Jump to content

Coming Soon: Burqa Fine In France


kdsingh80

Recommended Posts

I'd love to see the musi-lovers on here wear one of these for a week and see how they feel.

France is a french country. If you dont like it, f*** off somewhere else. That's what certain people say on this forum about the uk everytime the BNP or anglo-racism is brought up. But now that muslims are victims in someone else's country we have to get involved? Have they asked for our help? No. And dont start all this gibberish about what our Gurus would have done today, as we all know those who bring this point just like to act PC and whine all day to make others feel bad, but dont actually bother acting on their opinions. If you feel so strongly about this, why not pay the fines the more hardcore islamo-bints are going to incur?

Of course it's all the whites fault for not letting people shit all over them. Like when we had a sikh empire, we let the musis do whatever they liked. And they loved us for it. Yeah they loved us so much they sided with the brits during the second anglo-sikh war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have issues son.

Living in a White mans country, taking full advantage of all the benefits they offer, and then still slagging them off is very different to somebody's fundemental human rights and practice of faith being taken away.

You obviously see the world in a very B&W sense i.e. Musi haters or Musi lovers, thats a flaw in your own education somewhere down the line.

What happened after the 2nd A-S War in Lucknow, who sided with who, your examples are beyond crap.

Re your other comments, you don't know anything about me, so no point speculating.

And nobody said yo uhave to give shaheedi for the burqa, same way you don't have to jump on the Nazi bandwagon just because they are targeting your so called enemies today, any numbskull knows that you are in line tomorrow, so its in any minorities favour to dispell this hate where and how ever they can.

"I think if sikh society Give option to boys then 80-95%

will opt for haircut"

1 - So you are saying we should force religion on our own = us to Taliban?

2 - You will find your above prediction with regards to monai is already a forgone conclusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Living in a White mans country, taking full advantage of all the benefits they offer, and then still slagging them off is very different...

There you go with your apologist vibe. Like these people never rinsed the hell out of the Sikh country and caused its destruction. Contrary to what you like to espouse, we aren't under any obligation to be eternally grateful to be here. Most of us pay our own way, so you can stop going on about these 'benefits'. Your deference is unhealthy and only a hair breadth from sycophancy. Be careful or you might get publically wheeled out as a pro west token one day. But maybe this is the position you are working for? I'm glad there are still some non arse licking Sikhs about.

Funny thing is, as someone who usually shows so much love for modern day akali nihungs, you'd probably hate the original true ones as they were especially known for being rude to Europeons, read white men.

Before you make comments about this in future just consider it as some of us keeping up an old maryada ourselves. lol

Edited by dalsingh101
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you ever heard of the word context? Todays generation is not responsible for the actions of their ancestors, only a complete zombie would say they are. Think about it. Same way, only pretenders live off the glory of their ancestors, real men create their own (with Vahegurus kirpa).

I was responding to your friends comment "France is a french country. If you dont like it, f*** off somewhere else."

Funny how you let that one slip.

"And dont start all this gibberish about what our Gurus would have done today".

I find that comment offensive and insulting to my 9th Guru, our Gurus shaheediyan were given for deep rooted and timeless lessons, if you can't see them for what they were, then kindly don't bother downplaying them either. Just stay quiet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's be honest here. Puratan Singhs of the 1700s weren't exactly politically correct towards sullay were they. Even a cursory glance at extant rehits and texts scream this out. Generalising sullay as 'Turks' was common, as well as the derogotory term 'mlech'. Extra precautions were taken to purify sullay converts as you know. Some even speak of the fall of the mlech panth.

Given the negative experiences many Singhs/Sikhnis have witnessed/experienced at the hands of aggressively sullay types, I'm not surprised at the indifference shown by some.

Also, yes, those whiteys today are not the same as those that shafted our people, but their society still retains the characteristic of negativity towards the notion of Sikh independence till this day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dalsingh, again, one needs to study those rehitnamai in context to the actual time span. You will the timeline of these rehits coincides with the harshest times faced by the Sikhs.

No society is free from hate/fear of all others and notions/dreams of self-governance, the British had their day, now others are having theirs, tomorrow it will be someone else, same story different actors - from time immemorial. Its the nature of man, to categorise only a select few nations with this nature is to deceive ourselves, it exists in us all.

Edited by shaheediyan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

dalsingh, again, one needs to study those rehitnamai in context to the actual time span. You will the timeline of these rehits coincides with the harshest times faced by the Sikhs.

My point was that our own people too have taken on antipathic attitudes in conflicts. The one major difference of the 1700s was that our lot never saw women as fair game for rape and pillage like all the rest.

No society is free from hate/fear of all others and notions/dreams of self-governance, the British had their day, no others are having theirs, tomorrow it will be someone else, same story different actors - from time immemorial. Its the nature of man, to categorise only a select few nations with this nature is to deceive ourselves, it exists in us all.

True, but some societies seem to have the volume 'turned up' on this more than others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have issues son.

Living in a White mans country, taking full advantage of all the benefits they offer, and then still slagging them off is very different to somebody's fundemental human rights and practice of faith being taken away.

You obviously see the world in a very B&W sense i.e. Musi haters or Musi lovers, thats a flaw in your own education somewhere down the line.

Dont call me son. Firstly, you go on about good and bad people all the time, then accuse me of seeing the world in balck and white. Err no. It seems you have accepted your role as a 'musilover' by getting the idea that I am a 'musihater'. Unfortunately for you I am not and have done volunteer work in foreign countries which most of the musilovers wouldnt go even if they feel so strongly about the poor fools who live there. And do you know what i realised? That humanity is pretty much the same wherever you go. But certain misogynistic attitudes will hold an entire society back. Our Gurus taught us to treat women as equals. There is even a big drive nowadays for sikh women to wear dastaars. So why dont muslim men wear the veil? Oh I forgot. Sexism among others is to be accepted. I should have known, seeing as you are so willing to accept racism from others too.

What happened after the 2nd A-S War in Lucknow, who sided with who, your examples are beyond crap.

Lucknow? What are you on about? Have you confused the Second War with the Mutiny?! Oh dear. I was on about how the muslim popoulation of the punjab sided with the british in the second war. This denied the army a lot of resources and forced them into facing Gough at Gujrat, where a few thousand sikhs got massacred. But who cares, right? As long as the muslims are happy, Shaheediyan can sleep well at night.

Re your other comments, you don't know anything about me, so no point speculating.

What did I speculate about?

And nobody said yo uhave to give shaheedi for the burqa, same way you don't have to jump on the Nazi bandwagon just because they are targeting your so called enemies today, any numbskull knows that you are in line tomorrow, so its in any minorities favour to dispell this hate where and how ever they can.

Neither did I. All I said is if you feel so strongly, why dont you pay the fines for them? No need to get so upset. Also, one minute you accuse me of being ungrateful to the whites and actually hating them, then you accuse me of jumping on the white nazi bandwagon to hate on musis. Wow, I never knew I had all that hate in me, but if you say it's true then it must be. Not. Anyway, we can see you've contradicted yourself so I'll leave that point there.

I was responding to your friends comment "France is a french country. If you dont like it, f*** off somewhere else.

Funny thing is that you have told many of us to go somewhere else if we dont like certain parts of living in the UK. It doesnt matter if a fellow sikh or a racist idiot says it, it still sounds the same to my ears.

"And dont start all this gibberish about what our Gurus would have done today".

I find that comment offensive and insulting to my 9th Guru, our Gurus shaheediyan were given for deep rooted and timeless lessons, if you can't see them for what they were, then kindly don't bother downplaying them either. Just stay quiet.

Well I find it deeply offensive when people take what they did out of context. If the fine was for being brown or going to a mosque, I would understand and empathize. But what about women who are genuinely persectued? You havent given a viable solution for them. Anyway, there is nothing stopping these musis in france going somewhere else. The kashmiri hindus had no where to go. It was a case of islam or death. Today in france its a case of pay a fine or move abroad. Not entirely the same is it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's all keep a grip on our tempers, Khalsa Jio.

I think the main point we need to determine first whether Sikhi's emphasis on the equality of women is more important than the right to religious beliefs that dismiss women as being the property of men.

My view is that the purdah sakhi illustrates that our Gurus believed in equality and would not tolerate those religious practices that demean women. The sakhi was not simply about asking Hindus to reject Muslim customs, but about valuing women as independent beings in their own right. This is further illustrated by our Gurus rejecting the notion of the Hindu practice, Sati, and urging Hindus to abandon this custom of theirs.

It is true that some schools of Islam believe that the burqah is part of their maryada, but then some also believe that stoning women for alleged adultery and keeping them secluded is an essential part of their religion - and I am quite certain that the Gurus would not have tolerated such abuses.

As to Dalsingh's claim that the burqa prevents objectification of women, I would argue that the burqa actually makes women into objects who are to be treated as outcasts from humanity and as existing solely as the property of her husband or father. The largest part of communication is through body language, and a great part of body language is down to facial cues, which women in burqas are prevented from displaying through their veil.

Yes, there are women who will submit themselves to an interpretation of Islam where they are but chattel, but I certainly do not believe this should be encouraged either through arguing it is a matter of freedom of religion or a personal choice.

Where security is an issue, I don't believe that women in burqas should be allowed to remain in a veil covering their face when they are having passport or driving licence pictures takens or when they are trying to be identified by police or border control.

FWIW, I don't have any problem with people wearing crucifixes, headscarfs, turbans or whatever in school or outside of it.

K.

Edited by Kaljug
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Go back and read my posts HSD, you seemed to have either misread or missed nearly all points.

Here are some starters:

I didn't confuse the 2nd A/S War with the mutiny, far from it, read my post.

The examples of P*&^ Off from UK and yours of P*&$ from France are different, read what I said.

After your 'big realisation' that "humanity is pretty much the same", I am surprised you still carry intolerant sterotypical attitudes towards specific groups.

Well done for yout volunteer work by the way, it takes courage and compassion to undertake such work, I just hope we will get to see some fruit from your experiences here. It takes even more courage to change ones public attitude on record.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kalyug Jeeo, you are missing one important factor, the choice of the western religious Muslim bibiyan that decide to take that step as a show of commitment towards their faith (and God/Gods laws).

Also, as an interesting side note, have a look back at your parents/grandparents wedding photos, many of you will see that Sikh bibiyan observed a form of purda on their wedding days. Alongside have a read of Prem Sumarg to see how this behaviour was considered normal in the 1800s, at least in some Sikh circles.

We have no right to comment on nor interfere in someone elses religious practice as long as it is not harming anyone - and has already been spoken about, the observation in the west is very different to the observation in the east. The same is true for Sikhs and dastaaran.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kalyug, I think you're misinterpreting the sakhi. I think Guru ji's objection was to Sikhs or people coming into the darbar (or wider Sikh sphere) wearing a burqa. In no way shape or form has anything in our history or theology (at least in what I have come across), suggested that Singhs take an active or pro-active anti-burqa stance outside of our own society.

Singhs had plenty of opportunities to try and enforce this during the 1700s but never did as far as I am aware.

As to Dalsingh's claim that the burqa prevents objectification of women, I would argue that the burqa actually makes women into objects who are to be treated as outcasts from humanity and as existing solely as the property of her husband or father. The largest part of communication is through body language, and a great part of body language is down to facial cues, which women in burqas are prevented from displaying through their veil.

Well how comes no one ever opens their mouth on the polar opposite of this that is at the core of white society, where women are exalted solely in terms of their sexuality? Look at Katie Price as an example. Too me the two issues are the same thing at different ends of the spectrum. Don't whinge about one and not the other. If you want to fight and condemn, favouring one over the other is hypocrisy. I have met sullian that gave willingly started to wear burqa and hijab, believe or not.

Plus I do not get how some Singhs have turned into the morality police over the issue of female rights in other panths when we personally have an epidemic of not even letting our janinis experience life through selective abortions, let alone oppressing them with a burqa. What we do is even more extreme.

PS - Shaheediyan, I have read you post politer versions of "If you don't like Ingland, you should leave" with your 'ungrateful' hypothesis a few times, so I don't see how you can complain about anyone else doing it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Go back and read my posts HSD, you seemed to have either misread or missed nearly all points.

Post 2 in this thread is a little bizarre, especially when taking into account what French troops were ordered by Napoleon to do in the Caribbean. Seeing as you like to accuse everyone of being Nazis, this might interest you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crime_of_Napoleon.

I didn't confuse the 2nd A/S War with the mutiny, far from it, read my post.

Nope, I still dont get what you were trying to say by bringing up Lucknow. Maybe a thorough explanation of what you are trying to say would help to stop me having to fill the gaps.

The examples of P*&^ Off from UK and yours of P*&$ from France are different, read what I said.

Well seeing as you were raised here, its no wonder you say that. The french are entitled to their own views.

After your 'big realisation' that "humanity is pretty much the same", I am surprised you still carry intolerant sterotypical attitudes towards specific groups.

I only ever use stereotyping for the purposes of humour and nothing more. It's not really a 'big realisation' either, it's just that many people like to draw lines and force people to stand on one side or the other. As for 'specific groups', I wouldnt class whites and muslims as specific as there are over 2 billion of them altogether.

Well done for yout volunteer work by the way, it takes courage and compassion to undertake such work, I just hope we will get to see some fruit from your experiences here. It takes even more courage to change ones public attitude on record.

The point I am trying to get is that what are you trying to achieve? You havent given a clear set of reasons for not wanting the french to have this fine, nor have you proposed any way of helping french muslims. Getting your back up everytime you hear a story like this doesnt do anyone any good. You need to look at the bigger picture sometimes. You dont like it when some sikhs said they dont really care, but you havent faced the fact that there isnt a whole lot we can do either. When our own lot couldnt sit there exams over there, what could you or I or anyone else do? Hardly anything. It's time we concentrated ourselves into being able to do things rather than just whispering into the wind with arguments like this.

Kalyug Jeeo, you are missing one important factor, the choice of the western religious Muslim bibiyan that decide to take that step as a show of commitment towards their faith (and God/Gods laws).

What would our Gurus say about such superficial actions as covering your face to show piety?

Also, as an interesting side note, have a look back at your parents/grandparents wedding photos, many of you will see that Sikh bibiyan observed a form of purda on their wedding days. Alongside have a read of Prem Sumarg to see how this behaviour was considered normal in the 1800s, at least in some Sikh circles.

A full faced burka? I would like to see these photos.

We have no right to comment on nor interfere in someone elses religious practice as long as it is not harming anyone - and has already been spoken about, the observation in the west is very different to the observation in the east. The same is true for Sikhs and dastaaran.

The dastaar does not change a man in the same way a burkah changes a woman; It doesnt make him less of a man. A burkah prevents women from doing what men do. It's like a yellow star. Being a bunch of brown guys, we can never fathom sexism, just like many whites cant contemplate racism. If I lived in a sikh state I would expect my government to give every one a chance to a free and fair life. Interacting with someone in one of these costumes would make me feel like i was seeing a suffering person and not being able to help them. I cant believe that we such have sexists to go along with the traitors and casteists in the sikh nation.

Edited by HSD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kalyug Jeeo, you are missing one important factor, the choice of the western religious Muslim bibiyan that decide to take that step as a show of commitment towards their faith (and God/Gods laws).

Also, as an interesting side note, have a look back at your parents/grandparents wedding photos, many of you will see that Sikh bibiyan observed a form of purda on their wedding days. Alongside have a read of Prem Sumarg to see how this behaviour was considered normal in the 1800s, at least in some Sikh circles.

We have no right to comment on nor interfere in someone elses religious practice as long as it is not harming anyone - and has already been spoken about, the observation in the west is very different to the observation in the east. The same is true for Sikhs and dastaaran.

I don't believe that an individual Muslim woman's choice in the West to wear a burqa can be divorced from the original practice of the burqa being a symbol of male domination over women in the East. It's just not that simple. I don't for a second believe that there are not many Muslim women in the West who are forced by their husbands to wear the burqa, and legitimising this form of dress will just make the problem worse. (This is a far different problem to parents forcing their kids to wear kesh and dastaar.)

As a kind of aside, I have a family member in the West Mids who counsels battered Asian women. The major problem that she encounters is with Muslim women of Pakistani descent who have been subjected to physical abuse. When they are in counselling they do everything in their power to resist the suggestion that men in her life have no right to dominate or abuse them. It is very difficult (and unfortunately usually impossible) to break them of the belief that they are second-class citizens, even when they have come to believe that they are not somehow to blame for being beaten and abused by their husbands/fathers/brothers, precisely because they are conditioned to believe that it is somehow God's law that women are just not on par with men in His eyes.

At the end of the day, while I believe that the State should not interfere with one's dress and religious beliefs, certain humans rights have to take precedence over religious beliefs, and this is the case even if people choose to believe that it is God's law that they are treated unequally.

Yep, at the end of the day, ideally no one should interfere with another's religious observances, but I do not believe in supporting such a longstanding symbol of the degradation of women (even if you chose to ignore the history of this practice) is going to lead to a pleasant place.

I also personally don't buy the idea that women somehow feel that they should become shadows in the world to feel closer to God. There are a million ways to do this (including wearing a nun's habit or modest dress and a headscarf that doesn't cover your face).

Prem Sumarag has some pretty weird practices in it, and our grandparents and parents probably practised even weirder things, but we should always choose the Guru's teachings over such cultural accretions. In addition, I don't believe that the uncritical acceptance of others' religious beliefs is a particularly Sikh belief - Gurbani and many Sikh sakhian are testament to the fact that the Gurus questioned many ignorant beliefs disguised as religion.

K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did punjabi muslim women wear burkahs back then though? Even in afghanistan they werent as strict as the taliban are now.

Fair point. You have to admit imagining our ancestors getting upset with burqas and enforcing their removal doesn't seem their style.

Hell, if I had my way, I'd force their blokes to wear one too.

I'm sure there were at least some ninjs about them. Even if a minority. Interesting point though.

Edited by dalsingh101
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kalyug, I think you're misinterpreting the sakhi. I think Guru ji's objection was to Sikhs or people coming into the darbar (or wider Sikh sphere) wearing a burqa. In no way shape or form has anything in our history or theology (at least in what I have come across), suggested that Singhs take an active or pro-active anti-burqa stance outside of our own society.

Singhs had plenty of opportunities to try and enforce this during the 1700s but never did as far as I am aware.

Well how comes no one ever opens their mouth on the polar opposite of this that is at the core of white society, where women are exalted solely in terms of their sexuality? Look at Katie Price as an example. Too me the two issues are the same thing at different ends of the spectrum. Don't whinge about one and not the other. If you want to fight and condemn, favouring one over the other is hypocrisy. I have met sullian that gave willingly started to wear burqa and hijab, believe or not.

Plus I do not get how some Singhs have turned into the morality police over the issue of female rights in other panths when we personally have an epidemic of not even letting our janinis experience life through selective abortions, let alone oppressing them with a burqa. What we do is even more extreme.

We are interpreting the sakhi quite differently I guess. I see principles like langar seva and the equality of women to extend beyond the doors of Guru's Darbar.

I was under the impression that the Sikh practice to avoid kaam and to treat women other than one's spouse as sisters and mothers addressed the issue with which you are concerned. I exercise my ability to do this by not owning a TV and not purchasing the latest copy of Loaded magazine, ;-)

Well, mate, I am prepared to speak out about selective abortion of female foetuses in another thread, if you wish.

K.

K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are interpreting the sakhi quite differently I guess. I see principles like langar seva and the equality of women to extend beyond the doors of Guru's Darbar.

Well, in our past our community seems to have been keen to project our theology/way of life outward but right now we seem to be generally dead as a force that actually has weight outside of our own sphere. Hell, we are even weak inside!

I was under the impression that the Sikh practice to avoid kaam and to treat women other than one's spouse as sisters and mothers addressed the issue with which you are concerned. I exercise my ability to do this by not owning a TV and not purchasing the latest copy of Loaded magazine, ;-)

Why exercise simply 'opting out' of supporting one and suggest pro-actively attacking the other? It just seems that you really believe one is worse than the other? Which is easy to do when brought up in the west.

Well, mate, I am prepared to speak out about selective abortion of female foetuses in another thread, if you wish.

My point was just that I think we have our own issues with oppression of jananis to be talking about sullay. But, however, if Singhs were to say we should combat the attacks on our quom from a certain quarter by counteracting with an attack through the burqa issue, it would probably make strategic sense and be easier to swallow than a pure morality justification.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we have to be careful when using examples of the ways Sikhs especially in the post-Guru period acted in certain situations when considering what our response should be in similar situations. Certainly the Sakhi regarding the Hindu Rani is revolutionary when you consider that it was impossible for Muslim women to visit mosques and the general population would keep their women secluded for most of their lives. I remember that even in the late 70s whenever a non-relative would visit another persons house in India, the women of the house would pull their chunnis to cover the side of the face. It's called Ghund Kadna and seems to be an influence from Muslim society which would have been much stronger in previous years. About Dalsingh101's comment about Sikh women wearing Burqas, I have personally never heard of this even though my parents lived through the partition so they would know of the period of 30s and 40s. However there are alway exceptions, I remember seeing a photo online of a Sikh widow whose husband had been martyred during the 2nd world war and she was wearing a burqa where she either received his pension or his medal.

The Sikh position on the veil is pretty much dealt with by Bhagat Kabirji.

ਆਸਾ ॥

Āsā.

Aasaa:

ਰਹੁ ਰਹੁ ਰੀ ਬਹੁਰੀਆ ਘੂੰਘਟੁ ਜਿਨਿ ਕਾਢੈ ॥

Rahu rahu rī bahurī▫ā gẖūngẖat jin kādẖai.

Stay, stay, O daughter-in-law - do not cover your face with a veil.

ਅੰਤ ਕੀ ਬਾਰ ਲਹੈਗੀ ਨ ਆਢੈ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥

Anṯ kī bār lahaigī na ādẖai. ||1|| rahā▫o.

In the end, this shall not bring you even half a shell. ||1||Pause||

ਘੂੰਘਟੁ ਕਾਢਿ ਗਈ ਤੇਰੀ ਆਗੈ ॥

Gẖūngẖat kādẖ ga▫ī ṯerī āgai.

The one before you used to veil her face;

ਉਨ ਕੀ ਗੈਲਿ ਤੋਹਿ ਜਿਨਿ ਲਾਗੈ ॥੧॥

Un kī gail ṯohi jin lāgai. ||1||

do not follow in her footsteps. ||1||

ਘੂੰਘਟ ਕਾਢੇ ਕੀ ਇਹੈ ਬਡਾਈ ॥

Gẖūngẖat kādẖe kī ihai badā▫ī.

The only merit in veiling your face is

ਦਿਨ ਦਸ ਪਾਂਚ ਬਹੂ ਭਲੇ ਆਈ ॥੨॥

Ḏin ḏas pāʼncẖ bahū bẖale ā▫ī. ||2||

that for a few days, people will say, "What a noble bride has come". ||2||

ਘੂੰਘਟੁ ਤੇਰੋ ਤਉ ਪਰਿ ਸਾਚੈ ॥

Gẖūngẖat ṯero ṯa▫o par sācẖai.

Your veil shall be true only if

ਹਰਿ ਗੁਨ ਗਾਇ ਕੂਦਹਿ ਅਰੁ ਨਾਚੈ ॥੩॥

Har gun gā▫e kūḏėh ar nācẖai. ||3||

you skip, dance and sing the Glorious Praises of the Lord. ||3||

ਕਹਤ ਕਬੀਰ ਬਹੂ ਤਬ ਜੀਤੈ ॥

Kahaṯ Kabīr bahū ṯab jīṯai.

Says Kabeer, the soul-bride shall win,

ਹਰਿ ਗੁਨ ਗਾਵਤ ਜਨਮੁ ਬਿਤੀਤੈ ॥੪॥੧॥੩੪॥

Har gun gāvaṯ janam biṯīṯai. ||4||1||34||

only if she passes her life singing the Lord's Praises. ||4||1||34||

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to add. Have you guys heard of Jasvinder Sanghera? She is one upset angry women! She thinks Singhs are as bad as sullay in oppressing jananis and goes on about it.

Edited by dalsingh101
Link to comment
Share on other sites

She is the single example of a forced marriage in the Sikh community. She got some kind of award recently because she runs some kind of womens refuge. Her parents took her to India and got her married off by force. she obviously wanted to prove them wrong and so ran away and married some next man who was her boyfriend. Her behsti is that that marriage broke down as well so maybe her parents did know what was good for her! Her failure to prove her parents wrong is what impels her hatred of Sikh society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, in our past our community seems to have been keen to project our theology/way of life outward but right now we seem to be generally dead as a force that actually has weight outside of our own sphere. Hell, we are even weak inside!

Now, that would be a really interesting question to discuss. It seems clear from Guru Nanak Dev Ji's Udasis onwards that Sikhs were not shy about spreading Sikhi as a superior way of life to some other schools of thought. It would be quite enlightening to determine why modern day Sikhs are so politically correct and unwilling to share their faiths in the same way.

Why exercise simply 'opting out' of supporting one and suggest pro-actively attacking the other? It just seems that you really believe one is worse than the other? Which is easy to do when brought up in the west.

I don't really see opting out, as you put it, as less proactive than other means one could adopt. After all, not owning a TV or buying literature that supports the objectification of women as sex-objects is a direct means to influence the financial backing of such ventures.

I don't believe that one is any worse than the other, but I believe that women in the West have a greater ability to challenge prevailing social norms about the way women should dress or look, whether through dressing modestly ot through more subversive means. It's much more difficult to battle such ideology when it is portrayed as God's Will which must not be questioned.

I would be interested to hear what other ideas you have about proactively challenging Western objectification of women, though.

My point was just that I think we have our own issues with oppression of jananis to be talking about sullay. But, however, if Singhs were to say we should combat the attacks on our quom from a certain quarter by counteracting with an attack through the burqa issue, it would probably make strategic sense and be easier to swallow than a pure morality justification.

Strategy aside, I find changing the views of one's quom is best begun at home and within one's family. One can ensure that girls recieve as much attention as boys, and that they have the same freedoms as boys. ONce this is the norm within your own family, I can guarantee that you will positively influence the Sikh families in your circle of friends and family.

K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to add. Have you guys heard of Jasvinder Sanghera? She is one upset angry women! She thinks Singhs are as bad as sullay in oppressing jananis and goes on about it.

She herself cheated on her own husband who unlike others did not used her when she got pregnant.He even forgave her when he found that she is straying out ,well I must that his B/F first Husband was really a great man.even after having a husband like that she belive that singh's are bad then she really need to marry an eunuch not a man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She is the single example of a forced marriage in the Sikh community. She got some kind of award recently because she runs some kind of womens refuge. Her parents took her to India and got her married off by force. she obviously wanted to prove them wrong and so ran away and married some next man who was her boyfriend. Her behsti is that that marriage broke down as well so maybe her parents did know what was good for her! Her failure to prove her parents wrong is what impels her hatred of Sikh society.

According to her own words she was not forcibly married

she got a a dream life what woman want's she herself destroyed that with her cheating nature.

http://www.sikhchic.com/books/shame

Although Jassey certainly seems like the model husband and father, Jas cheats on him with a man she meets while at a disco with Lucy. Surjit soon reveals himself as a violent control freak. When he breaks her nose with a vicious punch, Jas confesses everything to Jassey and begs for his help in ending the affair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding Ms. Sanghera. Yes, she cheated on her loyal as heck 'low caste' boyfriend after running away from him and shagged around. I think the fact that her sister committed suicide is also a factor in her current activities. She really spits venom at Sikh society. I have met a few apneean like that who are aged around 33 and above. They have serious self hate issues. I don't think the younger ones are like that but could be wrong. Kalyug, you need to also incorporate charitrio pakyaan vibe into your understanding of some janani's thinking as well. Through my friends and jobs, I have seen apneean who have had it all growing up, freedom, respect, money and be genuinely treated like 'princesses' and still be gundhian kootian with whoever they want on the sly. So it's more complicated than just being nice and fair it seems?

Now, that would be a really interesting question to discuss. It seems clear from Guru Nanak Dev Ji's Udasis onwards that Sikhs were not shy about spreading Sikhi as a superior way of life to some other schools of thought. It would be quite enlightening to determine why modern day Sikhs are so politically correct and unwilling to share their faiths in the same way.

Shall we kick off a thread on this? The topic is of major importance. I don't know, how or when this whole "Sikhs don't preach, convert" thing started but it must have started in the post wasp invasion period sometime as the early Europeon accounts talk about conversions quite frequently. Maybe we should start with collating all of the evidence we can find in favour of outward parchaar. I'm saying this knowing that unless we can live up to our ideals individually and societally, it is generally futile to try and convince others. Especially with a hardcore way of life like ours with the early morning discipline.

Edited by dalsingh101
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...