Confused Youth?

[skeptik]

.. important to note...conservatives do not hold any exclusive claim on being prudent or cautious as you seem to be suggesting, even Bin Laden laid carefully thought out plans for his mission, but this doesn’t make him a conservative, most people would consider him an extremist.

Yes, this is completely true. There are people who are prudent and cautious but cannot otherwise be known as Conservatives. And there are people who call themselves conservatives but are not prude or cautious. This is not a problem. Those qualities alone do not define a conservative, no more than the quality of being 'fast' defines atheletes.

Bin laden is an enormously idealistic man. He is motivated to change society in a big way. He desires to defeat the West, and his goal is ultimately the spread of Islam all over the world. This is what he says when he speaks about his ideology, as you can readily confirm by checking his speeches. He wishes a positive change to society, that of spreading Islam throughout. It is true that he is careful and meticilous in his work. He obviously has some great merits of leadership and planning. Still his desire to change society in such a big way, disqualifies him from being a conservative. I will say though, that the Bin Laden who opposed the USSR in Afghanistan can certainly be said to be worthy of praise. That bin-laden would qualify as being a conservative (muslim). He was fighting for the negative goal of Afhghanistan's defeat of the invading Russians. The one who rules newspapers and TV-screens does not. Furthermore, this bin-laden shares more in common with liberal spirit than otherwise. He wishes to bring Islam to the world, and this no doubt will fix many social problems because it must be admitted Islam is particularly good at uniting men together, regardless of race or creed. If many agreed and fought for Bin-Laden's ideal, society would conceivably, be greatly improved.

 

[skeptik2]

So I think you’re plainly wrong in assuming that the Gurus were conservative on the basis of them not being liberal by modern standards. But I think we must be careful not to get caught into the trap of semantics and categorisation. Trying to encapsulate Sikhism in one word is a fool’s game to my mind. It is far too complex for that in my opinion.

I do not measure the Gurus against general liberalism. I measure them against neo-sikh liberalism, which does not make a distinction between now and then. It simply says that the Gurus believed in these ideals - which i call the neo-sikh ideals - and that these ideals is what they, neo-sikhs, believe in also. They are caught in the trap, not me. I only show the folly of their view by showing real discrepancies between fact and neo-sikhism.

I do not describe the sikh Gurus by only one word. I say that they were largely conservative because thats the reasonable assumption unless evidence exists to the contrary. Neo-sikhs, unavoidably, imply that the Sikh gurus were liberal. This is because if you accept neo-sikhism, then it follows that the sikh Gurus wanted neo-sikh ideals of liberalism. I use the word 'neo-sikh' to describe such people because it is accurate and meaningful as they are characterised by such a quality.

I fully agree that sikhi is complex. Holding this demands going further than just mere ideology, which is usually the sole domain neo-sikhs thrive in, even when they claim to be rational and thoughtful because they reject conservativism. The way this usually works is a neo-sikh will begin by taking a superficial look at existing sikh society - having in mind some (usually trivial) problem - and chastising sikhs for not being true enough to sikhism, for practising group thinking, or something similar. He will propose that sikhs are corrupted by 'panjabi culture', the 'media' or something like that. He implies ofcourse, that he is not such a person, because he acts independently of peer or social pressure. This partially explains the fetish liberals have for autonomy - because it is from this main axiom that they derive the rest of their ideology. Neo-sikhs just havent made the intellectual progression of realising that if they consistently adopt liberal ideals, then rejecting particular cases of it amounts to hypocrisy. Once they cross that bridge, they are no longer just neo-sikhs, they become full blown liberals.

 

[skeptik]

You talk as if they were making an omelette, like it was a simple affair and they could be free to pick and choose whomever they wanted without regard for practicalities.

Yes, but i do not honestly believe this is the case. This though is what neo-sikhs imply when they say that the sikh Gurus purposefully and intentionally wanted to create a equal society. They claim more than this too, ofcourse, as other neo-sikh ideals are also implied, but I have been concentrating on equality because its the one I am most familiar with. If you say the sikh Gurus wanted equality, then there would be an omellete being made. It would have ingredients carefully measured and weighed in proportion, for thats what equality demands. If you are creating an equal society you must create it so that it is equal in composition. Surely this much is obvious? I am not saying the sikh Gurus were in such a position - neo-sikhs claim it. I think they are wrong, and have said so all along.

 

[skeptik2]

.. at least suggests alternative views regarding why the Guruship contained only one race other than anything conservative

It seems you arent even convinced by your explanation about the lack of diversity in guruship, and so you cannot expect me to be! It is a poor explanation, but I do not honestly expect you or any other neo-sikh to do any better. Because the truth is that the Gurus simply did not care about equality and were more interested in non-descrimination. Though neo-sikhs must have a good explanation at hand showing they wanted equality, this hasnt been offered by dalsingh in his last post.

I am still waiting for you to abandon the idea that sikhism beleives in equality and simply accept the more tenable principle of non-descrimination. For it amply and admirably explains why women can be found in some important roles in Sikh history, but not in the highest roles. That women played an integral role in Sikh history but they did so in a conservative fashion. This is most reasonable explanation of the facts, but neo-sikhs are so afraid of it because it doesnt go far enough. One wonders if they think they the sikh faith is incomplete, though this is certainly implied by their reforming sikhism with these new ideals of theirs.

 

[skeptik]

Maanas Ki Jaat Sabhai Ekai Pahchaanbo. I always thought that a fundamental message of Sikhi was that in Gods eyes we are all equal and have the same potential to reach him/her/it. Besides not having Gurus from all races and creeds does not mean that the Gurus were against egalitarian principles or favoured their own race. Your making a massive jump from one statement to a big assumption again.

This thought is false. How can we be equal infront of God? He sees everything, and this means he can just how different we are. For he would see not only how we differ in the smallest atomic detail, but also in the obvious qualities of endowments. Some are born high, some low, some rich, some poor. This is what Gurbani tells us straight from the word of the Guru. How can you hold on to such an obviously incorrect and false delusion?

What you mean to say is, despite all our differences, dispite all of that variance, God in some way, allows us to win his affection. I do not want to go any further in this thought, because it seems silly to speculate on what god thinks, because a)its outside logic, and b)we simply dont know about what god thinks or expects from us.

By the way, its not my assumption that the sikh gurus believed in equality. Its not what i believe. Its not my jump to make, its the neo-sikhs who make such leaps. They need to defend and justify such a jump, not me.

I am content with understanding that the sikh Gurus did not want to unjustly descriminate against the lower castes, against baby girls, and against widows. This might not go far enough for you, as a neo-sikh, you might say the sikh gurus intended more than this, they actually wanted equality! But that is your jump to justify and defend - not mine. I simply point out that is the jump neo-sikhs imply when they hold on to their absurd ideals.

 

[Dimitri]

In fact the sikh gurus never proposed any new positive claims for social change. They only made negative claims: Ending female infantacide, the practice of Sati, treating women unjustly - opposing these things, the sikh Gurus were not proposing equality - instead they were saying we are against cruelty.

All sikh websites need to be shut down. All sikh writers need to be banned. They only confuse matters and do our young damage. Sikh history and philosophy ought to be discussed directly in relation to truth, and not passionate fashionable ideology.[/quote]


Above commnets are really unwarranted. Sikh Gurus did speak about caset system in india, atrocities committed by rulers of that era, e.g babar bani. Caste system, inequality, blind rituals get mention many times. If something is wrong, to address it and to speak against is Positive. To go around and say all ppl of diff castes are equal, women are equal to men, low castes etc are man made things, we are all equal in God's court is a positive thing. Going against the wrong norms of the time is a positive things. Some of the Gurus paid with their life for this because (the Sikh history you wanna discuss) the class that felt scared by this Brahmin/pandits (not all) were the ones spreading lies to the muslim rulers of the ear. Gur Teg lost his life becase ppl were being not even given the right to practice their beliefs - forced conversion of of hindus. what else u want. if something is wrong- and its is spoken against about it is positive.

 

[skeptik2]

DrKhalsa thanks for the kind words and for reading my posts. I really do appreciate that you did so.

Dimitri, very quickly:

Regarding why no women entries in Guru Granth, in those times under the brahman system women and low castes were not allowed toperform religious ceremonies, hardly any had education.

This is not an acceptable explanation. For it implies that the Sikh gurus were also involved in holding back women. But no sikh will accept this view. Suppose that in sikh society there were no such restrictions on women, then this reason would not be sufficient in explaining why women did not write bani. Neo-sikhs cannot answer this sensibly, but they must if they are to defend their views. Conservatives will simply accept that women didnt traditionally write religious material, and this is why no woman did. But neo-sikhs claim that the sikh gurus wanted equality: but still not take steps to encourage a woman to write bani, and then to include that into the granth. This is contradictory, but this is what they believe.

 

[kds1980]

dear skeptik

it is very very difficuilt to change society.even if god will come on this earth it will be very difficuilt for him as human mind is so much corrupted.guru's tried to cure this human mind with bani.

just my two cents

 

[Dimitri]

This is from the English translation of the Guru Granth.

In a woman man is conceived,
From a woman he is born,
With a woman he is betrothed and married,
With a woman he contracts friendship.
Why denounce her, the one from whom even kings are born ? From a
woman a woman is born,
None may exist without a woman.

Guru Amar Das also condemned purdah, the wearing of the veil, and female infanticide. He spoke against the custom of sati.

Out of 146 chosen, the Guru
appointed 52 women missionaries to spread the message of Sikhism, and out of 22 Manjis established by the Guru for the preaching of Sikhism, 4 were women.

Regarding "Sikh Gurus didn't encourage women to wright any bani". Why don't you wright one now. You are educated. Right something in praise of God, right something about the ritualistic nature of every religion (it exits even now).

I agree with the above post fully. If ppl chose not to follow the instructions of the Guru, or they dsicriminate, its not the fault of Gurus. Thats why these great ppl come or are enlightened (whatever suits you) to wake up the humanity. Its up to ppl if they wanna follow their teachings or not.

 

[skeptik]

Dmitri all of those points have been covered already. In future please read what has been discussed before posting, because otherwise there is too much repetition and it becomes tiresome having to reply about something already addressed. I've already dealt with all of your points, but I will discuss your best one in this post. The first passage you quote, already discussed, what is it saying? The meaning most honestly reflected by the passage is simply that:

Women are inseperable from human affairs. Women exist and co-exist in all facets of society. Women are precious and important to the very existence of society. Their presence is unavoidable and crucial. Even the highest positions in society (that of Kings) are intimately connected with woman. Then, knowning all of this, how can one denounce woman?

Here Guruji is against putting women down simply because they are women. Guruji provides an argument, a good one, which says knowing that women are so valuable and precious in society, how can a person denounce them? It is an argument against denouncing women and argument for recognising the great service and value that women have provided to society. It does NOT say that Sikhs ought to create equality between men and women. To claim that is what the passage is saying is to presume FAR too much. Such a presumption is not justified by the passage and it says something much stronger than what Guruji did say, and it says something different to what Guruji has said. This confusion by neo-sikhs is understandable though. For in recent history, equality and non-descrimination are considered to be facets of the same goal. That the point of either is towards the same ideal of good society. This is a mistaken view, but it has been left unchallenged, simply because no one wants to challenge what they see to be a Good Thing to desire. Yet, even if you believe that equality is a Good Thing - you must not commit the vice of misreading the Guru's words for your own purpose, even if that purpose is thought to be good. But neo-sikhs necessarily misrepresent our Guru by offering sentimental interpretations of their words. Tell me, is it justified from this passage to say Guruji wanted equality of sexes? But this is the same sort of unjustified conclusion that neo-sikhs often reach despite the facts.

 

[skeptik2]

it is very very difficuilt to change society.even if god will come on this earth it will be very difficuilt for him as human mind is so much corrupted.guru's tried to cure this human mind with bani. - kds1980

It is indeed difficult to change society, and this is a good thing, not a bad one. For if society were too easily changed, then there is a greater chance of it changing to become worser and not better. Consider an example. I have a television set which doesnt work properly, sometimes the picture is fuzzy, or the sound no longer can be heard. There are very few people in the world who can fix my television set so that it works better. But if i open my television and change something, maybe taking a part out, or tightening a screw or something like that, then there is a greater chance of ruining the television set, and worser than it was before i changed it. But sometimes, its possible to make the television better. Maybe if i kick it on the side, it will start working properly. But this is a very small chance. Only a proper television repairman can fix my television, and even if he fixes it, it wont become better than a working television, it will be just as good. There is a sensible limit to how good a television can be.

Society though is much more complicated than a television set. It is much more difficult to fix society simply because of all the complexity involved. Sometimes we want to make something better, but after all of our best efforts, not only have we not fixed it, but we have made it worser. In society, unlike with televisions, there are very few society-repairmen. You might say the Guru's were such repairmen, and even if they were, we are not, so we cannot play their roles by claiming that we need to go further than what they gurus did, simply because the job is unfinished.

A working television is a working television, and it cannot be fixed further. A working society is similar too. But we can always imagine that we will make society better, but sometimes it best left alone. This fact though is missed by most neo-sikhs, who are so convinced that society needs fixing, that they are unwilling, or uncapable of being reasonable, and seeing that sometimes society is good enough, and trying to fix it more, can only make things worse, and not better. Even if by chance they dont make it worse, they have wasted precious resources in a task that wasnt required. We have limited resources and we should target them at real problems, not imaginary ones, out a destructive desire for elusive and utopian perfection.

Furthermore the worst mistake neo-sikhs make is their mischaracterization of the Sikh Gurus as utopian idealists. This is to say they were like the repair-man who always sees any television set as needing to be fixed. Such a repairman wants to change always and often. He wants to improve society always, regardless of whatever condition it is in already. He doesnt know when to stop, because so long as there are television sets, they can be be improved, and should be improved. He doesnt realise that messing with a working television set will probably make it worse, and cant make it better than it already was before he meddled with it. This then is the neo-sikh view, and he is convinced the job ahead of him is huge and difficult. Ofcourse it is, but this is only because he has such unreasonable goals, and unreasonable expectations.

We should keep society healthy and in good condition, but part of doing this is not changing it just because of the fashion of the times. Every year there is a different season for clothing, for technology and so on, and there are new ideas on how society should be. But a working society owes itself to be taken seriously and to be respected for what it is, and that is, a tested, enduring thing which has been refined and maintained throughout history. It contains in itself the weighed wisdom of experience, the collective marks of wiser and less wiser men, the lessons learnt with the greatest cost of life and human intellect. It is a complex fragile thing that needs to be treated with great care. What is a bad idea is to accept newer ideas that promise to make things not only better, but much much better. Idealistic ideas are common and cheap, they are found everywhere and anywhere. But we owe it to ourselves to be conservative in our changes. To only make changes when they are small and even then, when they are like servicing a machine, to be kept working in good condition. Oil changes are okay, but drastic upgrades are to be viewed with caution.

There are great geniuses who can make a newer engine, a newer television that is superior to previous ones, but these men are extremely rare. The gurus were such geniuses, we are not. We should not presume more than what they said, more than what they wrote, and more that what they did. We should be truthful and honest when we consider their words. This is only the basic responsibility we owe to our faith. If a genius changes an engine, it is not because he simply thought 'i want to make this better', and magically, he changed something and it was better because of the virtue of change. It is because he knew how ordinary engines worked, he understood their limitations and their qualities, and he made a change because he understood how it would affect the whole vehicle. Instead neo-sikhs simply say, see, the Gurus made changes, their changes were good, thus change itself is good, thus the gurus were revolutionaries and it is our duty as sikhs to be society repairing revolutionaries too.

 

[dalsingh]

Skeptic,

I find some of what you say to be very insightful and intelligent but there a few things I find problematic.

Firstly, the use of the categories Sikh and neoSikh. Describing them you said.

All sikh websites need to be shut down. All sikh writers need to be banned. They only confuse matters and do our young damage. Sikh history and philosophy ought to be discussed directly in relation to truth, and not passionate fashionable ideology.

This is a very haughty statement for anyone to make. For you to totally discount Sikh writers in this fashion and basically rubbish nearly everything that came before you is no small thing. In fact it is quite radical, not conservative. Can you not see any good in those writers?

I would love for you to point out these neoSikh writers and identify those that are Sikh according to your views. What are your views on the Singh Sabha movement for example? Do you see Bhai Vir Singh, Giani Ditt Singh, Kahan Singh Nabha as neoSikh writers?


As an example, if you will, I would like you to make commentary on the piece posted by sister Kaur written by Nanak Singh on this forum regarding the need for reform in the panth. Unless I misunderstand you, this would fit into your mould of neoSikh, some comments on how you think the piece deviates from the teachings of Sikhi would be very illuminating. I will post this link at the end of this one.

I think you could easily be in danger of being accused of rewriting history yourself, much like the accusations you are levelling at the "neoSikhs", seeing as there general acceptance of them in the panth.


This next thing you posted had me bamboozled for a bit

Bin laden is an enormously idealistic man. He is motivated to change society in a big way. He desires to defeat the West, and his goal is ultimately the spread of Islam all over the world. This is what he says when he speaks about his ideology, as you can readily confirm by checking his speeches. He wishes a positive change to society, that of spreading Islam throughout. It is true that he is careful and meticilous in his work. He obviously has some great merits of leadership and planning. Still his desire to change society in such a big way, disqualifies him from being a conservative. I will say though, that the Bin Laden who opposed the USSR in Afghanistan can certainly be said to be worthy of praise. That bin-laden would qualify as being a conservative (muslim). He was fighting for the negative goal of Afhghanistan's defeat of the invading Russians. The one who rules newspapers and TV-screens does not. Furthermore, this bin-laden shares more in common with liberal spirit than otherwise. He wishes to bring Islam to the world, and this no doubt will fix many social problems because it must be admitted Islam is particularly good at uniting men together, regardless of race or creed. If many agreed and fought for Bin-Laden's ideal, society would conceivably, be greatly improved.

You see those Afghans dancing around on the streets of Kabul after the Taliban were disposed? A lot of people under Bin Laden style society did not feel it created a "greatly improved society".

Your use of the terms negative and postive changes needs some discussion. I find it difficult to identify anything in society past and present that can be described as a positive change according to what I understand is the criteria you are using. In all changes there are reference points to what came before. Even Islam, historically speaking can be considered as a negative change to what Mohhamad saw around him during his life and an attempt to rectify what he saw as wrong (I know that this is obviously not the belief that practising Muslims will hold regarding their religion). The idol worship at Mecca, some basic rights given to women that didn't exist before (funnily though he didn't extend this nonMuslim women). So how has this become a postive change under Bin Laden?

By your criteria, I would say the birth of the Khalsa can be considered a more "positive" change on society, taking it in a totally new direction. That being said it is not to say that the movemnt did not contain inherited elements of negative changes or reactionary changes to perceived injustices as well. Just like every other movement, ideology or religion. The only thing I can think of that is heavily a "postive change" is maybe the Industrial revolution in this light.

It is indeed difficult to change society, and this is a good thing, not a bad one. For if society were too easily changed, then there is a greater chance of it changing to become worser and not better.

This is where bravery, intelligence, vision and conviction come into play not conservatism. Guru Gobind Singh could have easily not created the Khalsa in fear of the long term effect being negative but he didn't. This much is plain. His totally dismissing the masands with a stroke of his pen (much like you seem to be trying to do with Sikh writers), although this institute was initiated by a preceding Guru shows that he was not shy of radical action.

Instead neo-sikhs simply say, see, the Gurus made changes, their changes were good, thus change itself is good, thus the gurus were revolutionaries and it is our duty as sikhs to be society repairing revolutionaries too.

I don't anyone is actually doing this. They are trying to say that some changes are in order. Given some of the problems faced by Sikhs worldwide this is not a bad thing. A society that does not evaluate an adjust itself periodly in a rapidily changing world isn't going to survive very long. I think maybe you should consider changing your view of Sikhi being "conservative" to it perhaps being a bit more "dynamic".

Anyway, skeptic, despite our differting views it is still nice to see that you are questioning that around you in a true Sikhlike fashion.

I've just had a major increase in workload dumped on me, so I may not be able to answer as quickly as I may like from now on. In the meanwhile, let us all question, deliberate and discuss with our brothers and sisters.

That post I requested some commentary on can be found at:

http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/controversial-debates/14224-need-reforms-sikh-practices-nanak-singh.html??

If this doesn't take you there, go to the Controversial Debates section. It is titled something like "The need for reforms in Sikh practices"

Kaur posted it.

Regards

 

[skeptik]

Not just neo-sikhs write incorrect things about Sikhism. But things that are commonly asserted are usually based on the false premise that sikh gurus held neo-sikh ideals: and that sikh society ought to be in line with those ideals. Go to google and type 'sikhism,' you'll probably come across the site by sandeep singh brar, who runs sikhs.org: millions of people come across this site every year. They learn that sikh society believes in equality, and brotherhood or all mankind. Which is false: for sikh society does not. Google for 'turban and sikhs', and you'll come across the article by sikh-coalition telling us similar things about Sikhs: that sikh society is egalitarian - a false claim - and a false representation of sikh philosophy. These are just some obvious examples of what i had in mind. They are not exceptions but represent typical claims of writers on sikhi. They can be found in many places: check for youself.

I am not familiar with most of those writers, but like I said before, Sikh books are so shockingly bad that my prior expectation is quite low. In regard to Singh Sabha: I have read Sangat Singh's polemic, which while quite ruthless and entertaining, is characterised mostly by its insistance to explain the decline of Sikh society as a consequence of Brahminical Hegemony, or something like that. I am familiar with conspiracy theories, and there is none finer than the 'Evil Hindu out to corrupt Sikhs' theory, and indeed no finer exponent of conspiracy theory than Dr Sangat Singh.

Still, lets say there are better books than this: and one hopes there are! Lets even say these are much better books. Is it true that there is no good in these books? No i did not claim that. My contention is that an obviously false claim about Sikhs should not belong in any book, good or bad. Even A 'good book' that contains obviously false claims, to me, is worthy only of contempt. This then is why i said that literature on Sikhism is so flawed, that it is better for it not to exist, than for it to exist, and to create and propagate confusion, and to sustain a feeling of disdain for ordinary sikh society in so called 'enlightened sikhs.' It leads to a self-hatred of community: a belief in ridiculous and destructive ideals, a departure from reality, corruption of sikh philosophy and history, a waste of resources and opportunity, to name only the obvious consequences.

 

[skeptik2]

I think you could easily be in danger of being accused of rewriting history yourself, much like the accusations you are levelling at the "neoSikhs", seeing as there general acceptance of them in the panth.

But they are not generally accepted in the Panth. Most sikhs simply do not know that there these silly 'intellectuals' writing such obviously absurd things about Sikhism. If they were aware, they would far from accept such writings as true, and would instead view the writers and their writings with much deserved ridicule.

The point of my post on Bin Laden in Afhganistan was, while the Afhganis were happy for Bin Laden to help them fight the USSR invasion of their country, they were far less happy for these foreigner arabs running their country. This is why the Coalition was able to secure such an easy victory: for most afghanis simply did not care enough about the Taliban and Bin Laden. Further the Taliban imposed a strictly islamic rule, which did not exist in the country before that: this was not a conservative rule of the Afhgani people. Secondly, my intention was to show that a person can have a great ideal in mind, and with good reason (Bin Laden's desire for a Islamic Globe - given that Islam unites men together despite differences in race and culture), and still, that such a goal, if achieved would take a great toll on human life: that chasing such a goal will be destructive, and that in the end, while Bin Laden's ideal is pure, it is not something that most people will agree with being good for society. This shows that an ideal can be destructive even though most people will agree that equality of race is 'good'. It is true also that an Islamic world society would be a peaceful society, for as Muslims know, Islam is a religion of Peace, but few will agree with Bin Laden.

The positive/negative thing must be understood in context. A change must be understood by the society that precedes it; the historical chain connecting the current society to its past. If a change is to be taken that radically alters current society, towards a vision of future society which is changed towards a positive ideal not held before, then such a change is said to be positive. If instead the current society, when viewed ofcourse in view of the past, is to be changed but only in a way that is totally in line with orthodox society's conception of evil, and if the change is to remove a particular evil that would be long recognised as being evil, then such a change is a negative one. Examples? Equality is a positive ideal. Fighting a tyrant invader is a negative one.

What sort of change was the creation of Khalsa to Sikh society? It depends. If you accept the view that all sikhs in a sikh society ought to be Khalsa, then you'll have one answer to this question, a positive one. If you believe the Khalsa ought to be a distinct group of people, only those whose honestly aspire Sikh ideals, then you'll have a different answer, a negative one. If you believe the Khalsa have radically different aims and ideals than Sikhs before 1699, then that will affect the previous answers. This is a complex question and I make no pretension of answering it.

My view is that the birth of the Khalsa was entirely a conservative affair. It set (the already existing) precedent that there were to be a group of Sikhs who would be looked upon as leaders of the Sikh panth. These men were to be distinguished by their commitment to sikh ideals. These ideals, I think, exist, but are not the same as neo-sikh ideals. Further the ideals for the Khalsa are perfectly conservative ideals of defending the down-trodden, leading sikhs through good times and bad, and basically that of responsible custodians of the Sikh faith. Their complete faith to be in the Sikh Gurus: Their lives in accordance to sikh teachings, irrespective of the age. This is why Sikh men do not shave their beards and keep turbans, even though the world thinks civilized men should be clean shaven. Were the Sikhs as 'progressive', as neo-sikhs claim, then it would make little sense to continue such a practise, for it makes little sense not to progress further in this way too. The Khalsa then were to be responsible for maintaining and leading Sikh society in spirit of the Gurus intentions, and this then, would mean that any changes they enacted to sikh society, would be negative ones, where sikh society is maintained by removing a particular pressing evil threatening it. To make positive changes, the Khalsa would have to depart from their commitment to maintaining a society, in spirit and substance, of the Gurus, because they would be adding something new to Sikh society, which the Gurus did not do themselves.

 

[skeptik]

This is where bravery, intelligence, vision and conviction come into play not conservatism. Guru Gobind Singh could have easily not created the Khalsa in fear of the long term effect being negative but he didn't. This much is plain. His totally dismissing the masands with a stroke of his pen (much like you seem to be trying to do with Sikh writers), although this institute was initiated by a preceding Guru shows that he was not shy of radical action.

Chairman Mao had bravery, intelligence, vision and conviction. These qualities are not a replacement for good conservative method. If that is what you are saying, you would think highly of Chairman Mao, who made some very admirable changes to chinese society while possessing these traits. Guru Gobind dismissing the Massands might be a radical change, but radical changes are not necessarily beyond a conservative. If a conservative thinks a radical change is in order, in restoring society to good working order, then he occasionally might take such a decision. It is true that a conservative would not regularly and routinely make radical changes, but you would need more than just this example to prove that Guru Gobind was mostly radical. In fact, while the Massands might have served their purpose, removing them, then, restores society. It is in fact better reason for not making a positive change to society, because sometimes you have roll it back, though, ofcourse, it served it's purpose for a while. A temporary change, then, which is what the Massand situation was, is not a good example for the radical revolutionarism of the Sikh Gurus.

 

[skeptik2]

"Instead neo-sikhs simply say, see, the Gurus made changes, their changes were good, thus change itself is good, thus the gurus were revolutionaries and it is our duty as sikhs to be society repairing revolutionaries too." - skeptik

I don't anyone is actually doing this. They are trying to say that some changes are in order. Given some of the problems faced by Sikhs worldwide this is not a bad thing. A society that does not evaluate an adjust itself periodly in a rapidily changing world isn't going to survive very long. I think maybe you should consider changing your view of Sikhi being "conservative" to it perhaps being a bit more "dynamic".

All liberals implicitly believe this about change. They have always believed that change by definition is good. They believe it because they note that in the past, whenever progress has been made, some change was made, and in each such case, there was resistance to the change (from conservatives), but eventually the change was made, everyone now agrees it was a good idea. Thus they conclude, that change is good, and must be sought out. They believe that society needs reform, and it is their role to achieve it.

To believe this, liberals draw upon a rich source of examples. They remember heros like Christopher Columbus, Charles Darwin, Martin Luther King. They remember changes like abolishing slavery and the emancipation of women. They remember changes that allowed Black men to vote, and to ride on buses, and so on. Since there are so many examples of where society had opposed change, and then someone had reformed it, and that eventually everyone realised how good those changes were, that this is means it is their job to fight for change now. So they defend the rights of the Gay, of the animals, of Muslims, of women, whatever. They call for changes to society such that these groups are more acceptable. Actually there is no clear purpose to these movements; they are united by a belief that society ought to be more generous to the groups without saying exactly what this means, except in so much as knowning that whatever it is, it doesnt exist now.

Society automatically deals with advances of technology and industry. It has to, and always has. So too does Sikh society. I think you have unreasonable conceptions of 'conservatives', if you think they believe they must remain static and forever unchanging as possible. This is absurd anyway, for change is always there, one way or another. If it isnt nature acting as a force for change, then it is evil: invasion or brutality - such things are always with us, one way or another, and good society, even the most conservative have to deal with these. I have already described how conservatives view society itself, and in what way they believe society ought to be maintained. Further conservatives always have to deal with reformists who wish to upheave society altogether. Conservatives differ from liberals in their caution towards major change, in their insistence of erring with inertia instead of taking large risks, in their belief of unintended consequences, in their skepticism of utopianism, in their commitment to resisting drastic changes to social structure, and so on.

I think maybe you should consider changing your view of Sikhi being "conservative" to it perhaps being a bit more "dynamic".

I am not concerned with views, or visions, or anything like that. All that I care about is truth and honesty. If the Sikh society is like how neo-sikhs wish it were, then that would have been fine with me. Infact I was so thrilled with neo-sikh ideals that i wasted a good part of my youth entertaining these utopian delusions. I have taken neo-sikh ideas seriously. And i have nothing to show from it. At least conservatism doesnt wish to fool me into believing in false claims, it doesnt say of sikh people, that they are just weak and useless (for they do not follow neo-sikh ideals), it doesnt lead me to imagine anything that doesnt exist right now. So having learnt all these lessons, I have the unhappy knowledge that I have learnt nothing at all; because all i have succeeded in, is overcoming the neo-sikh delusions which troubled and plauged me, and filled me with disdain for ordinary sikh society. I have freed myself from neo-sikh pathologies, but that is no achievement at all, for the truth is too obvious and accessible to anyone who doesnt take ideas like egalitarianism seriously. It is exactly the sum of the experiences one gains simply by living life. Idealism on the other hand leads one on flights of fancy, where imagination takes over and reality becomes something repulsive.

I glanced through the linked article. Its the same old stuff. Though i'll put in a comment on the thread itself.

 

[dalsingh]

Can we at least agree that there are some pressing issues that need addressing in the Panjabi Sikh community then?

By this I mean stuff like the real deeply entrenched hate some "castes" of Sikhs feel towards other Sikhs.

The problems with alcohol abuse that plauge some sections of the community.

Conversions to other faiths especially by Sikh females in certain parts of the west.

Apathy and lack of interest of Sikhism by many of the youth.

Violence against Sikhs due to mistaken identity (the Bin Laden syndrome).

By this i'm not saying that Sikhs haven't achieved great things but that some things need to be faced outright. Whether we address these with a conservative approach or a more radical one. Usually to solve issues we need a multipronged approach, so it is not like conservatives and nonconservatives cannot work towards a common aim.

I understand your general point about unrealistic portrayals of Sikhism by some people now. But in any society, there will a spectrum of people including conservatives, the lax and those that are more robust in their approach, the radicals, idealists. This is not a bad thing and debate between such people should hopefully lead to rich understandings. I don't share your views on idealism however, some of this is in order and makes for a comtemplative society. We need idealists as much as we need conservatives.

And I really do understand the disillusionment that can be caused when we compare Sikh society or practice against some of the ideals that permuate the community. I still hold that it is not a bad thing that we have ideals but inline with your thought, maybe we need a meeting in the middle on these issues.

In my mind it is still better to have noble or ideal aims and aspirations to look up to, even if we are unlikely to achieve them in full right now. They serve as a reminder that we can do better, once we rest on our laureals we can become stagnant and non responsive to a changing environment. But I think this is the major crux of where we disagree, in that you think we can are better off without them (ideals).

All being said, I now appreciate your position a bit better and can see some merit in it. But by being Sikh skeptic you are going to meet all sorts of brothers and sisters with a full range of different opinions and views. You would do better to accept that fact and discontinue using labels such as neoSikhs which just causes more unneeded animosity within the panth.

PS - Are there any books/literature on Sikhs/Sikhism that you consider to be good. If so, please let me know about these.

 

[skeptik]

I empathise dalsingh, but I cannot honestly accept the idea that one should welcome idealists, and debate with them, and that this process if carried out widely will lead to "rich understandings." I'll give you an example to show why such a view is mistaken, and further, I will explain exactly how your view is typical of liberal thought, and i'll also show on what grounds it is usually proposed.

My first and best example is that of the large society of men and women who we call Scientists, and their society which can be called Science: indeed this is to speak about their philosophy, their methods, their qualities, their history and their values. Scientific society is largely characterised by its insistence on conservatism. Indeed the view of scientists is to take for granted and with respect the body of knowledge already discovered, or created, or whatever you wish to call it, by past society. Scientific faith, then, is a faith that is conservative in nature and it is one that is characterised by rationality and moderation. This is a view contrary to idealists, who deny the value of past accumulated progress of society, and instead emphasise the present and the future. This insistence of theirs means they are most concerned with 'change' and how to achieve it. But as any good scientist will tell you, it is a great waste of time to 'debate' or 'discuss' with someone who is convinced that orthodox science is flawed, that it needs to be updated, and that his wild theory, which departs from conservative theory, is the right way forward.

A scientist faced with such a crank will happily ignore him, and not waste any time 'debating' to reach a 'real understanding', for he knows that not only is it a futile task itself, but that it is impossible for any such understanding to occur, when the crank refuses to accept the efficacy of orthodox science. Further, the scientist is only too aware that the crank is unlikely to understand the problem deeply enough, or appreciably enough to be able to solve it. For if the crank were well versed in orthodox theory, he would likely not offer a wild 'solution' to the problem, that fails to understand the situation. And the crank will fail to understand the situation, because scientific knowledge is the best kind of knowledge we have for understanding nature, and if the crank denies this, then he is almost certainly wrong in any proposed 'change' of his. Infact, its more likely that crank hasnt even understood the problem which he claims to have solved, but this is to belabor the point. For scientists then, it is not productive to entertain the wild speculative theories of revolutionaries, who are characterised mostly by their desire for change.

Now the example I have given will invariably be met with a response that says something like, "What about Einstein? What about Newton? Were they not revolutionaries?", and this is certainly true, for they changed scientific society greatly. But the more one learns about these men, the more one realises that they were motived by, and inspired by, and led by existing scientific society. Einstein drew upon the rich body of work that was Poincare, and Lorenz, and Riemann to mention the obvious names. It is true that he came and took their work and made something new from it, but they used what was essentially orthodox science: conservative science, and too did Einstein when he united their work, and unified it with his forceful intellect. Further, as I said earlier, while great geniuses sometimes change existing society, because they understand so deeply existing society and all its limitations and its problems, they do so not simply because they wanted to change, but because they knew how to go about it, and did so.

To summarise my analogy, and to conclude my argument then, is to say, it is not a good idea to tolerate and welcome wild idealists, who are motivated mostly by a desire to change. They may occasionally have good ideas, but that while possible is rare. Conservatives though are forced to live in the real world; they always look at the real world and are careful to insist that all necessary details about the existing world are taken into consideration. They dismiss those who believe that existing society is so flawed, that effectively, it must be dismantled, and recreated in a better way. Conservatives are the opposite of idealists, for conservatives insist on keeping the past, and keeping reality in view, while idealists deny the past and present, or dismiss it, and propose utopian solutions instead.

Lastly, I said i would explain how the view that one should welcome a diversity of views, that this is healthy, and that will create a 'real understanding', is hinged, once again, in the liberal belief of autonomy. Liberals believe that plurarity of beliefs is the way forward, for any view of anyone is legitimate, and to be judged afresh. They believe that prejudices that exist in society ought not to factor into deciding whether someones view is worthy of attention, for this is only a natural consequence of their ideology because it is non-conservative, and needs to be entertained and taken seriously. But the flaw in this belief is obvious, as in the scientific case, that some views simply do not have the necessary logical force to be taken seriously. Infact liberal ideas are almost always based on idealism and not logic, which is the domain of the imagination, and often in contrast to reality.

Thus i disagree that liberals in their sikh capacity as neo-sikhs serve a useful purpose. I claim that they only muddle matters by bringing into the debate their flawed ideology and that their arguments are often feeble and weak, that they are devoid of logical force, and they work against a 'contemplative society', not towards it.

 

[skeptik2]

dalsingh you are mistaken if you think that conservatives do not have ideals. For we do. Our ideals though, as i've described already, are captured in the conservative method, and in beliefs of good society everywhere. They are those of opposing pressing evil, of fighting just wars, of defending the weak against brutal oppression. These are entirely reasonable ideals which almost everyone shares. These ideals though are different from liberal ideals, because they do not require one to create a perfect society: only one where it is good enough, which we conservatives assume is almost always the case. Ofcourse sometimes things get particularly bad, perhaps a world war, or a mughal invasion, or something like that. Still our challenge, then, is to maintain good society through those turbulent times, and to come out of them having faced those problems, but without giving up our society and its ways.

These are perfectly sikh ideals, and infact, if you take sikhism seriously, you'll find that the gurus welcomed good men of all backgrounds and all societies. This means no one group has a monopoly on good living: not even us, the 'enlightened' sikhs. Infact there is nothing 'enlightened' about us, we are just ordinary human beings, but with an impressive history, and a perfectly admirable philosophy of avoiding doing evil. It is not, to go further, a perfect society, nor does it wish to be a perfect society, it is just a good society. There were good sikhs who lived and died even before guru nanak was born, according to sikh philosophy.

In the west, for what capacity are sikhs admired? Why, for our bravery, for our perfectly conservative thoughts. For our unwavering commitment to our society and its values. These are perfectly universal things which are admired from Africa, to America. They are ideals of good society everywhere. But we do a great diservice to ourselves, and to our ancestors by claiming they were something other than what they were: which is traditional men, with strong morals.

So i do not think you have understood me fairly, if you think I wish to say ideals are bad. Idealists are bad: and specifically utopian idealists are bad. But I am perfectly happy, with qualification, with for example, Sikhs who wish to practise sikhi in a very orthodox manner. Because I believe, and must believe (as a sikh), that such a person, would be a good person to have in society. I have a real problem with pakhandi idealists, who miss the big picture, and over-insist on form over substance. For they are worthy only of contempt: to me a (conservative and thus normal) sikh is marked first and foremost by substance: although form is crucial and important too. For example a pakhandi who unkindly chastises a sikh who cuts his hair, or a pakhandi who dismisses a sikh man who wishes to marry within caste, or a pakhandi who takes such trivial things too seriously and blows them: to me such a person is over-insisting on form, and missing the point, which a conservative viewpoint would afford him.

 

[skeptik]

In my mind it is still better to have noble or ideal aims and aspirations to look up to, even if we are unlikely to achieve them in full right now. They serve as a reminder that we can do better, once we rest on our laureals we can become stagnant and non responsive to a changing environment. But I think this is the major crux of where we disagree, in that you think we can are better off without them (ideals).

I think, that its not a good idea for ordinary sikhs to be too concerned with ideals. Infact, i dont think they ever are, and ever have been. We should have good leaders who have, and by leaders I do not mean a politician, or a celebrity sant, i mean a good sikh who is your father, a chacha, a grandfather, a mother, a sister, or someone else in the community. Ordinary sikhs should just accept the prejudices that they are born with, for example, a sikh child is told not to drink alcohol by his mother, and not to eat beef (contraversy aside), and the child accepts this. Society has a way of collecting these prejudices and rules and putting them into the heads of most people, and they live their lives accordingly. There is nothing sinister about this, for it is perfectly good and normal. It is how a good man from any given society will know not to torture a man, or steal, or murder, etc. Such prejudices are present too in a Sikh society, and some of them are uniquely Sikh, just from the virtue of our background.

I see you still insist on defending liberals and their desire for change. Do you realise how ingrained this mentality is, of liberals, that change is good? They believe it so passionately. Cast your mind to university, and perhaps even earlier, where large numbers of socialists gathered. Notice how they say things like 'i wish to make a difference,' such-and-such 'made a difference', they are so convinced that 'difference' is a good thing, and no one ever questions them on this. But why should difference be good?? Infact there is no logical explanation for why it should be, and i've given good arguments on why change is more likely to make things worser, not better. Still they persist and believe things like 'Making a difference' is the best thing one can do. They talk about 'resting on ones laurels', and so on, but really what they want is 'difference', and they want it now!

Those problems you list are real and extant in Sikh community. I do not have any solutions for these problems, nor do I think any liberal is likely to hit upon a solution. What i know, and what almost every sikh knows, is that these problems exist in our society. Now I dont know if once-a-upon-a-time sikhs drank less alcohol, whether they actually drank just as much; whether this is a new problem or an old one, and so on. We can discuss this sanely and rationally, but let me point out one important thing. A liberal is not simply concerned with solving any particular problem, like say alcohol abuse; even if he says he is. Indeed he wishes to do much more than that, and alcohol is just one thing in his grand plan of change. But if you think im just picking minor points; consider this, the neo-sikh's solutions are always influenced by this; and they are all encompassing and drastic, and utopian.They are never just to get sikh men to drink less, but to do more than that, to make sikh men much much better. And while keeping this in mind, the neo-sikh is then faced with a much different problem, because not only has he to deal with alcohol abuse, he has to reform the sikh too. In effect what really happens is the neo-sikhs desire to reform society takes over and drowns out the problem of abuse, and this is why i think the neo-sikh will never offer a useful contribution to the problems, which as i've said before, exist, and are apparent.

To analyse the problem of alcohol abuse further, let me suggest how a conservative would differ from a neo-sikh in his approach to the problem; firstly the conservative would concentrate locally: that is, he will only try to solve the problem as it affects him directly. Suppose he has a brother-in-law who likes to have a couple of whisky bottles every day or so, the conservative will see the paiya as the problem, and his solution will take into consideration all he knows about that particular man, about his background, about his motivations, and so on. So in this sense the conservatives approach is specific and local. In contrast the liberal will not worry about any particular case: no, because true friends of humanity do not want to be selfish and only help out those near them, but they wish to help the whole world, equally. So the liberal speaks about the general problem of alcohol abuse, he thus already limits the effectiveness his approach could have, for it doesnt have a specific target in mind, and thus is well adapted and designed for a particular person. Secondly, his approach is misguided for it fails to account for individual variation in alcohol abuses. For it is true that an alcohol abuser from a pend in Panjab, will differ from one who swills beer at Glassi Junction. Thirdly and most pertinently, since the liberal has in mind a generic person with a problem, he is not content only to fix the generic persons propensity to abuse alcohol, instead the liberal will consider any other flaws in his artificial generically contructed person as worthy of solving too. This difference between conservatives and liberals is worth stressing. For conservatives believe that local changes are strongly preferred, with a real person with alcohol abuse in mind, thus a the conservatives approach is: concrete, specific and local; whereas the staple of the liberal is abstract, arbitrary and global.

Note also that for the conservative, the problem occured (his paiya is a drunk), and then he wished to do something about it. He has something to gain from restoring his paiya to good sober health. He has a vested interest in the well-being of his paiya for his sister has married the man, and he wishes for his sister to be in a stable home. The neo-sikh though, does not have a vested interest as such, instead it is compassion for humanity that drives him: it is is benovelence urging him along. The neo-sikh usually just wants to fix a whole society: not a particular person. A conservative though, will never wish to make such a wide change, it simply isnt in his nature to do so. He is concerned only with specific problems that affect him directly, not ones that have nothing to do with him, miles away. The conservative thus does not try to solve problems that do not exist in his direct community, he simply wont try to solve a problem that isnt there. But this is no problem for liberals, for a problem always exists, to be solved. This is because to a liberal, as long as things arent perfect, then thats not good enough, and it is his responsibility to make them better, regardless of whatever state they are in. To a liberal improvement is always possible, and must be sought out, even if it isnt a pressing one to him directly. So long as there is a problem *somewhere*, and even if he isnt familiar with it directly, he must do something about it. If you dont find this a realistic conception of a liberal, consider those wish to end the iraq war, or those who campaign against the chinese-government in nepal, or the sikhs overseas who think its their duty to campaign for khalistan.

Finally, ask yourself this: why is it that wherever neo-sikhs gather, they never have specific problems in mind. And by that i do not simply mean, say alcohol abuse in general, but alcohol abuse in a particular place, by specific persons. Neo-sikhs frequent sikh discussion boards on the internet and you will hardly ever see them discuss particular problems, but theirs is always a general discussion: something like the decline of sikhi, and then violent agreement inevitably results. The conservative will only try to solve a specific problem, and thus will bring all his ability and resources upon it, whereas since the neo-sikh only has abstract problems in mind, is forced to divide his benovelence amongst many different causes, such as for example, gay rights, animal rights, drug abuse, world politics, to only name a few. Now is it unreasonable for me to think that the conservative is responsible, sensible and most likely to succeed? The conservative might fail to get his paiya sober, but the liberal will always fail because he never gets far enough to actually propose a solution, except the very useless kind which might be, "(bad) sikhs who drink are bad, but if they followed gurbani, they wouldnt drink", which is no solution at all.