Respected forum members,
After some early comments I wanted to back out of this discussion and let members all have their say. But this morning it appeared that maybe I needed to say something again. Especially in reaction to those who think that Obama confuses Sikhs with Hindus. Please understand my remarks in the context of a US citizen who has been following presidential politics her entire life.
First of all on the subject of "sanatam dharma." Perhaps less than 1 percent of the US public knows what sanatam dharma is. With the exception of that percentage of Hindus, Sikhs and religious scholars who have actually studied this subject, virtually no one has heard of it. There are even Sikhs in the US who do not know "sanatan dharma." This could be a display of shocking ignorance on the part of the general US public, but it is true. I wager that even President Obama has not heard of "sanatam dharma." So I doubt it played any part whatsoever in the fact that Sikhs were left out of the inaugural address.
Same thing with "hindutva" agendas. The people who would know about "hindutva" more than any other in the US would be political science professors who study South Asia. Maybe some other academics have a vague memory of hearing about this. To the average American, even the highly educated, the political landscape of India is hard to comprehend because "we" do not have the kind of press coverage that takes the time to examine the layers and layers of history that are needed to understand the "saffron agenda" and its impact on Sikh identity. Believe me when I say this. President Obama was not confusing Sikhs with Hindus -- even if the Indian Government itself is not clear on this point.
Finally -- in the US, a very small fraction of people have an informed understanding of the word "Sikh." Most in fact do not have this word in their vocabulary. Americans are very "insular" people. We live on a continent but think we live on an island. Now this percentage who do recognize Sikhism as an independent religion is larger than the group who never heard of "sanatan dharma." This group, who do know about Sikhism and who do have the word "Sikh" in their minds, still are not really sure what that means. They recognize that men with beards, and turbans are Sikhs. Sometimes they recognize the kara and the kirpan are symbols of Sikhism. They know that Sikhs originated from India. That is all they know... strange as that may seem, it is true. (Example, my 88 year old mother actually spent 4 years in India when she was in her 20's during World War II. When I told her I was a practicing Sikh, she said "What is that? I saw Sikhs in India, but what who are they?" OMG? I thought to myself.) This is America -- most people are very tolerant, but they are not intellectually curious. Those who are intolerant are also not intellectually curious. (And this second group is the group to be worried about.)
There are also some in the US public that do understand that Sikhism is a separate religion. This group does not confuse Sikhism with Hinduism. Again their comprehension is very limited. All they know is that Sikhs follow a monotheistic religion and they mistakenly believe that Sikhism is some kind of religious combo of Islam and Hinduism. THIS IS THE MORE EDUCATED GROUP! By now you should see what Sikhs are up against in the US. Mostly it is cavalier ignorance and that is bad enough.
Conclusion: US presidents depend on aides to provide material for their speeches. These aides come from academia and think tanks. If the most educated layer of the US does not really comprehend Sikhism, what kind of information do you think they are going to bring to the table when a president writes a speech?
VaheugurSeekr ji has summed up the Obama perspective in the most concise and helpful way -- judge Obama by his deeds and his values. The oversight of Sikhs in his inaugural speech should be understood as unfortunate. I asked myself the same question you are asking now -- WHERE ARE THE SIKHS? But then I remembered that the presidential aides are the ones who needed to go to school on this one.
Forgive me if I have offended any Sikh in my comments.
I do not mean to offend you. Everyone else who is offended should go to the library and read a book on comparative religions.
After some early comments I wanted to back out of this discussion and let members all have their say. But this morning it appeared that maybe I needed to say something again. Especially in reaction to those who think that Obama confuses Sikhs with Hindus. Please understand my remarks in the context of a US citizen who has been following presidential politics her entire life.
First of all on the subject of "sanatam dharma." Perhaps less than 1 percent of the US public knows what sanatam dharma is. With the exception of that percentage of Hindus, Sikhs and religious scholars who have actually studied this subject, virtually no one has heard of it. There are even Sikhs in the US who do not know "sanatan dharma." This could be a display of shocking ignorance on the part of the general US public, but it is true. I wager that even President Obama has not heard of "sanatam dharma." So I doubt it played any part whatsoever in the fact that Sikhs were left out of the inaugural address.
Same thing with "hindutva" agendas. The people who would know about "hindutva" more than any other in the US would be political science professors who study South Asia. Maybe some other academics have a vague memory of hearing about this. To the average American, even the highly educated, the political landscape of India is hard to comprehend because "we" do not have the kind of press coverage that takes the time to examine the layers and layers of history that are needed to understand the "saffron agenda" and its impact on Sikh identity. Believe me when I say this. President Obama was not confusing Sikhs with Hindus -- even if the Indian Government itself is not clear on this point.
Finally -- in the US, a very small fraction of people have an informed understanding of the word "Sikh." Most in fact do not have this word in their vocabulary. Americans are very "insular" people. We live on a continent but think we live on an island. Now this percentage who do recognize Sikhism as an independent religion is larger than the group who never heard of "sanatan dharma." This group, who do know about Sikhism and who do have the word "Sikh" in their minds, still are not really sure what that means. They recognize that men with beards, and turbans are Sikhs. Sometimes they recognize the kara and the kirpan are symbols of Sikhism. They know that Sikhs originated from India. That is all they know... strange as that may seem, it is true. (Example, my 88 year old mother actually spent 4 years in India when she was in her 20's during World War II. When I told her I was a practicing Sikh, she said "What is that? I saw Sikhs in India, but what who are they?" OMG? I thought to myself.) This is America -- most people are very tolerant, but they are not intellectually curious. Those who are intolerant are also not intellectually curious. (And this second group is the group to be worried about.)
There are also some in the US public that do understand that Sikhism is a separate religion. This group does not confuse Sikhism with Hinduism. Again their comprehension is very limited. All they know is that Sikhs follow a monotheistic religion and they mistakenly believe that Sikhism is some kind of religious combo of Islam and Hinduism. THIS IS THE MORE EDUCATED GROUP! By now you should see what Sikhs are up against in the US. Mostly it is cavalier ignorance and that is bad enough.
Conclusion: US presidents depend on aides to provide material for their speeches. These aides come from academia and think tanks. If the most educated layer of the US does not really comprehend Sikhism, what kind of information do you think they are going to bring to the table when a president writes a speech?
VaheugurSeekr ji has summed up the Obama perspective in the most concise and helpful way -- judge Obama by his deeds and his values. The oversight of Sikhs in his inaugural speech should be understood as unfortunate. I asked myself the same question you are asking now -- WHERE ARE THE SIKHS? But then I remembered that the presidential aides are the ones who needed to go to school on this one.
Forgive me if I have offended any Sikh in my comments.
I do not mean to offend you. Everyone else who is offended should go to the library and read a book on comparative religions. 
