Ek OnKaar Sat Naam
Chaana Pardesi ji, please let me explain why I thought your terms of reference belittled others:
In this sentence:
“Now, many Sikhs themselves are infamously inviting the protection of this word to mitigate their own weaknes to retain the persona of a Sikh as defined in the maryada.”
It seems to me you are using “infamous” and “weakness” in a pejorative sense, yet the ones who see no value in maryada would not necessarily see themselves as weak or as villainous. Someone who sees themselves as Sikhs but have no desire to have outward appearance of a defined Sikh, would not feel guilty of lacking such a persona. They may even see themselves as strong willed and liberated of attachment to appearance, but neither camp need comment on the other. It is only negative thoughts of others that lead to such comments.
Then there is the sentence:
“That is where the problems begin”
There are no problems if one sees all as equals. The outward masks, and use of words to categorise the variety of mask, create problems, and even then the problems are problems of the mind. They are not real problems. Within all is God. Who has the power to say that the God behind one mask is weak, or villainous at heart, simply because the mask is not the same as one’s own? Furthermore, there are countless different manifestations of God, but if one distinguishes between them, to afford some deferential treatment then the concept of One God is lost.
Then this section of the next sentence:
“Others are notoriously politicising the term to gain entance and control of the Sikh institutions and to discard the Sikh identity…”
This is an assumption, and it uses a pejorative word: “notoriously”. Even if “others” were doing this, which some may indulge in, it does not make it a wicked act. Up and own the ages, people have syncretised religion. Even in light of all the changes in perception that have taken place in recorded and unrecorded history, Truth has persisted, persists, and will persist. This is the essence of the slok to Mool Mantar in Japji Sahib. Whilst people opinionate, discourse, and debate upon religion and God, leading to changes over time in perceptions of the mind, the Hukam of the Lord continues to prevail, completely unswayed and untouched by the opinion of the day.
Finally there were the last few words used to describe another faith:
Others are notoriously politicising the term to ….. make it (Sikhi) a stooge of the 'boa constrictor'wider Hinduism.
I don’t think any Sikh would be pleased if Sikhi was to be described with metaphors associating it to a snake that traps, crushes and envelops others faiths. However a child is born without faith and no knowledge of the faith of its parents. There is a reason for rules in maryada on how children are raised and on who can marry whom. It is not to do with free choice. Furthermore it makes no material difference whether Sikhi is seen independently, or as a sect of Islam, of Hinduism, of Christianity or of Buddhism, or of any other faith. It is as it is, but the mind whilst it continues to seek to create a self-identity, rebuffs anything that has variant traits by belittling them, even though the traits are all created by the One God. Sikhi teaches one to remain detached, as attachment to pre-existing objects of desire wanes, rather than to merely shift to another extreme, which in this case would be seeing all else in a bad light. Shifting the attachment of one’s mind from one set of objects to another, whether the objects are envisaged to lead to gain or loss, is not Sikhi. Surrendering one’s mind to Guru within, to the Lord’s Hukam, is Sikhi. It requires great patience, even with one’s “enemies”. They can all be used as objects to build compassion, resolve, endurance and patience, but the mind can be conquered.
Sat Sri Akal