) sticking to their argument of being true Sikhs, how can an external religion derive benefit? Both are strong and clear in their arguement that they are "Sikhs". Had the RSS or VHP got support of Sikh leaders, Hindu organizations would definitely feel happy. But here the matter is within the Sikh community with neither Christians, Muslims nor Hindus in picture.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=29946
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=29946

I totally agree with you about the mass prosyletizing activities undertaken by Christian missionaries and about Hindu organizations claiming Sikhs to be a part of Hinduism. But, I don't find anything in the conflict internal to Sikhism that would benefit Hinduism, Christianity or Islam.

-Regards:
Adam Marshall

kds1980 · #8 (**permalink**) 13-Apr-2010, 01:09 AM

Quote:

Why should there be a reservation in educational system? Give them free education but never compromise on quality.
If Gurudwaras are really for everyone then what is the problem if a person visiting it regularly votes( and does not have hairs) in its election. Criteria should be active , constructive involvement.

Reservations in India are necessary if you want your community to become prosperous.Many of you living outside India have no knowledge how much difference is their between lives of Urban metro people,small town people and rural people.As majority of sikhs are living in rural area's there is hardly any chance for them to compete with urban metro people.

Merit in education not only comes from hard work but also from money and family conditions
.If your parents can afford you very expensive coaching institutes and totally plan your career then its very easy for those people to enter top level universities.On the other hand you are from rural area with family and financial problems then even if you are better than an urban person you cannot make it to top level university

Tejwant Singh · #9 (**permalink**) 13-Apr-2010, 02:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ballym

Why should there be a reservation in educational system? Give them free education but never compromise on quality.
If Gurudwaras are really for everyone then what is the problem if a person visiting it regularly votes( and does not have hairs) in its election. Criteria should be active , constructive involvement.
If some unwanted person is still able to vote, then it is some problem with eligibility mechanism which can be corrected.
Simply keeping hairs is should not be a criteria. Right now, that is practically the criteria. I respect you are a great scholar.... please suggest a different method other than length of hairs.
Real intellectuals like you can only bring a change. And a change is a must .... otherwise it may be too late.

Ballym ji,

Guru fateh.

As long as there is a caste system in India where not all are considered equal, this reservation will exist and is must. As Kanwardeep pointed out quite correctly that most of the Sikhs live in the rural areas of India and have no means to educate their kids. So, in order for the Sikhs to have the opportunity to excel, this decision by the High court is necessary.

As you live in Canada, you must be aware of the Affirmative Action south of your border in the US which helped many people even some of them became the Judges of the Supreme Court and one is still there.

Tejwant Singh