Limits of Multiculturalism

#160 The turban

Sikhs will need to get over it.

Pardesi #161 Welcome to the bethak, my friend. I assume that host dost-mittar has gone to make draiver cha for the guests.

That is indeed an excellent example you provide of the wisdom (which of course must rest on a foundation of common sense) of Guru Nanak - and it is indeed true that while founders of new religions almost invariably provide a simple message based on common sense, their ardent followers start embellishing it within a few years after the founders pass away - and transform the religion back into a pagan christmas tree of rituals and myths which end up replacing the original message. This has happened in christianity (Jesus did not preach the original sin, e.g., but it was created by the priest Augustine 5 centuries, nor did Jesus claim to be the son of God, nor did priests have to be celibate until the church decided that was a good idea to keep them focussed on the job.), in Islam (in spades, with all sorts of hadiths and sunnahs and uperstitions and primitive traditions and plain bs being put on the bandwagon of Islam, obliterating and indeed reversing the wise and simple message of the Quran!!), and no doubt the same has happened in sikhism too (as per the example you provide of the panja sahib, although I dont know enough to say for sure beyond what I can obviously see in the preoccupation with superficial things like hair length and turban and so forth which seems to be one of the "add-ons" that detract from the original message of Sikhism).

Panja sahib, btw, is near Hasanabdal, 30 miles north of Rawalpindi and is a favorite spot for sikh visitors to Pakistan.

teshah #158 What you say is possibly true, although there must be much more to it than Salman al-farsi's contribution. That is, a central message of the Quran is that of egalitarianism, and arab society has traditionally been egalitarian going back to the prophet's days. So, clearly this aspect was a part of Islam before al-farsy first met the prophet (which was I think a few years before the Battle of the Trench (the idea of building a trench as a defensive measure being, btw, al-farsy's other contribution that he carried over from persia).

The moral of the story is of course that even though adherents are reluctant to accept it Thus, as I pointed out to him earlier, dm was I think not unduly minimizing the obvious Islamic roots to sikhism. Similarly, too many muslims claim to have replaced, rather than merely translated, earlier religions - despite the fact that even the Quran acknowledges that it says nothing different (in substance, obviously) than that which has already ben revealed. A jewish friend of mine once jokingly said that muslims and christians have copied her religion. Which is true in a sense, but then...judaism itself has roots notably in zorasterism as well as in ancient egyptian religion of the days of the pharoahs (the stamp of disapproval on the pig being originally placed by some egyptian priest thousands of years before islam!!).

#162 #163

Thank you for the lesson in History Ahmed Sb.

#162 Tahmed - “Over time rituals replace the original message”

It’s so true. I guess the reason is that the power brokers, and the rulers, are always the most manipulative and cunning folks and they use religion, and its add-ons, solely to develop rapport with ordinary folks while robbing them with both hands. It has happened throughout history with every religion and will happen again and again. Robbery level is inversely proportional to folks’ average educational level.

Only education and open media will be able to loosen stranglehold of the rulers, and their minions, over their poor subjects.

Regards.

tahmed writes "(Malcolm x dropped his anti-white rhetoric after, as he mentions, he saw muslims of all colors come together as equals during hajj; "

BS, it is not as simple as this peon of the West tries to make it. He merely dropped the over-generalizations of the Nation of Islam, his Hajj experience did not occur in a vacuum, it happened only after the falling out with the Nation of Islam, which guided his experience. His rhetoric against the white man before and after was justified because of the injustice of the system that had oppressed his people and enslaved them as it does to us in this day. Unfortunately Malcolm X played into the hands of the White Man by using religion and the personal morality of Elijah Muhammad in the end to break up the political struggle against the White Man that was causing the US elite to pee in their pants...

Today the final chapter was written in Musharraf's "enlightened moderation" book with the wholesale arrest or attempted arrest of all opposition leaders; when the CJ crisis came to a head, he tried to cancel the media licences of the major private channels. When Nawaz Sharif tried to return to run his campaign he was summarily deported. All this has not been happening without the full knowledge and tacit approval of the Americans. The wheeling and dealing between the dictator and the BB is no secret, even the Americans acknowledge that they want "moderates" in power (that use extremist tactics to support the US stand on issues) and so are supporting these deals, which sounds just as hypocritical as Musharraf's "enlightened moderation", calling for "free and fair elections", while making deals behind the backs of the Pakistani people and taking all extra-legal steps to ensure that those deals reach fruitation...The Goddamned dictator will be finished soon enough by his previous supporters (we know who they are), but not before they ensure the setup they desire at the heels of the upcoming Iran war.

Pardesi, would we be right to think that the central message of Guru Nanak's egalitarianism is - opposition to priestly classes, rejection of the caste system, opposition to mine is better than yours kind of mindset, and respect for all human beings?

Similarly, would his monotheism be focused on stating that there is one God above all whose children we all are? Acturally, I would love to know a little more of the specific message of monotheism that Guru Nanak taught, if have any views, off hand.

Many thanks.

What is this obsession with one god? Why is so must that
there be one god? why can't there be many gods?
Did those who perceive religion were of mindset due to
things like cultural upbringing/mental setup that they
could not visualize multitude of gods coexiting in
harmony without in-fighting/bickering?

# 168 Kaal, I am not a scholar of religions and my understanding is only from how my relatives practiced Sikhism and Hinduism.

Having said that, the key message was not against priestly class but more like freedom from them – the middlemen if you will. If you sell your house yourself, it does not mean you hate or want to kill all realtors.

Monotheism to us means ultimately there is one God. If you want to worship him/her your way (visualizing in different forms - like having different screens depending upon user needs, while there is one GIANT database that keeps integrity of the data and drives the universe :)) it’s ok i.e. we show tolerance to others and we don’t advocate conversion or jazia for idol worshipers. It would be nice however, if practices of all followers are similar since it brings more social cohesion, empathy and unity among the believers.

Rest of the stuff is pretty common with all other peaceful and tolerant religions - be nice to ALL fellow human beings and be humble. However, as you know, in our sub-continent, changes come slowly.

Re: # 169 shish
[...why can't there be many gods?...]

May be it's issue with brain-cells... more gods creates more complexity for folks with limited processing capacity...

bulleya#151:

You have added to my knowledge. I had presumed that Chaudhris of Gujarat were feudals. In any case, neither of them is either hari or muzaira, so my statement stands.

As for recognizing chamar or bhangi in Pakistan, it is easy; any shoe repairer you see on the street corner is a chamar and any sweeper you see on the street is a bhangi.

"..egalitarianism will always be a part of any religion or philosopy or social system, which arose in favor of the lower class.......islam was one such religion.......hence, at its core, it will always be egalitarian......"

Are you saying that Islam rose as a rebellion (of arabs?) against upper classes? If so, which ones? Jews, Christians or others?

Islam might have been egalitarian in the context of the seventh century Arabia but I wonder if it can still be called so, considering that it permits slavery, treats non-muslims as second class citizens and allows men to have four wives and unlimited kaneezes while the poor woman has to contend with only one husband and the inequality continues in the heaven. :)

tahmed#155:

"I think your post does not reflect anywhere close the muslim roots to sikhism."

Okay, here is Sikhism 101 for you and others.

The word Sikh did not originally stand for a religion, just as the word Hindu did not originally stand for a religion. It is just a Punjabi derivative of the Sanskrit Shishya, or you can also think of it as similar to Mureed among Sufis, or simply "chela" of the gurus in Punjabi.

Guru Nanak was born a Hindu and never renounced his religion of birth. He did denounce many of its empty (mithya) rituals in the same way that you denounce rituals followed by many Muslims. He preached his message but never said that he was launching a new religion or even a sect. This does not mean that Sikhism is now not a separate religion; Christ never renounced Judaism either and,like Sikhs, early Christians, too, were considered as a sect of Jews. Yet, no one would today say that Christians are Jews.

Guru Nanak travelled widely. He was an enlightened and open-minded person who accepted whatever appealed to him; it is quite reasonable to assume that he was influenced by the prevailing beliefs wherever he went, including the various forms of Islam practised in Punjab and elsewhere in India at that time. And although the Sikh holy scripture uses Rab frequently (as do all Punjabis - Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs) and even Allah once, I am not aware of Guru Nanak ever quoting anything from Prophet Mohammad or the Quran.

He did not discriminate between Hindus and Muslims while accepting his disciples and Mardana, a Muslim musician, was his constant companion. However, his message did not appeal to the Muslims, and almost all his followers were Hindus, and that, too, upper caste Hindus like himself. Perhaps, Peer Gorakh Nath was more successful in this respect, with Ranjha being his famous disciple.

On a larger scale, Guru Nanak was the product of a Bhakti movement that swept the subcontinent during that era - from Tyagaraj in the South to Nam Dev in the West to Chetanya in the East and Ramanand, Kabir, Meera, Ravidas in the North. The Sikh holy scripture includes verses from many of these saints and also of some sufis, especially Baba Fareed. They all preached the message of love of God and the fellow human-being. Whether the bhakti movement itself was influenced by Islam, and to what extent, is a subject on which I do not have much knowledge and would defer to someone who knows about it.

As you have indicated, I am not convinced that Islam had much of an egalitarian effect on India; indeed the effect was in the opposite direction, namely, the subcontinent made Islam inegalitarian. In this respect, the last scene in the film Earth, based on Bapsi Sidhwa's autobiographical novel, Ice Candy Man, is quite realistic. At the time of the partition in the Sidhwa household in Lahore, the upper caste Hindu servant is converted to Islam amidst much jubiliation among Muslims, but not the poor sweeper who becomes a Christian, as did most of the other bhangis. The same is true of Sikhism; untouchables who converted to Sikhism remained achoots, with their own so-called mazhabi gurudwara. To the credit of the current Sikh leadership, they are trying to remove this distinction, but without much success.

The only religions who can claim to be egalitarian in India, in my opinion, are Buddhism and Christianity, who have aggressively courted the untouchables and tribals and embraced them. Ironically, the only other group doing so is the Hindu RSS, but nobody wants to give them credit for anything good, anyway.

P.S: In the interest of "full-disclosure", I should add that my ancestor, Bhai Dwaar Shah, was among the first Sikhs and was given the title of "Bhai" by the second Sikh Guru, a title the family used with pride, until and including my father.

Pardesi#159:

I agree with everything in you post, except one. The militarisation of Sikhs, started right after the martyrdom of the fifth Guru, with the sixth guru, Har Gobind, assuming meeri and peeri and assembling his rag-tag rebellious fauj.

I have visited the Punja Saheb (60 miles from Islamabad) and have my picture in front of the mark of the hand. But like you, I am still a skeptic. Incidentally, there is a similar story about Guru Nanak and a lesser-known gurudwara. It is known as Gurudwara Pathar Saheb in Leh, Ladakh. The legend has is that a bad man - a raakshas - did not like the Guru and rolled down a rock on the Guru while he was meditating. The rock struck the Guru but acted just like a wax and the Guru's back left a mark on the rock. I have seen and taken a picture of this rock also; it does look having an indent like a human back. But I am still a skeptic.

shishapa#169:

"What is this obsession with one god?"

This obsession is because the monotheistic Islam and Christianity conquered most of the world. If the more civilised but pagan and polytheist Greeks had won over the more barbaric Christians, this obsession would not be there. Neither Islam nor Christianity won over the stubborn Hindus but they did get an inferiority complex, hence this attempt by the elitist Hindus ("cantonment kuttas" to use echo's term) for this me-too-monotheist effort.

The Good Multiculturalism:

I had the pleasure of attending two multicultural events this weekend. Yesterday, I went to the "Shahan da durbar", an event sponsored by the Punjabi Heritage Foundation. It was to celebrate four pre-eminent sufi poets of Punjab - Shah (Madho Lal) Hussain, Shah Mohammad, Waris Shah and Bulle Shah. The event was graced by the deputy high commissioners of both India and Pakistan; the audience was mostly Punjabi Hindus and Sikhs, but also some Pakistani Muslims (and at least one Mohajir, actually a well-known Urdu poet). The organizers were mostly Sikhs and some Hindus and the same was true of the speakers and singers. And yet, all four poets were Muslims from what is now Pakistan. So, here was multiculturalism working to unite two hostile groups and trying to provide a healing touch to the deeply inflicted wounds.

Today, I went to a function organized by the South Indian Cultural Association. Here, the children of immigrants showcased their talents acquired in the difficult art of Bharat Natyam and other South Indian classical dances. It showed the dedication, passion and devotion of the parents to pass their cultural heritage and the pride was equally reflected among the children. An interesting feature of such events is the presence of a couple of white Canadians among the learners; indeed a professional Bharat Natyam dancer in Ottawa is a French Canadian woman.